The fiscally irresponsible right refuted on extension of Bush taxcuts

[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.

Since when is letting you keep what belongs to you a "reward"?

So what would you suggest, genius, a rebate for everyone who paid more into taxes as their incomes increased going all the way back to 1917?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Let's look at something here..........

It was the Bush Tax CUTS, which means they cut, or reduced, the taxes on people.

It was done as a way to stimulate the economy and generate jobs. Sadly, it didn't work.

We've given them a chance, and they failed. The reason there was an expiration date on them? Because they wanted to see if they worked. If they did, they would make them permanent.

They didn't. Let them expire.


I hope that was simple enough for you.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Since when is letting you keep what belongs to you a "reward"?

So what would you suggest, genius, a rebate for everyone who paid more into taxes as their incomes increased going all the way back to 1917?

I'd suggest ending the income tax altogether, drastically reducing the federal bureaucracy and controlling spending.

But that would remove power from the District of Criminals and take the class warfare arrow out of their quiver, so I'm not holding my breath.

 

[MaggieMae]

So you believe that statement to be a fallacy? Prove me wrong. It's a statistical fact.

No one's asking for a free lunch, only a fair and just system, which you appear to be vehemently against.



They also deserve to pay for their quality of life in the best country in the world. They deserve to pay for the military fighting to uphold their quality of life. Remember, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

No, there's not...Yet there'd be no need for any income tax, were it not for all the free lunch programs that are a prominent feature of the socialistic welfare/nanny state.

The military and all the other lawful functions of the feds could be supported through constitutionally provided imposts, excises and duties.

Where would THAT money come from? How would you financially support the military's $560 billion annual budget? How would those "other lawful functions" be paid for? A sales tax? It would have to be enormous.

 

[asterism]

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.

How can you call something that is not passed yet nowhere near as dire as anything? The problem right now is that we don't know how this is going to impact small business, and that is directly from my tax accountant. I talked about that in another thread, the inability to forecast fixed and variable costs right now.

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

Interesting talking point. A $5000 credit to hire a new worker that costs at least $20,000 a year, and only if we meet the guidelines that have yet to be defined (according to my tax accountant). And you wonder why this "stimulus" plan isn't working?

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.

The tax provisions kick in next year. Perhaps you missed that part.

W-2's in 2011 will include Obamacare Health care costs as income >> Four Winds 10 - fourwinds10.com

 

[Oddball]

No, there's not...Yet there'd be no need for any income tax, were it not for all the free lunch programs that are a prominent feature of the socialistic welfare/nanny state.

The military and all the other lawful functions of the feds could be supported through constitutionally provided imposts, excises and duties.

Where would THAT money come from? How would you financially support the military's $560 billion annual budget? How would those "other lawful functions" be paid for? A sales tax? It would have to be enormous.

Who needs a $560 billion military budget, when you bring the troops home and close bases in places where the wars have been over for several decades?

 

[asterism]

No, there's not...Yet there'd be no need for any income tax, were it not for all the free lunch programs that are a prominent feature of the socialistic welfare/nanny state.

The military and all the other lawful functions of the feds could be supported through constitutionally provided imposts, excises and duties.

Where would THAT money come from? How would you financially support the military's $560 billion annual budget? How would those "other lawful functions" be paid for? A sales tax? It would have to be enormous.

A $560 Billion military budget from a sales tax would be microscopic compared to the $3 Trillion income tax we have now.

Get real.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

I'm implying that I didn't hear a whole lotta rich folk bemoaning the higher tax rate at the time. The irony is that I still don't. It's the talking heads, the right-wing punditocrity that keeps wallowing in myths that somehow an additional 4% will break the backs of the wealthiest 2%. It won't.

 

[asterism]

Let's look at something here..........

It was the Bush Tax CUTS, which means they cut, or reduced, the taxes on people.

It was done as a way to stimulate the economy and generate jobs. Sadly, it didn't work.

We've given them a chance, and they failed. The reason there was an expiration date on them? Because they wanted to see if they worked. If they did, they would make them permanent.

