Romney: Why tax cut is a bad deal

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
By Mitt Romney
Death and taxes, it is said, are life's only two certainties. But in the wake of President Obama's tax compromise with congressional Republicans, only death retains the status of certainty: The future for taxes has been left up in the air. And uncertainty is not a friend of investment, growth and job creation.

The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good. But intermixed with the benefits are considerable costs of consequence. Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November, it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement. The new, more conservative Congress should reach a better solution.

The deal keeps current tax rates from rising to pre-Bush era levels for two years. But in 2013, unless Congress acts again, rates will increase dramatically.

Extension temporary

Of course, delay now is better than an immediate tax hike. But because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost. When entrepreneurs and employers make decisions to start or expand an enterprise, uncertainty about tax rates translates directly into a reduced propensity to invest and to hire. With only a two-year extension, investors know that before their returns are realized, tax rates may be jacked up to the levels favored by President Obama. So while the tax deal will succeed in temporarily putting more money in the hands of consumers, it will fail to deliver its full potential for creating lasting growth.

It will also add to the deficit. In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation. But once again, because the tax deal is temporary, a large portion of this beneficent effect is missing. What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.

Part of the tax deal is a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. The president was insistent, however, that only the employee's payroll taxes be reduced — the portion paid by the employer is to remain the same. Again, the president is looking to get more money into the hands of the consumer to boost near-term spending. But by refusing to lower the cost of hiring a new employee, he fails to encourage what the American people want even more than lower taxes — more good jobs. Like the income tax deal, the payroll tax deal will add to the deficit.

For those without jobs, the tax compromise extends unemployment benefits for 13 months. A decent and humane society must have a strong safety net for the unemployed. I served for 15 years as a lay pastor in my church and saw the heartbreak of joblessness up close; a shattering loss of faith in oneself is but only one of many forms the suffering can take. Nonetheless, the vital necessity of providing for those without work should not be used as an excuse to ignore the very real problems of our unemployment system.

In this, as in so many other arenas of government policy, unemployment insurance has many unintended effects. The indisputable fact is that unemployment benefits, despite a web of regulations, actually serve to discourage some individuals from taking jobs, especially when the benefits extend across years.

Redo jobless benefits

The system is also not designed for a flexible economy like ours in which some employees move from job to job for short periods, and are therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation when they are faced with a protracted spell without work.

To remedy such problems we need a very different model, perhaps establishing individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs, or putting in place financial incentives for employers to hire and train the long-term unemployed. One thing is certain: While we cannot rebuild our flawed system overnight, we are surely not required to borrow the funds to pay for it. In spending $56.5 billion to extend benefits, the deal is sacrificing the bedrock Republican principle that new expenditures be paid for with offsetting budget cuts.

President Obama has reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections. But the long term health of our great engine of prosperity will remain very much in doubt. To the twin inevitabilities of death and taxes, we may now have to add persistent high unemployment.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
 
Why the republicans chose mccain over Romney to run in the last election is beyond stupid. He is clearly the smartest financial candidate for the next election. This guy I view as the only potential president that can right the ship in America.
 
By Mitt Romney
Death and taxes, it is said, are life's only two certainties. But in the wake of President Obama's tax compromise with congressional Republicans, only death retains the status of certainty: The future for taxes has been left up in the air. And uncertainty is not a friend of investment, growth and job creation.

The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good. But intermixed with the benefits are considerable costs of consequence. Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November, it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement. The new, more conservative Congress should reach a better solution.

The deal keeps current tax rates from rising to pre-Bush era levels for two years. But in 2013, unless Congress acts again, rates will increase dramatically.

Extension temporary

Of course, delay now is better than an immediate tax hike. But because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost. When entrepreneurs and employers make decisions to start or expand an enterprise, uncertainty about tax rates translates directly into a reduced propensity to invest and to hire. With only a two-year extension, investors know that before their returns are realized, tax rates may be jacked up to the levels favored by President Obama. So while the tax deal will succeed in temporarily putting more money in the hands of consumers, it will fail to deliver its full potential for creating lasting growth.

It will also add to the deficit. In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation. But once again, because the tax deal is temporary, a large portion of this beneficent effect is missing. What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.

Part of the tax deal is a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. The president was insistent, however, that only the employee's payroll taxes be reduced — the portion paid by the employer is to remain the same. Again, the president is looking to get more money into the hands of the consumer to boost near-term spending. But by refusing to lower the cost of hiring a new employee, he fails to encourage what the American people want even more than lower taxes — more good jobs. Like the income tax deal, the payroll tax deal will add to the deficit.

