Is it time to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

[Wry Catcher]

More people should have stood up and said No to the Socialists in our Government. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if they had. Less Taxes on the People is always a good thing. Ridiculous and out of control spending is never a good thing.

Tax cuts + a war of choice = ridiculous economic policy. We agree, but, I never considered Bush&Co to be Socialists (IMHO there was nothing social about dick cheney).

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Not much difference between a Socialist and a NeoCon in my opinion. They're both Socialist Globalists at the end of the day. I didn't see any real differences between McCain and Obama in the last Election. Would McCain really be doing anything so different than Obama if he were President? I felt that McCain and Obama agreed on way more than they disagreed on. McCain may have had a little edge on taxes but i'm not even too sure about that. If you really look at George Bush's policies without all the hysterical partisan noise,you quickly see that he was every bit the Socialist Globalist that Obama is. Hey just my opinion though. Thanks for your reply Wry.

 

[alan1]

No.

Well said Libo...Now,
In a word you summed up the contribution of the Republican leadership - McConnell, Boehner and Steele - in working to solve the many problems facing our nation.
There only 'idea' is applicable to every problem, "cut taxes".

True conservatives would say "cut spending".
The government doesn't solve problems well, they usually exacerbate them.
Just look at the new laws they imposed on credit. Duhh, credit card rates went way up the last 6 months. Coincidentally government introduced new laws concerning credit cards. Understand yet?

 

[Polk]

The rich are far less likely to spending a tax cut than the middle class is. Marginal propensity to consume.

In a normal economy, that may be. That is not happening now. I read that 88 cents of every dollar in tax cuts is being saved. The paradox of thrift.

I agree that it's not going to do a lot to stimulate demand at the current moment for the issues you list, but it's still more likely to stimulate demand than another round of tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

[Polk]

Tax cuts don't cause deficits, you moron, spending more than you have does.
If you got a 25% raise at work and went out and spent 45% more, you'd run a deficit.
If you got a 5% cut in pay and cut your spending by 5% would you run a deficit?
Yer an idiot.

Saying that tax cuts don't cause deficits is sorta like saying I won't get fat by eating a carton of ice cream every day, because I could always run it off in theory.

Actually, that is completely different. Sorry that you can't understand a simple concept like not spending what you don't have. You must be a congressman.

You live in a fantasy world if you think deep spending cuts are going to occur. Half of the budget goes to Social Security and Medicare. Half of what's left goes to defense spending. So off the top, 75 percent of the budget is untouchable. It's impossible to come up with spending cuts in that sort of environment.

 

[Polk]

The Reagan-Bush tax cuts for the rich created the vast majority of the National Debt.

Reagan's budget director David Stockman called them a "trojan horse" to reduce taxes for the rich.

Tax cuts don't cause deficits, you moron, spending more than you have does.
If you got a 25% raise at work and went out and spent 45% more, you'd run a deficit.
If you got a 5% cut in pay and cut your spending by 5% would you run a deficit?
Yer an idiot.

Why would the government lower taxes, Bush tax cut of 2001, and bush tax cut of 2003, when THEY KNEW they would be spending more? They KNEW IT...they KNEW they would be running deficits, borrowing from china and japan and saudi arabia? Why, why why would they lower taxes under those conditions...when they KNEW they would be spending much more?

it doesn't make sense...they gave tax cuts and in the same breath, they doubled their spending???? not logical to me....????

For votes???

That's what happens when you elect a child as president.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tax cuts don't cause deficits, you moron, spending more than you have does.
If you got a 25% raise at work and went out and spent 45% more, you'd run a deficit.
If you got a 5% cut in pay and cut your spending by 5% would you run a deficit?
Yer an idiot.

Why would the government lower taxes, Bush tax cut of 2001, and bush tax cut of 2003, when THEY KNEW they would be spending more? They KNEW IT...they KNEW they would be running deficits, borrowing from china and japan and saudi arabia? Why, why why would they lower taxes under those conditions...when they KNEW they would be spending much more?

it doesn't make sense...they gave tax cuts and in the same breath, they doubled their spending???? not logical to me....????



For votes???

That's what happens when you elect a child as president.

No, "it doesn't make sense"; unless one considers the extremist element led by Grover Norquist whose stated goal is to "starve the beast". Then it makes perfect sense, but only to those whose sole motivation is power and control.

 

[saveliberty]

Eliminate federal taxes period.

 

[alan1]

Saying that tax cuts don't cause deficits is sorta like saying I won't get fat by eating a carton of ice cream every day, because I could always run it off in theory.

Actually, that is completely different. Sorry that you can't understand a simple concept like not spending what you don't have. You must be a congressman.

You live in a fantasy world if you think deep spending cuts are going to occur. Half of the budget goes to Social Security and Medicare. Half of what's left goes to defense spending. So off the top, 75 percent of the budget is untouchable. It's impossible to come up with spending cuts in that sort of environment.

Spoken like a true congressman.
What state do you represent?

 

[Political Junky]

How in hell do wingnuts think this country can run without income?

 

[alan1]

How in hell do wingnuts think this country can run without income?

Anybody in specific you are referring to? Because I don't think anybody but you said anything of the sort.

 

[saveliberty]

How in hell do wingnuts think this country can run without income?

You might want to rephrase that. Nobody said anything about running the country without income. I just suggested we keep it all. If you like taxes so much, pay mine. I'll give you a reciept and a very nice thank you card.

