Romney in 2012?

[Knicwill]

Meh politics.

It's my first year being able to vote  :bunny

[falcon9]

... what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?

I call that one of the central goals of any credit card company.

[sigmapi1501]

Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.

There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site.  What... WHAT makes you vote republican?

Your bigotry? 
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet. 
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works.  Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"

Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.

Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.


How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!

I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and as you pointed out none of the social issues are changing, which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs. It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.

Fine. Then you lose any right to complain about the deficit. The only way to get out of debt is reduce expenses AND raise revenue. It is irresponsible and frankly unintelligent to have our deficit be your major complaint and your solution is to give the country less money to pay off said debt.

That’s not exactly the case. Higher taxes are not essential for this country to get out of debt. To avoid a deficit and get out of debt, you just need your revenues to be greater than your expenses. If you could cut spending below your revenues, then there is no need to raise taxes. Conversely, you could raise taxes above your expenses and you wouldn’t need to cut spending. Being fiscally conservative, I would rather go the route lowering government spending, but there is certainly room for compromise if you would like to do both.

The real issue for me in regards to budget has more to do with the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending. The health care law is good example of that. It is only shifting the burden even more on taxpayers because it is increasing the amount of revenues needed to even start paying off the debt. If you want to talk about being irresponsible and unintelligent, what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?

If you're one of the people under the incorrect assumption that the  affordable healthcare act ADDS to the deficit, then there is no need to prolong a debate.

[hawkeye3210]

Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.

There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site.  What... WHAT makes you vote republican?

Your bigotry? 
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet. 
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works.  Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"

Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.

Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.


How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!

I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and as you pointed out none of the social issues are changing, which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs. It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.

Fine. Then you lose any right to complain about the deficit. The only way to get out of debt is reduce expenses AND raise revenue. It is irresponsible and frankly unintelligent to have our deficit be your major complaint and your solution is to give the country less money to pay off said debt.

That’s not exactly the case. Higher taxes are not essential for this country to get out of debt. To avoid a deficit and get out of debt, you just need your revenues to be greater than your expenses. If you could cut spending below your revenues, then there is no need to raise taxes. Conversely, you could raise taxes above your expenses and you wouldn’t need to cut spending. Being fiscally conservative, I would rather go the route lowering government spending, but there is certainly room for compromise if you would like to do both.

The real issue for me in regards to budget has more to do with the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending. The health care law is good example of that. It is only shifting the burden even more on taxpayers because it is increasing the amount of revenues needed to even start paying off the debt. If you want to talk about being irresponsible and unintelligent, what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?

If you're one of the people under the incorrect assumption that the  affordable healthcare act ADDS to the deficit, then there is no need to prolong a debate.

Actually, I used it as an example of the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending.

[sigmapi1501]

I like traveling the country via interstate as oppossed to pony or horse covered wagon. Also, having a millay is pretty expensive. So the government needs money.
 
The only way to boom economically like ww2 time would be to decimate a country with money and charge them to rebuild. We spend a significant amount of money on a military that is no longer useful in obtaining new wealth. The whole point of being a superpower is that we can take what we need. The world is changing so maybe a trillion dollar military is a luxury we can no longer afford.

[bobes915]

He absolutely has my vote. 

[BJohnsonPP]

....which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs.

Even though they spend every single time they get into office and then when they get booted out, they complain about the spending of the other guys? Even though every single fiscal issue they're ranting and raving for Obama to tackle in less than 4 years, they could have dealt with in their 8 years of the presidency and 6 straight of those 8 years of the congress? Seriously, how many times are you going to fall for the okey doke? How many times does it have to happen before a light bulb goes on over your head and you realize they're all talk?

I mean, they scream at the top of their lungs about an anemic recovery and you completely forget that they're what you're recovering from. They're the reason why there needs to be a recovery in the first place. You fall for it hook line and sinker. It's like someone injected you with a virus then convinces you that paramedic is the one trying to kill. Abso-effing-lutely insane.

