Tax reduction does have an effect!

I've never said that tax reductions can't be positive. I've simply said that that aren't always positive. And there's usually a lot more to consider then simply the tax rates in place...
The LBJ years were years of an expanding economy fed by population boom and tremendous immigration as well as healthy trade balances. But LBJ ran surpluses...even though he had the Viet nam War to pay for, and the cold war against the Commies. (See not only reagan fought that war but Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter.) All but Carter ran surpluses every year.... Carter for 2 of 4.... reagan? Had no more obligations towards the fight agin the commies then his predecessors and yet couldn't run surpluses...
Taxes are simply a tool to secure the revenue required to run the governments obligations. In good times, the obligation must be to run surpluses and reduce the debt. Thats a conservative philosophy. One that republicans have ignored since 1980 and whose abandonment can be blamed for 80% of the accumulated debt the US currently enjoys. (CBO analysis)

I don't agree with you at all that is cause most of the deficit, just wrong, you cannot prove how many taxpaying jobs stayed as a result especially with the variables I said before

Its the CBO analysis you are disagreeeing with, more than me. I'm simply citing it as a source of evidence.
You know, fact...
regarding your, arguement that the tax decreases resulted in "saved jobs"... Maybe I should refer you to Dr,. Fate who argues repeatedly that the Stimulus from Obama had no effect. and that we can't include "saved jobs" as part of that positive effect.
..I'll stipulate: .Bush's tax cuts had the following effect.
The Unemployment rate went from 4.9 % to 4.2% for about 6 months then it climbed to 7.2% by the end of his administration.
If you want to attribute that all to tax cuts, okay. So what. Increasing the deficit and accumulating debt, as much as he did wasn't worth a 0.7% 6 month drop in unemployment.

Yea, the CBO is 100% accurate, my ass

You obviously missed the part where I differentiated between CBO forecasts and CBO analysis of final numbers... Which are 100% accurate since they use the accounts of the govenrment...Or do you have information somewhere that shows the accounts of the government revenues and expenditures are inaccurate?
Otherwise why would you be refering to past forecasts? I already acknowldedged that forecasts can be shaky.

The psychological effect of 9/11 was devastating, even if, now, looking back, it turns out not to have been as crushing economically as originally thought.

We are talking about the economy aren't we?
Or is physcic pain a justification for running enormous deficits....?

And Steve; when Bush increased spending to fight the War on Terror by invading Iraq...should he have increased taxes to pay for it or not? And by increased taxes, I mean revert to the tax rates he inherited from Clinton? Or should he have run deficits? Which he did. Who do you think should pay for those wars, current tax payers or their children?

When the accounts balance in 2003 showed that his inherited surplus had dried up, should he have copied Reagan and raised taxes (or lowered expenditures) to ensure a balanced budget or surplus? Or, as he did, ignored the situation and run deficits?
When WWII ended, the people who fought it assumed tax rates up to 92% (top marginal rate) to begin repaying the debt they incurred. If they were the greatest generation what does it say about the generation in charge in 2000?
What does it say about the generation in charge now, that they would rather not pay for things like Medicare and Social Security or deficit reduction.... There's a real change in values between the coservatives of the 50s and 60s and those today. In the 60's conservatives joined in the establishment of medicare because they wanted the people who'd built the country to be able to retire with some security and dignity. There was a sense of the collective good.
Today, is it really time to reduce the state to the rump it was in the 1890s and reduce the gains made by the sacrifices of the greatest generation to faded promise? All for a small tax rate increase?

rickyp wrote:We are talking about the economy aren't we?
Or is physcic pain a justification for running enormous deficits....?

You are getting offensive. As in, "you're being an absolute jerk."

9/11 was an economic and psychological jolt. You can laugh all you want, but it's not really that funny.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, how brilliant would tax hikes have been?

You are less intelligent than you are rational. If that's too personal for you, why don't you consider that you're posting about 9/11?

And Steve; when Bush increased spending to fight the War on Terror by invading Iraq...should he have increased taxes to pay for it or not?

1. I never supported the invasion.
2. Whether he raised taxes or not, the deficit is the deficit. Obama has to deal with it. If he didn't want to, he could have not run for President and just continued being an empty suit. Frankly, he wasn't qualified even to do that.

And by increased taxes, I mean revert to the tax rates he inherited from Clinton? Or should he have run deficits? Which he did. Who do you think should pay for those wars, current tax payers or their children?

