I have no problem accepting that the current state of affairs pretty much negates the ability for either candidate to cut taxes for anyone.

 

But you said that raising them would be OK, on everyone.

But you said that raising them would be OK, on everyone.

 

 

Honestly, I think that is what is going to happen. It doesn't matter who gets elected. We're in a mess, and that's a fact. The only way that I see a smaller increase is if cuts are made in spending, including ALL areas of government spending, not just social benefits programs.

I am not the one denying it.

 

It is the Dems who want to cling to the taxing of rich and thinking that Obama is not going to tax them.

 

I guess they cling to that like we cling to our religion and guns.

 

Remind us again of your party affiliation.

 

And RM may be right. I still hold out hope, however, that reducing the $10 billion monthly Iraq war expense (I didn't say eliminate, as it seems reasonable to think that operations in Afghanistan would be stepped up) would go a long way.

Remind us again of your party affiliation.

 

And RM may be right. I still hold out hope, however, that reducing the $10 billion monthly Iraq war expense (I didn't say eliminate, as it seems reasonable to think that operations in Afghanistan would be stepped up) would go a long way.

 

Exactly.

Remind us again of your party affiliation.

 

And RM may be right. I still hold out hope, however, that reducing the $10 billion monthly Iraq war expense (I didn't say eliminate, as it seems reasonable to think that operations in Afghanistan would be stepped up) would go a long way.

 

Not to say I don't want the USA out of Iraq, I do but how many people that work in the defense related industries have you just put out of work by reducing that $10 billions dollars a month spending? Easy to say if you aren't losing your job! Where do those people you just put out of work go to work at next year?

 

It's funny but when spending needs to be cut it always seems that it's someones else job, or place of employment that needs to be eliminated, not mine! Same when we talk tax increases or cuts, I should get the cut but someone else should get the increase, not me..... NIMBY or Not in my back yard.....

Not to say I don't want the USA out of Iraq, I do but how many people that work in the defense related industries have you just put out of work by reducing that $10 billions dollars a month spending? Easy to say if you aren't losing your job! Where do those people you just put out of work go to work at next year?

 

It's funny but when spending needs to be cut it always seems that it's someones else job, or place of employment that needs to be eliminated, not mine! Same when we talk tax increases or cuts, I should get the cut but someone else should get the increase, not me..... NIMBY or Not in my back yard.....

 

 

Corporations and small businesses have to make those hard decisions daily. I can't count the times that people have said "that's business" when an automaker closes another plant. Why should the government not have to face the same decisions? Why should government workers be protected from good business decisions? How many other industries have to increase efficiency/cut personnel? Every one of them. To continue to run the government in the same way without looking for cost savings is not good use of our tax dollars.

Remind us again of your party affiliation.

 

And RM may be right. I still hold out hope, however, that reducing the $10 billion monthly Iraq war expense (I didn't say eliminate, as it seems reasonable to think that operations in Afghanistan would be stepped up) would go a long way.

 

Democrat that feels the party has been hijacked by far left.

Corporations and small businesses have to make those hard decisions daily. I can't count the times that people have said "that's business" when an automaker closes another plant. Why should the government not have to face the same decisions? Why should government workers be protected from good business decisions? How many other industries have to increase efficiency/cut personnel? Every one of them. To continue to run the government in the same way without looking for cost savings is not good use of our tax dollars.

And taking from those who work hard to achieve something and giving it to those that contribute nothing is? :eek: That's what Obama wants to do.

And taking from those who work hard to achieve something and giving it to those that contribute nothing is? :eek: That's what Obama wants to do.

 

 

What part of "I don't think either candidate will be able to cut taxes for anyone" is not clear?

What part of "I don't think either candidate will be able to cut taxes for anyone" is not clear?

I'm clear on what you think. It's Obama that I'm not clear on. But then, how could I be?

Corporations and small businesses have to make those hard decisions daily. I can't count the times that people have said "that's business" when an automaker closes another plant. Why should the government not have to face the same decisions? Why should government workers be protected from good business decisions? How many other industries have to increase efficiency/cut personnel? Every one of them. To continue to run the government in the same way without looking for cost savings is not good use of our tax dollars.

 

That is why you reduce what the government does. With government doing less it is easier to manage. As long as there is need for government, of which what we debate on in this forum is how big or how small, there will be waste and fraud. There will always be some greedy people who take advantage of their positions.

What part of "I don't think either candidate will be able to cut taxes for anyone" is not clear?

 

I am willing to take a chance on Obama, than Bush Jr...

I am willing to take a chance on Obama, than Bush Jr...

You guys and your fear mongering...

You guys and your fear mongering...

 

I do fear more Bush economics...

I do fear more Bush economics...

Wait until you see Obama economics. Then you'll know fear.