Republican "Let's Shrink Government" Is Affecting Us Home

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 02, 2011 10:41 AM GMT
    Fareed Zakaria is host of CNN’s flagship international affairs program—Fareed Zakaria GPS, Editor at Large of TIME, a Washington Post columnist, and a New York Times bestselling author. He was described in 1999 by Esquire Magazine as “the most influential foreign policy adviser of his generation.” In 2010, Foreign Policy named him one of the top 100 global thinkers.
    He recently sat for an NPR interview where he said America is allowing other countries around the world over take it in Science and therefore influence around the world
    http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137522219&m=137524204

    America, Zakaria says, is also starting to lag behind other countries in education, building a competitive workforce, and fostering new energy and digital infrastructure to support those workers — all markers of long-term economic growth. He says America is now heading toward what he calls a "post-American" world, in which the United States' share of the "global pie" is much smaller

    America's political system, Zakaria says, becomes mired in debate and cannot deal with the short-term deficit. "To put it in perspective, if Congress were to do nothing, the Bush tax cuts would expire next year," he says. "That by itself would yield $3.9 trillion to the federal government over the next 10 years. We would go to the bottom of the pack in terms of deficit as a percentage of GDP among the rich countries in the world — we would basically solve our fiscal problems for the short term."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 11:44 AM GMT
    abd-29.gif
    This is what the GOP is doing to the American turkey.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 12:10 PM GMT
    An interesting read GQ. The elimination of the Bush tax cuts seems to be the obvious answer, plus a more prudent philosophy by Congress to be good stewards of the tax revenue. Why isn't this being done already? Those with the most to gain from the tax cuts seem to be most against the elimination and I'm not speaking of just Republicans. The US could be awesome again if it started to mind its own business and draw down the military from useless bases in the world. If the so-called enlightened people in Congress and think tanks would start practicing some common sense then we might get somewhere. I think we could be a strong, powerful nation, without necesarily always having to be number 1 in everything.

    I don't want to hear the spin about budget crisis when Congress is pretending to be impotent. Stop with your self-serving, pandering behavior and do the right thing. I'm not a Tea Party fan, but I think their watchdog philosophy makes a lot of sense. Maybe the Democrat party needs a "tea party" also. The balanced budget will not happen with just cutting spending or never increasing revenue, both must be done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 1:38 PM GMT
    Check your math:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budgetThe Obama administration's budget contains $2.627 trillion in revenues and $3.729 trillion in outlays for 2012.[10] The Republican plan contains $2.533 trillion in revenues and $3.529 trillion in outlays.[11]


    SB, please define "significant dent" and "meaningful cut."
    Contrary to your worldview, not everybody lives in the highest income bracket.
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+much+do+the+bush+tax+cuts+cost
    http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htmBush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

    The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

    The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

    The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 1:42 PM GMT
    vincent7 saidAn interesting read GQ. The elimination of the Bush tax cuts seems to be the obvious answer, plus a more prudent philosophy by Congress to be good stewards of the tax revenue. Why isn't this being done already? Those with the most to gain from the tax cuts seem to be most against the elimination and I'm not speaking of just Republicans. The US could be awesome again if it started to mind its own business and draw down the military from useless bases in the world. If the so-called enlightened people in Congress and think tanks would start practicing some common sense then we might get somewhere. I think we could be a strong, powerful nation, without necesarily always having to be number 1 in everything.

    I don't want to hear the spin about budget crisis when Congress is pretending to be impotent. Stop with your self-serving, pandering behavior and do the right thing. I'm not a Tea Party fan, but I think their watchdog philosophy makes a lot of sense. Maybe the Democrat party needs a "tea party" also. The balanced budget will not happen with just cutting spending or never increasing revenue, both must be done.


    +1

    Eliminate tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, CEOs, corporate jet owners, corporporations that ship jobs overseas, and eliminate big oil subsidies. Stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 1:49 PM GMT
    800px-CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 2:22 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said

    Eliminate tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, CEOs, corporate jet owners, corporporations that ship jobs overseas, and eliminate big oil subsidies. Stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.



    Just how is not taking a certain amount of money from people earning over $200,001 per year putting a burden "on the backs of the middle class?"



    Because those cuts come at the expense of programs that help the middle class or help people become middle class, while the outlays (wars, bailouts) primarily help the very wealthy corporations. Even the saving of the auto industry, which did help the middle class, has resulted in endless whining from you, despite that fact that the car companies have paid us back. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 2:26 PM GMT
    Thanks for posting this Q1. Gives me the big picture. I'm sure someone will say that this is all a lie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 2:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said

    Eliminate tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, CEOs, corporate jet owners, corporporations that ship jobs overseas, and eliminate big oil subsidies. Stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.



    Just how is not taking a certain amount of money from people earning over $200,001 per year putting a burden "on the backs of the middle class?"




    Giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does not lead to job creation. Instead of cuts to programs that unequivocally affect the middle class, we need to spread the burden across the spectrum. We need a balance between elimination of tax cuts and cuts in spending.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said

    Eliminate tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, CEOs, corporate jet owners, corporporations that ship jobs overseas, and eliminate big oil subsidies. Stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.



