Is John Edwards a complete retard? - Page 16

NeBlis · #**151** 02-09-2007, 08:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tax revenues will never be high enough to accomodate the spending needs of Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why did you single out Democrats in making this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's not thinking objectively.

NeBlis

00gene · #**152** 02-09-2007, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tax revenues will never be high enough to accomodate the spending needs of Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why did you single out Democrats in making this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because war doesn't cost money apparently.

NeBlis · #**153** 02-09-2007, 08:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And the deficit indicates that spending exceeds revenues, not evidence that revenues aren't high enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

This is in fact the entire problem. Give em an inch and they will take it all.

Spending and the culture of spending has consumed our government and until we find a way to get control of that nothing will help.

NeBlis

Al68 · #**154** 02-09-2007, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tax revenues will never be high enough to accomodate the spending needs of Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why did you single out Democrats in making this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, good point. Republicans have just been going right along with them for the most part. I blame Democrats for driving the massive overspending. And I blame Republicans for not putting a dent in it when they had the chance.

Most of the total federal budget is composed of spending that Democrats vehemently demand. And Republicans have caved for political reasons.

West · #**155** 02-09-2007, 08:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question of "I wonder why anyone would think we need to raise tax rates for more revenue" is rhetorical unless you are unaware of the above or unaware of the deficit.

[/ QUOTE ] I think you missed the point here. And the deficit indicates that spending exceeds revenues, not evidence that revenues aren't high enough. Tax revenues will never be high enough to accomodate the spending needs of Democrats. Tax rates are already above the rate of diminishing returns.

Federal tax revenues far exceed any reasonable sane level. Just a tiny attempt to control the increases in spending each year would result in a surplus. That's how we had a surplus in the 90's. Tax revenues increased (yearly) at a lower rate during the 90's than the 80's, but the increase in spending each year was much less in the 90's than the 80's. And even in the 90's, spending increased more than inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Al,

At no point in this entire thread have I been trying to make a case that tax revenues "aren't high enough", unless you count the fact that I see/saw no need for the wealthy to have received the tax cut Bush gave them. I was simply pointing out that the fact that tax revenues are at "an all time high" carries no particular significance. That's it. I'm 100% all for cutting wasteful spending, though no doubt what you and I would define as wasteful would differ.

No kidding to balance the budget either spending needs to be cut or revenues need to rise. I would think the differences between the Clinton and Bush years would earn a moratorium on Democrats spending comments from libertarians. Unless you are you working on a comedy routine??? And then you will wonder why libertarians get lumped in with the rest of the Bush supporters...

Al68 · #**156** 02-09-2007, 08:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tax revenues will never be high enough to accomodate the spending needs of Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why did you single out Democrats in making this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because war doesn't cost money apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the cost of war is a tiny fraction of the spending demanded by Democrats. The spending driven by Republicans in general is a fraction of the spending demanded by Democrats.

Al68 · #**157** 02-09-2007, 08:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question of "I wonder why anyone would think we need to raise tax rates for more revenue" is rhetorical unless you are unaware of the above or unaware of the deficit.

[/ QUOTE ] I think you missed the point here. And the deficit indicates that spending exceeds revenues, not evidence that revenues aren't high enough. Tax revenues will never be high enough to accomodate the spending needs of Democrats. Tax rates are already above the rate of diminishing returns.

Federal tax revenues far exceed any reasonable sane level. Just a tiny attempt to control the increases in spending each year would result in a surplus. That's how we had a surplus in the 90's. Tax revenues increased (yearly) at a lower rate during the 90's than the 80's, but the increase in spending each year was much less in the 90's than the 80's. And even in the 90's, spending increased more than inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Al,

At no point in this entire thread have I been trying to make a case that tax revenues "aren't high enough",

[/ QUOTE ]
I was referring to the last part of your sentence: "unless you are unaware of the above or unaware of the deficit." I'm not disagreeing about the first part.

[ QUOTE ]
unless you count the fact that I see/saw no need for the wealthy to have received the tax cut Bush gave them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the "needs" of the rich have something to do with it? Only for propaganda purposes. There is no substance to such an absurd idea.
Not to mention the absurdity of referring to tax cuts as if they involved the government "giving" something to someone.

bdk3clash · #**158** 02-09-2007, 08:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Republicans have just been going right along with them for the most part. I blame Democrats for driving the massive overspending. And I blame Republicans for not putting a dent in it when they had the chance.

Most of the total federal budget is composed of spending that Democrats vehemently demand. And Republicans have caved for political reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are not claims people should be willing to simply take your word on, particularly given an uninterrupted Republican majority Senate (other than the Jeffords situation) and House from 1995 to 2007 and a Republican Presidency from 2001 until the present. How did you reach these conclusions?

West · #**159** 02-09-2007, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tax revenues will never be high enough to accomodate the spending needs of Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]Why did you single out Democrats in making this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]Well, good point. Republicans have just been going right along with them for the most part. I blame Democrats for driving the massive overspending. And I blame Republicans for not putting a dent in it when they had the chance.

Most of the total federal budget is composed of spending that Democrats vehemently demand. And Republicans have caved for political reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never realized that the Bush era was actually characterized by the lilly livered Republicans caving in to the demands of the Democrats, even as they controlled Congress...

Al68 · #**160** 02-09-2007, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Republicans have just been going right along with them for the most part. I blame Democrats for driving the massive overspending. And I blame Republicans for not putting a dent in it when they had the chance.

Most of the total federal budget is composed of spending that Democrats vehemently demand. And Republicans have caved for political reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are not claims people should be willing to simply take your word on, particularly given an uninterrupted Republican majority Senate (other than the Jeffords situation) and House from 1995 to 2007 and a Republican Presidency from 2001 until the present. How did you reach these conclusions?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, nobody should take my word for these things. I just assumed that noboby would claim that Republicans have coerced Democrats into spending more on the social programs that compose most of the federal budget.