It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.

No. You're taking that too literally. When people mention tax cuts for the wealthy, they're just pointing out the fact that of all the people in the country, the majority of the money went back to the wealthy when the country needed it way more than they did. They didn't need it at all. No one actually needed one. In fact, no one benefited from these cuts. They're superficial. Only people that view things on the surface and go no deeper think these tax cuts mean anything. It'd bribery so you wont pay attention to how worthless they are. Under Clinton, the country was doing fine, we had a surplus, and guess what, taxes were higher. It's about the value of a dollar, not the quantity of it. You can get all the money back you want, but if the government can't pay it's bills, that money is worthless.

I'm sorry, but I think it's just a childish view point to think that getting money back is a benefit. It's not a benefit if it's harmful in the long run. Give a child a choice between broccoli and candy and they'll choose candy. Is the candy a benefit? No, it's just something they want. Their teeth will rot because of it though.

That’s not exactly the case. Higher taxes are not essential for this country to get out of debt. To avoid a deficit and get out of debt, you just need your revenues to be greater than your expenses.

When the CBO says the biggest contributor to our deficit is the Bush tax cuts, I'd say it absolutely is essential. When we had higher taxes, we had a surplus. When we lowered taxes, we had a deficit. It's not rocket science.

If you could cut spending below your revenues, then there is no need to raise taxes. Conversely, you could raise taxes above your expenses and you wouldn’t need to cut spending. Being fiscally conservative, I would rather go the route lowering government spending, but there is certainly room for compromise if you would like to do both.

No. You can only cut so much. This goes back to what I was saying about going no deeper than the surface. If I have a bill with a balance of $20,000 and my minimum payment is $500 a month, but my only non-essential to cut is something like cable, and that's only $150 a month, I'm still short $350 which I have to get from somewhere else. If I cut deeper, I'll have to cut into essentials. I can't cut my rent but I can cut into food, gas, and electricity, etc.., but again, only so much and cutting into essentials can lead to further problems down the line. For example, if I make my money online but cut deeper into my electric bill by not being online so much, that would actually cost me money. Even if I can cut enough, whether deep or not, I probably can just cover what I owe with no room for savings. So if some unforeseen circumstance comes up like, I don't know, a terrorists attack, a war or two, a recession, I have no savings for emergencies. Cutting alone means, at best, you'll live paycheck to paycheck.

There's room for compromise? The party you're voting for doesn't think so. One side is willing to compromise like adults and the other says it's their way or no deal, like children. But hey, look what their way has brought us. I'd certainly vote for that . In-effing-sane.

The real issue for me in regards to budget has more to do with the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending. The health care law is good example of that.

Really? It's not that access to healthcare is a matter of life or death? It's simply 'cause they want to spend and increase government? Really?

Again, I'm sorry, but the mindset of conservatives (fiscally, otherwise, or both) is just childish. The only people that care about big or small government is them. It's a false dichotomy. I don't want big or small government, I want a government that functions properly. If in order for an area to function properly there needs to be a larger government presence, then so be it. If an area functions better with government backing off of it, then so be it. You just fall for the simple minded rhetoric every time. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's just frustrating. Look a little deeper into these issues. You're being played.

If you want to talk about being irresponsible and unintelligent, what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?

Oh, you mean like starting an unnecessary war while giving away money and turning around to borrow that money from another country instead of just speaking to people like adults and telling them we can't afford those cuts? You mean like that?

[Abrupt]

When the CBO says the biggest contributor to our deficit is the Bush tax cuts, I'd say it absolutely is essential. When we had higher taxes, we had a surplus. When we lowered taxes, we had a deficit. It's not rocket science.

In any form of government where they can even begin to imagine something like what you are saying, you will know that you are dealing with a tyrannical out of control entity.  How anyone can say that by not spending money that others have not even made yet will cause them to incur a deficit is ludicrous.  We are a people with a government, not a government with a people.  We give the power to the government and it is our servant and not the other way around.

