Hello:

My friend tom wants to talk about the nanny state and how bad it is. Can't bail out those nanny staters... In retort, I wanted to mention what I heard right wing Senator John Kyle from Arizona said on Fox News Sunday, but I didn't want to hijack his thread... Besides, what Kyle wants is FAR more dangerous than ANYTHING happening in San Francisco...

Right now, there a mean spirited debate going on about those lazy and spoiled people on unemployment... Their benefits are about to run out, but the right wingers are saying that any extension of benefits, has to be PAID for, because they won't add to the deficit.

But, they really would.

Here's the transcript of the show:

WALLACE: But, sir, how are you going to -- because we are running out of time, how are you going to pay the $678 billion just on the tax cuts for people over -- making more than $200,000 a year?

KYL:... you should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs.

You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.
----

So, any new unemployment compensation has to be offset, but a gift of $678 BILLION to the richest people amongst us, CAN be added to the deficit. Does he think we won't figure that out?

excon

You forgot this part:

"Well, OK. So let's, first of all, start with those that don't apply to the wealthy. Shouldn't those be extended? Shouldn't you have a 10 percent tax bracket so that people don't have to pay income taxes who don't make very much money? Shouldn't you do away with the marriage penalty? Shouldn't you have the child tax credit at $1,000 per child, and so on? All of that goes away."

Oh, and this part:

"Now, with respect to those that apply to the upper brackets, it's very clear that you're going to clobber small business because the bulk of small business taxes are paid in the top income tax rate."

So you think it's good to to take away those other tax breaks and hit small businesses even harder so there will be even fewer jobs for those unemployed to fill, right?

So you think it's good to to take away those other tax breaks and hit small businesses even harder so there will be even fewer jobs for those unemployed to fill, right?Hello again, Steve:

I'm just looking for a little consistency. If deficit spending is bad, then it is. It isn't just bad for the programs the Democrats like. That's what YOU and Kyle are advocating. It stinks.

excon

No, I advocate cutting taxes and cutting government spending - by a lot.

My posting was about entitlements at the municipal level . I still can't see the union position that people, who in the private sector have to contribute to their own retirement ,should also be taxed to pay for Rolls Royce public union benefits .

Re Kyle . Unemployment benefits are from contributions into an unemploment insurance. If the Dems want to extend them beyond the already more than reasonable 99 weeks(almost 2 years ) ;then they should fund them with an increase in the unemployment insurance portion of payroll deductions. Now let them explain to the people who haven't taken Pelosi's advice to use the time out to pursue artistic interests that they have to pick up the slack. I'm surprised they haven't tapped into unused bucket list money to pay for it... oh wait... that is needed to fund union road construction projects.

I can't think of a greater disincentive to job creation than a combined tax increase and the extending of unemploment benefits. But I understand why the Dems want to extend them. The people collecting and not looking for work (a substantial number of folks ) are not counted among the unemployed . It wouldn't take too many of them back in the job hunt to increase the overall unemployment numbers to over 10%... a killer for their November chances.

No, I advocate cutting taxes and cutting government spending - by a lot.Especially Defense!

There is a lot of fat that could be trimmed from the Defense budget without affecting the securing of sufficient resources . But I'd be interested in seeing a Dem Rep's reaction when a project is gutted or a base closed in their district. Suddenly they become very pro-military spending .

There is alot of fat that could be trimmed from the Defense budget without affecting the securing of sufficient resources . But I'd be interested in seeing a Dem Rep's reaction when a project is gutted or a base closed in their district. Suddenly they become very pro-military spending .

Remember the Clinton years? Lol

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…. And an enormous debt to boot!"
[Henry Morgenthau, Jr. FDR's Secretary of the Treasury to the House Ways and Means Committee]

Excellent quote tom. Shame the current regime doesn't get it. Obama is again trying to sell his stimulus success, claiming it has "saved or created" 3.6 million jobs - for a mere $239,444 per job. All this while spending up to $10,000 per sign (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180) sporting the Obama emblem.