The fiscally irresponsible right refuted on extension of Bush taxcuts

[asterism]

The tax on the top 2% would simply be rolled back to where it was during the Clinton Administration, around 38.5%, ironically a time of prosperity.

Are you arguing cause and effect here?

What would you suggest??​

The FairTax

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

All consumption of goods and services are taxed at 30%, which replaces the federal income tax and the payroll tax. Everyone gets a prebate so that those who consume at or below the poverty level pay no tax. Compliance, collection and management costs are drastically reduced. Taxes are evenly applied to all but the top consumers. Businesses are exempt because their capital is best spent maximizing their functions and not collecting taxes on behalf of their consumers and employees.

 

[Oddball]

Are you arguing cause and effect here?

What would you suggest??​

The FairTax

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

All consumption of goods and services are taxed at 30%, which replaces the federal income tax and the payroll tax. Everyone gets a prebate so that those who consume at or below the poverty level pay no tax. Compliance, collection and management costs are drastically reduced. Taxes are evenly applied to all but the top consumers. Businesses are exempt because their capital is best spent maximizing their functions and not collecting taxes on behalf of their consumers and employees.

Pish posh on that.

Cut spending to the point that there's no need at all for a direct tax on production.

 

[chikenwing]

June 30, 1999

"The US economy has been hard at work in the 1990s, delivering strong growth and job creation. This boom - the longest in peacetime history - has generated huge revenues, filling up the government's coffers.

Congress and the White House, meanwhile, agreed to cut back a bit on spending.

At the same time, the economy enjoyed little inflation and low interest rates, which helped paying the interest on the public debt.

All that created the current budget surplus, about $107bn this year, and the hope to cut down on debt.

The impact

Public finances in the US could now run in a virtuous circle. Paying back the debt reduces interest rate payments. This in turn makes it easier to pay back even more and so on - until the debt amounts to zero.

Once there is no debt anymore, taxes can be cut, and the government can spend its money on useful things like healthcare or education.

Interest rates are bound to come down too, as the government will not have to offer attractive rates anymore to compete with other people trying to raise money.

For the same reason, companies will find it easier to raise money, because investors will be looking for new places to invest.

Economists predict that the extra money will boost domestic saving and add to overall economic growth in the US.

Things that can go wrong

But let's return to the real world.

Mr Clinton's plans - and the official debt projections - work only if the economic situation does not change.

But what if ...
# today's fantastic growth rates collapse?
# the stockmarket falters?
# inflation rebounds and interest rates rise?
# unforeseen events force government to spend more?
# Congress or a new president opt for tax cuts instead of debt repayments?"


So??

Cut and paste someones opinion ,yep that's a real discussion winner.

Lets look at this pretzel logic,lets spend our way out of debt,ask Japan how that has worked for them??

Spending must be cut.you can shuck and jive all the statics you want won't change this simple fact.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know...there were several times in my military career that I got a tax cut.

Happened every time I was serving time in a war zone, because they're tax free. Some of the guys who were re-enlistment bonus eligible liked to re-enlist when they were tax free.


Why? Simple........more money.

However.......when we exited the war zone, we were then charged taxes for our paycheck. At some better times, that tax free time was an extra 150 bucks per check in my wallet, but I also knew that when they "expired" (i.e. I left the zone), I had to pay my fair share again.

The Bush tax cuts were for businesses and the rich to start up job growth. That is also why they had an expiration date, because people wanted to see if they would do what everyone said before making them permanent.

Sadly, the jobs market during the tax cuts took a big hit, and there were many people who were jobless as their jobs had now been shipped overseas.

Let the tax cuts expire. The rich had their chance to help stimulate the economy and they failed.

Incidentally, the tax cuts that are currently in place for the middle and lower class? Not gonna be taken away.

Small businesses will benefit from that by the way if the greedy fuckers at the top would let go of some of the money instead of looking for more ways to feather their nests with gold.

 

[chikenwing]

Cut the waste pay down the debt,and stream line the Feds and state/local governments, Teach people to reach for the gold ring,not a hand out,then cut the taxes even more and watch what happens.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, there is something more hypocritical...Defending a multi-trillion dollar federal budget.

Deficits are a product of profligate spending, not of failure to shake down the hoi polloy sufficiently.

Who's defending the federal budget?

