Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Kind of the same thing in my mind.
But lets amuse ourselves with your statement and accept the assumption. I would have to agree with Formers former post - I posted the basically the same thing.
Lets protect the middle class and raise taxes on those who can actually afford it.
If the rich could afford to throw their money into ill conceived and ill implemented Super-Pacs, then they can afford to pay a little more in taxes and help us little guys.

Lets protect the middle class by not raising taxes, stop spending and eliminate government services that the private sector can handle.

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
Kindly expalin this.
I've posted information today pointing to the Bush tax cuts being the single biggest cause of our current deficit.
What information do you have to back-up your claim?
Simply repeating it does not advance your statement.
Non-Fox viewers (like me) tend to appreciated facts over platitudes.

why can't the government spend less?

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
You really don't know who Grover Norquist is? Google him. Most of the GOP has taken his pledge. No balanced approach possible with the budget with this in place.
You don't recall Bush touting the "Ownership Society" where everyone should own a house?
Your supposed causes of the debt are very funny and based on emotion rathere than fact.
You may mention the Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter anytime you wish. Our military never fired a shot during his tenure.
Your neocon freinds would not appreciate that.
Enjoy your Rosetta stone program. It gets high marks.
A few annoying facts will follow re the Bush tax cuts.
Shalom

The glass-steagal act was dismantled during CLINTON.

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

Back in 2001, CRS said, the Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising federal budget surpluses for the next decade. The tax cuts helped alter the outlook "dramatically," and the budget in 2002 recorded a deficit for the first time since 1997.
"The Bush tax cuts, with a $1 trillion 10-year price tag, contributed to this shift from budget surpluses to deficits," CRS said. Other contributors included the 2001 recession, the increase in defense spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
But the tax cuts "generated the largest 10-year increases in budget deficits," CRS said.
Estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation put the total cost for the tax cuts (including the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004) at more than the amount allocated to the Defense Department for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if their costs had been offset," said a 2008 analysis from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The CBO last year projected a decrease in deficits if the tax cuts expired, and said extending all of them permanently would cost $3.3 trillion over 10 years and increase deficits.
PolitiFact has previously examined assertions that tax cuts increase revenues by stimulating economic growth. We found that the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth.
"There's no clear relationship between taxes and economic growth," said Bob Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "Too many factors complicate the picture to draw clear conclusions about the taxes-growth relationship."
Our colleagues at FactCheck.org came to a similar conclusion.
Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office reported in March, "Relative to the size of the economy, federal revenues are currently at their lowest level in 60 years."
"There is no real dispute among economists that broad-based federal income tax cuts reduce revenue (except when tax rates are much higher than they are now)," said Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts -- liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question."
Debate will go on about the effectiveness of tax cuts in stimulating growth. We won't enter it. But analysis backs up Kucinich in saying that the Bush cuts "helped to create a substantial part of the deficit."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/201...

The key words are "if costs arent offset"

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
No, social security was raided during Clinton that is the only reason why the budget was in excess.
Very simple, without harming the economy by tax increases, stop spending.
I got another one for you, stop the fiat inflation by derivatives.

Fact Check

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

"The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a 2009 report that government-held debt, such as the Social Security trust fund, "has no direct, immediate impact on the economy. Instead, it simply represents credits to the various government accounts that can be redeemed as necessary to authorize payments for benefits or other expenses."

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
why can't the government spend less?

Because the rest of us like "stuff". And we won.

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
Kindly expalin this.
I've posted information today pointing to the Bush tax cuts being the single biggest cause of our current deficit.
What information do you have to back-up your claim?
Simply repeating it does not advance your statement.
Non-Fox viewers (like me) tend to appreciated facts over platitudes.

When the federal government takes less money, more money is spent within the states, sales tax revenue will increase, as well as property tax revenue.

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Fact Check
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
"The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a 2009 report that government-held debt, such as the Social Security trust fund, "has no direct, immediate impact on the economy. Instead, it simply represents credits to the various government accounts that can be redeemed as necessary to authorize payments for benefits or other expenses."