For those without jobs, the tax compromise extends unemployment benefits for 13 months. A decent and humane society must have a strong safety net for the unemployed. I served for 15 years as a lay pastor in my church and saw the heartbreak of joblessness up close; a shattering loss of faith in oneself is but only one of many forms the suffering can take. Nonetheless, the vital necessity of providing for those without work should not be used as an excuse to ignore the very real problems of our unemployment system.

In this, as in so many other arenas of government policy, unemployment insurance has many unintended effects. The indisputable fact is that unemployment benefits, despite a web of regulations, actually serve to discourage some individuals from taking jobs, especially when the benefits extend across years.

Redo jobless benefits

The system is also not designed for a flexible economy like ours in which some employees move from job to job for short periods, and are therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation when they are faced with a protracted spell without work.

To remedy such problems we need a very different model, perhaps establishing individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs, or putting in place financial incentives for employers to hire and train the long-term unemployed. One thing is certain: While we cannot rebuild our flawed system overnight, we are surely not required to borrow the funds to pay for it. In spending $56.5 billion to extend benefits, the deal is sacrificing the bedrock Republican principle that new expenditures be paid for with offsetting budget cuts.

President Obama has reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections. But the long term health of our great engine of prosperity will remain very much in doubt. To the twin inevitabilities of death and taxes, we may now have to add persistent high unemployment.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.


First of all, the "uncertainty about taxes prevents hiring" argument is unmitigated horseshit. There is a legitimate argument that uncertainty about where the economy is going and whether we can expect robust growth is preventing hiring, but uncertainty about taxes is not a problem. Moreover, where's the uncertainty? In two years taxes increase.

Second, tax cuts do not increase revenues. Period. Full stop.

Third, while the compromise increases the deficit, Romney's preferred outcome increases the deficit even more. A permanent extension of all of the Bush tax cuts would increase the deficit by $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years.

Fourth, on the payroll tax, if you want to encourage economic growth you want to cut the payroll tax on the employee side. Businesses are flush with cash but they aren't spending it on employees not because it is cost prohibitive but because they don't need the workers. If you want to increase demand and increase the need for workers, you need to increase consumer spending by cutting payroll taxes on the employee side, not the employer side.

Fifth, Romney does identify a legitimate problem with the unemployment system, the labor market attachment problem but his solution is ridiculous. Private accounts for unemployment? Give me a fucking break.

Lastly, the bullshit about "bedrock Republican principle" is hilarious. If Romney were right about this "bedrock Republican principle" the Republicans wouldn't trade unemployment benefits for tax cuts. The only real bedrock Republican principle these days is "tax cuts"


P.S. Why does Romney say in the first paragraph that, among death and taxes, only death remains the certainty, and then in the last paragraph says that we should add high unemployment to death and taxes as a third certainty? It makes no sense.
 
That said, Romney is the least bad option among potential Republican candidates and I get the sense that he says things he knows to be untrue just to keep the rubes happy.
 
First of all, the "uncertainty about taxes prevents hiring" argument is unmitigated horseshit. There is a legitimate argument that uncertainty about where the economy is going and whether we can expect robust growth is preventing hiring, but uncertainty about taxes is not a problem. Moreover, where's the uncertainty? In two years taxes increase.

Again, talk to any business owner. Taxes are most certainly one of the main issues with regards to future expectations. I have given you the example several times now, which you continue to ignore because you like shouting 'uncertainty about taxes doesn't effect hiring... its horseshit!'.

Again... If you the consumer have your effective tax rate at 17% and due to increasing brackets your effective tax rate goes to 19%..... WHAT happens to your disposable income for the coming year?

You see, business owners KNOW the answer to that question. They have tried to teach your Dem masters over the years, but like you, they are blinded by their ideology.

When disposable income for consumers is expected to go down, expected growth for companies also goes DOWN.

Second, tax cuts do not increase revenues. Period. Full stop.

Again, simply shouting a Dem party line. If tax cuts spur job growth, they most certainly can raise revenues you dolt.

Fourth, on the payroll tax, if you want to encourage economic growth you want to cut the payroll tax on the employee side. Businesses are flush with cash but they aren't spending it on employees not because it is cost prohibitive but because they don't need the workers. If you want to increase demand and increase the need for workers, you need to increase consumer spending by cutting payroll taxes on the employee side, not the employer side.

