I mourn for my country

[ALStensby]

Originally Posted by ndabunka

LOL - I am a MODERATE Republican. I know that you TEA PARTY extremist don't realize it (based on recent election results) but WE do still exists!!! NEWS FLASH for you!

What's known today as a "moderate Republican" was once known only as a Republican. That party has become too inundated with social issues and gotten away from actually being the fiscally conservative party. I'm hoping this last election smacks them upside the head and they wake up. About the only things the Tea Party was good for was drawing away many of the extremist and showing that a third party can be successful.

[ndabunka]

Originally Posted by ALStensby

What's known today as a "moderate Republican" was once known only as a Republican. That party has become too inundated with social issues and gotten away from actually being the fiscally conservative party. I'm hoping this last election smacks them upside the head and they wake up. About the only things the Tea Party was good for was drawing away many of the extremist and showing that a third party can be successful.

Thanks & I agree. The Joker (aka. Boehner) is acting like his job is to protect the Millionaires out there from paying the pre-Bush era tax levels instead of looking out for the other 90% of the republican party who do NOT make anywhere NEAR the $250K/year borderline. We DON'T actually CARE if the rates for those people go BACK Up to the old tax rates. We DO CARE about the 90% of us that make UNDER $250K so the simple solution is to AGREE to RETAINING the tax benefits for the general populous and let the tax rate return to the pre-Bush levels. Doing so is NOT "raising taxes" on the rich. It is simply removing the subsidy that was GRANTED them under the republican-led administration.

If the Bush tax cuts aren't extended for the middle and lower classes, it will be NOTHING but Boehner's fault. I wish I could SHORT Boehner futures...LOL

[HBJackson]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I believe the fiscal cliff will hit - everyone's rates will go up theoretically in January, and then they will cut a deal to "reduce" those rates below $500k or so.

Speaker Boehner is actually the most importent piece of this deal, which would reduce the deficit more than any other possibility as Obama would give on Entitlements to get it done.

This as I see it is the most likely path to majors ending reductions as well as debt reduction. I hope I am right.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by saddlebag

Crazy liberals!

1. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
"We've got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything. We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys."
Politico, Nov. 13

2. Rep.-elect Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), on why he won't sign Norquist's pledge
"I don't want to sign a pledge that's going to tie my hands. I need free rein to do what I think is right for the people in my district and the country."
The Hill, Nov. 13

3. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol
"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires. It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000. Make it $500,000, make it a million..... Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile?"
Fox News Sunday, Nov. 11

4. Matthew Dowd, a George W. Bush strategist, in response to Kristol
"Finally a little sanity and sense of need for shared sacrifice."
Twitter, Nov. 11

5. New York Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat
"What the party really needs, much more than a better identity-politics pitch, is an economic message that would appeal across demographic lines — reaching both downscale white voters turned off by Romney's Bain Capital background and upwardly mobile Latino voters who don't relate to the current G.O.P. fixation on upper-bracket tax cuts.... The bad news is that unlike a pander on immigration, a new economic agenda probably wouldn't be favorably received by the party's big donors, who tend to be quite happy with the Republican Party's current positioning. But after spending billions of those donors' dollars with nothing to show for it, perhaps Republicans should seek a different path: one in which they raise a little less money but win a few more votes."
The New York Times, Nov. 10

You won't make much of a point quoting non-Tea Party Republicans... the Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough, not because they didn't pander enough.

For those of you who continue to think more taxes is the answer, you ought to wonder what happens when you simply tax the hell out of the rich and continue to spend like mad... it won't work long term... Obama has NO plan to stop spending, only empty words...

WE SPEND TOO MUCH.

WE TAX ENOUGH.

STOP SPENDING LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS.

or, the Obama plan...

Spend, spend, and spend some more.

Tax, tax, tax... to get more money, so that we can...

Spend, spend, spend.

Somebody's got this right and somebody's got this wrong... a quick peek at the economy and you might realize which is which.

[atomicdog]

Originally Posted by Lance

STOP SPENDING LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[saddlebag]

Originally Posted by Lance

WE SPEND TOO MUCH.

WE TAX ENOUGH.

Here's your budget. You get to cut from the yellow part. What will you cut?



Here's a breakdown of the yellow part for 2013:

[Azdave]

The focus right now should be on growing the economy. Cuts can happen but priorities need to be jobs. It is sad that Pelosi didn't retire and Take Mitch, John, Eric and Harry with her. Then I believe we might see growth and working together. Old crabby ass people are really screwing this country

[ALStensby]

Originally Posted by Lance

WE SPEND TOO MUCH.

WE TAX ENOUGH.

This much we can agree on.

[ndabunka]

Originally Posted by Lance

You won't make much of a point quoting non-Tea Party Republicans... the Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough, not because they didn't pander enough.

Please tell me you are joking! Isn't it OBVIOUS that certain factions in the republican party have worn it apart SO MUCH that the 'traditional' republican's are the ONLY ones getting re-elected? Tea Party, Denying women's rights, spend ONLY on BIG business, etc. ALL of that stuff was STRUCK DOWN in the last two elections.

Republicans USE to stand for restricting taxes and reducing government. That's just NOT the case any longer. it's all about "who back can I scratch to promote my nich?".

Originally Posted by Lance

For those of you who continue to think more taxes is the answer, you ought to wonder what happens when you simply tax the hell out of the rich and continue to spend like mad... it won't work long term... Obama has NO plan to stop spending, only empty words...

Let's address this CORRECTLY. What occurred in Bush's era was an "award" of a tax credit we could not actually afford (e.g. reduced taxes based on a false budget model). After all, Bush DID spend 4 TRILLION in debt DURING his term (so the spending started THERE). Granted, BO has increased that debt but he did not (by ANY means) START it.

Now, those tax cuts were not "permanent". They were set to EXPIRE. This is not RAISING taxes as you put it but is ACTUALLY simply RETURNING the tax base to where it USE to be. So, it's really about removing an artificial tax credit, right? Of course this is right so what's next? Do you remove that tax credit from the 97% who would be the most harmed by it OR do you simply remove it from the sector of the population that is making a gazzillion $'s EVERY year?

Which of those two options do you take. By the way, those are your ONLY two options. You DO NOT have the right or ability to fabricate some NEW options that your tax accountants can weasel around next year to make your taxes even LOWER. You only have these two choices. If you choose to damage EVERYBODY, you will KILL the economy. If you choose to only re-instate the ORIGINAL taxes on the EXTREMELY wealthy, you only "slightly inconvenience" that small 3% of the economy. It's not like that 3% is going to "take their ball and go home". They simply do not control THAT much of the economy. Granted, a few of them have businesses that contribute (minorly) to the economy but this isn't talking about taxing businesses AT ALL. This is all about returning PERSONAL taxes to their ORIGINAL levels by removing the artificially low "temporary" infrastructure that was put there by a republican president.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by saddlebag

Here's your budget. You get to cut from the yellow part. What will you cut?



Here's a breakdown of the yellow part for 2013:

Oh you got me there. We can only cut the military and we simply have to keep taxing more and more and more so that we can keep spending and spending. Thanks for making that so clear.

Saddlebag/liberal logic: Cut trillions from our military, tax millionairs more and more to support ever increasing spending.

Thanks, that really helps us weak-minded conservatives to finally get the real world.