He Speaks Again.

[Deleted]

Well here he goes again addressing the issue of new taxes. I'm starting to believe that this guy has a future in politics. Straight talk aimed at the problem & what we need to do about it. Click on the link because the whole article is great (at least to conservatives).

hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/rubio-lets-stop-talking-about-new-taxes-and-start-talking-about-new-taxpayers/

Our job here [in Congress] is to do everything we can to make it easier for them to find a job, not harder. And I think that’s what we have to do when it comes to ‘a balanced approach’ and when we talk about revenue. We don’t need new taxes, we need new taxpayers, people who are gainfully employed, making money, paying into the tax system and then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. …

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> and then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. <<<

...unless we're going to cleverly use leverage as a tool to boost revenue... such as annex Iraq and Afghanistan, and then lease it back to them... although the Iranians may be higher-paying tenants... ;D

[Deleted]

<<<<< the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. … >>>>> This statement isn't going to sit to well with the bringing home the bacon, vote buying, liberal left.

[Deleted]

<<<<< the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. … >>>>> This statement isn't going to sit to well with the bringing home the bacon, vote buying, liberal left.

And yet I look at it very much like a young adult starting out on their own. Sure they make some bad decision's at first & build up some debt. Then sooner or later (hopefully sooner) they see what's happening & they cut back & start living within their means. Well the U.S. is 200 years old & needs to grow up, it's time. We need to cut spending & be responsible. This isn't hard stuff to see, it's just takes an adult looking at it.

[shelby]

Maybe he should examine what jobs have been added by tax cuts. Is there a proposal in there that addresses where new job creation will come from or just more failed policy the right is clinging so closely too. Poor and working class are taking home less and less of the pie while the top earners and taking more and more. I think suggesting tax cuts to those benefiting most and increases to those suffering most is insulting indeed. And I can clearly see which group should be awarded the spoiled whining teenager award.

"This statement isn't going to sit to well with the bringing home the bacon, vote buying, liberal left."

Are you saying Americans or the "left" should not be voting in their best interest and worried about bringing home the bacon...should all the bacon go to one elite group buying congress? Wow not only further burden on the poor with zero policy to help them but also condemning them for standing up for themselves.

[Deleted]

Except for 2-3 years... under a democrat... we as a country have run a deficit every year since 1960... so i don't know why you think liberal left is the one with the problem?

So... we need to add taxpayers, and use THAT (hereto imaginary) tax revenue to pay down debt.... Great... now how does he address the issue of adding taxpayers?

[privateinvestor]

]"There are two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither works. .....Will Rogers

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2011 11:06:18 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Well here he goes again addressing the issue of new taxes. I'm starting to believe that this guy has a future in politics. Straight talk aimed at the problem & what we need to do about it. Click on the link because the whole article is great (at least to conservatives).

hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/rubio-lets-stop-talking-about-new-taxes-and-start-talking-about-new-taxpayers/

Our job here [in Congress] is to do everything we can to make it easier for them to find a job, not harder. And I think that’s what we have to do when it comes to ‘a balanced approach’ and when we talk about revenue. We don’t need new taxes, we need new taxpayers, people who are gainfully employed, making money, paying into the tax system and then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. …

there is only one problem with this line of logic: there is no correlation between top incremental tax rates and job creation. the repetition of this lie is actually doing neither Rubio NOR the discussion any good.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2011 11:16:36 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

<<<<< the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. … >>>>> This statement isn't going to sit to well with the bringing home the bacon, vote buying, liberal left.

of the 10 worst balanced budgets in the last 40 years, nine of them were written by Republican presidents.

of the 8 best balanced budgets in the last 40 years, eight of them were written by Democratic presidents.

so much for your "liberal left" = "deficit generating" argument.

[Driftr]

Jul 8, 2011 12:05:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 8, 2011 11:16:36 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

<<<<< the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. … >>>>> This statement isn't going to sit to well with the bringing home the bacon, vote buying, liberal left.

of the 10 worst balanced budgets in the last 40 years, nine of them were written by Republican presidents.

of the 8 best balanced budgets in the last 40 years, eight of them were written by Democratic presidents.

so much for your "liberal left" = "deficit generating" argument.

Congress controls the purse strings though right? Of those 10 & 8, how was Congress set up?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2011 12:08:19 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Jul 8, 2011 12:05:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

of the 10 worst balanced budgets in the last 40 years, nine of them were written by Republican presidents.

of the 8 best balanced budgets in the last 40 years, eight of them were written by Democratic presidents.

so much for your "liberal left" = "deficit generating" argument.

Congress controls the purse strings though right?

the president controls discretionary spending, which is more money than any deficit to date. he can veto the deficit away. therefore, the deficits are 100% under the control of the president.

