Alan Simpson Slams Fellow Republicans For Unwillingness To Compromise

[grunt11b]

First of all, simpson is not a conservative he is a rino, second of all, we wont compromise our liberties and our childrens future away to a bunch of socialist/communist/marxist assholes who wish to fundamentally change the country for the worst.

 

[grunt11b]

Yeah, Simpson is one of those Olympia Snow, Dick Lugar, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter kinda "players" who believe in their relevance and their self importance and "ruling like a Senator" rather than responding to their constituents wishes.

aka RINO.

I listened to the Fareed Zakeria show (it's the bomb) and I was very impressed by Alan Simpson. This country needs more politicians like him. What we don't need is a bunch of politicians groveling before Grover Norquist.

It's politicians like him that got us into this mess to begin with, and you want more of them?...doesn't surprise me none.

 

[BDBoop]

It is an impenetrable and unscalable wall of brilliance! Nobody can answer that fucking question without also admitting that Bigrube is absolutely correct.

Genius I tell ya.

Just too damn smart for your stupid ass.
I am glad I can rube you the wrong way.

Best freudian slip EVAH!

rube/ro͞ob/
Noun:
A country bumpkin

 

[grunt11b]

No new taxes until this bloated Government shows it can cut spending..

They can start by reducing all CongressCritters salaries to show us they are serious. As for Mr. Simpson, he is a FORMER congresscritter..so we don't care what he has to say

Exactly, I say they go into session only 3 months of the year on a salary that is about $25,000, the other 9 months they go work real jobs and live under the laws they have enacted while in service. Maybe then they would not force stupid shit like obamacare on everyone else if they had to live with it as well. That and it would save tax payers money and help cut the deficit by not paying them a ridiculous salary.

 

[grunt11b]

No new taxes until this bloated Government shows it can cut spending..

They can start by reducing all CongressCritters salaries to show us they are serious. As for Mr. Simpson, he is a FORMER congresscritter..so we don't care what he has to say

Well they are..

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - The Pentagon unveiled a 2013 budget plan that would cut $487 billion in spending over the next decade by eliminating nearly 100,000 ground troops, mothballing ships and trimming air squadrons in a bid to create a smaller, agile force with a new strategic focus.

The funding request, which includes painful cuts that will be felt across the country, comes at a historic turning point for the military as it winds down 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq and shifts its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East.

The budget plan, sharply criticized by some lawmakers, sets the stage for a new struggle between President Barack Obama's administration and Congress over how much the Pentagon should spend on national security as the country tries to curb its trillion-dollar budget deficits.

"Make no mistake, the savings that we are proposing will impact all 50 states and many districts, congressional districts across America," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told a news conference at the Pentagon on Thursday.

"This will be a test of whether reducing the deficit is about talk or action."

Panetta, previewing a budget to be made public Feb. 13, said he would ask for a $525 billion base budget for the 2013 fiscal year, the first time since before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the Pentagon has asked for less than the previous year. That compares with $531 billion approved this year.

Panetta said he would seek $88.4 billion to support overseas combat operations, primarily in Afghanistan, down from $115 billion in 2012 largely due to the end of the war in Iraq and the withdrawal of U.S. forces there at the end of last year.

Congress ultimately controls the Pentagon's purse strings and regularly intervenes to change the size and detail of military spending as it sees fit. The Defense Department's budget accounts for about 20 percent of total federal spending.

Republican lawmakers who oversee military affairs on Capitol Hill sharply criticized the plan.

Military Budget Cuts: Pentagon Unveils 2013 Plan

Republicans..don't want the cuts.

Go figure.

Because republicans understand that having the strongest military in the world is the best deterrent to war. If the Democrats want to cut spending they should start with welfare fraud and other social program fraud. Not the military.

 

[Staidhup]

That was a stupid post.

No, your post was stupid in that it lacked fact, reason and was little more than an unwarranted assertion that I rebut in similar fashion.

In other words, fuck off.

You jest right? In 1950 the tax rate is the US was so low? Sorry bud, your out to lunch.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your record is stuck.

Just like the democrats record is stuck that the rich does not pay enough in taxes.

Who pay's more money in taxes?
A person who earns 50,000 a year at 25%
OR
A person who earns 50,000,000,000 at 15%
Who pays more taxes?

Let's do it this way; a person who makes $50,000 gets taxed at 50%, so they pay $25,000, and a person who makes $5,000,000 gets taxed at 1%, so they pay $50,000. The person making the most pays more, so this is proof that we should only tax the wealthy at 1% of income, and we should tax the middle class at 50% of income. Actually, in order to get the middle class to pay their fair share and equal the amount paid by the wealthy, we should tax the middle class at 100% while only taxing the wealthy at 1%.

This is taking your analogy to an extreme, but it does highlight your fucked up way of thinking.

No let's don't you are using a tax rate that does not exist try again.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Recessions exist primarily to force governments to cut the unnecessary spending they have burdened their taxpayers with during the good times. We are currently burdened with a government that wants to cut no spending at all, except that necessary for the defense of the populace, and instead simply wants to increase the tax burden on a population with already steadily dimishing resources.
Did Franklin Roosevelt ever agree to compromise with the Japanese? What marked the beginning of the chow line at the mess tent in one scene from the first two episodes of "The Pacific" depicting the First Marine Division's ordeal on Guadalcanal? A severed Japanese head impaled on a post.

 

[auditor0007]

Just like the democrats record is stuck that the rich does not pay enough in taxes.