    Just how is not taking a certain amount of money from people earning over $200,001 per year putting a burden "on the backs of the middle class?"




    Giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does not lead to job creation. Instead of cuts to programs that unequivocally affect the middle class, we need to spread the burden across the spectrum. We need a balance between elimination of tax cuts and cuts in spending.


    Someone who defines "millionaires and billionaires" as a single gay man earning $200,001 or more is incapable of coherent thought.

    If you would for once stop parroting the usual Democrat slogans and stop and think about what you write, perhaps it would be possible to have a meaningful debate with you.

    As for "spreading the burden across the spectrum," let's start with the 51% of households that pay zero Federal income tax. Time for them to start paying their "fair share."


    You don't have any argument for keeping tax cuts for the wealthy, so you make personal attacks on me instead. Got it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 3:04 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Because those cuts come at the expense of programs that help the middle class


    In America, the middle class does not need government programs. It's a liberal fallacy that middle class Americans "need" government assistance. And, to a certain extent, the same applies to lower wage workers as well.
    some of it back is the correct statement.


    Right...thats why people working at Walmart and Target often need to still collect certain forms of welfare. We are subsidizing corporate Americas workforce.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 3:05 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said

    Eliminate tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, CEOs, corporate jet owners, corporporations that ship jobs overseas, and eliminate big oil subsidies. Stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.



    Just how is not taking a certain amount of money from people earning over $200,001 per year putting a burden "on the backs of the middle class?"




    Giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does not lead to job creation. Instead of cuts to programs that unequivocally affect the middle class, we need to spread the burden across the spectrum. We need a balance between elimination of tax cuts and cuts in spending.


    Someone who defines "millionaires and billionaires" as a single gay man earning $200,001 or more is incapable of coherent thought.

    If you would for once stop parroting the usual Democrat slogans and stop and think about what you write, perhaps it would be possible to have a meaningful debate with you.

    As for "spreading the burden across the spectrum," let's start with the 51% of households that pay zero Federal income tax. Time for them to start paying their "fair share."


    Exxon can pay 3 million in lobbying but zero dollars in taxes? Something with this picture just doesn't add up...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 4:13 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    You don't have any argument for keeping tax cuts for the wealthy, so you make personal attacks on me instead. Got it!


    Your words: "millionaires and billionaires"

    In reality, what you advocate would hit people with income of $200,001.

    You're either being dishonest in your rhetoric or you believe the definition of one million is 200,001.


    Answer the question: Why should the Bush tax cuts remain?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 4:15 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    You don't have any argument for keeping tax cuts for the wealthy, so you make personal attacks on me instead. Got it!


    Your words: "millionaires and billionaires"

    In reality, what you advocate would hit people with income of $200,001.

    You're either being dishonest in your rhetoric or you believe the definition of one million is 200,001.


    Answer the question: Why should the Bush tax cuts remain?



    Because the Federal government already takes in more than enough revenue to discharge its duties as specified in the Constitution.


    Its adding to the deficit and not creating jobs. They need to go!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 4:22 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    You don't have any argument for keeping tax cuts for the wealthy, so you make personal attacks on me instead. Got it!


    Your words: "millionaires and billionaires"

    In reality, what you advocate would hit people with income of $200,001.

    You're either being dishonest in your rhetoric or you believe the definition of one million is 200,001.


    Answer the question: Why should the Bush tax cuts remain?



    Because the Federal government already takes in more than enough revenue to discharge its duties as specified in the Constitution.


    Its adding to the deficit and not creating jobs. They need to go!


    If they "went" they would only reduce the deficit by anywhere from $70 Billion to $390 Billion (depending on who you believe) per year.

    The deficit is on track to be $1,650 Billion this year.

    Again, you're having trouble with numbers.

    Personal attacks are duly noted.
    We need a balance between elimination of tax cuts and reduction in spending.
    We both agree. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will help to reduce the deficit. YAY!
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 02, 2011 4:28 PM GMT
    The expiration of the Bush Tax cuts are one thing and if you can't see that There's a huge problem

    But what's even worse in the long run is the war the republicans have been waging in intelligence
    We are lagging terribly now in education where American education is almost a joke in the modern world
    Other countries in the industrialized world are far beyond us in education and now even some third world countries have surpassed us
    China is going to surpass us in the number of patents it produces each year which is unheard of and a predictor of business power across the world
    in just 3 years

    During the 50's 60's and 70's
    when we were miles above everybody else we were creating things like the NIH and Medicare and subsidizing education which is what most countries do today

    When we take money away from schools and teachers we are cutting our on noses
    When we elect assholes who spread the fairytales like Creationism and religious dogma we are helping other countries race past us in the Geopolitical game across the world
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 4:28 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    You don't have any argument for keeping tax cuts for the wealthy, so you make personal attacks on me instead. Got it!


    Your words: "millionaires and billionaires"

    In reality, what you advocate would hit people with income of $200,001.