1. We don't have at time machine. We can't go back and change the tax rates. Even if you're right, it doesn't matter. So, why not try something new: don't be a jerk who has to post the same "Bush shouldn't have cut taxes" every single post--as if saying that will change the current situation.
2. Bush's record on deficits was not nearly as bad as Obama's. Take out the crash, and Bush looks great by comparison.
3. None of that matters going forward. Solutions matter. Raising taxes through the roof will not solve the problem--and will hurt the faltering economy.

Now, back to who will get the blame . . . I guess Ricky votes for Bush.

why don't you consider that you're posting about 9/11?

Defiant brought it up and you're the guy who wrote this...

The psychological effect of 9/11 was devastating, even if, now, looking back, it turns out not to have been as crushing economically as originally thought

All I'm asking is if you think it justifies fiscal irresponsibility? Especially since you tell us the economic impact wasn't very large...

I never supported the invasion.

So? Should he have raised taxes to pay for the war effort or have let the kids pay for it? Simple question.

2. Whether he raised taxes or not, the deficit is the deficit.

Obviously not true. If he had raised taxes there wouldn't have been the accumulated debt or deficit, at least until the crash.

. We don't have at time machine. We can't go back and change the tax rates. Even if you're right, it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters if I'm right. And based on your argumentation and the way you're dodging questions, even you've figured out I am..
It matters because it means that fiscal responsibility isn't just a question of controlling spending, its a matter of taxation as well.
If a country decides that something is important to do, whatever that is, it should be the job of the people alive to pay for what it is they collectively, through their government, have decided to do.
The increase in the costs for fighting the war on terror weren't borne by the taxpayers at the time. They were put onto future generations.
Today, cleaning up the accumulated debt, has to be dealt with. There are three ways to do that. Grow the economy, cut spending, raise revenues.
I'm for all three. And especially because cutting spending will probably effect economic growth negatively whilst increased taxation of the wealthy probably won't.
But most specifically because the taxes that were Not paid when Bush increased his spending for his wars, are such a large portion of the problem that those who benefited by avoiding taxation when they should have been helping pay for the war, shouldn't continue to dodge responsibility for their debt.
Its a question of morality. The greatest generation accepted heavy taxation in order to pay the costs of the existential war they fought. It would be wonderful if the current generation had the moral fiber to accept that they also need to pay for their wars. (Especially since it was such a small portion of the populace that carried the physical burdens of the war effort this time...
I'll add to this, the moral question of paying for the financial crash, which was the end result of years of lobbying for deregulation and favoured regulation that helped a small group become incredibly rich.If there were a way to isolate the Wall Street group that made out so well from the crash and recoup some of the debt from them ...that would be preferable to wider taxation. But in the end, taxation back to the levels of 2000 are required to help address the ongoing deficit.

rickyp wrote:All I'm asking is if you think it justifies fiscal irresponsibility? Especially since you tell us the economic impact wasn't very large...

Yes, yes it did. If you have to ask why, you must have been living in a cave.

I never supported the invasion.

So? Should he have raised taxes to pay for the war effort or have let the kids pay for it? Simple question.

It is immaterial. It's as relevant as asking you if Obama should have raised taxes when he took office to lower the deficit. He didn't and we are where we are.

Why can't you figure that out? Why are you so bent on historical critique when it can't change a thing?

Is this the only way you can defend Obama? If so, it's really pathetic.

2. Whether he raised taxes or not, the deficit is the deficit.

Obviously not true. If he had raised taxes there wouldn't have been the accumulated debt or deficit, at least until the crash.

You are as thick as a brick, and no, that's not a compliment.

If he had raised taxes things would have been different, but we don't know if that would have raised revenues, cut into the economy, etc. We don't know because that is theoretical.

What we do know is that our debt is $15T dollars and that's all that matters. We know Obama is President and hasn't done a bloody thing to the debt except massively increase it.

. We don't have at time machine. We can't go back and change the tax rates. Even if you're right, it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters if I'm right. And based on your argumentation and the way you're dodging questions, even you've figured out I am..

Oh, because if you're right, that reduces the deficit how much right now? We can argue about whose fault it is--and if you win, how much does the debt go down?

It matters because it means that fiscal responsibility isn't just a question of controlling spending, its a matter of taxation as well.

