Stinky has the solution!!!!111111

[Freeper]

Stinky The Clown  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Apr-08-11 06:21 PM
Original message
While they're jerking around, no one is brave enough to do what will solve the budget shit fast.
   
End the bush tax cuts and then raise taxes on the same people even more.

Cut the defense budget to make up the rest.






Instead, we get to watch these ****ers **** around ****ing us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x846556

mike_c  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Apr-08-11 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. that is the only solution likely to work in the long term, no matter WHAT else they do....
   
Rat bastards.

And they wonder why the Dems lost in 2010.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Wouldn't that require Obama and Reid getting off their asses/campaing stumps and actually proposing a budget?

[catsmtrods]

Hey stinky **** YOU!!!

[GOBUCKS]

Stinky The Clown  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)Fri Apr-08-11 06:21 PM
Original message
End the bush tax cuts and then raise taxes on the same people even more.
Cut the defense budget to make up the rest.
Instead, we get to watch these ****ers **** around ****ing us.

This is an example of why I've always argued this douchenozzle should never be in contention for Top DUmmy, though he posts continuously, all day, every day, campaigning for votes. He is booooring. He has zero class. He contributes not even a glimmer of entertainment value. He is a cipher, squatting over a catbox.

[franksolich]

Well, considering who the sparkling husband primitive works for, and the circumstances under what he's paid--and the sparkling husband primitive's paid very well, probably among the top 10% or something in the country--taxes are no concern of his, because he's paid in a manner in which taxes are ignored.

The sparkling husband primitive knows what franksolich is talking about.....

[blitzkrieg_17]

I think I know what you mean too, Frank.

[BEG]

Well, considering who the sparkling husband primitive works for, and the circumstances under what he's paid--and the sparkling husband primitive's paid very well, probably among the top 10% or something in the country--taxes are no concern of his, because he's paid in a manner in which taxes are ignored.

The sparkling husband primitive knows what franksolich is talking about.....

Is he a stripper? 

[franksolich]

Is he a stripper? 

If the sparkling husband primitive strips, he strips with his business associates Flat-Face Salvatore, Bent-Legs Angelo, Girlie-Boy Luciano, Mugs Paolo, Butcher Francesco, Kick-Groin Stefano, Pockmarked Tommaso, Thumbs Lido, and Bela Pelosi's husband, among others.

It would be quite a troupe.

[thundley4]

Stinky


End the bush tax cuts and then raise taxes on the same people even more.

Does Stinky realize that would mean raising taxes on every single person that pays taxes?

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

I've got news for ya...

It looks like Stinky may not be the only one..

But thanks to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we may soon have an idea of what a liberal deficit reduction plan would look like.

Next week, the group of progressives plans to introduce its alternative to Ryan's proposal, called "The People's Budget." Based on an advanced peek provided by a senior Democratic aide, it promises to return the nation to surpluses by the end of the decade and reduce the debt, only with a much different approach from Ryan's.

To extend the long-term solvency of Social Security, it would propose dramatically increasing payroll taxes on both the employer and employee side, and funneling the money into even more generous benefits.

Payroll taxes are economically destructive, because they make it more expensive for employers to hire new workers, meaning lower real wages and higher unemployment.

Yet the tax increases wouldn't end there. The People's Budget would rescind last year's tax deal to raise rates on higher income levels, boost taxes on capital gains and dividends, increase the estate tax, institute three "millionaire tax rates," with the highest reaching 47 percent, tax corporate foreign income, impose a "financial crisis responsibility fee," and institute a "financial speculation tax."

Overall, taxes would rise to 22.3 percent of the economy, compared with 18.3 percent under the Ryan proposal.

The plan would also build on Obama's most notable initiatives. It includes an additional $1.45 trillion in economic stimulus spending. On health care, the plan would add a government-run plan, or "public option," to Obamacare and have the government negotiate drug prices.

Yet while other parts of government would grow, the defense budget would be gutted. The proposal would "reduce baseline defense spending by reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement, and R&D programs."

If liberal activists and Democratic lawmakers rallied around this plan, or something similar, then there could be an honest debate contrasting Ryan's vision of lower taxes and entitlement reform with liberal plans to raise taxes, slash the military and further expand the role of government.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/04/what-liberal-deficit-reduction-would-look-0#ixzz1Iz9g56KD

[delilahmused]

So the defense budget which is about 20% of the entire budget (this is the budget put out by the feds, not your precious antiwar groups) AND IS THE ONLY EXPENDITURE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION, needs to be cut instead of your precious entitlements and abortion mills?

Cindie

[delilahmused]

Oh, and mike_c, I'd tell you to go **** yourself but I doubt your dick even extends past your balls, even with Extendz.

Cindie

[Airwolf]

I'm hoping that maybe Stinkys wife finally succeeds

[franksolich]

I'm hoping that maybe Stinkys wife finally succeeds

She will, ultimately.

The constant vocabularial deterioration and erosion in the sparkling husband primitive's campfires plainly shows that whatever she's slipping into his drinks, is working.

If I were the sparkling husband primitive's wife, I'd start now, looking at tourist brochures for Tahiti or Mauritius with the horsey Mrs. Tutweiler down the street.  I wouldn't make any reservations just yet, but I'd be planning.

