Quote :

"Tax and Spend By Robert Novak, March 29 WASHINGTON -- The new Democratic majority today begins dancing the next phase of the tax-and-spend minuet in the House of Representatives. Following the example of their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention. Nobody's tax payment will increase immediately, but the budget resolutions set a pattern for years ahead. The House version increases non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for the next fiscal year, with such spending rising 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution raises taxes close to $400 billion over five years -- about $100 billion more than what the Senate passed. This Democratic strategy is encapsulated in what Harry Hopkins, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's main man, is alleged to have told a friend at New York's Empire Race Track in August 1938: "We will spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect and elect." While Hopkins denied ever saying that, those words represented successful Democratic government and political strategy for the next two decades. The breakdown of the bill on the House floor today (resembling the Senate version) raises taxes an average of $1,795 on 115 million taxpayers in 2011. Some 26 million small-business owners would average $3,960 more in taxes. The decreased number of Americans actually subject to income taxes will all be paying higher taxes, and 5 million low-income Americans will be returned to the rolls. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 37-year-old fifth-termer who is the House Budget Committee's new ranking Republican, has proposed an alternative resolution. It not only retains Bush tax cuts but also proposes deep reductions in spending, protects Social Security payments and runs down the national debt. Why was no such budget resolution proposed during 12 years that the GOP was in the majority? Would the party's leadership support the Ryan resolution if it were in control now? That those questions must be asked undermines Republican credibility and explains why Democrats dare return to tax, spend and elect."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/tax_and_spend.html

Democrats are turning the key and gassing up their tax-and-spend machine once again. Will they out-spend the republicans? Open your wallet and stay tuned.

3/29/2007 9:47:43 AM

those are some real clear politics.

3/29/2007 9:50:24 AM

Quote :

"proposes deep reductions in spending"

that would solve alot of problems, but alas, it will never happen.

3/29/2007 9:53:46 AM

(sorry McDanger really wants to see it in use)

[Edited on March 29, 2007 at 10:04 AM. Reason : ]

3/29/2007 10:02:41 AM

well, to be honest, I prefer "tax and spend" to "cut taxes but spend more"

3/29/2007 10:11:20 AM

I assume most people are aware that Robert Novak is about as right as they come?

3/29/2007 10:17:17 AM

^^
How about "Tax Less & Spend Less" Paging RON PAUL!


^
That doesn't change the fact that Dems are raising your taxes, does it?

[Edited on March 29, 2007 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 29, 2007 at 10:21 AM. Reason : ..]

3/29/2007 10:18:58 AM

As if the republicans had actually cut any taxes in the first place.

3/29/2007 10:25:01 AM

Quote :

"well, to be honest, I prefer "tax and spend" to "cut taxes but spend more""

3/29/2007 10:27:08 AM

Quote :

"That doesn't change the fact that Dems are raising your taxes, does it?"

Everyone always whines about bias and partisanship and blah blah blah in this section without actually looking at the message sometimes. Just doing my part.

3/29/2007 10:29:52 AM

^^^what the heck is that??

3/29/2007 10:36:46 AM

^

[Edited on March 29, 2007 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

3/29/2007 10:38:11 AM

Taxes as a Percentage of Income:
2000 33.98%
2001 33.01%
2002 30.27%
2003 29.51%
2004 29.69%
2005 31.53%
2006 32.29%
2007 32.69%

That graph is just a representative way of showing how much taxes you pay. The date shown is a date that if all income earned before it went straight to taxes, all income earned after it would be tax free.

So 118/365 days of work go to taxes. Kinda a dumb way to show it but I guess it gets the point across to some people.

3/29/2007 10:46:02 AM

It sucks, but at least they are showing they have a valid source for all that bullshit thats been going on the past 7 years, and more specifically the past 4. Seriously, how are you going to spend a fuckton of extra money while supposedly cutting taxes by more than your initial war bill costs anyway, simple math kinda says this cant happen.

3/29/2007 11:46:33 AM

There's no indication of where the money is being spent. Our nation has debts that need to be paid - perhaps this is just a measure to pay off the debts we earned during the republican congress.