No, no direct immediate impact at this time, of course we aren't talking about right now.

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Because the rest of us like "stuff". And we won.

So you believe that a person should be forced to pay for services?

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
So you believe that a person should be forced to pay for services?

Yes. We all benefit. Dont be a scrooge.

[former res]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, Romney always said (or implied) that he was going to run the country like a business, and it appears that he made good on that claim.
I think he would of done a better job if he ran his campaign(business) like an excercise in applied science, as the Democrats did, or as Nate Silver observed.
David Axelrod this morning on Cable (forget which program - it was on in the gym) basically :
"We went into election day with a knowledge of a small but comfortable lead thanks to our bright "kids" who had extensively analyzed the data beforehand. By 8:15 pm it was evident that the initial returns were strongly calibrated to our models, and that after that it was just going to be a matter of time until we reached the finish line...."
(tried to find this on link but couldnt yet)

Does the heart good, esp to know we dodged a bullet.

I can remember our first MBA president.....just like it was yesterday.

You know, I don't think anyone ever accused Reagan of being a genius, but I always thought he surrounded himself with smart people.

Not sure the same can be said of Romney, McCain, Bush...

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
No, no direct immediate impact at this time, of course we aren't talking about right now.

Thats funny you should say that. As I posted before, most of the professional economists agree with that.

Major issue now- recovery
Major issue in future after major issue now is stabilized - debt

Fiscal cliff - very real crisis but artificially created

[former res]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
No, social security was raided during Clinton that is the only reason why the budget was in excess.
Very simple, without harming the economy by tax increases, stop spending.
I got another one for you, stop the fiat inflation by derivatives.

You didn't answer - who's more of a fiscal conversvative, W or Clinton?

What has severe austerity done to Europe? They now realize the overdid it. Surefire way to bring on another recession.

Would you accept 3:1 spending cuts to revenue increases?(Just trying to see if I'm dealing with a same person..)

[former res]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
I trust more money in the hands of individuals than in the hands of government.

.

Tell me your spending cuts.

Do they include severely cutting the military?

That's usually where you folks show your true "anti-gubbermint" colors

[former res]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
The key words are "if costs arent offset"

duhhhhh!!

Cutting revenue without cutting spending doesn't work.

That's why we speak of a "balanced approach."

This is why people didn't trust Romney. He told us all about his $5 trillion tax cut but without sharing the details of the offsets. He was a bullshxtter, plain and simple.

[former res]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
When the federal government takes less money, more money is spent within the states, sales tax revenue will increase, as well as property tax revenue.

I agree not to raise taxes on the middle class.

Explain the thing about propery tax revenue going up - i don't get that one.

[Frijoles]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
Does the heart good, esp to know we dodged a bullet.
I can remember our first MBA president.....just like it was yesterday.
You know, I don't think anyone ever accused Reagan of being a genius, but I always thought he surrounded himself with smart people.
Not sure the same can be said of Romney, McCain, Bush...

"I can remember our first MBA president.....just like it was yesterday.."

That absolutely sums up my point!

I will have to think about the Reagan comment - havent given much thought to that in the past. When I think of Reagan I think of Alexaner Haig and James Watt, but perhaps those are outliers. But David Stockman is the first to advocate against trickle economics now - so I suppose the ability to recognize mistakes says volumes about oneself.

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>.
Tell me your spending cuts.
Do they include severely cutting the military?
That's usually where you folks show your true "anti-gubbermint" colors

Absolutely, did you forget who you are talking to?
Foreign adventurism including foreign bases should be eliminated.

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. We all benefit. Dont be a scrooge.

Is that your definition of freedom? Your right to other people's property?

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree not to raise taxes on the middle class.
Explain the thing about propery tax revenue going up - i don't get that one.

Business minded people will make more investing locally, commercial properties, businesses all of which will increase the tax rolls, something a Walmart won't do.