So you're agreeing that you are hypocritical, just not the most hypocritical you could be?

I should have worded it something to the effect that it's extremely hypocritical, not that there is nothing more hypocritical. Does that make you feel better?

Hmmm....

What came first...

Legislation that increased spending by hundreds of billions?

Or...

Legislation to increase taxes.

We are saying "maybe if you did not spend a half a trillion dollars here and a half a trillion there we would not need to increase taxes."

President Bush and his Congress never even attempted to do a budget that required balancing out the revenue lost as a result of the enormous tax cuts (by some estimates costing the Treasury over $3 trillion). The Bush tax cuts were deficit-financed, which increased the national debt and resulted in greater interest payments on that debt. It worked the same as if you went to an ATM and drew out a few thousand in cash against your credit card.

 

[chikenwing]

Small businesses will benefit from that by the way if the greedy fuckers at the top would let go of some of the money instead of looking for more ways to feather their nests with gold.


Those greedy fuckers pay most already!! kinda shoots that in the ass doesn't it?

Its simple the FEDS can't won't change giving them more will NOT change a thing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Are you arguing cause and effect here?

What would you suggest??​

The FairTax

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

All consumption of goods and services are taxed at 30%, which replaces the federal income tax and the payroll tax. Everyone gets a prebate so that those who consume at or below the poverty level pay no tax. Compliance, collection and management costs are drastically reduced. Taxes are evenly applied to all but the top consumers. Businesses are exempt because their capital is best spent maximizing their functions and not collecting taxes on behalf of their consumers and employees.

Sorry.....we already got hustled by BUSHCO.

We hardly need a NEW hustle.....

There are honest-people (available), instead.....​

 

[asterism]

Me: It comes down to the rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, while the middle-class is being eliminated.

Prove your statistical fact.

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.

That's not proof of the rich getting richer. That one snippet has no trend. Show a trend.

• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.

Again, that just means that generally people with money know how to manage it better than those without money. So 2/3rd of them succeeded. So? That's no proof that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.

How does that compare to 1929? Again, no trend here.

• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.

When did they ever collectively own more?

• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.

That doesn't prove your "statistical fact."

• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.

But is "America's corporate wealth" worth the same? More? Less? If the same number of people own twice as much of something that's only a quarter of the previous value does that mean they got richer?

• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.

That doesn't mean they are poorer, it means government programs have gotten more generous and/or their incomes have declined. Here in Florida there are plenty of retired workers on food stamps. They are too young for Social Security, they have a paid off house and a paid off car, but they have no income so they get food stamps (actually EBT cards here).

• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.

Perhaps there isn't a rich future in being a garment worker. Doesn't prove anything about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Individuals mining for gold in California were making money hand over fist in 1849. There isn't much money to be made there anymore. Does that mean this is the fault of those who got rich?

• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.

Is that a factor of people getting poorer or poor people having more kids?

• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.

So 16% of 7,800,000 millionaires were not millionaires before? That seems to me like a lot of people who weren't rich became rich.

• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

Doesn't prove you point. What is the trend on this?

 

[asterism]

The deficit will not be reduced or eliminated by increasing taxes,reduced spending is the only solution,and the reductions will need to be steep.It is the only way!

Nice try, rookie.​

June 30, 1999​

"The US economy has been hard at work in the 1990s, delivering strong growth and job creation. This boom - the longest in peacetime history - has generated huge revenues, filling up the government's coffers.

Congress and the White House, meanwhile, agreed to cut back a bit on spending.

At the same time, the economy enjoyed little inflation and low interest rates, which helped paying the interest on the public debt.

All that created the current budget surplus, about $107bn this year, and the hope to cut down on debt.

The impact

Public finances in the US could now run in a virtuous circle. Paying back the debt reduces interest rate payments. This in turn makes it easier to pay back even more and so on - until the debt amounts to zero.

Once there is no debt anymore, taxes can be cut, and the government can spend its money on useful things like healthcare or education.

Interest rates are bound to come down too, as the government will not have to offer attractive rates anymore to compete with other people trying to raise money.

For the same reason, companies will find it easier to raise money, because investors will be looking for new places to invest.

Economists predict that the extra money will boost domestic saving and add to overall economic growth in the US.

Things that can go wrong

But let's return to the real world.