Furthermore, the amount of these tax cuts -- collected for over a 10 year period -- would be enough to pay the operational fees of our out of control government for 8.5 days.  Think about that.  The money that our government wasted with overpayment of unemployment benefits last year due to its ineptitude is over 16 years of these tax cuts alone.  This does not count the other areas where the government is even more wasteful.  Until they can guarantee they will not waste one more penny of our money they have no reason at all to demand more.  Anyone that claims that these tax cuts have any significance to anything is either an idiot (for not knowing the truth of it when all this information is so easy to obtain and yet still mentioning it in total ignorance) or a liar (they know the truth yet they still make these claims).  There can be no other category to place them into (I thought about 'naive' but honestly who trust the government anymore?  I figure if they do they fit well enough into the 'idiot' category to not suffer another choice).

[BJohnsonPP]

When the CBO says the biggest contributor to our deficit is the Bush tax cuts, I'd say it absolutely is essential. When we had higher taxes, we had a surplus. When we lowered taxes, we had a deficit. It's not rocket science.

In any form of government where they can even begin to imagine something like what you are saying, you will know that you are dealing with a tyrannical out of control entity.  How anyone can say that by not spending money that others have not even made yet will cause them to incur a deficit is ludicrous.  We are a people with a government, not a government with a people.  We give the power to the government and it is our servant and not the other way around.

What the hell are you talking about? If they're basing their numbers on what we were bringing in before the cuts and applying that number to our budget, that's how "anyone could say that". As I said, it's not rocket science, it's simple math. Our country was not in the shape it is in now, unable to pay its bills, prior to the Bush tax cuts (prior to Bush in general actually). The cuts had a sunset date but they should've never seen a sunrise in the first place. And, hello, **snaps fingers**, pay attention, we're talking about the entirety of the cuts not just a portion of them. That makes everything you said irrelevant. So, are you an idiot or have ADD?

[Abrupt]

When the CBO says the biggest contributor to our deficit is the Bush tax cuts, I'd say it absolutely is essential. When we had higher taxes, we had a surplus. When we lowered taxes, we had a deficit. It's not rocket science.

In any form of government where they can even begin to imagine something like what you are saying, you will know that you are dealing with a tyrannical out of control entity.  How anyone can say that by not spending money that others have not even made yet will cause them to incur a deficit is ludicrous.  We are a people with a government, not a government with a people.  We give the power to the government and it is our servant and not the other way around.

What the hell are you talking about? If they're basing their numbers on what we were bringing in before the cuts and applying that number to our budget, that's how "anyone could say that". As I said, it's not rocket science, it's simple math. Our country was not in the shape it is in now, unable to pay its bills, prior to the Bush tax cuts (prior to Bush in general actually). The cuts had a sunset date but they should've never seen a sunrise in the first place. And, hello, **snaps fingers**, pay attention, we're talking about the entirety of the cuts not just a portion of them. That makes everything you said irrelevant. So, are you an idiot or have ADD?

They are basing the numbers on spending money that people haven't even made yet.  That is what I am talking about.  Even if they had collected all of the money from these tax cuts all of this time we would be in the exact same shape we were in about one week ago.  So, unless you are seriously suggesting that we are only one week of government operational costs in debt then you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are simply "talking out the side of your neck".  This money you are talking about isn't the governments money, it is money created by these people that the government takes from them.  I will agree with you that these cuts should have never seen a sunrise in the first place -- but for different reasons: because they should have never been necessary in the first place as the government should not have been stealing this much money from any of the citizens.  These cuts do not cost us any money and the US isn't sending out any checks to these people as you seem to think.