3/29/2007 1:44:40 PM

Quote :

"There's no indication of where the money is being spent. "

3/29/2007 1:47:12 PM

Quote :

"Democrat Congress"

3/29/2007 1:53:20 PM

I dont mind paying a little more in taxes if these idiots would show some responsibility. Please CUT some programs. Instead, we spend and spend...than have to raise taxes to match spending. Then, these idiots see we have some extra and come up with new ways to spend it. We have no leadership in this country, and we are partially to blame. Politicians do/say exactly what they need to to get elected..not to do whats right. How many would get elected on a platform to raise taxes and cut entitlement programs? Not many

good article"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/28/federal.debt/index.html

3/29/2007 1:53:22 PM

Quote :

" By DAVID LEONHARDT Published: January 17, 2007 The human mind isn’t very well equipped to make sense of a figure like $1.2 trillion. We don’t deal with a trillion of anything in our daily lives, and so when we come across such a big number, it is hard to distinguish it from any other big number. Millions, billions, a trillion — they all start to sound the same. The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions. For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives. Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds. The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur. All that would be one way to spend $1.2 trillion. Here would be another: Thee war in Iraq. In the days before the war almost five years ago, the Pentagon estimated that it would cost about $50 billion. Democratic staff members in Congress largely agreed. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President Bush fired him in part for saying so. "

http://tinyurl.com/yvgr4p

[Edited on March 29, 2007 at 2:11 PM. Reason : [b]]

[Edited on March 29, 2007 at 2:12 PM. Reason : toooo longggg]

3/29/2007 2:09:48 PM

1.2 Trillion is such a small price for your freedom you America Hater.

3/29/2007 2:21:41 PM

wow...it's almost like they wanted to distract us with something to get our attention off of the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY by something...well...not as important

3/31/2007 6:45:22 AM

liberals think its the govs job to wipe our asses

3/31/2007 9:16:25 AM

I guess raising taxes is okay and all, but shouldn't we really cut useless/unsuccessful programs first? I mean, is there a simple explanation as to why politicians love to find new things to blow tax money on but abhor the idea of cutting back funding or cutting programs entirely?

3/31/2007 9:24:10 AM

Quote :

"wow...it's almost like they wanted to distract us with something to get our attention off of the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY by something...well...not as important "

HOW ELSE DO YOU PROPOSE TO PAY FOR THE OIL WE HAVENT BOUGHT YET?

I MEAN THE WAR?

3/31/2007 11:37:35 AM

Thats funny, I don't see how he has any sort of background to comment on political concerns, other than being a partisan pundit. Maybe he should stick to publishing the names of undercover CIA operatives.

3/31/2007 12:34:18 PM

Quote :

"Maybe he should stick to publishing the names of undercover CIA operatives."

3/31/2007 10:23:01 PM

Quote :

"liberals think its the govs job to wipe our asses"

then the conservatives hire a contractor to provide said ass wiping service at three times the cost, with no results, accountability or public oversight.

3/31/2007 10:37:29 PM

yeah, but that's only cause the liberals thought it was the gov't's job to wipe our asses. had the liberals been told to shut the fuck up, the conservatives would have never hired the contractors

3/31/2007 10:53:28 PM

had the liberals been told to shut the fuck up, we'd all be much happier now.

4/2/2007 11:45:22 AM

Quote :

"then the conservatives hire a contractor to provide said ass wiping service at three times the cost, with no results, accountability or public oversight."

You act like the government doesn't do work at "three times the cost, with no results, accountability". Public oversight is only a good thing if it actually keeps the former from occurring.

4/2/2007 11:48:17 AM

Quote :

"yeah, but that's only cause the liberals thought it was the gov't's job to wipe our asses. had the liberals been told to shut the fuck up, the conservatives would have never hired the contractors"

You're rationalizing your inconsistent belief structure.

4/2/2007 12:03:54 PM

if the liberals had been told to shut the fuck up it'd be better cause then we'd have our ONE PARTY SYSTEM!!!!1

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4/2/2007 12:08:28 PM

some children and handicapped people cant wipe their own asses...therefore, EVERYBODY needs the govt to wipe their ass so we dont screw it up

4/2/2007 12:15:36 PM

i'm down for gettin rid of the fatties

less money on toilet paper

4/2/2007 12:17:34 PM

skinny people poop too

4/2/2007 12:19:45 PM

THAT'S A LIE

4/2/2007 12:21:33 PM

we're all fat on the inside

4/2/2007 12:24:49 PM

THAT'S PC LIBERAL MEDIA GARBAGE AND YOU KNOW IT

4/2/2007 12:28:00 PM

Someone has to pay off all of bush's spending. War in Iraq has to get financed somehow.