[Driftr]

Jul 8, 2011 12:15:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 8, 2011 12:08:19 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Congress controls the purse strings though right?

the president controls discretionary spending, which is more money than any deficit to date. he can veto the deficit away. therefore, the deficits are 100% under the control of the president.

So the current deficits are 100% under the control of President Obama? Dang. He's going to have a tough time sloughing that one off come re-election time if his most ardent supporters are saddling him with that baggage.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2011 12:08:19 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Jul 8, 2011 12:05:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

of the 10 worst balanced budgets in the last 40 years, nine of them were written by Republican presidents.

of the 8 best balanced budgets in the last 40 years, eight of them were written by Democratic presidents.

so much for your "liberal left" = "deficit generating" argument.

Of those 10 & 8, how was Congress set up?

to answer this question....

there is no correlation between deficits and control of congress, imo, since Democrats have controlled congress during most of the best and worst cases. it is LEADERSHIP that sets the priorities. it is LEADERSHIP that determines how balanced the budget will be. the president has more to do with setting those basic priorities than any other single person. he is the CEO of the US Corp.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2011 12:21:16 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Jul 8, 2011 12:15:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the president controls discretionary spending, which is more money than any deficit to date. he can veto the deficit away. therefore, the deficits are 100% under the control of the president.

So the current deficits are 100% under the control of President Obama? Dang. He's going to have a tough time sloughing that one off come re-election time if his most ardent supporters are saddling him with that baggage.

as a registered Republican, i couldn't care less.

[Driftr]

Jul 8, 2011 12:21:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 8, 2011 12:08:19 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Of those 10 & 8, how was Congress set up?

to answer this question....

there is no correlation between deficits and control of congress, imo, since Democrats have controlled congress during most of the best and worst cases.

Thanks for doing the leg work. I'll trust you that there's no correlation. I was just interested to see if there was.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2011 12:23:42 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Jul 8, 2011 12:21:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

to answer this question....

there is no correlation between deficits and control of congress, imo, since Democrats have controlled congress during most of the best and worst cases.

Thanks for doing the leg work. I'll trust you that there's no correlation. I was just interested to see if there was.

not really. i think the two exceptions on the best budget side are the most interesting. it was during the Nixon administration, when Democrats ALMOST held a supermajority. in other words, with just a couple of Republican votes, the Democrats could have overriden a Nixon veto of any spending provision.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

Our job here [in Congress] is to do everything we can to make it easier for them to find a job

So what are Republicans legislating that concerns finding jobs? Nothing. But I'm sure you're doing everything you can, Mr. Rubio. Why the only things that create more jobs than abortion bills are rubber stamp stump speeches that vaguely point out that tax breaks create jobs.

we need new taxpayers, people who are gainfully employed, making money, paying into the tax system

How does that fit in with Republicans cutting government workers? Doesn't that reduce the number of taxpayers? All for tax breaks for corporations that aren't really hiring.

So you look at all these taxes that are being proposed and here’s what I say: I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue No. 1 in America.

So you look at the abortion bills, etc. that are being proposed... Oh, and if they're giving out tax breaks to hire more people, shouldn't we get a receipt or something? Oh we do have one, it's the unemployment numbers and they aren't fabulously low, are they?

Do Republicans take some kind of ignore reality and hypocrisy pledge or something?

I traveled the state of Florida for two years campaigning. I have never met a job creator who told me that they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business.

I never met a job creator who told me after their tax break, they're going to put it right into jobs even if their company doesn't need it. Funny how this works both ways.

This statement isn't going to sit to well with the bringing home the bacon, vote buying, liberal left.

Since they're only in your head, there's not much to get concerned over, is there?

but also condemning them for standing up for themselves.

A lot of "vote rich, live poor" conservatives don't understand that.

I'm starting to believe that this guy has a future in politics.

Sure, by talking a lot about platitudes and what the other guys should be doing (but not Rubio himself, of course), but little about specific solutions, he makes people feel good, and if you don't say you're going to do anything, then nobody will be disappointed, then, right?

[cme1201]

How does that fit in with Republicans cutting government workers? Doesn't that reduce the number of taxpayers?

No not really, because taxes received are used to pay payroll, if they are making 60k a year they are more than likely (if they are a family) being paid more than they payout in taxes to the government who uses taxes to pay there salary.

[Deleted]

Jul 8, 2011 11:27:46 GMT -5 shelby said:

Maybe he should examine what jobs have been added by tax cuts. Is there a proposal in there that addresses where new job creation will come from or just more failed policy the right is clinging so closely too. Poor and working class are taking home less and less of the pie while the top earners and taking more and more. I think suggesting tax cuts to those benefiting most and increases to those suffering most is insulting indeed. And I can clearly see which group should be awarded the spoiled whining teenager award.