The amount of this money is trivial to what the government wastes every day.  Last year alone the government over payed unemployment benefits amounting to over 16 years of these cuts.  In 2010 they gave an equal amount of these cuts as income tax returns to illegal aliens who didn't even pay any income tax.  Every year the US gives over 5 years worth of these cuts away in foreign aid.  Before we steal more from our own people we need to hold the government accountable for what it wastes and spends already and no foreign nationalists should ever be placed above the freedoms and liberties of our own peoples.

[BJohnsonPP]

They are basing the numbers on spending money that people haven't even made yet. 

You keep saying this like it means something but it just doesn't. So what? That's what budgets are based on. You take estimates. You figure out what should come in and what should go out. You may operate above or below those estimates. That's why the words deficit and surplus even exist; if your estimates turn out to be wrong. And yes, our government should expect a certain amount of money from its citizens before they spend it. Every company that you owe money to does the exact same thing.

This money you are talking about isn't the governments money, it is money created by these people that the government takes from them.  I will agree with you that these cuts should have never seen a sunrise in the first place -- but for different reasons: because they should have never been necessary in the first place as the government should not have been stealing this much money from any of the citizens.  These cuts do not cost us any money and the US isn't sending out any checks to these people as you seem to think.

Your argument against taxation or the amount of taxation falls flat. There's more to being a citizen of a country than just living in it. You're a part of it. It's your home. If it's all of our home, it takes money from all of us for upkeep. You seem to want to believe that if you worked for your money, it's all yours... it's actually not  Shocking, I know. I'm pretty sure you'll zero in on that and completely miss the point of what I'm saying, but I'll make the point anyway. Being ignorant, in denial, or just plain lying about reality doesn't change it. You would not have a job to work hard at if not for the roads, bridges, tunnels, public transportation, public libraries, public schools, police and fire departments, military, etc... that we all pay for. You wouldn't have the internet you're making money on without the development of it by the DoD.

You're fed this line (lie actually) by conservatives that you do it all on your own and you, obviously, swallow it whole because it flatters you. It's just not true. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, that's reality. When you reject reality and substitute your own you just end up looking like an idiot like senior citizens on medicare at tea party rallies holding up signs saying "keep government out of healthcare". Or like Craig T. Nelson on Glenn Becks show extolling the virtues of capitalism and railing against government bailouts because he says when he was on welfare and food stamps no one helped him out. WTF?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

Again, ignorance and/or believing someone's lie because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside because it tells you how great you are doesn't change reality.

Even if they had collected all of the money from these tax cuts all of this time we would be in the exact same shape we were in about one week ago.  So, unless you are seriously suggesting that we are only one week of government operational costs in debt then you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are simply "talking out the side of your neck".

No, you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. This is why you keep trying to force some argument that no one's making. I'm talking about simple math. The same math the CBO is using. The money we have coming in is much less than the money we need to go out (deficit). The biggest contributor to that deficit is the Bush tax cuts. They didn't say "get rid of the tax cuts and that will cover our deficit" or that it's the only problem. They are saying it's the biggest problem though. We're talking numbers on paper. What about that don't you understand?

The amount of this money is trivial to what the government wastes every day...

I'm sure we'll disagree on what's considered wasteful but regardless, whether spending is wasteful or not, whether certain programs should be provided by the government or not, the bills incurred by them are owed, period. Our rates, at all times, should go back to a level to that gets us closer to covering what we owe while leaving people enough to live their lives and have enough of a cushion for emergencies. There should be levels our rates don't go above or below. It certainly should not be lowered on a whim, irresponsibly, basically to bribe people like you into voting for them again.

If we can't pay our bills, the money you get back will be worthless. It's about the value of a dollar, not just how many dollars you have coming in. Who's doing what with the money is a matter of voting, but if we know we can't pay our current bills with what we have coming in, and we know we could at a previous rate, and we know going back to our previous rate (which no one had a problem with at the time) will get us closer to our goal, to keep our current rate is just flat out wrong.