[dandi]

I wouldn't be against a temporary, modest tax hike in principal to help us out of this debt. The problem is there's no guarantee the money wouldn't be used to grow government and buy votes, or that the government wouldn't go right back into debt again for the same reasons. The only way I could agree to it is for there to be laws with real teeth in them to prevent that from happening. A balanced budget amendment and some new articles or amendments restricting the scope of government, maybe.

No more of this "promote the general welfare" crap as a catch-all for any pandering schemes Congress wants to come come up with.

[Splashdown]

I wouldn't be against a temporary, modest tax hike in principal to help us out of this debt. The problem is there's no guarantee the money wouldn't be used to grow government and buy votes, or that the government wouldn't go right back into debt again for the same reasons. The only way I could agree to it is for there to be laws with real teeth in them to prevent that from happening. A balanced budget amendment and some new articles or amendments restricting the scope of government, maybe.

No more of this "promote the general welfare" crap as a catch-all for any pandering schemes Congress wants to come come up with.

Sorry bud. Have to disagree.

There has never been anything "temporary" when it comes to taxes.

[Chris_]

Sorry bud. Have to disagree.

There has never been anything "temporary" when it comes to taxes.

I'm tempted to make a joke about that 3-cent telephone tax that was put in place to fund the Spanish-American War a hundred years ago, but it's just too ridiculous to make fun of.  Liberals vote for politicians to plunder and rob the public through taxes and spending and they call it 'progress'.

[GOBUCKS]

I wouldn't be against a temporary, modest tax hike in principal to help us out of this debt. The problem is there's no guarantee the money wouldn't be used to grow government and buy votes, or that the government wouldn't go right back into debt again for the same reasons. The only way I could agree to it is for there to be laws with real teeth in them to prevent that from happening. A balanced budget amendment and some new articles or amendments restricting the scope of government, maybe.

No more of this "promote the general welfare" crap as a catch-all for any pandering schemes Congress wants to come come up with.

There is overwhelming evidence that any increase in the tax rate (even if it resulted in increased revenue, which it wouldn't) will certainly be used to grow government and buy votes. Before the Kenyan disaster exploded federal spending, the deficit began growing like a weed when democrat politicians  rubbed their hands together in glee as they discussed how to "invest" the "peace dividend".

And I cannot recall there ever having been a temporary tax. The instant it's signed into law, it becomes absolutely essential to prevent the starvation of millions of old folks and infants. Anytime you fill a trough, it's immediately surrounded by democrats who depend on it for survival.

[jukin]

OR we could simply state that the government shall not exceed 18% of the GDP.

Anyway whatever tax revenue is brought in the first year will be gone the second. However, the spending increase in that first year will never decrease and we would be in a far worse position.

Stinky probably thinks that breaking a window pane is a great thing for the economy.

[dandi]

I'm not talking about establishing a new tax, I'm talking about a modest rise in the income tax. And of course tax rates have been temporary. Otherwise, the top marginal rate would still be 90%. They went down under Reagan, back up under Clinton, down again under Bush. Look, I hate taxes as much as the next conservative. That's why I added the caveat that I could only agree to hikes with Constitutional protections guaranteeing they wouldn't go to waste. I just don't see how we're going to reduce a $1.6 trillion deficit and pay off a $14 trillion debt with a measly $38 billion in budget cuts. Not in this century. Not with the interest accruing on the debt. No one wants to go after military spending. No one's going to go after Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. SS is apparently a third rail. That doesn't leave a whole lot to work with when it comes to paying bills as big as we have.

[Skul]

Temporary tax trends --- two steps up, one step down, two steps up, one step down.
Ultimently, it is always up.
Guarantees to prevent waste?  I don't think so.
This is the govt., we're talking about...lawyers. No guaruntee for you.

[Randy]

Layoff 1/3 of Government workers, the nameless, faceless "Staff" everyone has to have to excess. Balance the budget using sound financial numbers not Government voodoo math. Quit giving aid to everybody who comes to Washington with their hand out. Review all disability claims being paid out by Social Security and only pay to those who are really truly disabled. No more claims of to fat, hangnails or to stupid to work will be paid. If you can sit on your ass at a computer all day then you can do something to make money at the computer. Those unemployed or on straight welfare can work for their money fixing the infrastructure of the country. Abolish the IRS and revise the tax code to a flat tax rate with a sliding scale that everyone has to pay with no deductions.

Then and only then can you even contemplate raising my taxes and only if the saved money along with the new extra money is used to pay off the debt.

[GOBUCKS]

There was an interesting article in the Nashville paper the other day about how tax money is managed. Nashville itself is a blue hellhole in the center of a red sea, so Nashville schools are run like a typical democrat enterprise. The article was about a kid who is zoned for a high school two miles from his home, for which the school district provides him with school bus service. But, whoa, he prefers to attend a different school, six miles from home. What to do? The school bus doesn't run out to the other school from the kid's home. So this kid, along with apparently hundreds of others, drives himself to his preferred school, and the school district sends him a check for $150 per month to help with the cost of driving to the preferred school. I don't  know if this is a policy of the Nashville democrats, or if it's forced onto them by federal democrats. In either case, it's an example of how democrat politicians treat tax money, while screaming about being underfunded by greedy, heartless taxpayers.

[Tucker]

I sure hope that the stinky one doesn't lay claim that this is his idea. It's at least 10 years old.