Which is better?

[drsmith1072]

#2. Return to the tax structure under Clinton, with an increase of 5% for those making over $1,000,000.

Stupid Liberals.

'During the eight years of the Clinton Administration the Federal government collected a total of $5.66 trillion dollars in individual income taxes.

During the eight years of the Bush Administration the Federal government collected approximately $7.45 trillion dollars in individual income taxes.

The rich - that is, the top 1% of taxpayers - not only forked over a trillion dollars more to Uncle Sam under Bush than under Clinton, their share of the income tax burden increased from 33% to 38%.'

RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases

What else increased over those 16 years that could be a cause for such numbers if true? In other words can you say without a doubt that tax rates were the only thing that contributed to higher revenues?

 

[Dr.Drock]

#2. Return to the tax structure under Clinton, with an increase of 5% for those making over $1,000,000.

Stupid Liberals.

'During the eight years of the Clinton Administration the Federal government collected a total of $5.66 trillion dollars in individual income taxes.

During the eight years of the Bush Administration the Federal government collected approximately $7.45 trillion dollars in individual income taxes.

The rich - that is, the top 1% of taxpayers - not only forked over a trillion dollars more to Uncle Sam under Bush than under Clinton, their share of the income tax burden increased from 33% to 38%.'

RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases

That's weird. You claim to be a conservative who wants gov't to take in less money, and have nothing but love and support for Bush who brought in 2 trillion more dollars than Clinton.

Such is politics in 2012 I guess.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No spending increases without tax increases to pay for them.

No tax cuts without spending cuts to pay for them.

Problem solved.

Eventually we could get to that, but for now we have to work on our huge debt and deficit problem.

So even with no action taken on taxes, huge spending cuts are (and have been for awhile) necessary.

So even with no action on spending cuts, huge increases in revenue by taxation are (and have been for a while) necessary.

wouldn't it be better to do both at the same time?

If two people trying to meet would it be faster and better for one to stand still and wait for the other to arrive or would it be faster and better if both were moving and met in the middle?

Both moving would appear to be the obvious choice.

No, increasing taxes in a crumbling economy is insanity.

Gov't gets back somewhere between 40-45% of the money in the economy, making that number higher won't help anyone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No spending increases without tax increases to pay for them.

No tax cuts without spending cuts to pay for them.

Problem solved.

Eventually we could get to that, but for now we have to work on our huge debt and deficit problem.

So even with no action taken on taxes, huge spending cuts are (and have been for awhile) necessary.

The economy will grow its way out of some of the debt if no more is added that isn't paid for.

Remember, the big mistake Bush made was in assuming that once we saw some surplus, it was time to cut taxes, thus effectively eliminating the opportunity to further pay down the debt.
Bush argued that the surplus was evidence that we were paying too much in taxes, but in making that argument he was completely ignoring the existence of the already accumulated debt.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No spending increases without tax increases to pay for them.

No tax cuts without spending cuts to pay for them.

Problem solved.

Eventually we could get to that, but for now we have to work on our huge debt and deficit problem.

So even with no action taken on taxes, huge spending cuts are (and have been for awhile) necessary.

The economy will grow its way out of some of the debt if no more is added that isn't paid for.

Remember, the big mistake Bush made was in assuming that once we saw some surplus, it was time to cut taxes, thus effectively eliminating the opportunity to further pay down the debt.
Bush argued that the surplus was evidence that we were paying too much in taxes, but in making that argument he was completely ignoring the existence of the already accumulated debt.

I agree with most of that, and Obama continuing the Bush tax policy along with his policy on spending, debt and deficits is quite the head scratcher.

 

[drsmith1072]

Eventually we could get to that, but for now we have to work on our huge debt and deficit problem.

So even with no action taken on taxes, huge spending cuts are (and have been for awhile) necessary.

So even with no action on spending cuts, huge increases in revenue by taxation are (and have been for a while) necessary.

wouldn't it be better to do both at the same time?

If two people trying to meet would it be faster and better for one to stand still and wait for the other to arrive or would it be faster and better if both were moving and met in the middle?

Both moving would appear to be the obvious choice.

No, increasing taxes in a crumbling economy is insanity.

Gov't gets back somewhere between 40-45% of the money in the economy, making that number higher won't help anyone.

Really how so? How will increasing taxes on people who aren't spending the money in the first place negatively affect the economy?

government? which government? state?" local? federal?

I recently watched john stossel on fox and he had this entire episode attacking big government for over-regulation and yet roughly 90% of what he discussed were state and local regulations not federal. However, that didn't stop him from using state and local governemnts to criticize the federal government.

So does your number include state and local or is it just fed?

BTW I don't see how cuitting spending and elimination of public sector jobs helps the economy either. You would think that in a "jobless recovery" you would want to keep all the jobs that you could and yet republicans across the country are eliminating jobs. How does that help a "crumbling economy?"

 

[drsmith1072]

Eventually we could get to that, but for now we have to work on our huge debt and deficit problem.

So even with no action taken on taxes, huge spending cuts are (and have been for awhile) necessary.

The economy will grow its way out of some of the debt if no more is added that isn't paid for.

Remember, the big mistake Bush made was in assuming that once we saw some surplus, it was time to cut taxes, thus effectively eliminating the opportunity to further pay down the debt.
Bush argued that the surplus was evidence that we were paying too much in taxes, but in making that argument he was completely ignoring the existence of the already accumulated debt.

I agree with most of that, and Obama continuing the Bush tax policy along with his policy on spending, debt and deficits is quite the head scratcher.

Are you forgetting how the right extorted an extension of bush's tax cuts from the left?

