How come tax hikes always make taxes go up,but spending cuts never make spdg go down?

[Little-Acorn]

Every time we hear there's a tax increase coming, we see it pretty quickly in our paychecks. The withheld amounts do indeed get bigger, and the take-home pay invariably gets smaller. It just happened again, last month. Now we are making do with less.

But every time we hear about a spending "cut", govt spending goes right on increasing. Sometimes we find out (usually much later) that they increased spending by "only" 8% instead of the 10% they had planned. Excuse me, but that still sounds like and increase to me, not a cut. A cut, is when total spending goes DOWN. I don't recall that EVER happening. Do you?

Why is it that when they say they'll raise taxes (and sometimes when they don't say it), we wind up paying more tax money every time, but when they say they'll cut their spending, they keep spending more and more instead?

[aboutime]

Every time we hear there's a tax increase coming, we see it pretty quickly in our paychecks. The withheld amounts do indeed get bigger, and the take-home pay invariably gets smaller. It just happened again, last month. Now we are making do with less.

But every time we hear about a spending "cut", govt spending goes right on increasing. Sometimes we find out (usually much later) that they increased spending by "only" 8% instead of the 10% they had planned. Excuse me, but that still sounds like and increase to me, not a cut. A cut, is when total spending goes DOWN. I don't recall that EVER happening. Do you?

Why is it that when they say they'll raise taxes (and sometimes when they don't say it), we wind up paying more tax money every time, but when they say they'll cut their spending, they keep spending more and more instead?


Little-Acorn. First. You must understand how the Obama administration, and Democrats always confuse Tax Hikes with the word INVESTMENTS.
Beware of that word if a Democrat says it.
Then you know...it's time to BEND OVER again.

[red states rule]

That is an easy question to answer LA. Steny Hoyer explains we have a "pay for" problem and not a spending problem

This is another example of Obamanomics



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5TupBvHDu7s

[fj1200]

Because Government.

/thread

[red states rule]

Because Government.

/thread

Steny just said that. Dems demand tax cuts be "paid for"; but their entitlements, "investments" in education, green energy, and pork projects can be added to the nations credit card

[fj1200]

Steny just said that.

But I used fewer words.

[red states rule]

But I used fewer words.

Which leaves your post open for interpretation

Of course Dems have a history of lying when they make budget deals. Dems still owe taxpayers for the promised tax cuts when Pres Reagan and Bush 41 raised taxes. I believe we are still owed about $7.00 for every dollar of tax increases that were passed into law

That would be a good start to balancing the bloated Federal budget

[fj1200]

Which leaves your post open for interpretation

You read to much into it. Clamoring for eliminating base-line budgeting would be more helpful.

[red states rule]

You read to much into it. Clamoring for eliminating base-line budgeting would be more helpful.

and eliminating duplication of services between different departments

Also if you can find the same service in the Yellow Pages - eliminate any government agency providing the same service

Privatizing some government agencies would also be a step in the right direction

But of course this makes sense, would save money, be more efficient and give relief to the US taxpayers so Dems will be opposed to these actions