In response to:

The Largest Tax Increase Since World War II

Marine's Dad Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:00 PM
Wrong. The government needs to stop spending money for programs it doesn't have the authority to spend money on and spend money ONLY on what the Constitution gives them authority for.
Simplecaveman Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:56 PM
How will they be huge gainers for the public? They cost so much more than conventional energy, that they need government subsidies (taxpayer money). If this administration was truly serious about fixing this economy, they would allow more exploration/exploitation of our natural resources. But this is anathema to liberals.
Simplecaveman Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:52 PM
Actually, moron, I'm a geologist, and I got a clue (Unlike a willing liberal sheep such as yourself). Explain the presence of marine fossils scattered across the Midwest then tell me that the processes that happened then are not happening now. You can't. Liberals believe that this is the only time the earth has changed its climate. It hasn't. Sea levels have risen and fallen the past 4.6 billion years, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Ice core data has shown temperatures much warmer than today. The Arctic Sea has been ice free in the past. What is truly amazing is climate "scientists" say the Sun has no effect on the earth's climate.
AmericanObserver Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:51 PM you realize that virtually EVERY industry in the transportation, defense, medical, etc. industries have some government money in them? This also includes oil & gas & and even coal. Without question, some of the countries biggest bangs from its investments are through the government. What is wrong with that? Why do you single out relatively small programs like wind and solar that might be 'losers' now but with government aid, will soon be huge gainers for the public?
DevinDenver Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:49 PM
Hasn't Barry and Harry and Nancy re-upped this GOP 4th amendment violating patriot act 4 times? And you still call this the GOP's act, how interesting.
AmericanObserver Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:42 PM
Which regulations? Can you be specific? And can you quantify exactly how much is 'costs' small business? The right keeps babbling this but never with any supporting evidence. Global warming a 'hoax?' Now you have REALLY convinced me you don't have a clue what you are talking....just spewing empty right wing talking points. Global warming is not only NOT a hoax, but if you want to talk about an economic disaster just waiting to happen this is it! Please turn off Fox "news" and pick up a book.
Simplecaveman Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:37 PM
The EPA saves millions of dollars. Really? An overbloated government agency saving money. THAT is really funny. New industries like wind farms (Which would utterly failure without taxpayer dollars) and solar panels (Again, an utter failure without taxpayer money). How about the amount of jobs lost due to the implementation of CO2 emissions due to a blatant and obvious hoax?
dweimaraner Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:35 PM
agreed. govt assumes risk that corps. are not willing to accept due to profit pressures. We would have never landed on the moon if it were not for govt. assuming the risk and issuing contracts that assumed the risk on the govts. behalf.
Simplecaveman Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:34 PM
Yep, and all of those regulations that strangles small business, is leading the hoax that is global warming, and is claiming that every stream is a navigable river so they can control private property even more.
AmericanObserver Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:30 PM
EXTREMELY well said. Thank you. The right wing is too busy spewing hatred at our government to think of this. As I have often said, one of the biggest myths of politics is that somehow the right thinks of itself as 'patriotic.' Nice post.
mlew Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:27 PM
Government does things that only government can do. If you think privatization is the answer, you are being mislead. Analyses of privatization shows that it is ofen more expensive and less effective and it still costs taxpayers money. If you dont want roads and schools and prisons and police departments and fire departments and environmental protection and air traffic control and armies (I know. . .armies are constitutional), that is fine but it would result in a country that would be little better than Uganda.
dweimaraner Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:26 PM
thanks AMConserv. your argument here will help make TH a good site to have open thought discussions.
dweimaraner Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:25 PM
it also allows ilegal wiretaps that earlier laws of elec. surveillance do not address. why else is the NSA building a massive data storage facility of the likes of a million sq. feet? they are intercepting just about every voice communication inbound and outbound of the US.
Marine's Dad Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:16 PM
The "Patriot Act" is nothing more than a slight revision of the RICO Statutes and is only meant to be used find and build cases against KNOWN TERRORISTS. Of course like everything else it has been corrupted so it can be used far beyond what it was legally intended for.
AmericanObserver Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:13 PM
Ed - constitutes less than 5% of school budgets; it is pennies in terms of the budget and the country DOES have authority. EPA? What is your problem specifically here? It is not only small, but it also SAVES millions of dollars prohibiting costly environmental disasters. Moreover, although of course, you think regulations LOSE jobs (don't you?), what you don't realize is that they also create jobs by creating new industries. Regardless, again, this is a small agency...only pennies in the scheme of things. What's PP?
Becca in TX Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:06 PM
Department of Ed, EPA, PP, etc, etc, etc. The feds spend more money on things they shouldn't be involved in, than they do on what they're Constitutionally authorized to be involved in.
dweimaraner Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:02 PM
name some unconstititutional programs besides the GOP 4th amendment violating patriot act?
Fully going over the fiscal cliff would be the largest tax increase since World War II, according to the Tax Foundation and will result in the highest top tax rates in decades. They've composed a chart tracking marginal rates since 1954. Take a look at the end, and the size of the jump projected in tax rates:

Keep in mind that as rates have come down, average tax revenue has stayed roughly the same. Reforms to the U.S. tax code have given us one of the most - if not the single most - progressive...