BillyV
Antidisestablishmentarian
- Oct 31, 2011
- 592
- 118
- 78
That would fly for the first year, maybe the second. We are now in the third year of his Presidency with no control on spending. His budget told America just how he wanted to spend MORE. The democrats were too embarrassed to even vote on it.
BTW, I was upset with how Bush turned his back to fiscal conservatism.
But the dems passed (they do control half the legislative and the executive branch) the bill keeping the "Bush" tax cuts in place, after the election. If it was going to be that beneficial to the gov't, why didn't they allow them to end? Why did they concentrate on passing an unpopular "mandate" to control "subjects"?
Why are they talking about raising taxes on capital gains? I will give you a hint and it doesn't include any Wall Street wealthy people....can you say mom and pop's 401K, that will have the taxes almost doubled on it? The sad part is that the fools will vote for it, thinking they are going to be hurting the "wealthy", when all they are doing is giving congress permission to tax their retirement accounts into oblivion. The next twenty years are going to make for some strange room mates: children that can't get a job and living at home/ parents that are wiped out from taxes allowing to their eventually employed student children to take over the house and then the parents moving into the basement, while the children are raising families in the same house. People moving into together to make ends meet. This man, the President is setting this country onto the path of becoming something it never was, a society of subjects, that looks to the gov't to show them how to think, eat, exercise, work, etc. Forward! LEMMINGS
You do understand that the point of a 401K is that it grows tax free, right? And that distributions from 401Ks are not eligible for capital gains treatment, since the income was never taxed? An increase in capital gains tax will unevenly affect seniors more than others, but not because of their 401Ks; they often have other invested funds in addition to retirement portfolios.
The idea that student loans should be repaid by the government is ludicrous; the benefit most of these grads will see in increased earnings over a lifetime will more than cover whatever they paid, unless they were shortsighted enough to not only borrow funds, but also to use them to study things that are not marketable. Even so, a college degree in any discipline still makes you vastly more marketable than someone without one. According to the IRS, the median income of a household with a bachelors degree holder in 2010 was $82,109; with a high school degree, $38,976. That equates to $1.7 million over a 40 year career. Why should the taxpayers relieve them of their debt burden when they will be more than able to repay it?