Did you fail to see that the IRS would use the information that they already get? So what is new and heinous about this? And did you not notice that receiving pre-filed forms is an option, not a requirement? But also expensive, maintenance intensive, needlessly complicated, require frequent feeding, and is failure-prone . . . much like the tax codes. :grin:
Ultimately, we do. We elected the decision makers and decline to elect them if they can't get it right. At least that's how its supposed to work. Today it takes such huge amounts of cash to get elected because of our broken, too-long election system that politicians put their party #1, lobbyist contributors #2, their actual constituencies #3, and the good of the nation #4. This is a major problem. Everybody thinks the government spends too much and waste is everywhere. But the republican notion that you can just cut taxes and keep on spending while adding huge new programs like "No Child" and DOHS in addition to the most expensive war in history is irresponsibility at it's worst. Democrats in the past have been guilty of too much "tax and spend" but the republican plan of "cut income while spending even more" has turned us into the biggest debtor nation on the planet. Tax cuts that come without program cuts is just stupid and a brazen attempt to get elected without concern for the future. The Constitution established a representative government instead and it works better. California tried having referendums on way too many issues and dicovered that the people preferred for their representatives to make government decisions. What in the world does national sovereignty have to do with race? You lost me. Our election system is broken. The campaigns are far, far too long, the money required inhibits many good men from running, and the media gives glamour coverage to the most popular candidates to the detriment of good men that are less well known. It causes party rifts that later hurt them in the general elections. National elections in Britain are limited by law to 16 weeks. Our presidential elections take almost three years of campaigning. Enough! The primary system is antiquated and unfair. Good men who don't happen to win New Hampshire or Iowa never even get to be considered by the rest of the country. The electoral college is antiquated and is set up so that it is difficult for third parties to emerge, leaving us stuck with two highly polarized parties, neither of whom represent the middle. Good men made of presidential timber are out there and we need to make elections to public office a less intimidating, expensive, and frustrating business or our best and brightest end up in universities and commerce instead of government.
The problem solely lies on the spending side. Government revenue increased the years after the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts. I'm not here to defend the Republicans because many of them are just like Democrats in that they spend too much but I will defend the conservative philosophy. The problem with government is not a lack of revenue. The problem is over-spending and that over-spending can be blamed on Democrats and Republicans alike. In Washington it's easier to cut taxes than it is to cut spending but as a conservative I'd rather see one of those done rather than neither. Hopefully, the large deficits will force cuts in spending but that's unlikely. What is likely, especially if Obama is elected is spending will dramatically rise and very foolishly the largest tax increase in the history of this country will occur. This in a time of an economic downturn. (Basic economics tells you to cut taxes to spur an economy.) I'm glad you praised the welfare reform bill under Clinton but if it wasn't for the pressure from the Republican congress Clinton would have never signed it into law.
It's more of a two-sided coin. We can stand it on edge and it will roll, if there is a proper balance between spending and income. Ignoring either one and expecting to accomplish something results in a coin that falls flat and fails to roll. Nope, Clinton reduced the rate of government spending and posted surpluses. Neither Reagan nor Bush did that. Absolute irresponsibility. I'll never understand why republicans believe that when you are in a hole you must dig yourself deeper. Why not dig your way out instead? See, you realize that it is hopeless, yet you advocate it anyway. Based on what? Blind fear? Obama has not proposed any raise on taxes, only to prevent the temporary tax cuts of Bush from becoming permanent. What we need is a proper balance between income and spending. We must pay as we go and quit borrowing money. This will force the Congress to cut spending waste like earmarks and unnecessary agencies and programs. Excuse me, but that is called "voodoo economics". Real basic economics tells you something else entirely. Nonsense. It was a bipartisan effort that both side of the aisle wanted. It wouldn't have happened if Clinton hadn't wanted it. Democrats were at least willing to reach across to the republicans. The Bush neo-conservatives felt that if they had a simple majority, they could just ignore the democrats and do whatever they wanted to . . . and they did, to our great detriment. They thought that once they got into power it would never change again. Lets hope the democrats go back to their compromise attitude and not practise some serious payback on the republicans, because that will only make the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. We really, really need a moderate third party in this country. One that puts pragmatism above ideology.