They didn't. Let them expire.


I hope that was simple enough for you.

When you say they didn't generate jobs, is that because things went bad at the end and none of those jobs existed before the crash in 2008?

Because we could always look to 1994-2000 and find scores of jobs that existed there but disappeared starting in April 2000.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I said, they were TAX CUTS. Now? It's time for them to pay their fair share.

 

[MaggieMae]

Even worse than that.....

And when that 2% decides not to hire as they will take home less if they expand, they will then be called greedy for doing the fiscally responsible thing.

Oh that is such crap. The millionnaires and billionnaires and the companies they own are doing just fine, thank you very much. It's the small businesses, under 100 people, the ones that cannot survive without letters of credit that are hurting because the Wall Street goliaths aren't willing to invest in anything but themselves. A 4% tax increase can easily be absorbed by the top 2%.

GREED remains firmly in place.

Yes it does,but not as you think it is,how more greedy can one be?? Lets hit them more they can afford it!!!??

The MIDDLE CLASS received the largest cut in 03,let them die and who gets hit the hardest??

This is not rocket science,but an even more complicated equation,because so many can not get over the fact that some work harder and earn more then they do.But some how should be forced to pay the lions share.Truly pathetic and will be the down fall of this nation if we don't let class envy die.

It's not rocket science; it's HISTORY. Bracketing based on income is not something NEW. I wish you people could get that through your heads. Taxing the wealthier has zero to do with "class envy" for God's sake. Here is the history showing the fluctuation, depending on the state of the nation at the time.

National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

 

[MaggieMae]

Time and again Progressive assume the Federal Government and the US economy are the same thing. Are they stupid, uneducated, duped, fucking retards, or just hopeless? I dunno and I don't care

Scuse me? I read nothing in this thread where anyone was confused. Although I'm not surprised you would be since you don't understand and therefore don't accept any other premise but your own (and of course Dude's which is, er, out there as pure fiction).

 

[MaggieMae]

Why does the government tax junk food, beer, cigarettes, and gasoline?

Is it to help the poor pay less in taxes? Is to help discourage us from doing unhealthy things to our bodies or the environment?

The government has become a monster, a beast, so hungry for more and more of our money.

We must not look at it as rich against poor. It's all of us who are getting hosed by uncle Sam.

Uncle Sam hasn't raised your taxes on anything other than cigarettes for the past five years. Look to your own state government for the increase in taxes and fees, my dear.

The lack of knowledge on this subject never ceases to shock me.

Color me shocked with that set of ignorance.

Patchwork. But that hardly constitutes a "new" tax.

Hey, thanks for stretching out the fucking screen. You could have just said alternative tax, and I would have understood.

 

[MaggieMae]

So the Republican-conservative far righters have presented no real justification for extending the Bush tax cuts? That being the case, why do the Republicans keep fighting to extend them?

Here is a 2007 analysis of the effect of the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans were making the same arguments then as they are now. They didn't work then, and they won't work now.


Published on OMB Watch (OMB Watch | Promoting open government, accountability, and citizen participation since 1983)

Bush Administration Contradicts Itself on Tax Cuts
By mlewis

Created 02/13/07

The President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget proposal has become a vehicle for advocating that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts be made permanent. GOP congressional leaders and administration spokespeople are justifying the tax cuts by playing the "health of the economy" card. Arguments in favor of making the tax cuts permanent range from the tempered:

"We think it's absolutely critical that they be extended in 2010, when they otherwise would expire. Why? Because they have contributed to this growing economy," -Rob Portman [1], Office of Management and Budget Director

To the misleading:

"Raising taxes . . . won't help balance the budget — it will slow the economic growth that is creating the new jobs of tomorrow and increasing revenue to the federal government…Keeping our economy strong and promoting fiscal responsibility will get the job done. Raising taxes won't." -House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner [2], (R-OH)

To the absurd:

"Current pro-growth policies have fueled the sustained economic expansion that has created over seven million new jobs, boosted federal revenues, driven down the deficit, and put us on a path to balancing the budget." -Rep. Paul Ryan [3], (R-WI), Ranking Member, House Budget Committee

Much of this rhetoric rests on the belief that not only do tax cuts promote long-term economic growth, but that they also generate revenues as well as release them. This position, however, is contradicted by a 2006 Treasury Department study [4] that measured the "dynamic" impact of the of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Below are a few generalized talking points paired with the Treasury report's refutation:

Talking Point: The Bush tax cuts will generate significant economic growth over the long run.

