March 14, 200818 yr http://www.kentucky.com/517/story/346462.html Democratic rivals Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois both voted to extend only some of Bush's tax cuts while allowing cuts in income tax rates and investments expire. They joined other Democrats in a 52-47 vote against extending $376 billion of them. The online article reads different than the hard copy of today's Herald Leader. In it, it says.... Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more. I guess the Democrats consider a couple making $65,000 to be wealthy and undeserving of keeping their income.
March 14, 200818 yr "The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote. It would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black, but only by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled." You want a balanced budget you need revenue. The Bushies have blown the budget surplus straight to heck and the Dems are trying to bring it back into the black. Plus we have a war to pay for.
March 14, 200818 yr Author "The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote. It would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black, but only by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled." You want a balanced budget you need revenue. The Bushies have blown the budget surplus straight to heck and the Dems are trying to bring it back into the black. Plus we have a war to pay for. By raising taxes on the middle class in rolling back the Bush tax cuts that they swore was ONLY on the rich. And don't forget it was the SAME DEMOCRATS (with the exception of Hillary and Obama) who just voted to not send a bill threw that would get rid of earmarks that are part of the reason that the budget is out of whack. So, let's translate the Democrats actions. We want to spend to help us get reelected and we want you guys in the middle class and higher to pay for our out of control spending.
March 14, 200818 yr "The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote. It would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black, but only by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled." You want a balanced budget you need revenue. The Bushies have blown the budget surplus straight to heck and the Dems are trying to bring it back into the black. Plus we have a war to pay for. How about cutting spending instead of taking my money.
March 14, 200818 yr I'm all for cutting the billions we spend each week in Iraq. That would be a start.
March 14, 200818 yr I'm all for cutting the billions we spend each week in Iraq. That would be a start. Which Obama and Hilary both plan on doing already. So if they plan on cutting out the war and raising taxes, then they obviously have a ton of spending that they plan on doing. So we are back to what woodsrider said- if they want to balance the budget, then they should cut spending. This is not necessary.
March 14, 200818 yr We have programs that need fixing so unless we want to do away with proven programs that the American people want, we're going to have to pay for them.
March 14, 200818 yr Author We have programs that need fixing so unless we want to do away with proven programs that the American people want, we're going to have to pay for them. Want and need are two different things. Politicians need to have a bigger backbone and make decisions based on what is right for the country rather than what will get them reelected.
March 14, 200818 yr Want and need are two different things. Politicians need to have a bigger backbone and make decisions based on what is right for the country rather than what will get them reelected. Since they work for the American people I think they need to keep the programs going that their bosses want. We need medicare and medicaid, and some could argue that we need social security. We also need a military, money for infrastructure, and money for scientific research.
March 14, 200818 yr So, let's translate the Democrats actions. We want to spend to help us get reelected and we want you guys in the middle class and higher to pay for our out of control spending. It's pay now or pay later. The Republicans cut taxes and spent irresponsibly when they controlled Congress. Continuation of their policies will simply bring future tax increases. I'm not saying I'm for government largesse and a heavier tax burden, but I would argue that it is more fiscally responsible to balance the budget by raising taxes than running huge deficits and passing the tab to future generations.
March 14, 200818 yr Author It's pay now or pay later. The Republicans cut taxes and spent irresponsibly when they controlled Congress. Continuation of their policies will simply bring future tax increases. I'm not saying I'm for government largesse and a heavier tax burden, but I would argue that it is more fiscally responsible to balance the budget by raising taxes than running huge deficits and passing the tab to future generations. Absolutely, I am furious with the Republicans for their irresponsible spending in too many areas. Not giving them a pass at all. But they did vote for the earmarks ban and the Dems (except for the Presidential candidates) did not. Also, don't miss the key point to the thread. The Dems said the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy. And now that they are voting to not continue them, THE MIDDLE CLASS will see a tax increase. Funny that the reality does not match up with what they tried to sell with the Bush tax cuts.
March 14, 200818 yr We have programs that need fixing so unless we want to do away with proven programs that the American people want, we're going to have to pay for them. What proven programs are talking about?
March 14, 200818 yr Absolutely, I am furious with the Republicans for their irresponsible spending in too many areas. Not giving them a pass at all. But they did vote for the earmarks ban and the Dems (except for the Presidential candidates) did not. The majority of Senate Republicans did not vote for the earmarks ban. John McCain, the GOP nominee-to-be, couldn’t attract even a majority of Senate Republicans to vote with him Thursday night behind the earmark moratorium touted by party conservatives as a way to restore the GOP’s credibility with voters. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23612342/
March 14, 200818 yr Author The majority of Senate Republicans did not vote for the earmarks ban. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23612342/ Thanks, I stand corrected and that does not please me.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.