Mr Clinton's plans - and the official debt projections - work only if the economic situation does not change.

But what if ...
# today's fantastic growth rates collapse?
# the stockmarket falters?
# inflation rebounds and interest rates rise?
# unforeseen events force government to spend more?
# Congress or a new president opt for tax cuts instead of debt repayments?"

Notice how you ignored the stock market falter.

 

[chikenwing]

DC is a pool of rotten fish we can't kill them,but we can starve them back to reality,giving them more is just plan crazy.

Both parties are to blame,there are no innocents,including you and me,we let them become what it is.

They need to feel the same pain that we have felt,my business has survived these last few years because we HAD to cut any and all unneeded spending.And worked even harder,pitting one group against the other is as old as rocks,used by the ones that will steal from ether group.You are being used!

 

[asterism]

What would you suggest??​

The FairTax

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

All consumption of goods and services are taxed at 30%, which replaces the federal income tax and the payroll tax. Everyone gets a prebate so that those who consume at or below the poverty level pay no tax. Compliance, collection and management costs are drastically reduced. Taxes are evenly applied to all but the top consumers. Businesses are exempt because their capital is best spent maximizing their functions and not collecting taxes on behalf of their consumers and employees.

Pish posh on that.

Cut spending to the point that there's no need at all for a direct tax on production.

Let's be efficient about funding the federal government first, then we can argue about how much.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

June 30, 1999

"The US economy has been hard at work in the 1990s, delivering strong growth and job creation. This boom - the longest in peacetime history - has generated huge revenues, filling up the government's coffers.

Congress and the White House, meanwhile, agreed to cut back a bit on spending.

At the same time, the economy enjoyed little inflation and low interest rates, which helped paying the interest on the public debt.

All that created the current budget surplus, about $107bn this year, and the hope to cut down on debt.

The impact

Public finances in the US could now run in a virtuous circle. Paying back the debt reduces interest rate payments. This in turn makes it easier to pay back even more and so on - until the debt amounts to zero.

Once there is no debt anymore, taxes can be cut, and the government can spend its money on useful things like healthcare or education.

Interest rates are bound to come down too, as the government will not have to offer attractive rates anymore to compete with other people trying to raise money.

For the same reason, companies will find it easier to raise money, because investors will be looking for new places to invest.

Economists predict that the extra money will boost domestic saving and add to overall economic growth in the US.

Things that can go wrong

But let's return to the real world.

Mr Clinton's plans - and the official debt projections - work only if the economic situation does not change.

But what if ...
# today's fantastic growth rates collapse?
# the stockmarket falters?
# inflation rebounds and interest rates rise?
# unforeseen events force government to spend more?
# Congress or a new president opt for tax cuts instead of debt repayments?"


So??

Cut and paste someones opinion ,yep that's a real discussion winner.

Opinion?????

Hardly......... ​

 

[MaggieMae]

Dude, it's not class envy. It comes down to the rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, while the middle-class is being eliminated.

There's a problem in the system. I understand the rich are only going to keep fighting for their best interests. That doesn't make it right, or in the best interest of America as whole.

It's totally class envy...That's why stale old bromides like " rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer" work on gullible halfwits.

And wealthy people aren't the only ones who'll fight for their own best interests...We also have a moocher class in America, who will screech bloody murder should anyone even dare to mention trimming back their favorite "free lunch" programs.

But no sympathy for corporate moochers. Imagine that.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion

For the tax year 2009, neither Exxon-Mobil nor GE paid a penny in taxes. I'm sure there were others, but those two were the headliners.

Individuals who are millionnaires can afford lobster and cavier for lunch, but you would deny poor children school lunches. It must really suck to be you. If you hate what America has traditionally stood for that much, then leave.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

DC is a pool of rotten fish we can't kill them,but we can starve them back to reality,giving them more is just plan crazy.

Both parties are to blame,there are no innocents,including you and me,we let them become what it is.

They need to feel the same pain that we have felt.....

Any bets on who starves, FIRST, Goober??


​

 

[asterism]

What would you suggest??​

The FairTax

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

All consumption of goods and services are taxed at 30%, which replaces the federal income tax and the payroll tax. Everyone gets a prebate so that those who consume at or below the poverty level pay no tax. Compliance, collection and management costs are drastically reduced. Taxes are evenly applied to all but the top consumers. Businesses are exempt because their capital is best spent maximizing their functions and not collecting taxes on behalf of their consumers and employees.

