Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

[Antares]

So we are at an impasse, since neither cuts or tax hikes can work alone, it must be both and there must be no sacred cows. So I'll ask you again, what do you really like that you are willing to give up? Furthermore, are you prepared to hold your attacks if these cuts happen to cause your own personal misery index to go up? Are you prepared to suffer some for deficit reduction since it seems to be the only thing you care about here?

We are not at an impasse. You cannot balance the budget by increasing taxes. Therefore spending must be cut.
I'd propose a reduction back to spending levels of 2005. I'd compromise at 2007. I wasnt suffering then. I'm not suffering now.

So what's it to you? Really? I was under the impression that these tax hikes would break you the way you've been harping on it here. I guess your opinion confirms that you really don't give a shit about the deficit and are just interested in using the argument as an assault on the welfare state. I now know that you would accept any level of deficit spending if you could just stick it to the mooches and cut your tax bill and to hell with the consequences.

Good god.

Its the spending.....tell me kid...how long could go on spending 2000 dollars more a month than you make?

 

[occupied]

We are not at an impasse. You cannot balance the budget by increasing taxes. Therefore spending must be cut.
I'd propose a reduction back to spending levels of 2005. I'd compromise at 2007. I wasnt suffering then. I'm not suffering now.

So what's it to you? Really? I was under the impression that these tax hikes would break you the way you've been harping on it here. I guess your opinion confirms that you really don't give a shit about the deficit and are just interested in using the argument as an assault on the welfare state. I now know that you would accept any level of deficit spending if you could just stick it to the mooches and cut your tax bill and to hell with the consequences.

Good god.

Its the spending.....tell me kid...how long could go on spending 2000 dollars more a month than you make?

Irrelevant, if you had bothered to actually read my comments you would have noticed that I have not ruled out cuts on anything, no sacred cows here but talking to you guys there are several things you would not even consider, I cannot take any of you seriously on deficit reduction when you just want to kill social programs but avoid any pain on your part or cuts to the things you like.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, where is your proof that "Obama and gazillion Dems" want to "tax just the rich"?

Oh never mind.

I know you were lying and you know you were lying.

We'll just leave it at that.

Liar.

Already gave it. Too stupid to read?
You're a joke of a poster.

 

[Antares]

So what's it to you? Really? I was under the impression that these tax hikes would break you the way you've been harping on it here. I guess your opinion confirms that you really don't give a shit about the deficit and are just interested in using the argument as an assault on the welfare state. I now know that you would accept any level of deficit spending if you could just stick it to the mooches and cut your tax bill and to hell with the consequences.

Good god.

Its the spending.....tell me kid...how long could go on spending 2000 dollars more a month than you make?

Irrelevant, if you had bothered to actually read my comments you would have noticed that I have not ruled out cuts on anything, no sacred cows here but talking to you guys there are several things you would not even consider, I cannot take any of you seriously on deficit reduction when you just want to kill social programs but avoid any pain on your part or cuts to the things you like.

Allow me to apologize for letting you labor under a misconception...I don't care whether you take me seriously or not, I do apologize.

You see no end to our "social responsibility", that renders you irrelevant.

 

[The Rabbi]

So we are at an impasse, since neither cuts or tax hikes can work alone, it must be both and there must be no sacred cows. So I'll ask you again, what do you really like that you are willing to give up? Furthermore, are you prepared to hold your attacks if these cuts happen to cause your own personal misery index to go up? Are you prepared to suffer some for deficit reduction since it seems to be the only thing you care about here?

We are not at an impasse. You cannot balance the budget by increasing taxes. Therefore spending must be cut.
I'd propose a reduction back to spending levels of 2005. I'd compromise at 2007. I wasnt suffering then. I'm not suffering now.

So what's it to you? Really? I was under the impression that these tax hikes would break you the way you've been harping on it here. I guess your opinion confirms that you really don't give a shit about the deficit and are just interested in using the argument as an assault on the welfare state. I now know that you would accept any level of deficit spending if you could just stick it to the mooches and cut your tax bill and to hell with the consequences.

You are wimping out of the argument.
Cut the budget back to 2005 levels. Were people starving in 2005? No. Nothing bad will happen if we do that. Except maybe a few bureaucrats looking for work in the private sector. Horrors!

 

[The Rabbi]

Good god.

Its the spending.....tell me kid...how long could go on spending 2000 dollars more a month than you make?