So wait a minute... you are saying that if you cut taxes on employees that their spending will increase, which will increase the need for workers?

So that increase in the number of workers means that more people will be paying taxes.... hmmm...
 
Again, talk to any business owner. Taxes are most certainly one of the main issues with regards to future expectations. I have given you the example several times now, which you continue to ignore because you like shouting 'uncertainty about taxes doesn't effect hiring... its horseshit!'.

Again... If you the consumer have your effective tax rate at 17% and due to increasing brackets your effective tax rate goes to 19%..... WHAT happens to your disposable income for the coming year?

You see, business owners KNOW the answer to that question. They have tried to teach your Dem masters over the years, but like you, they are blinded by their ideology.

When disposable income for consumers is expected to go down, expected growth for companies also goes DOWN.


But that's not uncertainty. That's a tax policy that business owners dislike. There is a difference.


Again, simply shouting a Dem party line. If tax cuts spur job growth, they most certainly can raise revenues you dolt.


Tax cuts do not raise revenues. It's not debatable.


So wait a minute... you are saying that if you cut taxes on employees that their spending will increase, which will increase the need for workers?

So that increase in the number of workers means that more people will be paying taxes.... hmmm...


Tax cuts do not increase revenues. It's not debatable.
 
In the years we had 90% tax rates on these people they still created jobs, not because they care about jobs but because they could make a profit.
 
So wait a minute... you are saying that if you cut taxes on employees that their spending will increase, which will increase the need for workers?

So that increase in the number of workers means that more people will be paying taxes.... hmmm...

But neocon simpleton, they prefer to hire overseas, so this logic no longer works to grow the economy. When will you stop being in denial that globalization is ruining our economy, and that tax cuts won't fix it?
 
Why the republicans chose mccain over Romney to run in the last election is beyond stupid. He is clearly the smartest financial candidate for the next election. This guy I view as the only potential president that can right the ship in America.

That said, Romney is the least bad option among potential Republican candidates and I get the sense that he says things he knows to be untrue just to keep the rubes happy.

Having liberals pick your candidate is the best way to see who is your worst candidate. That, and the fact that Romney just destroyed his own candidacy with his tax loving statements is why can look forward to President Palin after the Obama's next shellacking.
 
First of all, the "uncertainty about taxes prevents hiring" argument is unmitigated horseshit. There is a legitimate argument that uncertainty about where the economy is going and whether we can expect robust growth is preventing hiring, but uncertainty about taxes is not a problem. Moreover, where's the uncertainty? In two years taxes increase.

Second, tax cuts do not increase revenues. Period. Full stop.

Third, while the compromise increases the deficit, Romney's preferred outcome increases the deficit even more. A permanent extension of all of the Bush tax cuts would increase the deficit by $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years.

Fourth, on the payroll tax, if you want to encourage economic growth you want to cut the payroll tax on the employee side. Businesses are flush with cash but they aren't spending it on employees not because it is cost prohibitive but because they don't need the workers. If you want to increase demand and increase the need for workers, you need to increase consumer spending by cutting payroll taxes on the employee side, not the employer side.

Fifth, Romney does identify a legitimate problem with the unemployment system, the labor market attachment problem but his solution is ridiculous. Private accounts for unemployment? Give me a fucking break.

Lastly, the bullshit about "bedrock Republican principle" is hilarious. If Romney were right about this "bedrock Republican principle" the Republicans wouldn't trade unemployment benefits for tax cuts. The only real bedrock Republican principle these days is "tax cuts"


P.S. Why does Romney say in the first paragraph that, among death and taxes, only death remains the certainty, and then in the last paragraph says that we should add high unemployment to death and taxes as a third certainty? It makes no sense.

To your question of where is the uncertainty here is a WSJ article on that subject today.


'Temporary' Tax Code Puts Nation in a Lasting Bind

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...04.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird
 
Let's ask Romney about his red long johns. Ask him what planet God lives on. Ask him about the secret name he has given his wife so when she dies he can call that name so she can get to heaven. Romney is a member of a very dangerous cult.

Romney will be sponsored by the Republicon party and foreign money for prez. Why did Beck change 'religions' and become a mormon? He knows where the money is.

Sorry SM, but palin only appeals to the most uneducated of faux news idiots. Even Faux knows she hasn't a chance.
 
