Originally posted by AThousandYoungI remember John Anderson.
The man who got elected on this?!"John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's consistent with Romney's program; first up he wants a Bush tax cut on steroids.
The man who got elected on this?!"John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, it's about Americans who believe the government is out of control in its spending. Make dramatic cut backs in spending and the Tea Party types will have no problem raising taxes on the rich back to the levels of the even Ronald Reagan had (although RR lowered taxes to get it even that low).
I don't get it.
"Taxed Enough Already" is about middle and lower class people who think the rich should pay more?
Romney types are just the opposite, they are just like GW. They will increase spending as long as you all the rich to continue to make money without paying much in the way of taxes.
Originally posted by EladarBS. The Tea Party types have consistently refused to even consider any tax increases to help cut the budget deficit. They were willing to shut down the government rather than have the top marginal rate go up to where it was under Clinton (never mind the significantly higher rate under Reagan).
No, it's about Americans who believe the government is out of control in its spending. Make dramatic cut backs in spending and the Tea Party types will have no problem raising taxes on the rich back to the levels of the even Ronald Reagan had (although RR lowered taxes to get it even that low).
Romney types are just the opposite, they are just like GW. T ...[text shortened]... as long as you all the rich to continue to make money without paying much in the way of taxes.
Originally posted by no1marauderTea Party types will not consider raising taxes until after the government makes serious cuts in social programs.
BS. The Tea Party types have consistently refused to even consider any tax increases to help cut the budget deficit. They were willing to shut down the government rather than have the top marginal rate go up to where it was under Clinton (never mind the significantly higher rate under Reagan).
Originally posted by no1marauderI think you are confused. It is the Romney/GW types that will not cut taxes on the rich. It is the tea party types who demand cuts in spending. The Romney/GW type will increase spending all you want as long as the rich aren't taxed.
Tea Party ideology insists on sharp tax cuts at the same time as cuts in social programs. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI think you made a mistake in there somewhere. Your post is not consistent with itself.
I think you are confused. It is the Romney/GW types that will not cut taxes on the rich. It is the tea party types who demand cuts in spending. The Romney/GW type will increase spending all you want as long as the rich aren't taxed.
Romney/GW types that will not cut taxes on the rich. Romney/GW type will increase spending all you want as long as the rich aren't taxed.
What is the "Tea Party position" on taxing the rich?
EDIT - Never mind, you made it clear earlier that you think the Tea Party is fine with taxing the rich. That doesn't seem consistent with the "Taxed Enough Already" acronym or the imagery of vandalizing tea supplies to retaliate against taxes.
Originally posted by no1marauderthe TEA party types don't have enough votes to do much of anything yet. Nobody has shut down the government, and Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and rates.
BS. The Tea Party types have consistently refused to even consider any tax increases to help cut the budget deficit. They were willing to shut down the government rather than have the top marginal rate go up to where it was under Clinton (never mind the significantly higher rate under Reagan).
Raising the tax rates to Clinton or Reagan levels would do precious little for the deficit. Even if revenues were what projections indicate, which never happens, anyone who can add and subtract can figure out how little impact these things would have, other than further crippling the economy.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou just repeated what he said. Increasing taxes just gives Congress more to spend. Spending cuts must come first, and whether they come from social programs, corporate welfare, the military, or from all three cuts must come first, before giving spendthrifts more to waste.
Tea Party ideology insists on sharp tax cuts at the same time as cuts in social programs. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
Originally posted by normbenignYou still can't read. No "at the same time" doesn't mean "after".
You just repeated what he said. Increasing taxes just gives Congress more to spend. Spending cuts must come first, and whether they come from social programs, corporate welfare, the military, or from all three cuts must come first, before giving spendthrifts more to waste.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAre those mothers messing with our tea again, what are they like!
I think you made a mistake in there somewhere. Your post is not consistent with itself.Romney/GW types that will not cut taxes on the rich. Romney/GW type will increase spending all you want as long as the rich aren't taxed.
What is the "Tea Party position" on taxing the rich?
EDIT - Never mind, you made it clear earlier tha ...[text shortened]... gh Already" acronym or the imagery of vandalizing tea supplies to retaliate against taxes.