Ending Bush Tax Cuts & Cutting Spending is BAD?!

[kyzr]

So it's not about raising taxes and cut spending like your title suggested, it's raise taxes and keep on spending, I see.....it's a failure

Maybe you don't get that I'm for ensuring prosperity. Lets start with
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/201...al-Politics/Graphics/Gang_of_Six_Document.pdf

Whining about going back to the Clinton era tax rates is a failure, they worked well. It was the Bush Tax Cut, charging two wars, and a new prescription drug entitlement that fucked things up, along with moving US manufacturing overseas, and too many economic bubbles (Community Reinvestment Act, etc.).

No, that's simply not true. We never had the kind of budget deficit we do now until after July 2008. The Bush tax cuts took effect years earlier.
The issue is as I laid it out: Too much spending by Obama&Co coupled with bad economic policies leading to poor growth and lower revenues.
The tax structure under Bush was perfectly adequate.

The Tax structure under Clinton was much better...

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe you don't get that I'm for ensuring prosperity. Lets start with
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/201...al-Politics/Graphics/Gang_of_Six_Document.pdf

Whining about going back to the Clinton era tax rates is a failure, they worked well. It was the Bush Tax Cut, charging two wars, and a new prescription drug entitlement that fucked things up, along with moving US manufacturing overseas, and too many economic bubbles (Community Reinvestment Act, etc.).

No, that's simply not true. We never had the kind of budget deficit we do now until after July 2008. The Bush tax cuts took effect years earlier.
The issue is as I laid it out: Too much spending by Obama&Co coupled with bad economic policies leading to poor growth and lower revenues.
The tax structure under Bush was perfectly adequate.

The Tax structure under Clinton was much better...


That's why we had a recession in 2001?
What was better about it? It soaked the rich, socking them with higher tax brackets?

 

[kyzr]

No, that's simply not true. We never had the kind of budget deficit we do now until after July 2008. The Bush tax cuts took effect years earlier.
The issue is as I laid it out: Too much spending by Obama&Co coupled with bad economic policies leading to poor growth and lower revenues.
The tax structure under Bush was perfectly adequate.

The Tax structure under Clinton was much better...


That's why we had a recession in 2001?
What was better about it? It soaked the rich, socking them with higher tax brackets?

I would much rather have the 2001 "recession" than the 2007-2008 depression. Who wouldn't trade 2008 for 2001???

 

[The Rabbi]

The Tax structure under Clinton was much better...


That's why we had a recession in 2001?
What was better about it? It soaked the rich, socking them with higher tax brackets?

I would much rather have the 2001 "recession" than the 2007-2007 depression. Who wouldn't trade 2008 for 2001???

That's not an answer.
There is no need to go back to the Clinton era high tax rates. Of course if you want to cut spending back to 1996 thats fine with me.

 

[kyzr]

I would much rather have the 2001 "recession" than the 2007-2007 depression. Who wouldn't trade 2008 for 2001???

That's not an answer.
There is no need to go back to the Clinton era high tax rates. Of course if you want to cut spending back to 1996 thats fine with me.

The Clinton era tax rates went from a max of 35% to 39%. Romney pays 15%, boo fucking hoo.

I'd also:
1. Make capital gains normal income
2. eliminate tax loop-holes
3. go after off-shore tax cheats like Wellstone wanted to do before he and his family were killed
4. tax all Wall Street Transactions
5. Tax short-sales very heavily
6. Tax derivatives very heavily or eliminate them entirely
7. Limit CEO compensation to a multiple of their employees pay
8. Kill Fannie & Freddie
9. Open off-shore drilling (directional from on-shore)
10. Promote LNG use for vehicle fleets

 

[The Rabbi]

That's not an answer.
There is no need to go back to the Clinton era high tax rates. Of course if you want to cut spending back to 1996 thats fine with me.

The Clinton era tax rates went from a max of 35% to 39%. Romney pays 15%, boo fucking hoo.

