| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| For your information | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 21 2004, 06:57 PM (415 Views) | |
| gvok | Aug 22 2004, 01:27 PM Post #16 |
|
Unregistered
|
To a Facist. :lol: |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dwayne | Aug 22 2004, 03:16 PM Post #17 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but if I may add, the statistics show that the DNC and the leftists receive more support from the mega-weathly than the GOP and rightists. Dig around and you'll find the top 1% in the United States support overwhelmingly the democrats, while the top 50% support the republicans. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Aug 22 2004, 03:23 PM Post #18 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Interesting that Kerry wants to roll back the tax cuts on the top 1%. Do these major supporters of the Democrat party know that they are supporting a candidate that wants to raise their taxes? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 22 2004, 05:04 PM Post #19 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Of course they know, but they all believe in the idea of the nanny state. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 22 2004, 10:25 PM Post #20 |
|
Unregistered
|
Or perhaps they believe in the idea of balancing the budget. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| doctortobe | Aug 22 2004, 10:27 PM Post #21 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
So it is the responsibility of the rich to balance the budget? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Aug 22 2004, 11:51 PM Post #22 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ So you'd think. I guess most leftists believe that those who do the most to advance economies and society are the ones who must bare the burden of all the leftist utopian schemes. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 23 2004, 07:03 AM Post #23 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Oh please... how does a nanny state balance a budget? Excessive taxation. I'm talking UK rates, as opposed to ours. NO THANKS! By the way, if you don't think you are paying enough in taxes, feel free to donate. I've said that to a number of liberal friends. They hem and they haw, but not one has done this! I've even asked them (after the fact), "So, send in the taxes you feel you should be paying?" I usually hear, "F*** y**, man!" as a response. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 23 2004, 07:57 AM Post #24 |
|
Unregistered
|
I can't really comment on the people you say that you talk to. All I'm saying is that the money we spend should be roughly equivilent to the revenues (not too radical I think). Asking people for donations would not be a reliable way to make up the difference I'm afraid. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dandandat | Aug 23 2004, 08:08 AM Post #25 |
|
Time to put something here
|
^^^ we can always cut what we spend to equal our revenue. Instead of increase revenue to equal what we spend. What a glories world it would be if I could dictated an increase in my revenue to equal the amount I would like to spend :idea: . After I bought my self a new car, a nice house and set up a college fund for my kids, I would set out to end world hunger and poverty by buying every one houses and food, and setting up their children’s college funds. Unfortunately I cant dictate increases in my revenue to suit spending the amount I would like to spend, so I have to settle for decreasing the amount I would like to spend to match my revenue. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 23 2004, 09:33 AM Post #26 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Bingo!
I've posted this question several times, and never gotten an answer. What would you folks cut first? Forget a tax increase. It isn't going to happen. This means that a budget can be balanced in three ways... by 1) restricting the rates of increase to less than the revenue rate increase (revenues rise during an expanding economy without a tax increase), 2) by growing our way out of deficits, or 3) by actual budget cuts. So imagine Congress' unwillingness to reduce the rate of budgetary increase, and imagine that revenues are not growing fast enough to keep pace with budgetary growth, then what do you cut to balance the budget? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 23 2004, 09:35 AM Post #27 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
So you'd rather they be penalized additionally for being successful? Is this a "better you than me" ideology? We used to call that NIMBYism (not in my back yard), and it was originally used to describe those who was all for something (a new highway, or powerplant, or oil drilling) as long as it didn't affect them personally... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 23 2004, 12:30 PM Post #28 |
|
Unregistered
|
No, I would not rather that and no it is not. I only want the budget to be within the ball park of being balanced. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 23 2004, 12:35 PM Post #29 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Then what would you cut? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 23 2004, 12:43 PM Post #30 |
|
Unregistered
|
I would raise taxes. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


3:23 AM Jul 11