Boehner and GOP STILL in favor of Bush tax cuts

[VaYank5150]

They are the ones who have a huge impact on those most affected...as you well know.

Actually, I don't well know. The richest Americans do NOT necessarily create the jobs. The simply amass more wealth.

Necessarily?? Don't pretend they aren't a major player.

You are making a HUGE assumption Sherry. You know better.

 

[VaYank5150]

It is where is does get bogged down.. because so many politicians are about the power and buying votes to retain the power

It is quite simple on what to cut... things that government has no business doing... things that are not in the enumerated powers... things that grow the nanny state and the ever expanding tendrils of power...

Hell, I have started alphabetically listing unneeded federal government departments and agencies before... people want me to start with just the A's and B's again?

So, in your opinion, does the Constitution provide enumerated powers for our military to fund bases all over the globe?

It gives the government the charge to fund a military.. it does not specifically state that it funds super weapons either.. or air force one... or nukes.. or many other ASPECTS of the military....

Now.. one could argue on whether all our foreign bases are needed, but that is not the point here....

It is PRECISELY the point, IMHO. If everything is going to be on the table and up for spending cut review, then EVERYTHING needs to be on the table.

 

[DiamondDave]

So, every person pays 10%, for example? Is that your desire?

On every last earned dollar, from every person, no exceptions.... so if 10% is the determined rate (for example) you make $10, you pay $1 in federal income tax... you make 10K, you pay 1K in federal income tax... you make 100K, you pay 10K in federal income tax... you make 100MIL, you pay 10MIL in federal income tax

So, you're okay with America becoming a caste society? I suspect that's not your intention, but, consider the consequences if this system were to be in effect.

So you are indeed for selective equality then...

No.. I am for equal treatment by government and the freedoms we are afforded by the founding documents of our nation.... and with those freedoms come both positives and negatives

And equal treatment and taxation does not equate to a caste society, but nice try

 

[DiamondDave]

So, in your opinion, does the Constitution provide enumerated powers for our military to fund bases all over the globe?

It gives the government the charge to fund a military.. it does not specifically state that it funds super weapons either.. or air force one... or nukes.. or many other ASPECTS of the military....

Now.. one could argue on whether all our foreign bases are needed, but that is not the point here....

It is PRECISELY the point, IMHO. If everything is going to be on the table and up for spending cut review, then EVERYTHING needs to be on the table.

And you're looking at grains of sand when you're told to find a beach

It is not the point... you go to aspects of an approved power, instead of looking at the vast number of agencies and programs that are inherently against the enumerated powers...

The government has the charge to raise and fund the military... that is not disputed, except by idiots... it does not have the charge to have these numerous and massive agencies and programs that range from welfare systems and safety nets to a federal department of education to a federal African development foundation

 

[RDD_1210]

Seems that republican "experts" are in favor of letting the tax cuts expire.

Alan Greenspan and others say, Raise taxes now - Aug. 9, 2010

 

[Sherry]

Actually, I don't well know. The richest Americans do NOT necessarily create the jobs. The simply amass more wealth.

Necessarily?? Don't pretend they aren't a major player.

You are making a HUGE assumption Sherry. You know better.

Are you trying to deny that the wealthy don't play a role in job creation??

 

[VaYank5150]

It gives the government the charge to fund a military.. it does not specifically state that it funds super weapons either.. or air force one... or nukes.. or many other ASPECTS of the military....

Now.. one could argue on whether all our foreign bases are needed, but that is not the point here....

It is PRECISELY the point, IMHO. If everything is going to be on the table and up for spending cut review, then EVERYTHING needs to be on the table.

And you're looking at grains of sand when you're told to find a beach

It is not the point... you go to aspects of an approved power, instead of looking at the vast number of agencies and programs that are inherently against the enumerated powers...

The government has the charge to raise and fund the military... that is not disputed, except by idiots... it does not have the charge to have these numerous and massive agencies and programs that range from welfare systems and safety nets to a federal department of education to a federal African development foundation

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Many people believe this line DOES in fact justify the programs you rail against. I am not one of them, but I know you are intelligent and honest, and I do believe you can see how it could be interpreted that way.

 

[VaYank5150]

Necessarily?? Don't pretend they aren't a major player.

You are making a HUGE assumption Sherry. You know better.

Are you trying to deny that the wealthy don't play a role in job creation??

