A great find by Jack Liberty:
In tonight “Talking Points” segment, he argued that government spending is a bad idea to revitalize the economy because its cost will add to the deficit.
Fine so far, but he then says that Obama should push tax cuts to individuals and businesses because that wouldn’t add to the deficit.
According to Wikipedia, O’Reilly finished university, but for some reason he doesn’t understand that if government A cuts 100 million in taxes and nothing in spending, and government B doesn’t cut taxes but adds 100 million in spending, they’ll both be indebted by the same ammount.
#29 MacGyver
Just to make a point that you come from a place of ignorance I will point out that they could not have made any changes “as early as late 2006” as you said. They didn’t take power until Jan 2007.
You know the American people get tax cuts and it goes to pay off bills or into savings. I am not sure you can spur on small business into hiring when they have less sales and don’t need more employees. Obama does not get the Chicken and egg theory. Employees don’t come before sales. Too much debt is the problem and unless you want to go back to easy money for consumers which we have gone in the opposite direction with higher credit card rates. You will never spur on spending. Obama and government fail to realize that our great economy only works on debt. Not many have any real money. They were able to pay monthly minimum payments on credit cards and when they Wall Street the only people with money defaulted. It was over.
31, Fusion, The Democrats could have EASILY gotten the votes they needed to pass universal health care. Things backfired when they did the town hall meetings. After the Town Hall and Tea Party debacles, the Democrats got even more secretive with closed door meetings concerning health care (which excluded the Republicans and general public).
32, J, Awwwwwwwww, you caught me. I goofed on the date since I was obviously thinking about their election. But I get it. You’re one of those self-absorbed liberals who thinks highly of themselves.
BTW, nice to see you didn’t bother addressing the main point that the Democratic-controlled Congress could have ended the wars you’re whining about. How so? Congress has two Constitutional powers concerning war. Declaring Wars and Funding Wars. Neither needs the approval of the President.
Instead your liberal whinos in Congress tried to make a public spectacle asking the president to end the wars. If your ilk truly cared, they wouldn’t have made either war a political game.
If your Democrats TRULY wanted to end those wars like they promised, they only needed to kill the funding. But I get it. You believe it’s all Bush’s fault over why the Congress could not exercise their Constitutional powers. LOL.
31, Fusion, I forgot to mention that I think tort reform and opening borders to competition for health insurance are great starters for health care reform. I believe the Republicans have been pushing for that. Illinois lost many of their better doctors due to a lack of tort reforms over the years. Those doctors got fed up and moved to other states.
On the matter of federally funded abortion, I don’t think people should be spending my tax money to subsidize their reckless lifestyle. If we end up with federally funded abortions and the person is a minor, I would insist on mandatory parental notification.
Yeah! Dumb liberals! Lets all vote Republican! Because when Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W. Bush were president, I didn’t pay taxes, or they were half what they are now! I’m sure of it, I heard it on some wingnut blog, or from Sarah, Beck, O’Reilly, Fake News or someone. It CAN’T be that my taxes will be the same or LESS under Obama, than they were under Bush.
ROTFLMAO You people are suckers. The politicians look you in the eye and LIE every time and you believe it EVERY TIME. SUCKERS! Federal government NEVER got smaller under a single Republican president in my lifetime…never. It was bigger after Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr. The last two Federal Dept were created by Republicans. The last major benefit program was introduced by a Republican. Get over it…stop living in fantasy land where you didn’t pay taxes under Reagan, only under evil-o-Democrats. Idiots.
Fusion,
You still haven’t your question. Quit pussin’ out and grow a pair.
Why would you sacrifice others to save your wife?
>> LibertyLover said, on January 29th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
>> It is always so easy to throw dirt.
>> I still haven’t seen anyone answer my question from #11.
Fair enough.
#1 We need to pay the MASSIVE DEBT (created mostly by conservatives)
#2 We need to sustain the MASSIVE MILITARY (conservatives have insisted we have)
#3 We need to make sure Social Security is solvent, (despite conservative attempts to strangle the program.)
#4 We need to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure (that conservatives have insisted we neglect.)