Sure, and so is making sure we're getting our money's worth. That, I guarantee you, is not happening. Why can we cut spending significantly? Because there's so much inefficiency, we could make big cuts before anyone would notice except for hookers in China and other recipients of our largesse. Okay, they didn't actually get the money, but we did pay for a study on them.

If a country decides that something is important to do, whatever that is, it should be the job of the people alive to pay for what it is they collectively, through their government, have decided to do.
The increase in the costs for fighting the war on terror weren't borne by the taxpayers at the time. They were put onto future generations.

Ditto Social Security. Ditto Medicare. Ditto Obamacare.The War on Terror is chump change compared to entitlements.

Its a question of morality. The greatest generation accepted heavy taxation in order to pay the costs of the existential war they fought.

Then, they ripped off future generations so they could live well in their old age.

Anyway, what do you know? You think 9/11 is just another day.

rickyp wrote: But in the end, taxation back to the levels of 2000 are required to help address the ongoing deficit.

Boy, you are just like a dog with a bone, you will not let go of that we must tax policy. How about we do this, drop obamacare, combine agencies like the EPA and Dept. of Energy, initiate a flat tax and drop the income tax, not much need then for the IRS, send the Dept of Edu back to the states, there are hundreds of cutting and dismantling that can be done before increasing taxes. We do not have a revenue problem, it is a spending problem as the conservatives have been saying. We have never cuts costs or shrink the Fed gov't but we have increased taxes to no avail.

After we make legitimate cuts see the result and then if it still isn't good enough then maybe we can look at taxes, I get the feeling we won't have too, why can't we try this?

DEFIANT wrote:

rickyp wrote:Boy, you are just like a dog with a bone, you will not let go of that we must tax policy.

It's really worse. Ricky says, essentially, the problem can't be solved because of the last 10 years of tax cuts. What can anyone do about the past? Not even The Great Obama (TGO for simplicity) can time travel.

That TGO said taxes should not be raised during a recession? I suppose the answer would be either: 1. we're technically not in a recession (yet); or 2) it's Bush's fault for lowering them, so raise them anyway.

If TGO would remove government from the throat of business and provide certainty (no more temporary this, no more unknowns in terms of Obamacare cost hikes, etc.), the economy would recover. However, TGO would not receive his props if he is not perceived as the cause of the recovery, so that's not going to happen.

It is immaterial. It's as relevant as asking you if Obama should have raised taxes when he took office to lower the deficit. He didn't and we are where we are

.
Obama should have raised taxes (repealed Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest) when he had the chance...There I answered. Can't you? (by thwe way, thats a position I held on discsussions back when the debate on the taxes was ongoing ...

Why can't you figure that out? Why are you so bent on historical critique when it can't change a thing?

Becasue if you can't learn from the past mistakes, you repeat them.
And I'm not defending Obama.

Oh, because if you're right, that reduces the deficit how much right now? We can argue about whose fault it is--and if you win, how much does the debt go down?

well, understanding how one gets into a mess, is fundamental to understanding how to get out of it...

Sure, and so is making sure we're getting our money's worth. That, I guarantee you, is not happening. Why can we cut spending significantly? Because there's so much inefficiency, we could make big cuts before anyone would notice except for hookers in China and other recipients of our largesse.

Discretionary spending is 12% of the US federal budget... Usually what happens when politicians who get elected by saying they'll cut all the waste ...they find its easier said then done, once in power. Partly becasue one man's waste is anothers necessity. Over stating the ability to cut spending by cutting waste, is simply naive. And when expectations are not met this leads to disappointment and reversal.(we've got examples of this in Canada where the Ontario conservatives cut programs so much in the 90's that basic services like water purification faled and people died... That one incident disqualified the conservative agenda for 15 years with the elctorate.
One example in the US : the attitudes towards Medicare. American of all poliitcal stripe like the benefits of Medicare and will largely fight tooth and nail to protect the program.
Note the backing off that republican leadership did when Paul Ryans budget included medicare in his austerity budget.
The problem with too great an austerity program in a period when the economy isn't growing is that the cuts are noticed more greatly and the political will to maintain unpopular cuts can't be maintained as support falls away as people are personnally affected...This is especially true in your political system whe e the campaign never seems to end...

