Democratic Promises Carry High Price Tag

[Pale Rider]

Democratic Promises Carry High Price Tag




Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:39 PM
By: Rod Proctor


Talk may be cheap, but the cost to keep promises made by Democratic candidates could top $700 billion and push individual tax rates above 50 percent for the first time since the 1986 Reagan tax reform, fiscal experts warn.

In fact, a Democratic sweep in 2008 could push America’s tax burden up to 7th highest in the developed world, up from 21st place, according to researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

“If Democrats control everything after 2008, there will be a substantial tax increase,” Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia tells Newsmax. “Most or all of the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire and tax rates may be increased besides.”

The largest hike in federal spending would come from Democrats’ plans to extend health coverage to 47 million uninsured U.S. residents.

Hillary Clinton’s plan, according to her campaign, would add about $110 billion a year to the federal budget.

Barak Obama’s plan, say Harvard University experts, would cost between $50 billion and $65 billion a year. John Edwards’s health care plan, according to an Emory University study, could run up to $145 billion a year.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/democrats_tax_increase/2007/11/11/48607.html?s=sp&promo_code=3CC9-1

[avatar4321]

I would like to know how anyone really supports these promises for excessive government spending on worthless programs. Why should we support it? Seriously.

[Pale Rider]

I would like to know how anyone really supports these promises for excessive government spending on worthless programs. Why should we support it? Seriously.

Communists support it, and you shouldn't.

[red states rule]

I would like to know how anyone really supports these promises for excessive government spending on worthless programs. Why should we support it? Seriously.

I believe Dems think the "rich" will never run out of money no matter how much they jack up taxes

[bullypulpit]

Like we don't already have excessive government spending on programs of questionable value?

Like an illegal war in Iraq, the cost of which is fast approaching $1 trillion...? Never mind the cost in human life. Money which has been appropriated off budget and borrowed from foreign powers, some of which are less than friendly to the US.

Oh...And Pale...You're violating board rules by your continued predilection for posting articles in their entirety. Your doing so puts the board at risk.

<blockquote><b>Copyright Infringement</b> - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.</blockquote>

[red states rule]

Like we don't already have excessive government spending on programs of questionable value?

Like an illegal war in Iraq, the cost of which is fast approaching $1 trillion...? Never mind the cost in human life. Money which has been appropriated off budget and borrowed from foreign powers, some of which are less than friendly to the US.

Oh...And Pale...You're violating board rules by your continued predilection for posting articles in their entirety. Your doing so puts the board at risk.

<blockquote><b>Copyright Infringement</b> - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.</blockquote>


We are winning the war in Iraq - the lack of coverage from the liberal media proves that

Dems are doing their best to outspend the previous Republican Congress as the prok piles up - then they have the gall to say how we ned to pay more in taxes

[jimnyc]

Pale, I've edited your post to only include the first few paragraphs of the article, which is acceptable under the "fair use act". Please only try to the same in the future. Thanks!

[Pale Rider]

Pale, I've edited your post to only include the first few paragraphs of the article, which is acceptable under the "fair use act". Please only try to the same in the future. Thanks!

I'll make sure to stick to the rules in the future. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[avatar4321]

Like we don't already have excessive government spending on programs of questionable value?

Like an illegal war in Iraq, the cost of which is fast approaching $1 trillion...? Never mind the cost in human life. Money which has been appropriated off budget and borrowed from foreign powers, some of which are less than friendly to the US.


Unlike the programs that Democrats are proposing to add, Iraq actually has a national security benefit. something the federal government is actually responsible for.

[Pale Rider]

Like we don't already have excessive government spending on programs of questionable value?

So the democrats answer to out of control spending is to propose MORE spending, and MORE taxes... brilliant.

[red states rule]

So the democrats answer to out of control spending is to propose MORE spending, and MORE taxes... brilliant.

a $1 trillion plus tax increase BTW

[bullypulpit]

Unlike the programs that Democrats are proposing to add, Iraq actually has a national security benefit. something the federal government is actually responsible for.

And just what "national security benefit" might that be? No drivel from NewsMax, FOX Noise or other right-wing propaganda outlets please. Cite independent and reputable sources.

[bullypulpit]

a $1 trillion plus tax increase BTW

Sources and citations please.

[glockmail]

And just what "national security benefit" might that be? No drivel from NewsMax, FOX Noise or other right-wing propaganda outlets please. Cite independent and reputable sources.


Sources and citations please.

What a fucking bore you are.

[red states rule]

Sources and citations please.

The trillion dollar tax fight

By: Lisa Lerer
Oct 9, 2007 06:05 AM EST

By now, everyone knows Rep. Charles B. Rangel is poised to introduce the “mother” of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul since 1986. But what they don’t know is how the New York Democrat plans to pay the more than $1 trillion price tag — and that uncertainty is fueling rampant speculation from Capitol Hill to K Street.

The classic Washington guessing game is frustrating anxious corporate lobbyists but amusing others, including the House Ways and Means Committee chairman who started it all. “It is surprising how nervous people get when I use the words ‘fairness’ and ‘equity’ to describe our efforts to simplify the tax code and encourage economic investment,” the New York Democrat told Politico.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6250.html

[Pale Rider]

It's the same old shuck and jive crock of shit every damn election cycle from the liberals.... MORE TAXES, BIGGER GOVERNMENT, MORE HANDOUTS!