I'd also:
1. Make capital gains normal income
2. eliminate tax loop-holes
3. go after off-shore tax cheats like Wellstone wanted to do before he and his family were killed
4. tax all Wall Street Transactions
5. Tax short-sales very heavily
6. Tax derivatives very heavily or eliminate them entirely
7. Limit CEO compensation to a multiple of their employees pay
8. Kill Fannie & Freddie
9. Open off-shore drilling (directional from on-shore)
10. Promote LNG use for vehicle fleets

This is because you like poverty?
You either don't understand what you are proposing or you enjoy being a shill for leftists.

 

[kyzr]

The Clinton era tax rates went from a max of 35% to 39%. Romney pays 15%, boo fucking hoo.

I'd also:
1. Make capital gains normal income
2. eliminate tax loop-holes
3. go after off-shore tax cheats like Wellstone wanted to do before he and his family were killed
4. tax all Wall Street Transactions
5. Tax short-sales very heavily
6. Tax derivatives very heavily or eliminate them entirely
7. Limit CEO compensation to a multiple of their employees pay
8. Kill Fannie & Freddie
9. Open off-shore drilling (directional from on-shore)
10. Promote LNG use for vehicle fleets

This is because you like poverty?
You either don't understand what you are proposing or you enjoy being a shill for leftists.

1. I don't like when the coxukers sell my long-held stocks short and steal my 401k holdings, which are supposed to be used as capital to expand and create jobs.
2. Poverty is what will happen to the middle class if we don't get the financial mess straightened out. Tell me you like concentrated wealth?
3. I'm not a shill for leftists, I'm a realist w/o rose colored glasses. The math says that the Budget, taxes, and entitlements need to be solved or the US will have a terrible future.
4. Like Kramer says "Bulls make money, Bears make money, pigs get slaughtered".

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so it was the first, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Got it.

 

[whitehall]

Obviously the Bush tax cuts are good for the economy or Obama would have freaking ended them when he had a chance. There are a couple of dirty little secrets radical democrats should be aware of. 1. Man-made Global Warming is a bogus extortion racket. #2 Punishing corporations and CEO's with higher taxes won't add more than a drop in the bucket in the federal treasury. #3 Government jobs don't grow the economy. Once whiny neo-socialists get those concepts through their thick skulls we might move forward once again.

 

[The T]

Obviously the Bush tax cuts are good for the economy or Obama would have freaking ended them when he had a chance. There are a couple of dirty little secrets radical democrats should be aware of. 1. Man-made Global Warming is a bogus extortion racket. #2 Punishing corporations and CEO's with higher taxes won't add more than a drop in the bucket in the federal treasury. #3 Government jobs don't grow the economy. Once whiny neo-socialists get those concepts through their thick skulls we might move forward once again.

Government only takes. They produce nothing but misery.

 

[SniperFire]

The Tax structure under Clinton was much better...

Just for the record, you are abandoning your lame argument that Bush tax cuts are the problem?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

This is the exact reason we should have never gone down the road of entitlements.

 

[The T]

This is the exact reason we should have never gone down the road of entitlements.

Precisely.Too many have become dependent of others...

And what is it that you are told in a National Park?

'Don't Feed The Amimals...' they might become dependent and forget thier natural ways of liberty.

 

[Full-Auto]

That's not an answer.
There is no need to go back to the Clinton era high tax rates. Of course if you want to cut spending back to 1996 thats fine with me.

The Clinton era tax rates went from a max of 35% to 39%. Romney pays 15%, boo fucking hoo.

I'd also:
1. Make capital gains normal income
2. eliminate tax loop-holes
3. go after off-shore tax cheats like Wellstone wanted to do before he and his family were killed
4. tax all Wall Street Transactions
5. Tax short-sales very heavily
6. Tax derivatives very heavily or eliminate them entirely
7. Limit CEO compensation to a multiple of their employees pay
8. Kill Fannie & Freddie
9. Open off-shore drilling (directional from on-shore)
10. Promote LNG use for vehicle fleets

It seems your entire premise is to make others pay.

Do us all a favor and pay for your own stuff,. There isnt anything in your rant about liberty, just controlling others on how they earn and spend money.