[hawkeye3210]

No. You can only cut so much. This goes back to what I was saying about going no deeper than the surface. If I have a bill with a balance of $20,000 and my minimum payment is $500 a month, but my only non-essential to cut is something like cable, and that's only $150 a month, I'm still short $350 which I have to get from somewhere else. If I cut deeper, I'll have to cut into essentials. I can't cut my rent but I can cut into food, gas, and electricity, etc.., but again, only so much and cutting into essentials can lead to further problems down the line. For example, if I make my money online but cut deeper into my electric bill by not being online so much, that would actually cost me money. Even if I can cut enough, whether deep or not, I probably can just cover what I owe with no room for savings. So if some unforeseen circumstance comes up like, I don't know, a terrorists attack, a war or two, a recession, I have no savings for emergencies. Cutting alone means, at best, you'll live paycheck to paycheck.

There's room for compromise? The party you're voting for doesn't think so. One side is willing to compromise like adults and the other says it's their way or no deal, like children. But hey, look what their way has brought us. I'd certainly vote for that . In-effing-sane.

I'm not talking about cutting essentials. Outside of cutting the obvious wastes, I'm talking about actual reform and reorganization of government programs that are being ran inefficiently, which for the most part is all of them.  These inefficiencies lead to higher costs. For example, the military wastes an estimated $200-300 billion a year in such inefficiencies, largely stemming from the bogged down with unnecessary layers of command and bureaucracies. I'm actually looking a little deeper than surface.   

[BJohnsonPP]

I'm not talking about cutting essentials. Outside of cutting the obvious wastes, I'm talking about actual reform and reorganization of government programs that are being ran inefficiently, which for the most part is all of them.  These inefficiencies lead to higher costs. For example, the military wastes an estimated $200-300 billion a year in such inefficiencies, largely stemming from the bogged down with unnecessary layers of command and bureaucracies. I'm actually looking a little deeper than surface.   

Well, we agree. I brought up cutting into essentials because, like I said, you can only cut so many non-essentials out but that won't be enough. If we're talking only cuts, you'll eventually have to look elsewhere at essentials. Also, I brought up looking beyond the surface because we may not agree on what "essentials" are. Certain programs for the poor may be viewed as non-essential until you cut them and the poor come looking to eat you. You'll cut yourself deep and bleed out if you don't look deeper into the consequences of cuts for programs seen as non-essential. That is not to say under normal circumstances the government should help anyone rebound from the bottom, it is however, to say that, when the playing field hasn't been even for everyone, and the government laid the foundation for that field, you can't just say go out there and succeed or fail on your own. Some were pushed more towards failure than others and it's not simply their own doing.

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, it may seem like I side with Democrats no matter what, but I don't. They stink too. But at least they'll compromise. That's why they're considered weak and Republicans can constantly beat them over the head. $1 of revenue for every $10 of cuts seems like a great compromise to sane people but not to people that signed pledges that say no tax increases no matter what. A plan was supposed to be put in place to decrease the deficit. If no deal was reached, automatic cuts were supposed to happen. Dems cutting social programs and Reps cutting the defense budget. Guess who backed out when a deal wasn't reached? I can't in good conscience vote Republican. I just can't stomach them.

[Abrupt]

Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.

There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site.  What... WHAT makes you vote republican?

Your bigotry? 
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet. 
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works.  Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"

Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.

Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.


How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!

I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and as you pointed out none of the social issues are changing, which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs. It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.

Fine. Then you lose any right to complain about the deficit. The only way to get out of debt is reduce expenses AND raise revenue. It is irresponsible and frankly unintelligent to have our deficit be your major complaint and your solution is to give the country less money to pay off said debt.

That’s not exactly the case. Higher taxes are not essential for this country to get out of debt. To avoid a deficit and get out of debt, you just need your revenues to be greater than your expenses. If you could cut spending below your revenues, then there is no need to raise taxes. Conversely, you could raise taxes above your expenses and you wouldn’t need to cut spending. Being fiscally conservative, I would rather go the route lowering government spending, but there is certainly room for compromise if you would like to do both.