You and i would agree on 100s of specific cuts Steve. I beleive in sun set clauses on all govenrment programs so that they can be reevaluated before the are refunded, and i beleive that a good fiscal pruning every so often ensures that efficiency is maintained...
But the perception that there are easy fixes that won't effect people personnally makes many of those cuts political non-starters. As long as tax breaks for the wealthy are maintained, the idea that everyone is "sharing the burdern" will be demonstrably false. Especially to voters affected by government cuts. This makes unshared austerity even more difficult to manage.
The polls seem to indicate that a majority of Americans will accept spending cuts when combined with tax increases... Not only would this attack the deficit more quickly, and more effectlvely but its politically more acceptable.

If he had raised taxes things would have been different, but we don't know if that would have raised revenues, cut into the economy, etc. We don't know because that is theoretical.

Right. Well if this is your attitude, then how do you know anything? If it comes down to just what you personnally beleive...and the opinions of economists, historical evidence and people with specific knowldege have no bearing on the discourse ... then just keep ranting.
Thats essentially the problem of American dissonance. You want to shape the arguement and facts to fit your personnal belief.
There is a prepondernce of mainstream economic opinion that accepts that Bush's tax cuts contributed to the defict. (about 80% of the accumulated debt since 2001) If you don't accept the CBO's analysis and want to wallow in uncertainty as a dodge against dealing with arguement offered that uses the CBO analysis of reciepts as a foundation, then its pointless. I might as well argue with someone about the reality of their religious claims. Thats all based on faith too.
Put on your three corner hat and sit in the corner with Defiant.

rickyp wrote:

It is immaterial. It's as relevant as asking you if Obama should have raised taxes when he took office to lower the deficit. He didn't and we are where we are

.
Obama should have raised taxes (repealed Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest) when he had the chance...There I answered. Can't you? (by thwe way, thats a position I held on discsussions back when the debate on the taxes was ongoing ...

I'm consistent. Bush should not have raised taxes. Period. He was right to cut them and he was wrong to invade Iraq and to spend so much, particularly in cooperating with Ted Kennedy on the fiasco that is No Child Left Behind. How bad is it? Obama's exempting districts from it and a bunch of teachers in Georgia cheated on the exams in an attempt to get more federal money. The Department of Education should not exist. The Federal government does not belong in education, unless there are demonstrable civil rights violations.

If Bush would have not spent so much money, he would have been a very good President. Of course, in retrospect, he looks like Abraham Lincoln--but that's because TGO has lowered the bar so far.

Why can't you figure that out? Why are you so bent on historical critique when it can't change a thing?

Becasue if you can't learn from the past mistakes, you repeat them.
And I'm not defending Obama.

I agree. Consistently spending more than you take in is a mistake. One that should be remedied. We simply disagree on the means.

If Bush had never cut taxes, we would still have a massive debt--and it could be worse because you can't answer hypothetical economic situations with any sense of assurance.

Sure, and so is making sure we're getting our money's worth. That, I guarantee you, is not happening. Why can we cut spending significantly? Because there's so much inefficiency, we could make big cuts before anyone would notice except for hookers in China and other recipients of our largesse.

Discretionary spending is 12% of the US federal budget...

How much just got cut? 1% of annual spending? If discretionary spending is only 12%, then the problem is interest and entitlements. Amazingly, when John F. Kennedy was elected, the military was 52% of the US budget, 9% of GDP.

Usually what happens when politicians who get elected by saying they'll cut all the waste ...they find its easier said then done, once in power. Partly becasue one man's waste is anothers necessity.

There are tens of billions, at least, of spending I would love to see anyone justify. Put simply, if the government is cut in size, much of the waste will leave via necessity. Not even the pork-loving Congress could justify [url]any of these:[/url]

A report prepared by Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) office reveals taxpayers shelled out $615,000 so the University of California at Santa Cruz could digitize Grateful Dead photographs, tickets, backstage passes, fliers, shirts and other memorabilia.

“This is one of the first efforts to preserve and share cultural and historical artifacts of the baby boom generation, a group that includes 76 million Americans,” representatives of the Institute of Museum and Library Services explained.

So let the Baby Boomers pay for it out of their own pockets.

When taxpayers aren’t shelling out money for music memorabilia, they’re busy paying for the other projects listed in Coburn’s report. Here are a few named in the report:

They supply $175 million a year so the Department of Veterans Affairs can maintain buildings it doesn’t use, including a pink, octagonal monkey house in Dayton, Ohio.
They pinch pennies so a federal grant program can distribute $1 million to zoos to post bits of poetry to plaques on zoo premises.
They cushion the federal coffers so the Monkton, VT, Conservation Commission can build a “critter crossing” for $150,000.
They file honest tax returns so the Internal Revenue Service can deliver $112 million in undeserved tax refunds to prisoners who filed fraudulent returns.
They fork over their hard-earned dollars so Denali National Park in Alaska can afford nearly $1.5 million worth of new toilets.