Treasury Report: Even under optimal circumstances, there will be hardly any long-term economic growth due to the tax cuts.

The report found that the tax cuts generated only a marginal 0.7 percent of economic growth in the long run. Each year, for example, the tax cuts may increase GDP by less than half of a tenth of a percent, or 0.04 percent, when the economy is predicted to grow by nearly 100 times as much (or about three percent). And that's assuming the tax cuts are offset by cuts in spending or tax increases elsewhere, so they will not increase the deficit. This has not happened in the five years since the cuts have been passed and is not likely to happen if they are fully extended. (See Page 2 of the report)

Talking Point: Tax cuts will boost federal revenues.

Treasury Report: The U.S. government will lose around nine-tenths of the projected cost of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Future taxes will bring in vastly less revenue than if the tax cuts had never been passed. At most, the growth estimates within the Treasury report implied that about one tenth of the money lost to the tax cuts will be recovered from new revenues that a bigger economy would produce. Nine tenths of the revenue initially released will not return to the Treasury. On balance, tax cuts will therefore significantly reduce federal revenues, which drives up the deficit unless spending is cut. If the tax cuts are not made permanent, federal revenues will increase and the deficit will be driven down, if not erased.

Talking Point: Failing to extend the cuts will reduce economic growth in the long run.

Treasury Report: The economy will get bigger if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire and spending is not cut.

The Treasury Department's report projects an additional 0.9 percent of economic growth if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. More growth could occur because making the tax cuts permanent would build up large deficits and debt, which can be a drag on long-term economic expansion. (See Table 3, Page 23, of the report)

When asked to explain the President's comment suggesting that tax cuts pay for themselves, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded [5]:

MR. SNOW: But I've also heard people say, yes, we can say it's paid for. But you're asking me to play the role of economist, and as any first-year economic student will tell you, it's all about assumptions. So if you want to get into that argument, I really would suggest you talk to trained economists at the Department of Treasury or within our economic shop, and they'll be able to give you a more precise readout on it.

Perhaps the White House ought to talk to the economists at the Department of the Treasury, too. Targeted, temporary tax cuts that produce manageable deficits can stimulate the economy during a recession. But even experts in the Bush administration agree that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, if permanent, would make the economy smaller and drive down revenues. The President and his supporters should stick to the facts when they speak to the American public about the economic impact of tax cuts.

OMB Watch • 1742 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20009
202-234-8494 (phone) | 202-234-8584 (fax)
© 2010 | Please credit OMB Watch when redistributing this material.

Source URL: Bush Administration Contradicts Itself on Tax Cuts | OMB Watch
Links:
[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070205-3.html
[2] Bush Budget Projects A Surplus by 2012 - washingtonpost.com
[3] http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_releases/2007pressreleases/2507budget.htm
[4] http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf
[5] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070206-6.html[/QUO


Why should we believe anything coming from the Feds??

The math is simple,you will hurt the middle class at a time that they are very vulnerable,put politics aside,it just common sense,leting people keep more of the money THEY earn is the right thing to do,the FEDS and state have beyond a shadow of dought have proven their ineptitude,why give them more just to piss it away??

Congress has the purse strings,and a 20% approval rating,would you hire a plumberto fix your sink that only get it right 20% of the time?

I couldn't care less if you don't "believe" it cuz it came from the feds. Go back to watching the analysis on Fox for all I care. Yup. Everybody lies but your own comfy commentators. Got it.