We need another Civil War.

[red states rule]

It's the same old shuck and jive crock of shit every damn election cycle from the liberals.... MORE TAXES, BIGGER GOVERNMENT, MORE HANDOUTS!

We need another Civil War.

If you live in Md, you are getting hit twice

The Dems in that state passed a $1 billion tax increase

[Pale Rider]

If you live in Md, you are getting hit twice

The Dems in that state passed a $1 billion tax increase

I swear... if anybody is STUPID enough to vote for a democrap, then you deserve exactly what you get... screwed, blued and tattooed. Problem with that is, we all get screwed along with the idiots that voted for the democraps when they're lucky enough to get elected.

[Gunny]

Democratic Promises Carry High Price Tag




Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:39 PM
By: Rod Proctor


Talk may be cheap, but the cost to keep promises made by Democratic candidates could top $700 billion and push individual tax rates above 50 percent for the first time since the 1986 Reagan tax reform, fiscal experts warn.

In fact, a Democratic sweep in 2008 could push America’s tax burden up to 7th highest in the developed world, up from 21st place, according to researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

“If Democrats control everything after 2008, there will be a substantial tax increase,” Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia tells Newsmax. “Most or all of the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire and tax rates may be increased besides.”

The largest hike in federal spending would come from Democrats’ plans to extend health coverage to 47 million uninsured U.S. residents.

Hillary Clinton’s plan, according to her campaign, would add about $110 billion a year to the federal budget.

Barak Obama’s plan, say Harvard University experts, would cost between $50 billion and $65 billion a year. John Edwards’s health care plan, according to an Emory University study, could run up to $145 billion a year.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/democrats_tax_increase/2007/11/11/48607.html?s=sp&promo_code=3CC9-1

That's okay with them. We can just go do MORE work to get less money just to try and maintain our financial status quo. Either that or those of us that work for a living will be tightening our belts a few notches so the nanny states bitches can pat themselves on the back for perpetuating underachievement.

The resulting recession will of course be blamed on the right.:lame2:

[Pale Rider]

That's okay with them. We can just go do MORE work to get less money just to try and maintain our financial status quo. Either that or those of us that work for a living will be tightening our belts a few notches so the nanny states bitches can pat themselves on the back for perpetuating underachievement.

The resulting recession will of course be blamed on the right.:lame2:

You got it Gunny.

Instead of working until May just to pay the government, you'll work until July. But don't despair, the communist liberals won't stop until you give them ALL your money, because once again people, according to liberals, you're to STUPID to be able to manage your own income. You MUST give it all to them to handle FOR you.

[red states rule]

With gas prices now over $3/gal - Dems are still trying to increase the Federal gas tax

They claim it is needed for bridge repairs

[red states rule]

You got it Gunny.

Instead of working until May just to pay the government, you'll work until July. But don't despair, the communist liberals won't stop until you give them ALL your money, because once again people, according to liberals, you're to STUPID to be able to manage your own income. You MUST give it all to them to handle FOR you.

Pale. I have a question for you

What is the difference between Democrats and Jesse James?

Answer: Jesse James yelled "This is a stick up"

[Pale Rider]

With gas prices now over $3/gal - Dems are still trying to increase the Federal gas tax

They claim it is needed for bridge repairs

There was some liberal woman on "CNN" Headlines News saying we should tax gas until it's over five dollars a gallon, just teach people a lesson, so people don't "joy ride."

And that's your liberal mind set. Again, you are too damn stupid to think and do for yourself. You need them to do your thinking for you.

[red states rule]

Here is a very good article


The Democratic Congress's 2008 Budget: A Tax and Spending Spree
by Brian M. Riedl
Backgrounder #2081

In January, a Democratic congressional majority was sworn in that was elected in part by promising fiscal responsibility. The Democrats specifically pledged to limit spending increases and employ pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting to keep the budget deficit in check.

As their first year moves toward a close, it has become clear that the members of this majority have failed to live up to their promises. In just 10 months, Congress has passed legislation that would increase federal spending by a combined $454 billion over 10 years and raise taxes and fees by $98 billion over 10 years and has passed a budget resolution that would bring the tax increase to a projected $2.7 trillion.[1]

Despite the Democrats' PAYGO pledge of no new deficit spending, legislation enacted thus far has increased spending much faster than taxes, resulting in an additional $356 billion in deficit spending. Only their budget blueprint, which assumes repeal of nearly all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, would pay for all of their new spending.

Tax Increases

Fact: Congress's budget assumes trillions of dollars more in tax revenues than would be collected under cur*rent tax policies. Congress has already passed more than $98 billion in tax increases, and more have been proposed.

Pledges to increase taxes were generally absent from the 2006 congressional races. There was little reason to call for tax increases. Following the largest three-year revenue surge in 40 years, tax revenues stand at 18.8 percent of GDP--well above the his*torical average.[3] The budget deficit persists only because spending has jumped 26 percent (adjusted for inflation) since 2001. Furthermore, strong growth in jobs, the stock market, and the economy in general began immediately following the 2003 tax cuts.[4] Not surprisingly, the public has little appetite for tax increases.

for the complete article

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2081.cfm