Who pay's more money in taxes?
A person who earns 50,000 a year at 25%
OR
A person who earns 50,000,000,000 at 15%
Who pays more taxes?

Let's do it this way; a person who makes $50,000 gets taxed at 50%, so they pay $25,000, and a person who makes $5,000,000 gets taxed at 1%, so they pay $50,000. The person making the most pays more, so this is proof that we should only tax the wealthy at 1% of income, and we should tax the middle class at 50% of income. Actually, in order to get the middle class to pay their fair share and equal the amount paid by the wealthy, we should tax the middle class at 100% while only taxing the wealthy at 1%.

This is taking your analogy to an extreme, but it does highlight your fucked up way of thinking.

No let's don't you are using a tax rate that does not exist try again.

You just stated that it is appropriate to tax those earning $50,000 at a much higher rate than those who make $50 billion, so it shouldn't bother you to tax the middle class even more and the super wealthy even less. This is your end game, is it not? Tax the wealthy the lowest rates and tax the poorest the highest rates. You just showed in your example that you support this.

 

[Old Rocks]

“A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.
“We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country–a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.
“But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows.”

Read more: Teddy Roosevelt, “Socialist” Advocate of Progressive Taxation - Steven Waldman

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's do it this way; a person who makes $50,000 gets taxed at 50%, so they pay $25,000, and a person who makes $5,000,000 gets taxed at 1%, so they pay $50,000. The person making the most pays more, so this is proof that we should only tax the wealthy at 1% of income, and we should tax the middle class at 50% of income. Actually, in order to get the middle class to pay their fair share and equal the amount paid by the wealthy, we should tax the middle class at 100% while only taxing the wealthy at 1%.

This is taking your analogy to an extreme, but it does highlight your fucked up way of thinking.

No let's don't you are using a tax rate that does not exist try again.

You just stated that it is appropriate to tax those earning $50,000 at a much higher rate than those who make $50 billion, so it shouldn't bother you to tax the middle class even more and the super wealthy even less. This is your end game, is it not? Tax the wealthy the lowest rates and tax the poorest the highest rates. You just showed in your example that you support this.

I was using the normal tax rate and I think 25% was to high. So you failed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

In 1950 individual taxes were very low, so low that, after deductions, most Americans paid no income tax to the federal government.

Now, after 62 years of 'compromise' we see the government at all levels taking the majority of our income.

How did we get into this condition?

Because of asswipe RINOs like Simpson compromising whenever the Democrats came up with a new excuse to take our money from us!

When a theif comes up to you and demands your money in your wallet, it is NOT compromise to give him only half.

It is a compromise when you dont shoot the son of a bitch.

In 1950, the highest personal income tax rate was 91%. Don't know where you're getting your numbers from...

 

[Staidhup]

The fairness doctrine, as it is referred, is nothing more than the left envisioned and passed years ago, simply that a minority of income earners pay the highest income rate, that of 84.4% (1950), the threshold was $200,000. Furthermore, that upon death, the tax payer should pay the government in excess of 70% on all post tax assets and savings accumulated during one's life. It was referred to as a progressive and fair tax to fund government and social programs designed to perpetuate need, dependency, and most importantly guaranteed reelection. Oh what a wonderful time had by all, until the budget beast grew too big for the cage, but alas, we could float our currency, remove the currency from the gold standard and continue to borrow to our harts content, because after all we were the king of manufacturing, prosperity, and growth in GDP, but a sad thing happened, we lost our edge, the world became flat, and the playing field shifted. What Senator Simpson accomplished was nothing short of perpetuating the growth of entitlements and size of government, because, after all we need to get along and someone else can pay the bill. Reminds me of that commercial years ago showing two aged Senators (kennedy and Tip O'Neal) driving along the freeway with the driver looking back saying were on empty, almost out of gas, and the two senators laughing saying, no need, were ok, then the car stutters and comes to a stop. Simpson should retire, the bill payer is knocking at the door!

 

[Gadawg73]

“A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.
“We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country–a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.
“But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows.”

Read more: Teddy Roosevelt, “Socialist” Advocate of Progressive Taxation - Steven Waldman

Wealth and fortunes are EARNED and never to be redistributed.
It never helps others when it is done.
They keep looking for something for nothing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Recessions exist primarily to force governments to cut the unnecessary spending they have burdened their taxpayers with during the good times. We are currently burdened with a government that wants to cut no spending at all, except that necessary for the defense of the populace, and instead simply wants to increase the tax burden on a population with already steadily dimishing resources.
Did Franklin Roosevelt ever agree to compromise with the Japanese? What marked the beginning of the chow line at the mess tent in one scene from the first two episodes of "The Pacific" depicting the First Marine Division's ordeal on Guadalcanal? A severed Japanese head impaled on a post.

Bullshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Recessions exist primarily to force governments to cut the unnecessary spending they have burdened their taxpayers with during the good times. We are currently burdened with a government that wants to cut no spending at all, except that necessary for the defense of the populace, and instead simply wants to increase the tax burden on a population with already steadily dimishing resources.
Did Franklin Roosevelt ever agree to compromise with the Japanese? What marked the beginning of the chow line at the mess tent in one scene from the first two episodes of "The Pacific" depicting the First Marine Division's ordeal on Guadalcanal? A severed Japanese head impaled on a post.

Bullshit.

Oh man you have up'ed your A game today. Bet no one can top that retort.