You sir are the enemy of the domestic variety.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

wow this thread is just sad.

What's sad is the state of the country.

 

[The T]

wow this thread is just sad.

What's sad is the state of the country.

And those as plasma gleeful to support those bringing it down.

 

[kyzr]

The Clinton era tax rates went from a max of 35% to 39%. Romney pays 15%, boo fucking hoo.

I'd also:
1. Make capital gains normal income
2. eliminate tax loop-holes
3. go after off-shore tax cheats like Wellstone wanted to do before he and his family were killed
4. tax all Wall Street Transactions
5. Tax short-sales very heavily
6. Tax derivatives very heavily or eliminate them entirely
7. Limit CEO compensation to a multiple of their employees pay
8. Kill Fannie & Freddie
9. Open off-shore drilling (directional from on-shore)
10. Promote LNG use for vehicle fleets

It seems your entire premise is to make others pay.

Do us all a favor and pay for your own stuff,. There isnt anything in your rant about liberty, just controlling others on how they earn and spend money.

You sir are the enemy of the domestic variety.

Opinion without any logical proof.
You are clumsily trying to avoid the elephantile question in the room, which is, why should Mitt Romney and the super-rich pay a lower tax rate then the middle-class? For example, Mitt pays 15% on capital gains. That's riding in the wagon instead of helping to pull it.
Not controlling others, just making them pay their "fair share" for the "liberty" they enjoy. Who makes up the military? Mostly mid/lower incomes. The wealthy would rather move off-shore or stash their cash in Swiss Bank accounts.

Your bullshit whinings for "liberty" are avoiding the real issue, which is that the wealthy have gained at the expense of the rest of us, and that is about to change. Lets see how many votes the big money boyz can buy this year with their Super-PACs.

 

[kyzr]

wow this thread is just sad.

What's sad is the state of the country.

meh nothing we cant get past...But it would take actual intelligence, not whats been suggested in this thread.

Do tell....you don't like Simpson-Bowles? What has been suggested is to make entitlements self-sustaining and to balance the Budget. The discussion is HOW to do it. Platitudes aren't working.

 

[The Rabbi]

It seems your entire premise is to make others pay.

Do us all a favor and pay for your own stuff,. There isnt anything in your rant about liberty, just controlling others on how they earn and spend money.

You sir are the enemy of the domestic variety.

Opinion without any logical proof.
You are clumsily trying to avoid the elephantile question in the room, which is, why should Mitt Romney and the super-rich pay a lower tax rate then the middle-class? For example, Mitt pays 15% on capital gains. That's riding in the wagon instead of helping to pull it.
Not controlling others, just making them pay their "fair share" for the "liberty" they enjoy. Who makes up the military? Mostly mid/lower incomes. The wealthy would rather move off-shore or stash their cash in Swiss Bank accounts.

Your bullshit whinings for "liberty" are avoiding the real issue, which is that the wealthy have gained at the expense of the rest of us, and that is about to change. Lets see how many votes the big money boyz can buy this year with their Super-PACs.

You really think that's the issue--that some people pay a lower tax rate, or make more money, or something?
No one has gained at your expense. You are making more money now than you did 10 years ago. It is simply envy that you look at what others make.
It is like Obama maintaining he would raise rates on dividends, despite the fact that lower rates actually produces more revenue, because of "fairness." How is it fair to deprive the Treasury of money so he can punish some people? That isn't fairness. That is vengeance.

 

[Londoner]

People should be careful with calling everything the government does "spending", and everything the private sector does "investment". I'm not sure it's that simple.

The Hoover Dam wasn't simply "spending". The technology that came from the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budgets (which fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom) wasn't merely "spending". Eisenhower's national Interstate system wasn't simply "spending". The government putting returning WWII veterans to work building suburban America wasn't simply "spending". Government pouring money into Boeing (which played a role in the development of commercial aviation) wasn't "spending". When Reagan saved Social Security so that middle class families would have more money for consumption (to fuel the domestic economy), it wasn't simply "spending". The money government spent to develop the computer and - much later - the internet wasn't merely "spending". The money spent to educate a generation of postwar middle class citizens (who went on to make incredible contributions to the economy) wasn't simply "spending". Each of these things had an incredible multiplier effect that grew the economy. If you don't know the multiplier effect in each case, you might pause and research this stuff before you blindly recite cliches about "spending".