They held the extension of unemployment benefits hostage until obama and the dems agreed to extend bush's tax cuts.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So even with no action on spending cuts, huge increases in revenue by taxation are (and have been for a while) necessary.

wouldn't it be better to do both at the same time?

If two people trying to meet would it be faster and better for one to stand still and wait for the other to arrive or would it be faster and better if both were moving and met in the middle?

Both moving would appear to be the obvious choice.

No, increasing taxes in a crumbling economy is insanity.

Gov't gets back somewhere between 40-45% of the money in the economy, making that number higher won't help anyone.

Really how so? How will increasing taxes on people who aren't spending the money in the first place negatively affect the economy?

government? which government? state?" local? federal?

I recently watched john stossel on fox and he had this entire episode attacking big government for over-regulation and yet roughly 90% of what he discussed were state and local regulations not federal. However, that didn't stop him from using state and local governemnts to criticize the federal government.

So does your number include state and local or is it just fed?

BTW I don't see how cuitting spending and elimination of public sector jobs helps the economy either. You would think that in a "jobless recovery" you would want to keep all the jobs that you could and yet republicans across the country are eliminating jobs. How does that help a "crumbling economy?"

Money sitting in banks via investments/accounts are what banks use to give out loans. No money being invested=no loan for your car, home, equity line, etc.

All gov't.

Yes all gov't regulations goes against capitalism which hurts the economy, doesn't matter what level of gov't they come from.

Putting money in the economy, rather than taking it out and giving to gov't, will always help job growth. People don't have to be taxed for Mcdonald's to be able to afford a new employee, people do need to be taxed for gov't to hire another bureacrat.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The economy will grow its way out of some of the debt if no more is added that isn't paid for.

Remember, the big mistake Bush made was in assuming that once we saw some surplus, it was time to cut taxes, thus effectively eliminating the opportunity to further pay down the debt.
Bush argued that the surplus was evidence that we were paying too much in taxes, but in making that argument he was completely ignoring the existence of the already accumulated debt.

I agree with most of that, and Obama continuing the Bush tax policy along with his policy on spending, debt and deficits is quite the head scratcher.

Are you forgetting how the right extorted an extension of bush's tax cuts from the left?

They held the extension of unemployment benefits hostage until obama and the dems agreed to extend bush's tax cuts.

No, nobody was holding a shotgun to the majority dems and Obama's back. Besides Obama said he could work with republicans.

I can't give him the pass that you can.

 

[SniperFire]

So even with no action on spending cuts, huge increases in revenue by taxation are (and have been for a while) necessary.

wouldn't it be better to do both at the same time?

If two people trying to meet would it be faster and better for one to stand still and wait for the other to arrive or would it be faster and better if both were moving and met in the middle?

Both moving would appear to be the obvious choice.

No, increasing taxes in a crumbling economy is insanity.

Gov't gets back somewhere between 40-45% of the money in the economy, making that number higher won't help anyone.

Really how so? How will increasing taxes on people who aren't spending the money in the first place negatively affect the economy?

Wow. You don't even understand capital formation.

Why are you posting in such a thread?

 

[Conservative]

Im all for tax cuts to raise revenues and spending cuts to cut costs.

LOL. And the moon is made of green cheese!

#1. Limit our military budget to no more than is spent by the next seven nations combined.

#2. Return to the tax structure under Clinton, with an increase of 5% for those making over $1,000,000.

#3. Cut all government subsidies to businesses making a profit.

#1... that would save 206 billion. That's a lot, but not nearly enough of an overall spending cut in the total US budget. List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#2... ahhh, the Jerry Brown plan. How much revenue will that net the US?

#3... not entirely opposed to this, actually.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Constantly spending more than we take in with no thought of ever balancing our budget?

Or

Limiting our spending to our revenues and living within our means?

Which of these two should be our policy as a individuals and as a nation?

Well. option 1 is essentially the cloward-piven strategy....

 

[francoHFW]

Pubs have caused the great majority of our debt, dupes. And their DEPRESSION cost almost all of Obama's debt. Ya GD MORONS! ty

 

[Mr.Nick]

Pubs have caused the great majority of our debt, dupes. And their DEPRESSION cost almost all of Obama's debt. Ya GD MORONS! ty

Obama doubled the debt in 3 years.

Then again congress spends the money - presidents just sign the check.

That's why the Senate is so pissed right now, because the House is refusing to spend more money. The tea party/republicans in the House are making good on their promises.

 

[francoHFW]

Doubled? You are clueless. change the channel, dupe.

 

[Avatar4321]

Im all for tax cuts to raise revenues and spending cuts to cut costs.

LOL. And the moon is made of green cheese!

#1. Limit our military budget to no more than is spent by the next seven nations combined.

#2. Return to the tax structure under Clinton, with an increase of 5% for those making over $1,000,000.

#3. Cut all government subsidies to businesses making a profit.

#1... that would save 206 billion. That's a lot, but not nearly enough of an overall spending cut in the total US budget. List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#2... ahhh, the Jerry Brown plan. How much revenue will that net the US?

#3... not entirely opposed to this, actually.

I would also add that I wouldnt oppose cutting all government subsidies to businesses not making a profit either. We shouldnt be propping up ineffective businesses.

 

[Firehorse]

To answer a reoccurring question ... Pubs are not 'increasing defense spending by 3B' ... By running the country on CR's there are slight budget increases built in ... By not passing a budget, it is the Senate that is slowly increasing defense spending ... Though to be honest, when the budget is measured in trillions, an increase of 3B is hardly worth mentioning