"This statement isn't going to sit to well with the bringing home the bacon, vote buying, liberal left."

Are you saying Americans or the "left" should not be voting in their best interest and worried about bringing home the bacon...should all the bacon go to one elite group buying congress? Wow not only further burden on the poor with zero policy to help them but also condemning them for standing up for themselves.

So basically you're saying that voting some one else's tax dollars into your pocket is in the countries best interest?

[workpublic]

How does that fit in with Republicans cutting government workers? Doesn't that reduce the number of taxpayers?
govt workers pay their taxes with tax money. sheesh. why is that so hard to understand?

i'd rather save the 80K(tax funded pay) than get the 20K(tax from the tax funded pay).

[Deleted]

Jul 8, 2011 13:53:36 GMT -5 workpublic said:

How does that fit in with Republicans cutting government workers? Doesn't that reduce the number of taxpayers?
govt workers pay their taxes with tax money. sheesh. why is that so hard to understand?

i'd rather save the 80K(tax funded pay) than get the 20K(tax from the tax funded pay).

You can file a liberals inability to see that, along side the inability to discern the difference between public and private sector unions.

[shelby]

"So basically you're saying that voting some one else's tax dollars into your pocket is in the countries best interest?"

We are talking about raising revenue and tax reciepts if you want to take this slant on it than fine....but don't expect me to take it seriously. Besides I am guessing you prefer to take it out of a certain other groups pocket anyways.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...I still say annex a few countries in the ME and then charge them rent... colonialism is underrated...

[Deleted]

Jul 8, 2011 14:16:33 GMT -5 shelby said:

"So basically you're saying that voting some one else's tax dollars into your pocket is in the countries best interest?"

We are talking about raising revenue and tax reciepts if you want to take this slant on it than fine....but don't expect me to take it seriously. Besides I am guessing you prefer to take it out of a certain other groups pocket anyways.

I was just replying to your slant. As far as my preferences, you definitely are guessing. Years before I was self employed, I was laid off (1980 I think it was) I did not file for un-employment insurance because my wife was still employed and we could get by without it. Imagine that today, huh. Raising revenue and tax receipts is merely taking money from a working persons pocket. Being removed from the process doesn't change what it is.

[Deleted]

How does that fit in with Republicans cutting government workers? Doesn't that reduce the number of taxpayers? All for tax breaks for corporations that aren't really hiring.

This seems to be a real hard concept for some people to understand so I'll say it slowly & with great detail.

Government workers (in a way) pay no taxes. I'll simplify to explain. Say you pay a government worker $2,000 per month. Now lets say that he gets $500 (number picked at random) per month taken out for taxes for the government to spend (actually throw down a rat hole because they are the government). Yes the guy is actually paying $500 per month in taxes (so he is really paying taxes) but the problem is that while he is paying $500 per month taxes......The government is paying him that $500 in the first place PLUS an extra $1,500 dollars per month. The government loses money on that guy. That's why smaller governments make sense & a country where everyone works for the government can't exist. That's alway why it is much better for people to work in non government businesses. The government doesn't pay their paycheck so they don't lose on every person. Hopes that helps.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2011 14:26:14 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I still say annex a few countries in the ME and then charge them rent... colonialism is underrated...

Canada would make a nicer acquisition. let's see if Bill Gates can get it done for us.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 8, 2011 17:31:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 8, 2011 14:26:14 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I still say annex a few countries in the ME and then charge them rent... colonialism is underrated...

Canada would make a nicer acquisition. let's see if Bill Gates can get it done for us.

...you think the mineral rights and revenue from Canada would be worth more than mineral rights and revenue from Iraq and Afghanistan? ...ooh, I'm thinking this question needs its own thread...

[djAdvocate]

Jul 8, 2011 17:37:50 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 8, 2011 17:31:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Canada would make a nicer acquisition. let's see if Bill Gates can get it done for us.

...you think the mineral rights and revenue from Canada would be worth more than mineral rights and revenue from Iraq and Afghanistan? ...ooh, I'm thinking this question needs its own thread...

i just think it is a better expansion opportunity. who wants to occupy the ME? not me.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 8, 2011 17:40:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 8, 2011 17:37:50 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...you think the mineral rights and revenue from Canada would be worth more than mineral rights and revenue from Iraq and Afghanistan? ...ooh, I'm thinking this question needs its own thread...

i just think it is a better expansion opportunity. who wants to occupy the ME? not me.

...well, we ARE already there... so it'd be a much better short-term commute...

[handyman2]

Good post TEX: Taxing the rich gains little and it is only a temporary fix at best. A working person contributes to the government every payday. A much more sound approach.
It is time we quit falling all over ourselves to do what the rest of the world wants and put American interests first. From trade agreements on down.