death of the Democratic Party

Indeed Dog - both parts must be present for the principle to work. We've already had the tax cuts and we've been waiting for about 8 or 9 years now for the reduction in spending that was supposed to accompany it. Time's a wasting lad - time to get out the knife and start cutting so that the tax reductions can do what they are supposed to, don't you think? The tax cuts alone aren't enough and raising the taxes during an economic downturn is a proven losing strategy - unless the strategy is to stagnate the economy and keep the unemployment levels high that is. You do need cuts in both taxes and spending. We've only got 50% of the equation, and the time is now for the other half of it - deep spending cuts.

That's what we've been trying to tell you all along. We don't have a revenue problem at this point, we have a spending problem that needs solving. Get the spending away from 25% of the economy down to around the historical tax receipts - roughly 18%, and we have a chance at growing the economy such that we can actually receive $3.5 Trillion at the current tax levels. We need a 7% of GDP reduction in federal spending, not a 7% of GDP tax increase.

great bumper sticker slogans, but not going to work. The deal offered by President Obama includes record cuts in spending with the elimination of many special interest tax loopholes so that the deficit will be trimmed much more quickly. The Republicans have rejected the idea of eliminating the special interest tax loopholes and wan Their ideas are to only trim the deficit slightly by cutting spending on programs that benefit the poor and middle classes. Clinton and Reagan both understood that in order to be effective, revenues must be raised as well as cutting spending if you are serious about the economy. It is fallacy that eliminating tax loopholes and letting the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% expire would cause job losses. Currently, corporations are sitting on record amounts of money, but are not creating substantial job growth. It has been well documented that increasing spending is the only way to spur the economy.

I see we are sticking to the approved talking point language - special interest tax loopholes, record cuts in spending (after he and his cabal of Democrats instituted record increases in spending), wealthiest 2% - all that's really missing is a reference to the extreme position of the conservatives.

And you are right Dog, increased spending, by the private sector, is a well documented manner in which to spur the economy and they do have a lot of money that they are hanging onto rather than investing at the moment. The reason they are holding onto that money, at least in part, is they are waiting to see if, and how much, their success will be penalized by higher taxes before determining if the risk is worth the reward. The longer the Democrats threaten to burden them with greater expense, the longer the funds will be saved instead of spent.

That which you want less of you tax more. That which you want more of you tax less or exempt from taxation. That is why charitable donations are allowed to be deducted from income before the tax burden is figured. It is a way to encourage donations to charity. Obama said he had "hundreds of thousands of dollars he didn't need" - so why doesn't he donate that money to a charity that provides grants for higher education rather than seek to raise the taxes on people such as himself to affect the same result? Or perhaps support his own aunt with some of that money rather than let the taxpayers support her? The answer is quite simple. Obama thinks the primary responsibility of the federal government is to collect money from people such as himself and redistribute it to people who will then vote for his party in thanks for the charity they received. He doesn't share the Truman principle that private charities should be financed by private funds; he thinks all charity should be distributed through the federal government and that levying taxes to secure the funds is the proper manner in which to amass the funds for charitable distribution.

That is why he doesn't voluntarily contribute in taxes at the level he deems fair and it is why he holds onto those "hundreds of thousands of dollars" he doesn't need rather than donate them to charity. He believes, as do many self labeled progressives, that he pays taxes so the government can decide who is most deserving of receiving charity and how much charity should be given for education grants, housing subsidies, food subsidies, health care subsidies and all the other self created charitable operations engaged in by the federal government. He believes it is the role of the government, not the individual, to decide whether or not you need, or deserve for that matter, those "hundreds of thousands of dollars". If he can get a majority of people and groups dependent upon the charitable redistribution of other people's money, the more likely it is that this majority will vote to continue electing people who persist in taking money away from other people and giving it to them. Why encourage people to be charitable voluntarily when you can use the tax code to take their money from them? Why encourage them to take "hundreds of thousands of dollars" they "don't need" and donate it to charity when that is the primary purpose for which the government exists? If you take charity out of the hands of government, what would be left for it to oversee?

Excessive spending. Anyone want to compare how many people were on the goverment payroll or recieving entitlements in the 1980's versus 2011?
And how much better Federal salaries are now compared to back then? Want to know the richest congressional district in the US? It isn't in SoCal where the actors live, Conneticut, where the fund managers live, it is in northern Virginia where the high priced goverment employees live. In the rest of the nation housing prices continue to devcline, but not in NoVa, where the Feds keep adding high priced jobs.
So we do need to trim spending.

Hmmm... Who else lives in No. VA.....? Could it be LOBBYISTS?

Oh, sorry... ALL of the high-priced real-estate MUST be government employees....