By Mitt Romney
Death and taxes, it is said, are life's only two certainties. But in the wake of President Obama's tax compromise with congressional Republicans, only death retains the status of certainty: The future for taxes has been left up in the air. And uncertainty is not a friend of investment, growth and job creation.

The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good. But intermixed with the benefits are considerable costs of consequence. Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November, it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement. The new, more conservative Congress should reach a better solution.

The deal keeps current tax rates from rising to pre-Bush era levels for two years. But in 2013, unless Congress acts again, rates will increase dramatically.

Extension temporary

Of course, delay now is better than an immediate tax hike. But because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost. When entrepreneurs and employers make decisions to start or expand an enterprise, uncertainty about tax rates translates directly into a reduced propensity to invest and to hire. With only a two-year extension, investors know that before their returns are realized, tax rates may be jacked up to the levels favored by President Obama. So while the tax deal will succeed in temporarily putting more money in the hands of consumers, it will fail to deliver its full potential for creating lasting growth.

It will also add to the deficit. In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation. But once again, because the tax deal is temporary, a large portion of this beneficent effect is missing. What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.

Part of the tax deal is a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. The president was insistent, however, that only the employee's payroll taxes be reduced — the portion paid by the employer is to remain the same. Again, the president is looking to get more money into the hands of the consumer to boost near-term spending. But by refusing to lower the cost of hiring a new employee, he fails to encourage what the American people want even more than lower taxes — more good jobs. Like the income tax deal, the payroll tax deal will add to the deficit.

For those without jobs, the tax compromise extends unemployment benefits for 13 months. A decent and humane society must have a strong safety net for the unemployed. I served for 15 years as a lay pastor in my church and saw the heartbreak of joblessness up close; a shattering loss of faith in oneself is but only one of many forms the suffering can take. Nonetheless, the vital necessity of providing for those without work should not be used as an excuse to ignore the very real problems of our unemployment system.

In this, as in so many other arenas of government policy, unemployment insurance has many unintended effects. The indisputable fact is that unemployment benefits, despite a web of regulations, actually serve to discourage some individuals from taking jobs, especially when the benefits extend across years.

Redo jobless benefits

The system is also not designed for a flexible economy like ours in which some employees move from job to job for short periods, and are therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation when they are faced with a protracted spell without work.

To remedy such problems we need a very different model, perhaps establishing individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs, or putting in place financial incentives for employers to hire and train the long-term unemployed. One thing is certain: While we cannot rebuild our flawed system overnight, we are surely not required to borrow the funds to pay for it. In spending $56.5 billion to extend benefits, the deal is sacrificing the bedrock Republican principle that new expenditures be paid for with offsetting budget cuts.

President Obama has reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections. But the long term health of our great engine of prosperity will remain very much in doubt. To the twin inevitabilities of death and taxes, we may now have to add persistent high unemployment.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.



I think he is absolutely astute in his opinion...Unless republicans begin to cut spending when they are seated and work towards a permanent solution for economic growth that is business friendly- they will be the ones to get a shellacking in 2012
 
By Mitt Romney
Death and taxes, it is said, are life's only two certainties. But in the wake of President Obama's tax compromise with congressional Republicans, only death retains the status of certainty: The future for taxes has been left up in the air. And uncertainty is not a friend of investment, growth and job creation.

The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good. But intermixed with the benefits are considerable costs of consequence. Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November, it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement. The new, more conservative Congress should reach a better solution.

The deal keeps current tax rates from rising to pre-Bush era levels for two years. But in 2013, unless Congress acts again, rates will increase dramatically.

Extension temporary

Of course, delay now is better than an immediate tax hike. But because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost. When entrepreneurs and employers make decisions to start or expand an enterprise, uncertainty about tax rates translates directly into a reduced propensity to invest and to hire. With only a two-year extension, investors know that before their returns are realized, tax rates may be jacked up to the levels favored by President Obama. So while the tax deal will succeed in temporarily putting more money in the hands of consumers, it will fail to deliver its full potential for creating lasting growth.

It will also add to the deficit. In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation. But once again, because the tax deal is temporary, a large portion of this beneficent effect is missing. What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.

Part of the tax deal is a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. The president was insistent, however, that only the employee's payroll taxes be reduced — the portion paid by the employer is to remain the same. Again, the president is looking to get more money into the hands of the consumer to boost near-term spending. But by refusing to lower the cost of hiring a new employee, he fails to encourage what the American people want even more than lower taxes — more good jobs. Like the income tax deal, the payroll tax deal will add to the deficit.