Sorry.....we already got hustled by BUSHCO.

We hardly need a NEW hustle.....

There are honest-people (available), instead.....​

I'm sorry, I thought you actually wanted a discussion not a cut and paste duel.

Since all you brought to the table was a criticism about the way it was initially presented and a baseless allegation about Scientology, well I guess you have lost. Pretty colors though.

 

[Oddball]

Dude, it's not class envy. It comes down to the rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, while the middle-class is being eliminated.

There's a problem in the system. I understand the rich are only going to keep fighting for their best interests. That doesn't make it right, or in the best interest of America as whole.

It's totally class envy...That's why stale old bromides like " rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer" work on gullible halfwits.

And wealthy people aren't the only ones who'll fight for their own best interests...We also have a moocher class in America, who will screech bloody murder should anyone even dare to mention trimming back their favorite "free lunch" programs.

But no sympathy for corporate moochers. Imagine that.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion

For the tax year 2009, neither Exxon-Mobil nor GE paid a penny in taxes. I'm sure there were others, but those two were the headliners.

Individuals who are millionnaires can afford lobster and cavier for lunch, but you would deny poor children school lunches. It must really suck to be you. If you hate what America has traditionally stood for that much, then leave.

Income taxes are on earnings, not wealth...Corporate taxes and handouts are an entirely diffrent issue.

So your all-too-typical class envy deflecto-dog don't hunt.

 

[asterism]

DC is a pool of rotten fish we can't kill them,but we can starve them back to reality,giving them more is just plan crazy.

Both parties are to blame,there are no innocents,including you and me,we let them become what it is.

They need to feel the same pain that we have felt.....

Any bets on who starves, FIRST, Goober??


​

It won't be the ones who have jobs because they own businesses. My guess is that it's going to be the ones who have vilified them telling them to "pay up."

What's your guess?

 

[asterism]

Dude, it's not class envy. It comes down to the rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, while the middle-class is being eliminated.

There's a problem in the system. I understand the rich are only going to keep fighting for their best interests. That doesn't make it right, or in the best interest of America as whole.

It's totally class envy...That's why stale old bromides like " rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer" work on gullible halfwits.

And wealthy people aren't the only ones who'll fight for their own best interests...We also have a moocher class in America, who will screech bloody murder should anyone even dare to mention trimming back their favorite "free lunch" programs.

But no sympathy for corporate moochers. Imagine that.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion

For the tax year 2009, neither Exxon-Mobil nor GE paid a penny in taxes. I'm sure there were others, but those two were the headliners.

Individuals who are millionnaires can afford lobster and cavier for lunch, but you would deny poor children school lunches. It must really suck to be you. If you hate what America has traditionally stood for that much, then leave.

Why should a corporation pay taxes? At best they are just another mechanism to collect taxes on consumers, and an inefficient one at that.

 

[MaggieMae]

American Progressives are easily duped and poorly educated.

Republican-conservatives are easily duped and uneducated about capitalism and economics in general, you monkeys actually believe that rewarding the rich so called "job-creators" who create no jobs actually benefits the working class, poor and the economy. Rewarding incompetence and greed doesn't equal good capitalism.

And what would you say the following will do to capitalism during a recession:

Pass legislation that will increase the employers financial input into healthcare
Pass legislation that increases the unemployment burden on the employers
Threaten to Pass legislation that will increase the income tax on the employers
Threaten to pass legislation that will dramatically increase the fianncial burden on employers as it pertains to their "carbon footprint"

Or is all of that irrelevant?

You really need to get together with a tax accountant and have him/her adequately explain what the new tax law (not passed yet, by the way) will mean for small businesses. It is nowhere near as dire as the conservatives in Washington (and their talking heads) would have you believe. This is an outline of the provisions that are still being debated (when Congress returns), with the exception of the $30 billion which the Republicans managed to ding last week.

» More Stimulus Tax Breaks and Hiring Credits in Obama's 2010 Small Business Recovery Plan | Saving to Inve$t

Also, most of the health care reform clauses that will effect small businesses won't even kick in until 2014, so you have plenty of time to strategize.

By the way, cap and trade was dropped from the energy bill last week also. You really need to stay current.