 

[elvis]

No. But some of the Big Banks seem to have that luxury. You obviously didn't read the link, given the quick reply. Why not do that and consider where the money paid in bonuses by G-S comes from (or from whom)?
Look at the fees the large banks get from the "95%ers", that is most of us. And consider so much wealth goes to so few, and if that is good for our nation.
What's a bankers service worth? More than the first responder who may save your child's life (many times at the risk of his/hers)?

Compare the tax brackets of ALL Americans under Clinton vs what they are now. I guess you like having the bottom tier paying 15 percent instead of 10? or the next one paying 25 instead of 15?

 

[alan1]

No. But some of the Big Banks seem to have that luxury. You obviously didn't read the link, given the quick reply. Why not do that and consider where the money paid in bonuses by G-S comes from (or from whom)?
Look at the fees the large banks get from the "95%ers", that is most of us. And consider so much wealth goes to so few, and if that is good for our nation.
What's a bankers service worth? More than the first responder who may save your child's life (many times at the risk of his/hers)?

Compare the tax brackets of ALL Americans under Clinton vs what they are now. I guess you like having the bottom tier paying 15 percent instead of 10? or the next one paying 25 instead of 15?

Obviously he wants those rich bastards to pay more in taxes.

 

[Polk]

Actually, that is completely different. Sorry that you can't understand a simple concept like not spending what you don't have. You must be a congressman.

You live in a fantasy world if you think deep spending cuts are going to occur. Half of the budget goes to Social Security and Medicare. Half of what's left goes to defense spending. So off the top, 75 percent of the budget is untouchable. It's impossible to come up with spending cuts in that sort of environment.

Spoken like a true congressman.
What state do you represent?

Be realistic. Do you think you're going to get a majority in Congress to cut Social Security benefits or decrease defense spending?

 

[elvis]

You live in a fantasy world if you think deep spending cuts are going to occur. Half of the budget goes to Social Security and Medicare. Half of what's left goes to defense spending. So off the top, 75 percent of the budget is untouchable. It's impossible to come up with spending cuts in that sort of environment.

Spoken like a true congressman.
What state do you represent?

Be realistic. Do you think you're going to get a majority in Congress to cut Social Security benefits or decrease defense spending?

social security? never. defense spending? I think Clinton cut defense spending, but raised it again toward the end of his presidency. The defense industry is supplied by all 50 states, which means when defense gets cut, jobs get cut. Doesn't sound too politically feasible.

 

[Polk]

Spoken like a true congressman.
What state do you represent?

Be realistic. Do you think you're going to get a majority in Congress to cut Social Security benefits or decrease defense spending?

social security? never. defense spending? I think Clinton cut defense spending, but raised it again toward the end of his presidency. The defense industry is supplied by all 50 states, which means when defense gets cut, jobs get cut. Doesn't sound too politically feasible.

There was a small decrease in defense spending early in the Clinton years (and the Republicans hate when it's mentioned, but at the time they were criticizing Clinton for not cutting enough), but that was due to the unusual dynamic of the end of the Cold War. The defense industry is spread across all fifty states because that makes it harder for members to vote against it.

 

[elvis]

Be realistic. Do you think you're going to get a majority in Congress to cut Social Security benefits or decrease defense spending?

social security? never. defense spending? I think Clinton cut defense spending, but raised it again toward the end of his presidency. The defense industry is supplied by all 50 states, which means when defense gets cut, jobs get cut. Doesn't sound too politically feasible.

There was a small decrease in defense spending early in the Clinton years (and the Republicans hate when it's mentioned, but at the time they were criticizing Clinton for not cutting enough), but that was due to the unusual dynamic of the end of the Cold War. The defense industry is spread across all fifty states because that makes it harder for members to vote against it.

pretty much. I think with the defense cuts, the repubs were trying to balance the budget.

 

[Polk]

social security? never. defense spending? I think Clinton cut defense spending, but raised it again toward the end of his presidency. The defense industry is supplied by all 50 states, which means when defense gets cut, jobs get cut. Doesn't sound too politically feasible.

There was a small decrease in defense spending early in the Clinton years (and the Republicans hate when it's mentioned, but at the time they were criticizing Clinton for not cutting enough), but that was due to the unusual dynamic of the end of the Cold War. The defense industry is spread across all fifty states because that makes it harder for members to vote against it.

pretty much. I think with the defense cuts, the repubs were trying to balance the budget.

I don't hold it against them because in the context of the time it made sense. It's just funny because I often hear Republicans rail against Clinton for cutting the defense budget while their party attacked him at the time for not cutting enough.

 

[Intense]

social security? never. defense spending? I think Clinton cut defense spending, but raised it again toward the end of his presidency. The defense industry is supplied by all 50 states, which means when defense gets cut, jobs get cut. Doesn't sound too politically feasible.

There was a small decrease in defense spending early in the Clinton years (and the Republicans hate when it's mentioned, but at the time they were criticizing Clinton for not cutting enough), but that was due to the unusual dynamic of the end of the Cold War. The defense industry is spread across all fifty states because that makes it harder for members to vote against it.

pretty much. I think with the defense cuts, the repubs were trying to balance the budget.

Clinton gutted the Navy. He did not know what he was doing. GWB had allot to rebuild before going into Iraq.