For those without jobs, the tax compromise extends unemployment benefits for 13 months. A decent and humane society must have a strong safety net for the unemployed. I served for 15 years as a lay pastor in my church and saw the heartbreak of joblessness up close; a shattering loss of faith in oneself is but only one of many forms the suffering can take. Nonetheless, the vital necessity of providing for those without work should not be used as an excuse to ignore the very real problems of our unemployment system.

In this, as in so many other arenas of government policy, unemployment insurance has many unintended effects. The indisputable fact is that unemployment benefits, despite a web of regulations, actually serve to discourage some individuals from taking jobs, especially when the benefits extend across years.

Redo jobless benefits

The system is also not designed for a flexible economy like ours in which some employees move from job to job for short periods, and are therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation when they are faced with a protracted spell without work.

To remedy such problems we need a very different model, perhaps establishing individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs, or putting in place financial incentives for employers to hire and train the long-term unemployed. One thing is certain: While we cannot rebuild our flawed system overnight, we are surely not required to borrow the funds to pay for it. In spending $56.5 billion to extend benefits, the deal is sacrificing the bedrock Republican principle that new expenditures be paid for with offsetting budget cuts.

President Obama has reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections. But the long term health of our great engine of prosperity will remain very much in doubt. To the twin inevitabilities of death and taxes, we may now have to add persistent high unemployment.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

OH JESUS FUCKING GAWD!!! I'm tired to death of this same tired old rhetoric. Were a fucking trillions of dollars in debt cause of runaway Republican miliatary spending and governmental mismanagement and these mother fuckers are going to solve all our probems and eliminate all our debts by cutting taxes. What fucking morons actually belive and vote for these idiots. They have to be convinced that were are all total blythering idiots!!!!!
 
To your question of where is the uncertainty here is a WSJ article on that subject today.


'Temporary' Tax Code Puts Nation in a Lasting Bind

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...04.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird


But again, it isn't uncertain what happens in two years. In fact, it is quite clear. Taxes increase.

And if uncertainty is so damned terrible I guess we'll see the US Chamber of Commerce and every small business owner in the country begging Congress to pass this compromise and leave everything alone for the foreseeable future. Right?
 
But that's not uncertainty. That's a tax policy that business owners dislike. There is a difference.

So... not knowing whether the taxes on consumers would be the old rates or whether they would be the extended rates.... that is just tax policy and doesn't create uncertainty with regards to consumer spending potential???

You seriously are spinning hard on that one.


Tax cuts do not raise revenues. It's not debatable. Because my masters told me so, they don't raise revenues they don't raise revenues they dont they dont they dont

:yurt:


Tax cuts do not increase revenues. It's not debatable. Because my masters told me so, they don't raise revenues they don't raise revenues they dont they dont they dont

:yurt: :yurt: :yurt:
 
But neocon simpleton, they prefer to hire overseas, so this logic no longer works to grow the economy. When will you stop being in denial that globalization is ruining our economy, and that tax cuts won't fix it?

Small and mid size businesses do not hire oversees to any great extent. The bulk of what they do is domestic. Your fears of globalization are unfounded. It benefits us a society to not be constrained by nationalistic borders. Goods should be produced by the most efficient means. Forcing production here simply raises the prices of all goods and creates an environment where we all suffer.

Smoot Hawley tariff act.... look it up, it was a complete and total disaster. yet you want to go back to that way of life? No thanks.
 
OH JESUS FUCKING GAWD!!! I'm tired to death of this same tired old rhetoric. Were a fucking trillions of dollars in debt cause of runaway Republican miliatary spending and governmental mismanagement and these mother fuckers are going to solve all our probems and eliminate all our debts by cutting taxes. What fucking morons actually belive and vote for these idiots. They have to be convinced that were are all total blythering idiots!!!!!

LMAO.... amazing how you morons continue to pretend it was Rep spending that led us to this. It was both parties moron. It has been that way for 50 years now.

Look at spending under the Pelosi/Reid Congress...

Look at spending under the Rep led Congress...

Look at the bipartisan repeal of Glass Steagall under Clinton

Look at the bipartisan spending under Reagan and Bush

You point to Defense (because you are a partisan hack), but look at every Federal department. There is massive waste across the board.

The only time the two parties have worked together to control spending was in Clinton's last term working with the Rep Congress.
 
Back
Top