    You're either being dishonest in your rhetoric or you believe the definition of one million is 200,001.


    Answer the question: Why should the Bush tax cuts remain?



    Because the Federal government already takes in more than enough revenue to discharge its duties as specified in the Constitution.


    Its adding to the deficit and not creating jobs. They need to go!


    If they "went" they would only reduce the deficit by anywhere from $70 Billion to $390 Billion (depending on who you believe) per year.

    The deficit is on track to be $1,650 Billion this year.

    Again, you're having trouble with numbers.

    Personal attacks are duly noted.
    We need a balance between elimination of tax cuts and reduction in spending.
    We both agree. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will help to reduce the deficit. YAY!


    It's not a personal attack.

    When somebody believes that 200,001 equals one million, and I point out that it does not, it is not a personal attack.

    When somebody believes that a decrease of $90 to $390 billion will have any material effect on the deficit problem, and I point out that it won't, it is not a personal attack.


    Focus on the problem: BUSH TAX CUTS
    They are adding to the deficit. They need to be eliminated.
    Thank you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 5:10 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    Focus on the problem: BUSH TAX CUTS
    They are adding to the deficit. They need to be eliminated.
    Thank you!


    So is "Cowboy Poetry." icon_rolleyes.gif


    BUSH TAX CUTS
    BUSH TAX CUTS
    THEY ARE NOT CREATING JOBS
    THEY ARE INCREASING THE DEFICIT
    GREEDY, SELFISH, SELF SERVING REPUBLICANS ARE UNAMERICAN
    THE BUSH TAX CUTS NEED TO BE ELIMINATED
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 5:18 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    southbeach1500 said
    catfish5 said
    Focus on the problem: BUSH TAX CUTS
    They are adding to the deficit. They need to be eliminated.
    Thank you!


    So is "Cowboy Poetry." icon_rolleyes.gif


    BUSH TAX CUTS
    BUSH TAX CUTS
    THEY ARE NOT CREATING JOBS
    THEY ARE INCREASING THE DEFICIT
    GREEDY, SELFISH, SELF SERVING REPUBLICANS ARE UNAMERICAN
    THE BUSH TAX CUTS NEED TO BE ELIMINATED


    I think we're done here. icon_rolleyes.gif


    COME BACK REAL SOON NOW YA HEAR!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 5:27 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]southbeach1500 said[/cite]
    Christian73 said

    Because those cuts come at the expense of programs that help the middle class


    In America, the middle class does not need government programs. It's a liberal fallacy that middle class Americans "need" government assistance. And, to a certain extent, the same applies to lower wage workers as well.



    TOTAL BULLSHIT.
    Millions of Americans live on Social Security benefits and rely on Medicare to cover their medical expenses.

    We have a choice.
    1.) Cut spending and raise taxes on the richest 1% of Americans and on corporations, as proposed by the Democrats.
    2.) Cut spending and destroy Medicare in order to pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, as proposed by the Repubs.

    Which do you prefer?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 6:10 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said

    TOTAL BULLSHIT.
    Millions of Americans live on Social Security benefits and rely on Medicare to cover their medical expenses.

    We have a choice.
    1.) Cut spending and raise taxes on the richest 1% of Americans and on corporations, as proposed by the Democrats.
    2.) Cut spending and destroy Medicare in order to pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, as proposed by the Repubs.

    Which do you prefer?


    RickRick,

    The Federal government is spending too much and the Democrats won't even accept going back to the 2007 Federal budget levels.

    Since you refuse to look at the actual numbers, there's no talking to you on this subject.


    19 Different polls show that Americans want to raise taxes to reduce the deficit

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1656824#147048_1657826_name

    Why are Republicans ignoring the American people?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 6:15 PM GMT
    catfish said:
    Why are Republicans ignoring the American people?

    The answer is most of them like their Bush Tax Cuts. It's all about their money and getting re-elected, not about what is best for America.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 6:22 PM GMT
    vincent7 saidcatfish said:
    Why are Republicans ignoring the American people?

    The answer is most of them like their Bush Tax Cuts. It's all about their money and getting re-elected, not about what is best for America.


    So you are saying that Republicans are pandering to their support base instead of doing what's best for America. Who'd of thunk it????
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 6:26 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    vincent7 saidcatfish said:
    Why are Republicans ignoring the American people?

    The answer is most of them like their Bush Tax Cuts. It's all about their money and getting re-elected, not about what is best for America.


    So you are saying that Republicans are pandering to their support base instead of doing what's best for America. Who'd of thunk it????


    They are not only pandering to their base but gaining a whole lot in their own personal wealth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2011 6:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidGallup:

    Which do you think is more to blame for the federal budget deficit -- [ROTATED: spending too much money on federal programs that are either not needed or wasteful, (or) not raising enough money in taxes to pay for needed federal programs]?

    Spending too much on programs: 73%

    Not raising enough money in taxes: 22%

    No opinion: 5%

    2011 Apr 20-23


    This is not the same question. The question itself is prejudicial. icon_rolleyes.gif