What does that mean? Did spending not increase every year Clinton was president? yes or no? The answer is yes. By the way Clinton governed fiscally as a moderate. Do you think Obama would govern as a moderate? You chose not to address the fact that when the republicans cut taxes government revenue increased by leaps and bounds. No, I realize government spending is out of control. Are you kidding? Obama has proposed to raise the capital gains rate. (which would effect just about all classes) He wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts which is a huge tax increase. There's no way around that. It's a huge tax increase. So raising taxes in an economic downturn is good? Then how come the democratically controlled congress just voted for a tax rebate to spur the economy? It was bipartisan in the sense that Clinton went along with it due to political pressure. Much of the democratic congress was against it. It was the republican congress's idea and Clinton along with a small minority of democrats caved in due to political pressure. Do you think Obama is going to be able to cross party lines? His record so far in the senate tells me no.
maybe Jindal will run for VP with McCain, if they win, looking at his track record, we'll pay the U.S. legislature about 1,000,000 bucks a year!
It means exactly what I said. Clinton reduced the rate of spending and Bush increased it. Period. Did Clinton achieve balanced budgets and pay down the National Debt instead of increasing it as Bush did? The answer is Yes. I have no idea, nor do you. I know that he talks like a moderate, but so does McCain. That wasn't the issue in question! You said that if you couldn't get both tax cuts and spending reduced, you'd just settle for tax cuts. I called that typical republican fiscal irresponsibility. Then you try to change the subject. I am not fooled. On this we can agree. Are you kidding? The poor have no capital gains, the middle class has paltry capital gains compared to their salaries. It is the super-rich that make the bulk of their income from capital gains. You don't understand "temporary"? The temporary tax cuts expire by law, as agreed by Congress. Economic downturns come and go, I'm talking about responsible spending/taxation all the time. Taxes didn't create the recession and they won't solve it either. Because all politicians are whores for votes and most voters are nearsighted. Pure spin. You already admitted that Clinton was a fiscal moderate. His record tells me nothing. That's my problem with Obama--he has a too-small track record. But Limbaugh-like predictions of doom just because he's a democrat are guesswork, too.
We see this issue differently. If government spending from one year to the next increases then government spending increases. I don't see it as a cut of any kind. Clinton did achieve balance budgets thanks in part to gains in employee productivity due to technological advances which resulted in a prosperous economy. The so called cuts in spending you mention had little to do with the balanced budgets. If "cuts" in spending is such an important factor then you would have to credit the republican controlled congress since it's congress that controls spending. I think he talks like a liberal but it would be futile to argue with you on that point. Just look at his record in the Senate. He's voted for every tax increase he could. He's rated as the most liberal senator in the senate. Not at all. If revenue increased after the tax decreases (which you still continue to not acknowledge) it's not irresponsible as you claim. It's more evidence that spending is the problem and not revenue. The tax rates have always changed so every tax is temporary. The bottom line is Obama will not push for continuing those tax cuts and that will result in a huge tax increase. I agree. During the last months of the Clinton years the economy was extremely slow and even went into a contraction in the following months. He was a politically forced moderate. Clinton governed by polls. Again, look at his senate record. That will tell you a lot even though it's a short time period.
In the last 20 years, not a year has passed that government spending hasn't increased. These partisan arguments are weak. If you aren't willing to give any credit to the other side your arguments only continue to divide the country. All this blaming sh*t has got to go. By what organization and using what basis? If revenue increased, why are we as a nation financially unstable? I don't like the idea of increased spending, but I like less the idea of increased spending with decreased resources. The republicans, on the whole, haven't shown that they are capable of being financially responsible and in fact have shown quite the opposite. I believe Obama will be more responsible that what we've had and that McCain will continue spending WAY too much money on what amounts to foreign welfare. If I have to choose, I choose domestic welfare.