[Edited on April 2, 2007 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2007 3:10:13 PM

tax and spend as opposed to spend and spend

4/2/2007 3:13:05 PM

orrrr how about stop spending

maybe??

4/2/2007 3:14:26 PM

If they come to a budget deadlock and the govt shuts down and they extend that shutdown for 2 years.................does that mean we don't have to pay taxes??!?

4/2/2007 3:34:58 PM

This is my theory of what is going on. Republicans get in office, cut taxes and spend like theres no tomorrow, running up a huge deficit. Democrats eventually get in office and are forced to make the politically unpopular decision to raise taxes to keep the country from financial insolvency and ruin. Republicans whine and say that Democrats are raising taxes and use this as a position to run for office, promising "lower taxes". Then the cycle starts anew.

4/2/2007 5:38:45 PM

^theres some truth to that...course the way you explain it, only republicans spend...which is completely false

4/2/2007 5:41:34 PM

Of course Democrats spend.... I was just trying to remember what it was like in the 1990's though when we had budget surpluses and it looked like we might be on the road to zero debt.

4/2/2007 5:45:48 PM

I hate to say it, but the Republicans did not actually do that terrible a job managing the budget:

Total Deficit (-) or Surplus as a Percentage of GDP
2003 -3.5%
2004 -4.2%
2005 -3.0%
2006 -2.1%
2007 -2.0%

As I might need to point out, every year the deficit was markedly less than GDP growth. As such, every year total outstanding debt as a percentage of GDP fell.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=2

4/2/2007 6:24:00 PM

^ GW's tax cuts, if made permanent as they want, will do far greater harm to the budget and the deficit than anything a Democrat ever thought up...save reparations. I suggest you look at this page if you think we've done a good job keeping the deficit down: http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data

Can someone explain to me how a government can take in less money through tax cuts across the board, fight two wars, increase bureaucracy on FDR levels, and still manage to be fiscally responsible without running large deficits? The simple answer: it can't, and maybe that's the point.

Tax cuts: if a government receives less money, doesn't that mean spending should decrease?

Fight two wars: stop-loss has been in effect for awhile now, I've seen articles on some military starting to go to Canada (I make that statement not meaning to exaggerate, small I know, but it is going on), longer deployments with the same soldiers and stop-loss means lower morale, lower morale in general means less future volunteers and re-enlistments for our all-volunteer military, the equipment over there is absolutely shot and needs to be replaced or heavily overhauled cause nothing kills machinery better than sand, and how are we going to pay for that in 3 years? I will tell you that the military has not set the money aside for that bridge when they get there. We are still using helicopters that were commissioned during the KOREAN WAR and we've had no maintenance budget on them for 10 years!

Increase bureaucracy: the Department of Homeland Security, regardless of whether it's for the War on Terror or not, it greatly increases the size of government and is hence going to mean more taxes. Nothing is free forever. Deficits now mean taxes later, so there is no difference between a tax-and-spend liberal and a don't tax-and-spend conservative. We have also increased the size of the Department of Education drastically with a Republican president pushing Ted Kennedy's education legislation and calling it "No Child Left Behind". A President pushing his idea of an "Ownership Society", backing people that could ill afford a home to go ahead and buy a house even though their finances were nowhere near good enough, and that's going to lead to a widescale buyout so Democrats can say they're looking out for poor people, and Republicans can say they're looking out for the good of the economy, when in reality they're looking out for their banking friends How you might ask? A taxpayer-funded buyout. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not.

I'm all for going French Revolution on Capitol Hill. Who's with me?

[Edited on April 2, 2007 at 8:31 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2007 8:07:17 PM

^ the fact that people still have not learned how lowering taxes increases revenue thus yielding more total $$ for the government make me angry

It makes me angry at the republicans in power who didn't bother to emphasize this. And hence here we are, nearly 30 years after Reagan's historic tax cuts and we still have people ignorant of how it works.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the increasing size of government, but I would argue that if not for the tax cuts the deficits would be much larger. What we need to do is freeze the current tax rates more or less and cut a few tentacles of the fed. Or at a minimum freeze spending where it is today.

4/2/2007 11:28:54 PM

do you mean ford's tax cut? reagan's tax cut for the rich took years to see any difference, allowing unemployment rates to stay very high. to encourage consumption, tax cuts need to be aimed at lower and middle class workers. president fords tax cuts were aimed at low and middle class workers and the results were visible almost immediately.

4/2/2007 11:41:49 PM

i thought the money would trickle down?

4/3/2007 12:10:22 AM