Irrelevant, if you had bothered to actually read my comments you would have noticed that I have not ruled out cuts on anything, no sacred cows here but talking to you guys there are several things you would not even consider, I cannot take any of you seriously on deficit reduction when you just want to kill social programs but avoid any pain on your part or cuts to the things you like.

Allow me to apologize for letting you labor under a misconception...I don't care whether you take me seriously or not, I do apologize.

You see no end to our "social responsibility", that renders you irrelevant.

Social responsibility=getting someone else to pay for my priorities.

 

[Antares]

...and lets all just ignore what happened when JFK, Reagan, and Bush did cut taxes.

(pssst "revenues" went up)

 

[The Rabbi]

...and lets all just ignore what happened when JFK, Reagan, and Bush did cut taxes.

(pssst "revenues" went up)

Even Obama acknowledged that. But he wants to change for "fairness."

 

[daveman]

Not possible, although the government is smaller under Obama we still have programs and agencies that cannot be put back in the bottle without paying a suicidal political cost on the part of one party or the other, I can guess who you would like to be the party that takes the heat for killing such popular programs as medicare D.

What makes you think the gov't is smaller under Obama? The opposite is the case.
We have tons of programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The only ones pushing for them are the gov't workers who benefit directly.

There are thousands less government employees at all levels and agencies now than in 2008, not nearly enough to make up for Bush's unprecedented growth of the government but you have to start somewhere.

Obama isn't responsible for the cutbacks at the state and local level.

He is, however, responsible for the increase in the number of Federal employees.

Government Job Loss: President Obama’s Catch 22 - ABC News

Since Obama took office, 636,000 state and local jobs have been cut. In 2011 alone, 113,000 jobs were cut in local schools, 68,000 jobs were cut in local government administration, and 78,000 jobs were cut in state government administration, according to a Commerce Department report.

“It’s the public sector that’s the thing contributing to that entire overall decline of jobs since he took office,” said Heidi Shierholz, a labor market economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “It just wipes out a huge share of the job growth.”

But while state and local jobs evaporated, Labor Department statistics show that the federal government , not counting the postal service, has grown by 143,000 employees during Obama’s tenure, a fact that Obama’s Republican rival Mitt Romney is quick to criticize.​

 

[occupied]

We are not at an impasse. You cannot balance the budget by increasing taxes. Therefore spending must be cut.
I'd propose a reduction back to spending levels of 2005. I'd compromise at 2007. I wasnt suffering then. I'm not suffering now.

So what's it to you? Really? I was under the impression that these tax hikes would break you the way you've been harping on it here. I guess your opinion confirms that you really don't give a shit about the deficit and are just interested in using the argument as an assault on the welfare state. I now know that you would accept any level of deficit spending if you could just stick it to the mooches and cut your tax bill and to hell with the consequences.

You are wimping out of the argument.
Cut the budget back to 2005 levels. Were people starving in 2005? No. Nothing bad will happen if we do that. Except maybe a few bureaucrats looking for work in the private sector. Horrors!

I'm not wimping out on anything, I am putting everything on the table and like a true republican you are protecting your sacred cows at all costs. I don't suppose you want to go back to some former level of military spending? Perhaps 2005 minus war costs? Didn't think so.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what's it to you? Really? I was under the impression that these tax hikes would break you the way you've been harping on it here. I guess your opinion confirms that you really don't give a shit about the deficit and are just interested in using the argument as an assault on the welfare state. I now know that you would accept any level of deficit spending if you could just stick it to the mooches and cut your tax bill and to hell with the consequences.

You are wimping out of the argument.
Cut the budget back to 2005 levels. Were people starving in 2005? No. Nothing bad will happen if we do that. Except maybe a few bureaucrats looking for work in the private sector. Horrors!

I'm not wimping out on anything, I am putting everything on the table and like a true republican you are protecting your sacred cows at all costs. I don't suppose you want to go back to some former level of military spending? Perhaps 2005 minus war costs? Didn't think so.

Sure. Why not? Adopt the entire 2005 budget. Game for it?

 

[occupied]

You are wimping out of the argument.
Cut the budget back to 2005 levels. Were people starving in 2005? No. Nothing bad will happen if we do that. Except maybe a few bureaucrats looking for work in the private sector. Horrors!

I'm not wimping out on anything, I am putting everything on the table and like a true republican you are protecting your sacred cows at all costs. I don't suppose you want to go back to some former level of military spending? Perhaps 2005 minus war costs? Didn't think so.