The real issue for me in regards to budget has more to do with the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending. The health care law is good example of that. It is only shifting the burden even more on taxpayers because it is increasing the amount of revenues needed to even start paying off the debt. If you want to talk about being irresponsible and unintelligent, what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?

If you're one of the people under the incorrect assumption that the  affordable healthcare act ADDS to the deficit, then there is no need to prolong a debate.

How is the assumption incorrect?  How could it not add to the deficit?  Remember that the original CBO scoring involved figures that did not reflect the truth of the cost and half a trillion of the amount calculated within was deficit spending at its origin but when it was shifted over into the AHA it was calculated as deficit neutral (which it isn't).  Also be very aware that the original costs for the AHA were under 1 trillion and already it has been revised 3 times by the CBO and is now nearly 3 trillion -- so unless we have suddenly discovered an endless surplus of cash of 200 billion every year then this could be nothing but deficit spending.  Even the original calculations of the cost being neutral were suspicious as the CBO themselves when asked about the calculations basically said "we can only use the figures given to us (by the Democrats) and cannot consider other things".

[Abrupt]

They are basing the numbers on spending money that people haven't even made yet. 

You keep saying this like it means something but it just doesn't. So what? That's what budgets are based on. You take estimates. You figure out what should come in and what should go out. You may operate above or below those estimates. That's why the words deficit and surplus even exist; if your estimates turn out to be wrong. And yes, our government should expect a certain amount of money from its citizens before they spend it. Every company that you owe money to does the exact same thing.

Our government is not a company.  Our government cannot generate a profit or make investments -- it can only spend.  To drive the point home even more clearly I will clarify the significance of my statement so that it reads "They are basing the numbers on spending money that the children of people that haven't even been born yet haven't even made.".  That shift in perspective shines a light on the severe and dangerous ignorance of your casual dismissal of "so what?".  "It is only indentured servitude that remains with any and all offspring of those alive today, so what?".  Doesn't quite sound as reasonable as you wish to portray it now, does it?  It is funny that when you apply your same 'budget and estimate" calculations and you consider who is paying and how much and how long that it reveals it for what it actually is, and that is slavery of the most insidious form.

This money you are talking about isn't the governments money, it is money created by these people that the government takes from them.  I will agree with you that these cuts should have never seen a sunrise in the first place -- but for different reasons: because they should have never been necessary in the first place as the government should not have been stealing this much money from any of the citizens.  These cuts do not cost us any money and the US isn't sending out any checks to these people as you seem to think.

Your argument against taxation or the amount of taxation falls flat. There's more to being a citizen of a country than just living in it. You're a part of it. It's your home. If it's all of our home, it takes money from all of us for upkeep. You seem to want to believe that if you worked for your money, it's all yours... it's actually not  Shocking, I know. I'm pretty sure you'll zero in on that and completely miss the point of what I'm saying, but I'll make the point anyway. Being ignorant, in denial, or just plain lying about reality doesn't change it. You would not have a job to work hard at if not for the roads, bridges, tunnels, public transportation, public libraries, public schools, police and fire departments, military, etc... that we all pay for. You wouldn't have the internet you're making money on without the development of it by the DoD.

You're fed this line (lie actually) by conservatives that you do it all on your own and you, obviously, swallow it whole because it flatters you. It's just not true. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, that's reality. When you reject reality and substitute your own you just end up looking like an idiot like senior citizens on medicare at tea party rallies holding up signs saying "keep government out of healthcare". Or like Craig T. Nelson on Glenn Becks show extolling the virtues of capitalism and railing against government bailouts because he says when he was on welfare and food stamps no one helped him out. WTF?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

Again, ignorance and/or believing someone's lie because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside because it tells you how great you are doesn't change reality.

