Tom Coburn of Oklahoma revealed a budget plan that would cut $9 trillion over ten years

Damn...wtf are you talking about. The government is just another business. It does not care how or where it gets its revenues from. If they are increased by a larger GDP or higher taxes.

The problem you dimwits are having is that overall taxes are lower than at any time in 50 years.....thus a huge deficit. Fucn simple math.

SOULMANIKE is right on too, not that you even understood wtf he posted Originally Posted by WTF

mainly incorrect brainwashed regurgitations

mainly incorrect brainwashed regurgitations Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Yea, but you guys believe that about Darwinism too. You believe in intelligent design.

You believe in a God and you think Muslims are crazy for doing so. You think your God is superior or the only one, either way that is some brainwashed shit there. If you were swapped at birth with some Muslin parents ypo would be brainwashed to believe the Muslim God superior.

I rely on science/facts, not beliefs. Speaking of facts, here are some for ya.

People like me can be born to either a Christioan or Muslim parents and not be brainwashed. Why? Because I believe in actual facts, not wtf Grover Norquist preaches!

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

Federal Income Taxes Have Declined Significantly in Recent Decades


http://www.upi.com/Business_News/201...4091273594893/





Why the tax bite has eased:
• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.
• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.
• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.

we have gone through many iterations and changes in the tax code since Reagan, mostly in attempts to simplify it, make it "fairer" and in so doing we took out about 50% of the people from paying tax, which i think is a mistake.

? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

So we finally agree....we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire!

See you do not even understand wtf you are arguing for or aganist.

Yes we need to raise taxes and cut spending.

That is the problem with you Tea Party folks....you think taxes are to high , yet you complain that some folks aren't paying any (drum roll please) taxes!

We actually need to go to a VAT but that is a discussion for another thread.

So we finally agree....we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire!

See you do not even understand wtf you are arguing for or aganist.

Yes we need to raise taxes and cut spending.

We actually need to go to a VAT but that is a discussion for another thread. Originally Posted by WTF

you are such a nut in every sense of the word

we have gone through many iterations and changes in the tax code since Reagan, mostly in attempts to simplify it, make it "fairer" and in so doing we took out about 50% of the people from paying tax, which i think is a mistake.
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you are such a nut in every sense of the word Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Oh I'm a nut , yet you on one hand say taxes are to high and on the other hand say enough people are not paying taxes!


Typical Tea Party babble.

You were aganist tax hikes before you were before'em! You vote for John Kerry?

i am perfectly consistent, and so are you. you seemingly view more revenues as just something to spend, i view more revenues as something with which to reduce the deficit and debt. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Where have i ever promoted raising revenues simply for the reason of increasing spending? Let me quote the last sentence in your post:

read things a little closer please.

The logic in your post was very clear. You very clearly claimed that increased revenues from increased taxes are just wasted. Spent. So that's one reason you give for not raising taxes.

But then you claim that we should promote a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government" (i read that to mean, amongst other possibilities, cutting taxes, but whatever) because (wait for it) it will increase revenues.

So what you did was you used "increasing revenues" as the excuse for why we should cut taxes (or, as you wish to claim, promote a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government"). But in so doing, you ignore what you also said, in the same post, twice, no less, that raising revenues is senseless because it will only be wasted away on more spending.

And that's even before we get into whether or not your claim is correct, that revenues would be increased if we simply created a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government". Current evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

We need to cut spending and increase revenues. I think we can increase revenues by raising taxes. You want to think we can increase revenues by creating a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government". If, per chance, you're not referring to cutting taxes when you say we need to create a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government", then why can't we do both? Raise taxes and create a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government"?

Where have i ever promoted raising revenues simply for the reason of increasing spending? Let me quote the last sentence in your post:

The logic in your post was very clear. You very clearly claimed that increased revenues from increased taxes are just wasted. Spent. So that's one reason you give for not raising taxes.

But then you claim that we should promote a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government" (i read that to mean, amongst other possibilities, cutting taxes, but whatever) because (wait for it) it will increase revenues.

So what you did was you used "increasing revenues" as the excuse for why we should cut taxes (or, as you wish to claim, promote a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government"). But in so doing, you ignore what you also said, in the same post, twice, no less, that raising revenues is senseless because it will only be wasted away on more spending.

And that's even before we get into whether or not your claim is correct, that revenues would be increased if we simply created a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government". Current evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

We need to cut spending and increase revenues. I think we can increase revenues by raising taxes. You want to think we can increase revenues by creating a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government". If, per chance, you're not referring to cutting taxes when you say we need to create a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government", then why can't we do both? Raise taxes and create a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government"? Originally Posted by Doove

?

The logic in your post was very clear. You very clearly claimed that increased revenues from increased taxes are just wasted. Spent. So that's one reason you give for not raising taxes.

But then you claim that we should promote a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government" (i read that to mean, amongst other possibilities, cutting taxes, but whatever) because (wait for it) it will increase revenues.

So what you did was you used "increasing revenues" as the excuse for why we should cut taxes (or, as you wish to claim, promote a "pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government"). But in so doing, you ignore what you also said, in the same post, twice, no less, that raising revenues is senseless because it will only be wasted away on more spending.

"? Originally Posted by Doove

That is exactly wtf he posted.

He wants to cut taxes to raise government tax revenues.


He also wants to cut taxes for the rich and raise them on poor people!

No wonder the guy is mad all the time, he doen't know whether to shit or go blind!