How do get rid of waste? Starve the beast. The government is so sprawling, so out of control, there really is little accountability.

Over stating the ability to cut spending by cutting waste, is simply naive.

Congress wrestled, fought, and slung mud to cut $38B in spending. I guarantee you there is more than that available in waste and trivial spending (i.e. spending for which there is no national justification).

One example in the US : the attitudes towards Medicare. American of all poliitcal stripe like the benefits of Medicare and will largely fight tooth and nail to protect the program.

Not true. I don't love it and I won't fight for future benefits. If "maintained" as is, it will break the bank.

If the American electorate had to study the issue instead of how "Two and a Half Men" will survive the meltdown of Charlie Sheen, we would be a decidedly more conservative country. People who actually know what is going on have a tendency toward reality. As evidence, I would cite Ray Jay. He is a liberal by background, yet the more he has watched the last several years unfold, he can see a change of course is needed. That doesn't mean he's become a social conservative. It does mean he sees the Federal government has become a problem.

But the perception that there are easy fixes that won't effect people personnally makes many of those cuts political non-starters. As long as tax breaks for the wealthy are maintained, the idea that everyone is "sharing the burdern" will be demonstrably false.

The rich are already sharing the burden. If the rich all died tomorrow and their wealth evaporated, the US would be in default.

I know, I know--the working poor pay SSI. So what? That money is supposed to go into the Social Security Treasury. Instead, it goes in, is replaced by bonds (IOU's) and spent. So, they're not a net plus because future benefits outweigh what they're paying.

Raising taxes on the truly rich would have all the net impact on the budget of a mosquito attacking a tank.

There is a prepondernce of mainstream economic opinion that accepts that Bush's tax cuts contributed to the defict. (about 80% of the accumulated debt since 2001)

I linked a source refuting that.

Btw, are the "mainstream economic" experts the same ones who said the Stimulus would save us?

Doctor Fate wrote:I linked a source refuting that.

Btw, are the "mainstream economic" experts the same ones who said the Stimulus would save us?

Is that also the "mainstream" media that is really fair and balanced.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm consistent. Bush should not have raised taxes. Period.

Hmm...

The tax cuts were, as I understand it, partly justified as a stimulus to the economy at a time of recession (the dotcom bubble) and recovery.

By the same argument that says that 3 years is long enough already for the current stimulus to have worked and that it should end, surely the tax break stimulus should have been reversed once the recovery was firmly underway.

Indeed, had it been, perhaps the cooling effect on the economy of 2005-8 would have meant that the housing and credit bubble was not so pronounced. Deficits in the lead up would have been lower (even with the Bush spending increases as is), debt would have been a bit lower, and you would be in a better situation today.

If you are really being consistent.

- oh, and I believe that we should have done the same thing in the UK, even though we didn't have much in the way of tax breaks in 2001 or 2003 (because we didn't have a recession in 2001), we should have increased taxes marginally to keep tabs with spending. The simple lesson being, if you vote for politicians who spend more, you have part of the responsibility to pay for it.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm consistent. Bush should not have raised taxes. Period.

Hmm...

The tax cuts were, as I understand it, partly justified as a stimulus to the economy at a time of recession (the dotcom bubble) and recovery.

By the same argument that says that 3 years is long enough already for the current stimulus to have worked and that it should end, surely the tax break stimulus should have been reversed once the recovery was firmly underway.

Seems not long ago you attacked me for going beyond what you said.

Right back at you. All I said here was "Bush should not have raised taxes." It's not "the same argument . . ." that taxes should have been raised back.

Sorry, but when you said you think taxes should not have been raised 'Period', I assumed that included 'raising them' back. Silly me for not realising that 'Period' meant 'with certain caveats', I thought it was equivalent to our 'Full Stop', meaning with no further clarification needed.

Reversing a tax cut is an increase in taxes. No ifs, ands or buts.

So I take it from your horror at such a misunderstanding that you would have fully supported the reversal of the Bush tax cuts after about 2003, when the economy was solidly growing?

danivon wrote:Sorry, but when you said you think taxes should not have been raised 'Period', I assumed that included 'raising them' back. Silly me for not realising that 'Period' meant 'with certain caveats', I thought it was equivalent to our 'Full Stop', meaning with no further clarification needed.

