wkmac
Well-Known Member
How far will it go and is everything on the diet table?
Fiscal Responsibility Going Forward
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
If that's the case, I'm cool with it. Just not "only" tax cuts. By the way, aren't tax rates the lowest they've been in 30 or more years? If so, where's the mercurial growth that wipes out the debt? And at what point do we stop cutting taxes? That can't be the cure all, can it? Didn't Reagan raise taxes 7 of his 8 years?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
It's kinda funny how you guys try to play that game. You talk about tax rates when in reference to Obama and only refer to income but when talking about Reagan you want to talk in a much broader way. Reagan signed a 25% across the board reduction in the marginal rate. He did fail by trying to save social security by raising the amount the government takes while before he was president spoke out against it.
Tax revenue to the federal government has more than tripled since 1965. Tax revenue is projected to increase this year over last year. National debt continues to rise. At some point you have to wonder how large a government you want. They take over two trillion dollars a year from the people now. We could cut the government down to one trillion dollars a year and that would be to large for me.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
We didn't elect a limited government republican in our district but I think the day after he is sworn in I will write him a letter asking his plans for HUD just to see his response. I think he will owe me at least one response. Should be interesting.
Please. Get over it. I said it and I'll say it again. Cut across the board. Every entitlement, every social program, every defense appropriation, every business subsidy, everything. Leave nothing out. Now are you telling me that if tax rates were at 2% all would be wonderful and paid for? Is that where all the tax cutting is going? Tell you what. Let's all vote for the Republicans, give them a 2 to 1 margin in representation and let's see if they cut like they've always said they want to cut. Get serious. You couldn't get enough prosperity fast enough for re-election time.
That sounds familiar somehow....1994....big republican takeover.....contract with america....term limits....whatever happened I wonder?
brown bomber
brown bomber
Oh well.....let's just keep printing $$$$$, and throw that away also........eventually somebody has to pay for this expenditure..........in the mean time our "fearless leader", is off on a world tour......who knows how much that will cost.....it might have been cheaper to bring India and Indonesia over here
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
No I say the tax on income should be 0%. It is stupid to have a penalty for productivity. It is also horrible that everyone is not treated equal in this Country. I also say that a tax on investments should be 0%. It is stupid to have a penalty imposed on people who invest in economic activity during an economic downturn. I'd also like to see no tax on death. We need to eliminate entire departments of government not just downsize some. Time and time again we are faced with the inefficiencies and corruption government brings not to mention the loss of freedom and all you wanna do is trim a little back.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
LOL. Nothing radical there. Quite sure Rand and Ron will push that through in no time. Swing for the seats and double down now!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
In the case of Rand, he's unproven and yet earned his stripes, Ron's DNA not withstanding, so he is fairgame at this point. Ron however is a far different animal and to be blunt, he scares the
out of both red and blue state statists. If you think Ron will follow some preset ideal that others have constructed, you may not understand Ron Paul like you think you do. As you think you know what he'll do, factor in then how in September of 2008' he could turn around and in front of the National Press Club and the American public encourage, in effect give endorsement, to vote for the likes of Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr and actually support his position based on only 4 common principles held by all candidates. Now Baldwin and Barr follow a typical construct but how do you explain Nader and McKinney? How do you also explain that Alan Grayson of Florida signed onto Paul's Audit the Fed idea early on and IMO was a valuable asset in that effort. Yet Grayson was no tea sipper by any means much less a strict limit gov't kinda guy yet it's odd you never heard Grayson attack Paul as out to gut the little guy. Why is that? Why hasn't Nader or McKinney attacked Paul in this realm as well? Would it be too much to think that these folks had at some point talked with Ron and he with them and ideas and thoughts passed between them? Why is Paul respected and even welcomed in some left/progressive circles (as he is in many right/libertarian) and yet he still advocates a vastly reduced federal state? At the same time he is equally dispised equally by both the red state right and the blue state left, why is that you think? Why are the Koch Bros. just as vocal against Paul's ideas on economy as Krugman and Company are? Hmmmmm!Ever consider what you think you know is in reality what you really don't know? Ever consider these type threads are illusion busters?
Here's some video of that press conference in Sept. 2008'
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Having a tax on income is what is radical. It is in fact so radical they had to change our Constitution.
What was radical then is the norm now and the powers that be don't look to be all that enthralled with "the good ol'days".
Similar threads