Sure. Why not? Adopt the entire 2005 budget. Game for it?

Not really, I am never in favor of reckless policy, are you in favor of the defense cuts in the sequestration act? I just suggested cutting them by twice as much.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not wimping out on anything, I am putting everything on the table and like a true republican you are protecting your sacred cows at all costs. I don't suppose you want to go back to some former level of military spending? Perhaps 2005 minus war costs? Didn't think so.

Sure. Why not? Adopt the entire 2005 budget. Game for it?

Not really, I am never in favor of reckless policy, are you in favor of the defense cuts in the sequestration act? I just suggested cutting them by twice as much.

You mean double them....in effect getting rid of the military?

What fucken country are you living in?

 

[Antares]

Sure. Why not? Adopt the entire 2005 budget. Game for it?

Not really, I am never in favor of reckless policy, are you in favor of the defense cuts in the sequestration act? I just suggested cutting them by twice as much.

You mean double them....in effect getting rid of the military?

What fucken country are you living in?

Dude the kid is a moron.

 

[occupied]

Sure. Why not? Adopt the entire 2005 budget. Game for it?

Not really, I am never in favor of reckless policy, are you in favor of the defense cuts in the sequestration act? I just suggested cutting them by twice as much.

You mean double them....in effect getting rid of the military?

What fucken country are you living in?

America, where republicans whine all day about government spending but refuse to do it to the bloated stuff they like. The sequestration cuts will not even put us back to 2005 spending levels yet for some we are gutting the military.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not wimping out on anything, I am putting everything on the table and like a true republican you are protecting your sacred cows at all costs. I don't suppose you want to go back to some former level of military spending? Perhaps 2005 minus war costs? Didn't think so.

Sure. Why not? Adopt the entire 2005 budget. Game for it?

Not really, I am never in favor of reckless policy, are you in favor of the defense cuts in the sequestration act? I just suggested cutting them by twice as much.

OK, so you're wimping out. Again.
What is reckless about returning spending to where it was just 7 years ago?

 

[occupied]

Not really, I am never in favor of reckless policy, are you in favor of the defense cuts in the sequestration act? I just suggested cutting them by twice as much.

You mean double them....in effect getting rid of the military?

What fucken country are you living in?

Dude the kid is a moron.

Not a kid and you apparently know less than the other one about the military budget, in 2005 we were spending in round numbers about 600 billion, this year we spent 900 billion. The sequestration wants to cut it to about 800 billion next year, with spending growth like that and our two big wars winding down it would seem the military is ripe for some spending cuts but not republicans.

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean double them....in effect getting rid of the military?

What fucken country are you living in?

Dude the kid is a moron.

Not a kid and you apparently know less than the other one about the military budget, in 2005 we were spending in round numbers about 600 billion, this year we spent 900 billion. The sequestration wants to cut it to about 800 billion next year, with spending growth like that and our two big wars winding down it would seem the military is ripe for some spending cuts but not republicans.

Key word: winding down. We still have presence in Iraq. We still are in Afghanistan. We still face a heightened threat around the world. Like, say, Libya, where our embassy was over run and the ambassador killed.

 

[Antares]

You mean double them....in effect getting rid of the military?

What fucken country are you living in?

Dude the kid is a moron.

Not a kid and you apparently know less than the other one about the military budget, in 2005 we were spending in round numbers about 600 billion, this year we spent 900 billion. The sequestration wants to cut it to about 800 billion next year, with spending growth like that and our two big wars winding down it would seem the military is ripe for some spending cuts but not republicans.

I know your fingers are moving but you aren't saying anything.

Let me know when you send in extra money to pay for your "programs"....until then you are a moron.

 

[Darkwind]

Dude the kid is a moron.

Not a kid and you apparently know less than the other one about the military budget, in 2005 we were spending in round numbers about 600 billion, this year we spent 900 billion. The sequestration wants to cut it to about 800 billion next year, with spending growth like that and our two big wars winding down it would seem the military is ripe for some spending cuts but not republicans.

Key word: winding down. We still have presence in Iraq. We still are in Afghanistan. We still face a heightened threat around the world. Like, say, Libya, where our embassy was over run and the ambassador killed.

Lets not forget the 100+ million man militaries our enemies can field.....

Meanwhile.....it seems our entitlement programs are ripe forth cutting....yet they always say no.