|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Also you can go here. Americans for Tax Reform has given all the Democratic candidates a rating of below 10.
Interestingly enough, Ron Paul is the most socialist tax hiking Republican candidate; libertarian values indeed. Although, I must commend him for signing the pledge not to raise taxes and veto anything that would should he be president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Certainly, cutting government spending which means cutting government entitlements, cutting government bureaucracy, cutting government interference(or as some call government regulation) and cutting government dependency is much more difficult than simply cutting taxes.
Lower taxes, less government, freer markets and a strong military/national defense are what lead to national prosperity and even more importantly individual prosperity. I'd like to see all of this realized but there are other interests as well. C'e la vie
Last edited by Pluto on Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:54 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ummm...going from about $1 trillion in debt in 1980 when Reagan was elected to around $9 trillion today is OK? I don't see how that can be called 'fiscally conservative'. It's too bad 'Cut taxes and spend, spend, spend' doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. I'll bet it would fit on Reagan's tomb, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Ummm...going from about $1 trillion in debt in 1980 when Reagan was elected to around $9 trillion today is OK? I don't see how that can be called 'fiscally conservative'. It's too bad 'Cut taxes and spend, spend, spend' doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. I'll bet it would fit on Reagan's tomb, though. |
Again, Republicans by and large believe that cutting needless government spending is part of the solution to the national debt. In fact, if you take a look at the proposed budget by Democratic Members of Congress, you'll see it's five times larger than that of what Bush is proposing.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1412.cfm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Ummm...going from about $1 trillion in debt in 1980 when Reagan was elected to around $9 trillion today is OK? I don't see how that can be called 'fiscally conservative'. It's too bad 'Cut taxes and spend, spend, spend' doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. I'll bet it would fit on Reagan's tomb, though. |
Uh, it is closer to 52 trillion in debt.
http://www.govexec.com/transcripts/walker.htm
And that is not a "kool aid" source, or whatever. The government Comptroller, David Walker, who was appointed by Clinton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Again, Republicans by and large believe that cutting needless government spending is part of the solution to the national debt. |
I prefer to judge them by their deeds in office, not what they say on the stump to get elected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Again, Republicans by and large believe that cutting needless government spending is part of the solution to the national debt. |
I prefer to judge them by their deeds in office, not what they say on the stump to get elected. |
When referring to Members of Congress, there is plenty of Republican pork to be sure. In fact, Sen. Stevens(R-AL) regularly comes to mind as someone who abuses his position on spending.
I will make the argument that the dems are far worse. When looking at espoused vs. enacted values, consider Senators like Ted Kennedy and Diky Durbin. These two Senators have yet to find a tax increase they don't like -- asking them to pay for their promoted legislation is whole other matter. Furthermore, they claim to be the liberal conscience in the corridors of Congress, and thereby the country. If that were really the case, then what about The Camp Cod Wind Farm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Ummm...going from about $1 trillion in debt in 1980 when Reagan was elected to around $9 trillion today is OK? I don't see how that can be called 'fiscally conservative'. It's too bad 'Cut taxes and spend, spend, spend' doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. I'll bet it would fit on Reagan's tomb, though. |
Uh, it is closer to 52 trillion in debt.
http://www.govexec.com/transcripts/walker.htm
And that is not a "kool aid" source, or whatever. The government Comptroller, David Walker, who was appointed by Clinton. |
By 'debt' thepeel means total fiscal exposure of the US.
Ya-Ta's figure is an accepted debt figure as the gov't conventionally calculates it, i.e., how much the gov't currently owes (as opposed to your figure, which includes what it will owe) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| tax and spend liberals |
You haven't been paying very close attention for the last quarter century, have you? |
Actually I've been paying very close attention to Charlie Rangel's(D-NY), chairman of the House Way and Means committee, trillion dollar tax increase.
You can go here and see that it is Republicans trying to prevent tax increases and democrats are the ones who actually love to increase taxes. (Oh yeah, but some dems, such as the Kennedys, are above paying taxes.  ) |
Pluto, I agree with you on 90% of economic issues. . .
. . . but Democrats' tax and spend is still better than Republicans' borrow and spend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Pluto, I agree with you on 90% of economic issues. . .
. . . but Democrats' tax and spend is still better than Republicans' borrow and spend. |
Nice statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Ummm...going from about $1 trillion in debt in 1980 when Reagan was elected to around $9 trillion today is OK? I don't see how that can be called 'fiscally conservative'. It's too bad 'Cut taxes and spend, spend, spend' doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. I'll bet it would fit on Reagan's tomb, though. |
Uh, it is closer to 52 trillion in debt.
http://www.govexec.com/transcripts/walker.htm
And that is not a "kool aid" source, or whatever. The government Comptroller, David Walker, who was appointed by Clinton. |
If the US govt pushes back the age when someone can get social security and medicare than those number by 3 or four years then those numbers get much , much better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Have any of the Dems said they want to increase taxes, directly or otherwise? No, but they are all talking about a return to pre-GW tax levels. Is that a tax increase? I suppose it's an increase on the very rich.
When will the right admit that trickle down economics was labelled "voodoo" economics for a reason? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
Have any of the Dems said they want to increase taxes, directly or otherwise? No, but they are all talking about a return to pre-GW tax levels. Is that a tax increase? I suppose it's an increase on the very rich.
When will the right admit that trickle down economics was labelled "voodoo" economics for a reason? |
No , cause they are not voodoo economic. I did not support the Bush tax cuts but there are a lot of very smart people who believe that cutting taxs improves productivity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
Also you can go here. Americans for Tax Reform has given all the Democratic candidates a rating of below 10.
Interestingly enough, Ron Paul is the most socialist tax hiking Republican candidate; libertarian values indeed. Although, I must commend him for signing the pledge not to raise taxes and veto anything that would should he be president. |
Ron Paul always gets the highest rating from the National Taxpayers Union, so it seems that there is disagreement on the issues among the various taxpayer groups.
Since ATR has not made public its criteria, it is quite possible that the "socialism" is a difference in agenda or a miscalculation.
ATR wants a flat tax, Ron Paul wants to repeal the Income Tax and abolish the IRS. Ron Paul's position is more libertarian, better for taxpayers, better for the US economy, better for the world economy, but would possibly earn a lower score from ATR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