PrintSmith wrote: I see we are sticking to the approved talking point language - special interest tax loopholes, record cuts in spending (after he and his cabal of Democrats instituted record increases in spending), wealthiest 2% - all that's really missing is a reference to the extreme position of the conservatives.

And you are right Dog, increased spending, by the private sector, is a well documented manner in which to spur the economy and they do have a lot of money that they are hanging onto rather than investing at the moment. The reason they are holding onto that money, at least in part, is they are waiting to see if, and how much, their success will be penalized by higher taxes before determining if the risk is worth the reward. The longer the Democrats threaten to burden them with greater expense, the longer the funds will be saved instead of spent.

That which you want less of you tax more. That which you want more of you tax less or exempt from taxation. That is why charitable donations are allowed to be deducted from income before the tax burden is figured. It is a way to encourage donations to charity. Obama said he had "hundreds of thousands of dollars he didn't need" - so why doesn't he donate that money to a charity that provides grants for higher education rather than seek to raise the taxes on people such as himself to affect the same result? Or perhaps support his own aunt with some of that money rather than let the taxpayers support her? The answer is quite simple. Obama thinks the primary responsibility of the federal government is to collect money from people such as himself and redistribute it to people who will then vote for his party in thanks for the charity they received. He doesn't share the Truman principle that private charities should be financed by private funds; he thinks all charity should be distributed through the federal government and that levying taxes to secure the funds is the proper manner in which to amass the funds for charitable distribution.

That is why he doesn't voluntarily contribute in taxes at the level he deems fair and it is why he holds onto those "hundreds of thousands of dollars" he doesn't need rather than donate them to charity. He believes, as do many self labeled progressives, that he pays taxes so the government can decide who is most deserving of receiving charity and how much charity should be given for education grants, housing subsidies, food subsidies, health care subsidies and all the other self created charitable operations engaged in by the federal government. He believes it is the role of the government, not the individual, to decide whether or not you need, or deserve for that matter, those "hundreds of thousands of dollars". If he can get a majority of people and groups dependent upon the charitable redistribution of other people's money, the more likely it is that this majority will vote to continue electing people who persist in taking money away from other people and giving it to them. Why encourage people to be charitable voluntarily when you can use the tax code to take their money from them? Why encourage them to take "hundreds of thousands of dollars" they "don't need" and donate it to charity when that is the primary purpose for which the government exists? If you take charity out of the hands of government, what would be left for it to oversee?

Total BS. The corporations are holding onto their cash until they see consumer spending increase. That is on the record, not your made up bs.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I see we are sticking to the approved talking point language - special interest tax loopholes, record cuts in spending (after he and his cabal of Democrats instituted record increases in spending), wealthiest 2% - all that's really missing is a reference to the extreme position of the conservatives.

And you are right Dog, increased spending, by the private sector, is a well documented manner in which to spur the economy and they do have a lot of money that they are hanging onto rather than investing at the moment. The reason they are holding onto that money, at least in part, is they are waiting to see if, and how much, their success will be penalized by higher taxes before determining if the risk is worth the reward. The longer the Democrats threaten to burden them with greater expense, the longer the funds will be saved instead of spent.

That which you want less of you tax more. That which you want more of you tax less or exempt from taxation. That is why charitable donations are allowed to be deducted from income before the tax burden is figured. It is a way to encourage donations to charity. Obama said he had "hundreds of thousands of dollars he didn't need" - so why doesn't he donate that money to a charity that provides grants for higher education rather than seek to raise the taxes on people such as himself to affect the same result? Or perhaps support his own aunt with some of that money rather than let the taxpayers support her? The answer is quite simple. Obama thinks the primary responsibility of the federal government is to collect money from people such as himself and redistribute it to people who will then vote for his party in thanks for the charity they received. He doesn't share the Truman principle that private charities should be financed by private funds; he thinks all charity should be distributed through the federal government and that levying taxes to secure the funds is the proper manner in which to amass the funds for charitable distribution.

That is why he doesn't voluntarily contribute in taxes at the level he deems fair and it is why he holds onto those "hundreds of thousands of dollars" he doesn't need rather than donate them to charity. He believes, as do many self labeled progressives, that he pays taxes so the government can decide who is most deserving of receiving charity and how much charity should be given for education grants, housing subsidies, food subsidies, health care subsidies and all the other self created charitable operations engaged in by the federal government. He believes it is the role of the government, not the individual, to decide whether or not you need, or deserve for that matter, those "hundreds of thousands of dollars". If he can get a majority of people and groups dependent upon the charitable redistribution of other people's money, the more likely it is that this majority will vote to continue electing people who persist in taking money away from other people and giving it to them. Why encourage people to be charitable voluntarily when you can use the tax code to take their money from them? Why encourage them to take "hundreds of thousands of dollars" they "don't need" and donate it to charity when that is the primary purpose for which the government exists? If you take charity out of the hands of government, what would be left for it to oversee?

