Since the 'Bush tax cuts' have been THE tax rates for a decade, I think you can call taking them away a tax hike... yada, yada, yada
Of course, you could not be MORE WRONG. Removing the TAX CUTS is returning the tax base to it's "original and upright position" from which point we can work forward. Most believe that those CUTS should never have been offered in the first place.
You seem to like the distinction that taxes will only go up on the rich so that doesn't really matter... that's the point, taxes shouldn't go up on ANYONE, since the problem isn't the money in, it's the money OUT.
You statement is utter nonsense. I NEVER said the taxes would up up only on the rich. If Boehner would simply let the bill go to a democratic process called a vote, THEN the bill would most likely pass and in that case, the rich would return to carrying the burden they SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRYING all along and MOST wealthy people are actually FOR paying our fair share. Boehner is SUPPOSE to be representing me but...he obviously does NOT! Which I find reprehensible.
Part of MY economic problem is too much spending (Victory motorcycle)... when I'm low on income I need to CUT OTHER THINGS... sucks for me but that's a choice I made, you libs want to make that choice for all of us! Spend too much and then simply TAKE MORE FROM US to pay for it...
Glad to hear that you understand economics, but you appear to only see ONE SIDE of the basic equation. Why not increase revenues by doing something as simple as getting a better paying job? is that too HARD and you'd rather just cut out a few meals out? If so, fine for you (and others who have resolved themselves to passive participation). However, for the rest of us who are more active would prefer that we balance the budget by doing both. Sell the Motorcycle (if necessary) and get a second job (working as a Wal-Mart greater on the weekends if you HAVE too). Sorry to learn that you are not more proactive and (for some reason) you are extending that flaw to the government as if they can't be better than that.
..and with Obama's wild spending/debt you can't take enough to fix it...
You are close minded here. A LOT of that debt is in the form of a much, much larger military that was built and built and built by the republicans. So, a LOT of spending happens whether it is us republican's funding an unnecessary large military and artificially reducing unemployment by employing them in the military. Obama spends the available $'s on a different objective than you would but, in the end, it's all spending.
...you have to STOP SPENDING, and the republicans want to make that part of any revenue scheme.
LOL - So you would RATHER we run off the fiscal cliff than to separate the two issues? Since that's the case, I can see that you DON'T HAVE A CLUE what running us off that cliff would do. The flaw here is that you actually think we have a choice? That's shear fantasy. There are 2 options. Allow Obama's tax plan to move through congress as our founding fathers originally planned and allow the legislative process continue unimpeded or... return to the large taxes FOR EVERYBODY (not JUST the rich) when the artificial Bush tax subsidies expire. Here is Obama's plan to cut 4.4 TRILLION...
Rush Limbaugh makes more sense than any of your tax and spend lib arguments even with half his brain tied behind his back.
Oh my GOD, that explains EVERYTHING! A friend of mine was a schoolboy friend of Rush's. He knew of all of his problems well before they were public. You may not like to hear this but Rush is a "Huckster" and always HAS been. He key's on things that can get a certain demographic's "blood up" and then continues to rant and rave often completely missing the mark on his original target. No matter as it makes good radio. Rush is the pied piper and you (and other Rush pun-dents) are simply the rats (or children depending on the version of the story you may subscribe too) in the school yard following him off the edge of the bridge. Have fun on the way down. I am only here to let you know that a lot of us saw through that a long, long time ago.
Simply rolling over, or bending over, because half the country voted for him (although I imagine without the voter fraud the numbers are quite different), is not what YOUR group would do, if they had any principles to stand for.
LOL - You probably DO think that there was voter fraud, don't you? You DO realize that the ONLY way it would have even mattered would have been if if was fraud on a scale so grand that it is not even possible, don't you? C'Mon, Rush can't have REALLY warped your brain THAT BADLY, could he?
Rather than the rich vs. poor scenario you've been fed....
You mean the one YOU were fed? I am talking about everybody here. Not Rich vs. Poor. YOU are the only arguing rich vs. poor. I am the one arguing that EITHER of the two options available needs to move forward. YOU are the one trying to introduce a new "option" that is simply not on the table. It's like you and I go to a dinner in a foreign country and they are serving Lamb, Goats milk, a local vegetable neither of us has ever seen and chocolate-covered crickets for desert. I would say.. sure, I will try it because I recognize that I will need to eat. You & the speaker are instead saying "Where is the Mcdonald's happy meal?" We WANT our happy meal and we are NOT going to eat that silly stuff... You don't even appear to have a clue that there are no McDonald's in that particular country so you are (obviously) not going to get your way. No matter how much you kick and scream at the table, your efforts are misguided (at best) and dangerous (at worst) and will leave you hungry and wondering what just happened the next morning when you wake up after having been sent up to your room without supper. Eventually, you will 'come around" and realize that you have to RESPECT your democratic leadership if you want to eat. However, if you had tried the odd meal, you might actually have LIKED it. Heck, you parents might even make a 'special' concession for you later and go out of their way to swing by a McDonald's before continuing the trip to an African safari.
1. Reduce the size of the fed. gov't
2. Lower taxes
3. Uphold Constitutional principles.
Finally something we agree on (1) - reducing the military is a solid step in this direction. Reducing the number of "pork barrel" programs also goes a LONG way to this reduction. Leave social security and medicare alone as they are independent programs that NOBODY in their RIGHT MIND would try to "borrow from"/steal to pay for a larger military (Other than Romney and you saw where THAT got him... unemployed)
I do NOT agree with #2 as there is simply too large an issue here for us to "cut spending" our way out of it. If you have $50K in credit card debit and only make $20K/year. There is simply NO WAY you can make up for that via reduced taxes enough to do that. You could pay ZERO taxes and still NEVER pay off that debt.
Not certain what you think #3 has to do with the fiscal cliff. Perhaps you are trying to weasel in some other political reference here like gun control? if so, I am all for having as many guns as possible in the hands of as many individuals as possible so perhaps we agree there as well.