Reversing a tax cut is an increase in taxes. No ifs, ands or buts.

Right. And, I'll ignore your other nonsense.

The only reason they "sunsetted" was to appease liberals. Bush could not control that.

You are attempting to shift the argument. Ricky is arguing against the cuts, saying they destroyed the economy. I am saying the cuts should not have been reversed, but that was baked into the legislation.

Sorry, now I am confused now. You have attacked me because I assumed (based on your own statements as I read them) that you opposed the reversal of the tax cuts. A terrible awful thing for me to do....

But you also say that you don't think the tax cuts should have been reversed....

So I got it right, then. But you had to make a dig and then make out I'm the one being disingenuous.

So, instead of reacting to attack me, how about we try to go through the point I was trying to make again...

A tax cut in a recession is a form of stimulus. It's no less 'Keynesian' than bailing out banks or TARP. It basically uses government to make more money available to stimulate demand.

But the point about a stimulus is that it's not much good if it becomes permanent. It's not much good to use a stimulus in a growing economy. Such is the case with the current spending-based stimulus (which seems to be ending, given than government employee numbers are falling). So why not with the earlier tax-cut-based stimulus?

It may have meant DEFIANT could buy a nearly new car (a lovely little "I'm all right, Jack" story and no mistake), but what did the Bush tax cuts mean for revenues? They didn't go up as a proportion of GDP, they fell. Fine to get you out of the hole of the 2001 Tech-crash (which wasn't a major recession and didn't spread much), but not much good for the Federal budget.

I don't see supporting an endless stimulus (and opposing its reversal is indeed doing that) brought in by your side and opposing a stimulus brought in by your opponents is consistent in anything other than partisanship.

Like I say, I can see the reason for a short period of tax-cut stimulus in 2001, so on balance I would say I supported them. The sunset was too long, however, and I believe that they contributed in part to overheating the consumer and housing bubbles. Great politics ("hey voters, here's a brib... sorry, tax rebate check!"), lousy economics and lousy financial housekeeping.

The only reason they "sunsetted" was to appease liberals. Bush could not control that.

Oh, please! He was the President. Everything that's wrong with the budget now is Obama's fault, according to you. Bush spent a fair amount of his presidency with a GOP majority in the House and some with a GOP majority in the Senate. Yet he was forced to pander to liberals (rather than to refuse to sign a bill that he disagreed with, because we all know that Presidents are forced to sign bills into law). If someone likes to shift the debate to suit his Party affiliation, Steve, it's you.

danivon wrote:It may have meant DEFIANT could buy a nearly new car (a lovely little "I'm all right, Jack" story and no mistake), but what did the Bush tax cuts mean for revenues? They didn't go up as a proportion of GDP, they fell. Fine to get you out of the hole of the 2001 Tech-crash (which wasn't a major recession and didn't spread much), but not much good for the Federal budget.

I don't see supporting an endless stimulus (and opposing its reversal is indeed doing that) brought in by your side and opposing a stimulus brought in by your opponents is consistent in anything other than partisanship.

Like I say, I can see the reason for a short period of tax-cut stimulus in 2001, so on balance I would say I supported them. The sunset was too long, however, and I believe that they contributed in part to overheating the consumer and housing bubbles. Great politics ("hey voters, here's a brib... sorry, tax rebate check!"), lousy economics and lousy financial housekeeping.

Boy you liberals(Rick) just can't stand when we suggest that people keep their hard earned money and spend it the way they want to. When are you and Rick going to quit being so tunnelled vision and think about cutting costs, you two never answer why not, just can't wait to start taxing people.
BTW, the "I'm alright comment", you also can't stand it when people try to better themselves through hard work, but if it would have been a non-working entitlement person getting a little better item, well that's ok, isn't it, Danivon, when it is on someone else's money. Those types of people are like leeches on the Earth's ass and you saw them at their best in England, lately, didn't you.

"Sorry here's a bribe with a rebate check", that is our money taken out in the form of taxes, REALLY, are you kidding me!!!! What about all the housing the people got when they couldn't afford it, how well did that work out. And the tremendous amount of entitlement programs and the bottom 50% don't pay any Federal Taxes, TALK ABOUT A BRIBE, from the liberals, wow, you are just not too bright, are you. And you squeal when I get 1200 bucks back that I paid in to taxes. There is really something wrong with you people.