Ignorance?  People built this country, not the government.  We are a people with a government and not a government with a people.  All of these things you indicate were built by people and paid for by people and their existence does not rely upon any government (but don't try to confuse people and move the goalpost so that it appears I am entirely against all taxes as if you will pay attention to the particulars of my post you will see the stipulation I made of "this much".  I believe in the duties stipulated in The Constitution and also I believe that local governments can go as far beyond this as isn't a violation of The Constitution and that people can thus "vote with their feet").

The money I earn is mine, and you were right to suspect that I would focus in on that.  As part of the spirit and letter of The Constitution, we are born free and if it as you suggest -- that we owe our government at birth -- then it could not be so.  I am not as helpless as you, it appears.  It could all come crumbling down tomorrow and I will persist where it seems you will wither into decay and immediately become dust.  You see I am not dependent upon the government (I suppose you are to have your ideology) but it seems that it (and those that think like you) is dependent upon me.

Don't call me ignorant or naive when you are basically admitting here that without me you would be helpless -- all the while insulting me for calling into question the waste of my taxes.

Even if they had collected all of the money from these tax cuts all of this time we would be in the exact same shape we were in about one week ago.  So, unless you are seriously suggesting that we are only one week of government operational costs in debt then you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are simply "talking out the side of your neck".

No, you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. This is why you keep trying to force some argument that no one's making. I'm talking about simple math. The same math the CBO is using. The money we have coming in is much less than the money we need to go out (deficit). The biggest contributor to that deficit is the Bush tax cuts. They didn't say "get rid of the tax cuts and that will cover our deficit" or that it's the only problem. They are saying it's the biggest problem though. We're talking numbers on paper. What about that don't you understand?

Only in a tyrannical government can they contrive some notion of "not taking money from people" is an expense.  Based on such reasoning I can say that "not robbing my neighbors is costing me money".  Do you realize the implications of your statement and reasoning?

Do you even realize that this same CBO said that the elimination of these tax cuts would lead to an even more dire contraction of the economy with a loss in federal revenue greater than the amount of the tax cuts?  When you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and then borrowing some more from Luke and Mark you have to look deeper into the numbers than your simplistic and naive methodology.

The amount of this money is trivial to what the government wastes every day...

I'm sure we'll disagree on what's considered wasteful but regardless, whether spending is wasteful or not, whether certain programs should be provided by the government or not, the bills incurred by them are owed, period. Our rates, at all times, should go back to a level to that gets us closer to covering what we owe while leaving people enough to live their lives and have enough of a cushion for emergencies. There should be levels our rates don't go above or below. It certainly should not be lowered on a whim, irresponsibly, basically to bribe people like you into voting for them again.

If we can't pay our bills, the money you get back will be worthless. It's about the value of a dollar, not just how many dollars you have coming in. Who's doing what with the money is a matter of voting, but if we know we can't pay our current bills with what we have coming in, and we know we could at a previous rate, and we know going back to our previous rate (which no one had a problem with at the time) will get us closer to our goal, to keep our current rate is just flat out wrong.

"...to bribe people like you into voting for them again"?  Do you mean that they will give me money, food, a home, medical, etc and I don't have to pay any taxes?  That is a bribe and that is the liberal/democratic strategy.  I would hardly call it a bribe with then hold me at gunpoint and only take what is in one of my pockets but let me keep the rest...

The value of the dollar is meaningless without economic growth.  Don't you understand that no matter how strong the dollar is, if your economy is dying that it doesn't matter.  When you look back at historical figures you cannot simply look at the government side of things you must look at the US economy and what booms (and coming bubbles) were occurring.  You must understand the nature of the government and how it will innately tend to spend more than it takes in and how it can never create wealth.  If you doubled the revenue it takes in today it would quickly double the expense and would base the revenue delta into its calculations about how it can thus increase its spending in the future.  You must understanding what you are dealing with and handle it appropriately, and you cannot tame a lion with the methodologies described within a manual on puppy rearing.