#5 We need to rebuild our lost manufacturing base, (which conservatives looted and shipped overseas.)
#27, Again, you have failed to act civil.
Please try again if you wish to carry on a conversation as an adult.
Why does the government need MORE money?
#29, To answer Liberty Lover’s question, we don’t need any more money. Times are tough and we need to cut all the entitlement programs and cut people’s taxes (starting with the taxes Obama raised on the poor and middle class). THAT would foster a quicker recovery.
FTW
…
I could go one with the list that we could do if we raise taxes on those who got the big cuts under Reagan and Bush.
Here’s the little secret: balanced budgets, funded infrastructure and social programs ARE FANTASTIC FOR BUSINESS.
It far offset the mild discomfort that these taxes cost the rich, despite how their howling about it.
#32, Polemics is your answer?
#36, Yeah! Dumb liberals! Lets all vote Republican!
Think outside the square.
There are more options than just Ds and Rs.
#38, Fair enough.
Finally. Someone with a pair.
Unfortunately, you aren’t thinking rationally. You are listing symptoms, not the causes. That’s like asking someone, “why do we need another air conditioner?” and getting the answer, “because John left the window open.”
Close the damned window!
The government has spent too much money!
Next question:
Why have they been allowed to do it and why are they allowed to continue doing it?
#41, Here’s the little secret: balanced budgets,
Agreed.
funded infrastructure
Agreed. Perhaps we should ask them contribute.
and social programs ARE FANTASTIC FOR BUSINESS.
Disagree. Social programs only rob the poor and make them dependent on someone else. How would you like it if your mother moved back in and started taking care of you, started making sure you made your bed, washed behind your ears, etc.?
How about spending cuts?
Lets stop being a military empire for starters.
Then lets stop giving money to the wealthy.
Then lets eliminate campaign contributions over $200 per person. Corporations and PACs can’t contribute anything, suck it.
And finally lets stop globalization. I’m tired of chinese goods on american shelves, we have been beaten at our own game.
Many posters to this article have said cut taxes to raise revenue; it happened when RR, JFK, etc did it.
Fine, if you can answer this question in anything other than a generality. At what point does more tax cuts NOT result in more revenue?
At some point cutting the tax rate will not result in more revenue unless you believe that a 0.00% tax rate will result in infinite revenue.
#14, was 1986 an economic downturn? How about 1997 when they passed a capital gains tax cut?
They actually raised taxes during the 1982 downturn. That’s what caused Newt Gingrich to label Bob Dole the tax collector for the welfare state.
Spending increases the deficit one for one. Tax cuts also increase the deficit, but not as much, if the tax cut generates some economic growth.
Perhaps instead of $100 billion you only lose $90 billion. You could then borrow the $100 billion at 4% interest, and you are up 6 billion for the first year.
If the spending is useful it might also reduce the deficit by less than $100 billion. Such cases are rare.
He knows this works better to get the economy going that make work projects or putting people on the dole.
Thus he is being pragmatic.
Okay maybe I can explain it better. What Obama wants to do amounts to giving a man a fish. That’s nice but he’s going to need another fish every day.
What O’Reilly wants amounts to teaching a man how to fish. That is a real job in the private sector after which he can make it on his own without any more government handouts.
Tax cuts stimulate the economy? I suppose that’s why the economy plunged just as Reagan’s and Bush’s terms were winding up…
#52, doill,
What O’Reilly wants amounts to teaching a man how to fish. That is a real job in the private sector after which he can make it on his own without any more government handouts.
Big mistake. We already have a lot of people that know how to fish. And weld, design, hammer, craft, assemble, etc. The problem is all the jobs that disappeared to China left these trained people with no jobs. The answer is NOT to teach them to service computers or answer phones, it is to bring those jobs back.
As Obama said, we need to tax the windfall profits of those companies that shipped the jobs overseas.
#37, Loser,
You still haven’t your question. Quit pussin’ out and grow a pair.
Yes, we want to know, why do you hate America so much?
#56, There you go, changing the subject again. When confronted with facts, deflect and attack the source.
You’ve said you would do anything within your power to save your wife.
We want to know why?