 

[MaggieMae]

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans


Work harder they did!

Could be,if more people would set their sights on the same ones as your "rich" we wouldn't have such disparity of numbers. But when we will sit back and even encourage,and we do through policy,a huge moocher class this is what you get.

The rich are rich because of what they have learned and implemented,and not with fairy dust.

What you're failing to understand is that there once was a time not too long ago when the top wage earners were also much more interested in maintaining their businesses by hiring the best and the brightest and making sure they kept those people on board by giving them decent wages and benefits. But over the last decade, the top 2% have invested their windfall tax cuts abroad, not in this country and rarely in their own companies. Nobody objects to rich people. That's a myth. But when greed became the norm, it became a serious problem for the rest of working Americans struggling to maintain a decent lifestyle according to what they had been accustomed to. And now it seems big business and the wealthy CEOs running them still refuse to step up to the plate and help fix the gaping hole between the haves and the have-nots, which has now crept into the middle class.

Do some reading; do some research. We're not making any of this up.

 

[chikenwing]

I couldn't care less if you don't "believe" it cuz it came from the feds. Go back to watching the analysis on Fox for all I care. Yup. Everybody lies but your own comfy commentators. Got it.
Reply With Quote


Well there it is,FOX news LOL took longer than I thought

news flash!!!!! I haven't watched fox news in years,or any of the other of the opinion
only news LOL outlets,

Ya I got it.

When people use terms like greedy fuckers ,and they should pay there fair share,its class envy plan and simple.

But you can do the same as you suggested keep listening to your handlers,everything will be fine.

 

[chikenwing]

And now it seems big business and the wealthy CEOs running them still refuse to step up to the plate and help fix the gaping hole between the haves and the have-nots, which has now crept into the middle class.

Do some reading; do some research. We're not making any of this up.

Give George Soros a call,bet he will send you a check,Its YOUR responsibility to make your life better no one else.

There in lies your fundamental flaw

What you would be much father ahead,would be, develop a business plan,go to a "RICH" guy and do business with him.

 

[chikenwing]

the top 2% have invested their windfall tax cuts abroad, not in this country and rarely in their own companies.

It was their money to begin with,its theirs they can do what they want with it,I can't blame anyone from tring to protect what they have earned,every post drips with envy and distaste,they already pay the lions share its irreverent if they can afford it or not.

Now I will say the Maddofs of the world need to be brought down,he broke laws and should pay, but profit and being"rich" are not evil things

CUT the waste its that simple,demand a balanced budget amendment,hold these pecker woods feet to the fire.

 

[asterism]

Uncle Sam hasn't raised your taxes on anything other than cigarettes for the past five years. Look to your own state government for the increase in taxes and fees, my dear.

The lack of knowledge on this subject never ceases to shock me.

Color me shocked with that set of ignorance.

Patchwork. But that hardly constitutes a "new" tax.

"Uncle Sam hasn't raised your taxes on anything other than cigarettes for the past five years." That was your claim. Your claim is false.

Hey, thanks for stretching out the fucking screen. You could have just said alternative tax, and I would have understood.

Don't blame me. The forum automatically adjusts images to the administrator's preference. What resolution are you on if this stretched your screen?

 

[asterism]

What you're failing to understand is that there once was a time not too long ago when the top wage earners were also much more interested in maintaining their businesses by hiring the best and the brightest and making sure they kept those people on board by giving them decent wages and benefits. But over the last decade, the top 2% have invested their windfall tax cuts abroad, not in this country and rarely in their own companies.

That is pure speculation.

Nobody objects to rich people. That's a myth. But when greed became the norm, it became a serious problem for the rest of working Americans struggling to maintain a decent lifestyle according to what they had been accustomed to. And now it seems big business and the wealthy CEOs running them still refuse to step up to the plate and help fix the gaping hole between the haves and the have-nots, which has now crept into the middle class.

Marxist theories are not fact. Marxist talking points certainly do win elections though.

Do some reading; do some research. We're not making any of this up.

Start your own business and get back to me on your "research."