No, I am not. However, just how much of a role they play, and when they play it, is debatable at best.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why on earth wouldn't they be? They dont want to commit political suicide and raise taxes in the middle of a recession.

 

[Sherry]

You are making a HUGE assumption Sherry. You know better.

Are you trying to deny that the wealthy don't play a role in job creation??

No, I am not. However, just how much of a role they play, and when they play it, is debatable at best.

Well it's not going to be a positive role in a down economy if they have even less money to reinvest in their companies and employees.

 

[WillowTree]

I don't inherently support extending the tax cuts... as long as every other taxpayer is put to the exact same level of taxation on every dollar earned... as stated so many times, I am not for the selective equality of the 'progressive' system

And lord knows it is not like this government will start SPENDING LESS

I agree, no reaon in the world 50% of us should support 50% of the leeches.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is PRECISELY the point, IMHO. If everything is going to be on the table and up for spending cut review, then EVERYTHING needs to be on the table.

And you're looking at grains of sand when you're told to find a beach

It is not the point... you go to aspects of an approved power, instead of looking at the vast number of agencies and programs that are inherently against the enumerated powers...

The government has the charge to raise and fund the military... that is not disputed, except by idiots... it does not have the charge to have these numerous and massive agencies and programs that range from welfare systems and safety nets to a federal department of education to a federal African development foundation

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Many people believe this line DOES in fact justify the programs you rail against. I am not one of them, but I know you are intelligent and honest, and I do believe you can see how it could be interpreted that way.

Provide for the common defense and the general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES... as shown in article 1 section 8... progressive lefties and big government supporters always seem to leave out the end of the sentence in an attempt to skew things their way for the sake of power..

General welfare is not individual welfare, nor is it the taking over of your personal responsibilities.... and it is of the union, not every individual within the union... today's interpretation of the term welfare is not as it was when the country was founded... it did not mean programs for the 'needy' or 'poor', nor did it mean organized governmental programs to facilitate it... the government was to protect our freedoms so that we could do what we wanted within the law to take care of ourselves


those who have skewed it are merely skewing it to obtain massive government power and control.. it is not a recent lust for power, but it is indeed bigger than ever before in our abused system

 

[Wry Catcher]

On every last earned dollar, from every person, no exceptions.... so if 10% is the determined rate (for example) you make $10, you pay $1 in federal income tax... you make 10K, you pay 1K in federal income tax... you make 100K, you pay 10K in federal income tax... you make 100MIL, you pay 10MIL in federal income tax

So, you're okay with America becoming a caste society? I suspect that's not your intention, but, consider the consequences if this system were to be in effect.

So you are indeed for selective equality then...

No.. I am for equal treatment by government and the freedoms we are afforded by the founding documents of our nation.... and with those freedoms come both positives and negatives

And equal treatment and taxation does not equate to a caste society, but nice try

What I'm for or against is not the issue. The question is, what might be the consequences of such a policy of taxation? Consider in your response how wealth concentrated in the few, in a time where Citizens United is the law of the land, may impact the principles upon which our nation was founded.
A Glib response is not okay. You propose a radical change, if you want to be taken seriously and not considered a crackpot, answer the question. What will be the consequence of such a tax policy?

 

[DiamondDave]

So, you're okay with America becoming a caste society? I suspect that's not your intention, but, consider the consequences if this system were to be in effect.

So you are indeed for selective equality then...

No.. I am for equal treatment by government and the freedoms we are afforded by the founding documents of our nation.... and with those freedoms come both positives and negatives

And equal treatment and taxation does not equate to a caste society, but nice try

What I'm for or against is not the issue. The question is, what might be the consequences of such a policy of taxation? Consider in your response how wealth concentrated in the few, in a time where Citizens United is the law of the land, may impact the principles upon which our nation was founded.
A Glib response is not okay. You propose a radical change, if you want to be taken seriously and not considered a crackpot, answer the question. What will be the consequence of such a tax policy?

The government does not exist to relieve consequences of individuals.... unlike what progressive lefties would like you to believe....

Those who are wealthy have the freedom to be wealthy.. to keep their wealth.. or to spend it... or whatever else they wish to do with it.... with freedoms come both positives and negatives

What is a radical position is the position of selective equality... which has been steadily growing in our big government abomination

What are the consequences? A shift in the acceptance of government power and unchecked spending, for a person/voter with a stake in the game will choose much differently than one with no stake in the game... A precedent returning of blind and equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of income..

