Comments on: Bush Refuses To Increase Taxes To Pay For Hurricane Relief

By: debsay

debsay — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:37:49 +0000

I would much rather the Congress revisit the budget and start cutting all of the pork that was just passed starting with the highway bill, farm bill, energy bill, etc.

Cutting taxes really does spur the economy and it does increase the revenue that gets paid to the government in taxes…
I am against raising taxes because it has the opposite effect, it slows the economy which then will lower revenue paid to the government. This isn’t the time to reduce income to the government, on the other hand if they can get tough and agree to cut out all of the pork in the budget it will take care of itself.

By: kathy in georgia

kathy in georgia — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:08:11 +0000

No, I did not mean that at all. No money was ever earmarked for infrastructure, I think. The ‘92 campaign was the last I ever heard of the need for infrastructure repair. But I remember Clinton saying 1/3 of the bridges in this country weren’t safe, needed replacement. I’m sure the statistic is still close. Who’s to say against that whether the levees would have been a high priority? But it was moot. The Lonely Federalist should be happy the deficit was paid off, but it’s still crumbling around us, ya’ll. The infrastructure, that is.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:03:27 +0000

If polled in the middle of the Clinton administration, the average American said he was happy to pay more taxes if it meant a better world. The economy was good. My problem with that admiinistration was that it did not fulfill one of its original campaing promises, to invest strongly in infrastructure. Had that been done, engineers now say $2 1/2 billion well-spent on New Orleans levees would have saved a current need for $250 billion.

I do believe that money was earmarked for these projects and then simply not used by local and state officials, but this is still a valid point, hindsight being 20/20 and all…

By: kathy in georgia

kathy in georgia — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:02:54 +0000

In Clinton’s defense, I must say the money misallocated from investment in infrastructure was spent to reduce the deficit (which went nicely), not to fund some 3rd generation-from-nows bottom-of-the-class ivy league education like the bush administration’s inclination has been.

By: kathy in georgia

kathy in georgia — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:24:28 +0000

If polled in the middle of the Clinton administration, the average American said he was happy to pay more taxes if it meant a better world. The economy was good. My problem with that admiinistration was that it did not fulfill one of its original campaing promises, to invest strongly in infrastructure. Had that been done, engineers now say $2 1/2 billion well-spent on New Orleans levees would have saved a current need for $250 billion.
My greater concern is that these same CEO Republicans who’ve already lost a reported $9 billion in Iraq, these Senator’s sons, these fortunate-born, these non-military joining, recent ivy-league bottom-of-the-class graduating Dennis Brown wannabees, will be given the job of allocating and accounting for funds in the Katrina reconstruction. There will be plenty of small, historically crumby Southern college graduates who’ve signed off and on whom they can squarely lay the blame. We’re slower and less sophisticated. It’s hot; we’re trying to survive down here.
So come on down and rape us again. Pay us less than the average wage in the region, the lowest in the country to rebuild in the funk-laiden wastes. Some Bechtel-loving Senator from Colorado already signed bush on to the royal edict that has let that fly, because, of course, Bechtel has been too burdened by outrageous taxation, despite all the no-bid contracts.
And, of course, don’t raise taxes. There’ll be plenty of money once we get those Iraqi wells REALLY producing and put all the old folks from the nursing homes out on the streets. Or we could just situate a great big St. Rita’s…

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:29:20 +0000

Mare Johnson. You’re banned.

By: mare johnson

mare johnson — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:25:00 +0000

godamn your god damn negativity and partisan politics during a crisis.

By: SilverSeraphim

SilverSeraphim — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:47:16 +0000

Hmmm…why do I keep hearing a ghostly voice, saying “Read my lips….”

I forsee some big financial troubles for the country in the near future. The man has yet to meet a spending bill he didn’t like.

By: Lonely Federalist

Lonely Federalist — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:49:04 +0000

Jeez, you’d think I was talking off of talking points here or something. Just as I left here and went over to Instapundit on my rounds (yeah, I hit you guys before him….you’re THAT GOOD! :) ), I found this link on the same topic:

http://instapundit.com/archives/025603.php

By: Lonely Federalist

Lonely Federalist — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:42:51 +0000

I’m fine with it so long as the answer is to reduce spending by cutting unnecessary expenditures ,ie pork. ((Notice a trend with me on this topic? :) ))

That’s been the problem with this administration from the beginning. I wholeheartedly endorsed the tax cuts he proposed leading up to, and got passed in, his first term. The problem with budgets and balancing is…there’s always 2 sides of that coin…income and spending. And Bush and Congress, not once, has addressed the spending side of the equation.

Tax revenue has increased despite ( or rather, because of…Laffer Curve and all that) the tax cut, but so has spending. I know my ideal of a lean, efficient government seems like a pipe-dream, but it doesn’t HAVE to be. There’s so much friggin waste and duplication of effort in this bloated federal government, it’s mind-boggling.

Every person (and family) has to deal with this reality when it comes time for budgeting, and it’s well past time the government started living within the reality its taxpayers have to on a daily basis. Subject to a new expense? Well, the taxpayer doesn’t just have the option of “raising more money.” They have to work within the realms of what they have available to them, do some reprioritizing, and cut out the “nice to haves” while maintaining the necessities.

It’s analogous to giving somebody some money so they can feed theirself and their child. But instead of buying food, that person goes out and buys beer and cigarettes. The person comes back and asks for some more money because they’re hungry, and they’re broke.

The giver says, “I already gave you money to eat on, what happened to that?”

“It’s gone already and now I don’t have any left, and I’m hungry!”

“But I already gave you money to eat, and you misused it, so you’re not getting anymore.”

“You want my child and me to starve!”

Silly analogy, but you know it’s applicable and dead-on.

And while it’s amazing that my opinion of Clinton has increased dramatically (thanks in no small part to the slate of losers the Donks have put forth since he left office), if you remember correctly, he was opposed to cutting taxes during the “good times” because we had plenty, we had it to spare, and we should take advantage of that time of plenty to keep higher tax rates to fund our programs.

So here we are in times where it’s not-aplenty, and it’s time to raise taxes again.

It’s amazing that those with a capital-L Left leaning mentality see good times as a time to keep taxes higher, because we have so much to spare….yet when times aren’t so good, it’s ALSO time to raise them rates, because we need it more. Is there EVER a time when Leftists are FOR lowering rates?

It seems to me that the Friends of Taxation Crowd ALWAYS find an excuse (err, sorry, must use the proper term…”need”) to tax just a little bit more. It’s a Time of Plenty? We have it to spare, so let’s not lower taxes. It’s a Time of Not-So-Plenty? Well, then, let’s raise some rates and get some more!

No. So long as there’s a Bridge to Nowhere being built with what I’m already paying, I’m unwilling to pay one damn more red cent than I am now.

It’s time to spend the money I’m already paying a little more wisely and efficiently. If we still come up short, I’m game for talking about coughing up a little more. Until then, though, no.