The military Keynesianism that brought us out of the Great Depression (i.e., government spending on war manufacturing) wasn't simply "spending".

During past downturns in the American economy, American presidents have put people back to work re-building infrastructure. This put more consumers into the economy, which forced the capitalist to add jobs in order to capture the excess demand. As more people got jobs, they too became spenders, creating even more demand - which forced the capitalist to add even more jobs. Unfortunately, the Republicans were finally able to strangle this approach so they could obstruct any chance at recovery and thus regain total power in 2012. This is what happens when a small wealthy minority capture a political party.

As for the theory that tax breaks always turn into virtuous investments in the real economy. [Remember: the right believes that government "spends" and wastes and stagnates the real economy, while the private sector "invests" in and grows the real economy, i.e., tax cuts always turn into American jobs - they are never fed into a risky speculative Wall Street casino where they harm the real economy through the mismanagement of risk]

Do you remember what happened to the Bush Tax Cuts? They didn't wind up in the real economy because consumers were choked by 30 years of expansionary credit policies to make up for the disappearing jobs, benefits, and entitlements that were imposed by Reaganomic austerity, i.e., austerity for the middle class was used to make room for Reagan's historic tax cuts. The theory was that government investment in the middle class could be more effectively replaced by tax cuts to the wealthy, which would be used to grow the economy and give the middle class better jobs. But, right after the tax cuts were passed, Reagan's policies allowed 70% of American manufacturing to be shipped to China so that his backers could benefit from sweatshop labor and zero regulations. And Clinton obliged this model of giving capital the freedom to shed American labor with NAFTA. Now, every job that comes back is a low wage job. Why? Because American labor markets must accept lower wages than the 3rd world labor markets they're competing against. So this means that the jobs that return don't pay enough for workers to buy things and keep our domestic economy afloat, that is, the new globalized 3rd world labor model doesn't meet the demand requirements of the American consumption economy - so Americans must increasingly rely on credit and kooky mortgages to survive. In short, the Reagan austerity model has been a fucking disaster.

Meaning: tax cuts for the wealthy (who then shipped manufacturing to China), and credit cards/sub primes for the middle class (which lead to 30 years of debt fueled consumption) turned into a fucking time bomb, and it blew up in 2008.

But let's be specific. Where did the Bush Tax cuts go? Did they get invested into the real economy? Did they grow the real economy? Nope. They destroyed it through the speculation made possible by the financialization of the economy, which rewards risky bets on future prices/earnings over actual investment in the real economy. Why didn't the Bush tax cuts get invested into the real economy? Because after 30 years of shipping middle class jobs to Asian sweatshops and places like Grenada (where workers get paid pennies a day to make clothes for places like Super Target), there is no demand, i.e., Americans don't have enough money to buy things. Why do you think Reagan had to expand credit to American families so dramatically? Because the money wasn't trickling down into good middle class jobs. The point of the Cold War was to bring 3rd world labor and raw materials into the American economy.

We shipped jobs to the 3rd world, and then we handed the middle class credit cards and insane mortgages to make up for it.

If you don't believe me, look at what happened to household debt starting in the 80s. Just please fucking look at it.

(Turn off Talk Radio. You've been lied to)

Household debt for middle class families - starting in 1980 - exploded. Once Reagan created policies that put all the gains of economic growth in he hands of narrow minority, the country was stuck inside the disastrous expansion of credit to keep its abandoned citizenry afloat.

Government investment in the middle class during the postwar years built this country, and Reagan austerity for the middle class destroyed it.

Where did the Bush tax cuts go? They didn't go to the real economy because there was no demand. They went to the phantom economy - they went to derivatives and oil futures, both of which have destroyed the economy.