One principle that we were not founded on, that could start to slip out of tendrils of big nanny government, is the concept of the free ride for some at the expense of others, facilitated by the very government that is in place to protect our freedoms

If the proper reduced spending is partnered with the finding of the right % taxation on every dollar earned by all citizens there should be no negative consequence to how effectively the government will run within the confines of the powers granted to it

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You guys get back to me when the 40+% paying no income taxes start paying their "fair share" and the rest of you start writing checks to the U.S. Treasury (BTW.. you can do that, feel free).

Till then.... CUT MY TAXES.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Boehner remphasized his support for extending the Bush tax cuts on the Sunday talk shows, while at the same time, talking out of the other side of his ass and damning the Obama administration for not being fiscally responsible.

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period.

This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Dems' Health-Care Bill | Crooks and Liars

GOP politics as usual?

And may I ask what, precisely, is "fiscally irresponsible" about tax cuts?

 

[Moon]

The economy is driven by consumers, not by bureaucrats or politicians. It makes no sense to me to want to keep money out of the hands of the people that are going to turn things around. People buy goods and services, which in turns spurs companies to grow and hire more people, which in turn creates more jobs and new consumers. The government needs to get out of the way and stop pretending that it can carry us into prosperity by taking more of our money away from us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's the SPENDING, stupid. We do not have an income problem in government, we have a SPENDING problem. Cut spending.

PS - tax increases lower government revenue. New York is a perfect example

New York State’s income tax revenue has dropped 36 percent from the same period in 2008, Governor David Paterson said, “frustrating” his attempt to close a projected $2.1 billion budget deficit.

“We added personal income tax, which we thought would make the falloff 10 percent to 15 percent,” Paterson, a Democrat, said on CNBC today, referring to $5.2 billion in new or increased taxes. “This is what is so frustrating. It’s still 36 percent, meaning our revenues fell more in 2009 than they did in 2008.”

You can't tax your way to prosperity. It's the SPENDING, stupid.

So, IF it is a spending problem, why would Boehner promote tax cuts for the wealthy as opposed to cutting spending?

Maybe because NOW is when the Bush tax cuts are getting ready to expire, so NOW is when one needs to talk about extending them, if one wishes to do so? Or is that too logical?

And who says it's "as opposed to"? Surely you're not trying to claim that Republicans aren't objecting to this administration's profligate spending?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you are indeed for selective equality then...

No.. I am for equal treatment by government and the freedoms we are afforded by the founding documents of our nation.... and with those freedoms come both positives and negatives

And equal treatment and taxation does not equate to a caste society, but nice try

What I'm for or against is not the issue. The question is, what might be the consequences of such a policy of taxation? Consider in your response how wealth concentrated in the few, in a time where Citizens United is the law of the land, may impact the principles upon which our nation was founded.
A Glib response is not okay. You propose a radical change, if you want to be taken seriously and not considered a crackpot, answer the question. What will be the consequence of such a tax policy?

The government does not exist to relieve consequences of individuals.... unlike what progressive lefties would like you to believe....

Those who are wealthy have the freedom to be wealthy.. to keep their wealth.. or to spend it... or whatever else they wish to do with it.... with freedoms come both positives and negatives

What is a radical position is the position of selective equality... which has been steadily growing in our big government abomination

What are the consequences? A shift in the acceptance of government power and unchecked spending, for a person/voter with a stake in the game will choose much differently than one with no stake in the game... A precedent returning of blind and equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of income..

One principle that we were not founded on, that could start to slip out of tendrils of big nanny government, is the concept of the free ride for some at the expense of others, facilitated by the very government that is in place to protect our freedoms

If the proper reduced spending is partnered with the finding of the right % taxation on every dollar earned by all citizens there should be no negative consequence to how effectively the government will run within the confines of the powers granted to it

That answers my question, you're a crackpot. Critical thinking is not your forte nor have you learned any history. It is easy to rely on emotions, they require no thought.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As you well know, the targeted audience for these Bush tax cuts are the least affected by this "deep recession". Right?

They are the ones who have a huge impact on those most affected...as you well know.

Actually, I don't well know. The richest Americans do NOT necessarily create the jobs. The simply amass more wealth.

They don't? Then who do you suppose DOES create the jobs . . . oh, wait. I forgot who I was talking to. Obviously, it's the government which creates jobs.