Total BS. The corporations are holding onto their cash until they see consumer spending increase. That is on the record, not your made up bs.

On what record? Source?

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I see we are sticking to the approved talking point language - special interest tax loopholes, record cuts in spending (after he and his cabal of Democrats instituted record increases in spending), wealthiest 2% - all that's really missing is a reference to the extreme position of the conservatives.

And you are right Dog, increased spending, by the private sector, is a well documented manner in which to spur the economy and they do have a lot of money that they are hanging onto rather than investing at the moment. The reason they are holding onto that money, at least in part, is they are waiting to see if, and how much, their success will be penalized by higher taxes before determining if the risk is worth the reward. The longer the Democrats threaten to burden them with greater expense, the longer the funds will be saved instead of spent.

That which you want less of you tax more. That which you want more of you tax less or exempt from taxation. That is why charitable donations are allowed to be deducted from income before the tax burden is figured. It is a way to encourage donations to charity. Obama said he had "hundreds of thousands of dollars he didn't need" - so why doesn't he donate that money to a charity that provides grants for higher education rather than seek to raise the taxes on people such as himself to affect the same result? Or perhaps support his own aunt with some of that money rather than let the taxpayers support her? The answer is quite simple. Obama thinks the primary responsibility of the federal government is to collect money from people such as himself and redistribute it to people who will then vote for his party in thanks for the charity they received. He doesn't share the Truman principle that private charities should be financed by private funds; he thinks all charity should be distributed through the federal government and that levying taxes to secure the funds is the proper manner in which to amass the funds for charitable distribution.

That is why he doesn't voluntarily contribute in taxes at the level he deems fair and it is why he holds onto those "hundreds of thousands of dollars" he doesn't need rather than donate them to charity. He believes, as do many self labeled progressives, that he pays taxes so the government can decide who is most deserving of receiving charity and how much charity should be given for education grants, housing subsidies, food subsidies, health care subsidies and all the other self created charitable operations engaged in by the federal government. He believes it is the role of the government, not the individual, to decide whether or not you need, or deserve for that matter, those "hundreds of thousands of dollars". If he can get a majority of people and groups dependent upon the charitable redistribution of other people's money, the more likely it is that this majority will vote to continue electing people who persist in taking money away from other people and giving it to them. Why encourage people to be charitable voluntarily when you can use the tax code to take their money from them? Why encourage them to take "hundreds of thousands of dollars" they "don't need" and donate it to charity when that is the primary purpose for which the government exists? If you take charity out of the hands of government, what would be left for it to oversee?

Total BS. The corporations are holding onto their cash until they see consumer spending increase. That is on the record, not your made up bs.

On what record? Source?

It was widely reported on all of the networks.

Demand doesn't create supply Dog - that's the fallacy of the Keynesian Economic model. Supply creates demand. Ford didn't start building his car because there was a market waiting for his product. He built the car, he manufactured the supply and the demand for that product grew as a result of the supply. The same is true for any product out there. It is invented, the supply is generated, and then the demand for that supply of product grows. No one is having any difficulties selling iPad 2s, or the 4th (or is it 5th) generation iPhone. Droids are flying off the shelf as well. The consumer is spending on the supply of product produced Dog. Businesses aren't willing to expand to provide more product just yet, they are choosing to hold onto their cash instead. They are consciously reducing their supply of inventory to save their cash because they think the economic malaise that has resulted from the failed policies of this administration is going to continue as it did when FDR tried the same tactic. Cut the federal taxes and the federal spending, which will allow everyone to keep more of the money they earn, and the economy will expand, just as it has every time this has been done. When people are allowed to keep more of the fruits of their own labor rather than ship it off to Washington to be wasted, they spend it on items they want and need. They don't spend right now because the unemployment is high and they are worried they will need the money they have to ride out the malaise. They are being careful with their money just like the businesses are and are in fact taking their cue from businesses and lenders. If business is hesitant to hire or replace inventory, the people who work for that company are also hesitant to spend their personal money. If the business is confident enough to hire and expand production, the people who work for that company are also optimistic and spend the money they earn. It starts and ends with supply Dog.

So it is your considered opinion that by merely producing goods, the consumer will be led into purchasing them. Hmm, then there is your solution, just start producing goods wide open and the economy will automatically recover. I don't think so. Consumers are not spending because of fear of jobs, reduction in spending power, loss of homes, etc. Corporations are holding onto record amounts of cash, rather than investing into the economy. Currently taxes are their lowest levels in the last 60 years, and simply do not factor in at this point. Your bumper sticker slogan solutions simply do not hold up.