- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28916
17 Feb 10
They are whining now about the Democrats using budget reconciliation to pass a health insurance bill but they had no problem using reconciliation themselves to pass Bush's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (the giant tax break for Bush's base that bankrupted the country.) How can they complain about it now without showing themselves to be lying hypocrites?
Seven senate Republicans co-sponsored the bi-partisan budget reconciliation committee and then voted against the bill! How could they do that without showing themselves to be lying hypocrites?
Do they really care about the budget and the future of our children? Their actions demonstrate that they do not. If their rhetoric is all they have then I must conclude that they are liars.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackLets see them do it and witness the reaction that takes place.
They are whining now about the Democrats using budget reconciliation to pass a health insurance bill but they had no problem using reconciliation themselves to pass Bush's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (the giant tax break for Bush's base that bankrupted the country.) How can they complain about it now without showing themsel ...[text shortened]... that they do not. If their rhetoric is all they have then I must conclude that they are liars.
Have you ever heard of the term "scorched earth". Then again, the Democrats are leaving in droves. What should they then care what the reaction would be?
17 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackUnfortunately, all I can say is "Duh."
They are whining now about the Democrats using budget reconciliation to pass a health insurance bill but they had no problem using reconciliation themselves to pass Bush's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (the giant tax break for Bush's base that bankrupted the country.) How can they complain about it now without showing themsel ...[text shortened]... that they do not. If their rhetoric is all they have then I must conclude that they are liars.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackThe 2001 tax break, caused our problems? Bankrupted us??
They are whining now about the Democrats using budget reconciliation to pass a health insurance bill but they had no problem using reconciliation themselves to pass Bush's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (the giant tax break for Bush's base that bankrupted the country.) How can they complain about it now without showing themsel ...[text shortened]... that they do not. If their rhetoric is all they have then I must conclude that they are liars.
Naw, don't think so,, read up. I can't spoon feed you
17 Feb 10
5 edits
Originally posted by peanutpicker61What consciece? For the first time, the progressive movement in both parties has hit a brick wall. Debt has mounted to such a level that people no longer are comfortable with business as usual in Washington. This includes the never ending entitlement parade, earmarks, and increasing deficits. Having said that, what fun then is there to be had? What are they going to do? Are they going to watch the borders like the Constitution declares they should be doing by monitoring immigration? Perhaps they will reduce the size of the federal governmnet all in the name of the Founding Fathers vision of limited government? I don't think so.
Um.....maybe they came down with a dose of conscience?
Progressivism is on its way out!!! 😀
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by Hugh GlassActually the 2001 tax cut is often cited in budget projections by independent organizations like the CBO, the JCT, and the Tax Foundation as a significant factor in our budget problems along with things like the Afghan/Iraq War and entitlement programs. The potential costs of a now unrealized healthcare program are also big factors in those fiscal deficit projections. Anyway, the 2001 tax reform did contribute to the problem mainly because the reduction in tax revenues was not offset by spending cuts.
The 2001 tax break, caused our problems? Bankrupted us??
Naw, don't think so,, read up. I can't spoon feed you
Perhaps you are grossly underestimating the fraction of tax revenue that comes from the rich?
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by telerionI agree that the tax cut of 2001 was reckless and indefensible; but why do even you insist on calling it a tax cut for the rich?
Actually the 2001 tax cut is often cited in budget projections by independent organizations like the CBO, the JCT, and the Tax Foundation as a significant factor in our budget problems along with things like the Afghan/Iraq War and entitlement programs. The potential costs of a now unrealized healthcare program are also big factors in those fiscal deficit ...[text shortened]...
Perhaps you are grossly underestimating the fraction of tax revenue that comes from the rich?
It was a tax cut across the board. The 2001 tax cut has saved me a lot of money over the years, and I'm certainly not rich.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28916
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyMore Republicans are leaving - an attack of shame? Nope, like most of you right-wingers they are shameless. They refuse to ever tell the whole truth and only focus on what can give them a political advantage. (Like saying that Democrats are leaving in droves when you know more Republicans are retiring.)
Why then are the Democrats leaving in droves?
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by sh76I didn't call it "a tax cut for the rich" nor was I intending to make any framing statements about the legislation. It is true that the reform lowered taxes across the board, however within the context of the long-term federal budget, the tax decreases on the rich are much more pertinent simply because such a large fraction of total revenue come from those households. That is why I focused on the effects of the reform on the rich in that post.
I agree that the tax cut of 2001 was reckless and indefensible; but why do even you insist on calling it a tax cut for the rich?
It was a tax cut across the board. The 2001 tax cut has saved me a lot of money over the years, and I'm certainly not rich.
17 Feb 10
Originally posted by telerionAh; I see.
I didn't call it "a tax cut for the rich" nor was I intending to make any framing statements about the legislation. It is true that the reform lowered taxes across the board, however within the context of the long-term federal budget, the tax decreases on the rich are much more pertinent simply because such a large fraction of total revenue come from those households. That is why I focused on the effects of the reform on the rich in that post.
Carry on. 🙂