Weren't Bush II's tax-cuts temporary?

OP
Dot Com

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
IOW- you either don't have the answer or don't want to answer.
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,581
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Uncle Ferd says dem Chinamens would be able to come over here in a rowboat...
:eek:
Panetta Warns Military Cuts Would Invite 'Aggression'
November 10, 2011 | Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday that sweeping military cuts which could be triggered by the failure of the congressional deficit committee to strike a deal "invites aggression" from abroad.
The comments from Panetta were among the toughest to date about the consequences of failure by the so-called Super Committee tasked with reducing the deficit. The committee is facing a Nov. 23 deadline to produce a plan that cuts at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade, but is far from a deal. Absent a compromise, the legislation that created the panel would "trigger" sweeping cuts to defense and entitlements. Panetta on Thursday urged the committee to "sacrifice just a little," to avoid painful cuts to the military -- which would just about double the $450 billion in cutbacks the department is already looking to carry out over the next decade. He said the military would be a hollow shell of its former self, lacking "the people, the training, and the equipment it needs to actually get the job done."

"I've warned that by cutting in excess of 20 percent in every area, (the trigger) will lead to a hollow force. And let me explain just exactly what we're talking about when we talk about hollow force. Obviously, that which is hollow retains a shell but lacks a core," he said. "It's a ship without sailors. It's a brigade without bullets. It's an air wing without enough trained pilots. It's a paper tiger. An Army of barracks, buildings and bombs without enough trained soldiers able to accomplish the mission. It's a force that suffers low morale, poor readiness, and is unable to keep up with potential adversaries. In effect, it invites aggression," Panetta said. The secretary said such an outcome would be the result of "poor leadership."

Meanwhile, lawmakers on the committee and party leaders are trying to work out their differences, but are far from a deal. Republicans had offered a $1.5 trillion package that included, for the first time, new tax revenue to the tune of about $300 billion, but Democrats are rejecting the offer -- saying the revenue component is not substantial enough. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said earlier this week he's "hopeful" a deal can be reached by Nov. 23. In reality, that deadline will hit even sooner. The budget crunchers at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office must get a complete product soon, in order to have time to analyze and score a bill for floor consideration. Super Committee aides say CBO must then publish that score by Nov. 21.

Read more: Panetta Warns Military Cuts Would Invite 'Aggression' | Fox News
See also:

Panetta: Bigger defense cuts would be devastating
Tuesday, 16 Aug 2011 WASHINGTON (AP) — Bigger defense cuts triggered by failed deficit reduction negotiations would have "devastating" effects on the nation's security, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday.
In a rare joint appearance at the National Defense University, Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made their case for limiting their budgets' exposure to the political battles in Congress over identifying additional ways of reduce future government spending. Panetta said the Pentagon is prepared to make $350 billion in cuts over the next 10 years, as agreed by Congress. But he warned of dangers to the national defense if bigger reductions are required. The deficit compromise reached between the White House and Congress set up a special bipartisan committee to draft legislation to find more government cuts. If the committee cannot agree on a deficit-reduction plan by year's end or if Congress rejects its proposal, it would trigger some $500 billion in additional reductions in projected national security spending.

"This kind of massive cut across the board — which would literally double the number of cuts that we're confronting — that would have devastating effects on our national defense; it would have devastating effects on certainly the State Department," Panetta said. Clinton said Americans should understand that in addition to preserving the nation's military strength, it is in the nation's security interests to maintain the State Department's role in diplomacy and development. She suggested that the political stalemate over spending cuts has put that in jeopardy. "It does cast a pall over our ability to project the kind of security interests that are in America's interests," she said. "This is not about the Defense Department or the State Department ... This is about the United States of America. And we need to have a responsible conversation about how we are going to prepare ourselves for the future."

Panetta was asked about news reports that the Pentagon is considering reducing military retirement benefits, which, along with military health costs, have ballooned in recent years. Though those payments have been considered sacrosanct — part of the bargain the nation makes with those who protect it — the economic and debt crises have put those issues squarely in the crosshairs. A private sector advisory panel last month drafted a plan to eliminate the current system under which those who retire with 20 years of service get immediate, lifetime payments of some 50 percent of their salaries and those with less than 20 years get nothing.

Though the report is not complete and it is non-binding at any rate, the board recommends the system be scrapped and replaced with a 401K-type defined contribution plan, grandfathering in the disabled and retirees. "It's the kind of thing you have to consider," Panetta said. He quickly added that it must have a grandfather clause so the government does not "break faith" with the military force. Clinton and Panetta were responding to questions posed by Frank Sesno, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, and by members of the National Defense University audience, which included members of the military and civilian officials. Asked about the situation in Libya, Panetta said the anti-Gadhafi forces are on the move toward Tripoli and "regime forces are weakened."

Source
 
OP
Dot Com

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
A rich guy said they need to revert back to Clinton- era levels if we want to get control of the budget. I think his name is Bloomberg ;) He's a billionaire.
Bloomberg Calls for Ending Bush-Era Tax Cuts, Corporate Loophole - Businessweek
“The spending cuts in Simpson-Bowles, plus Clinton-era tax rates, plus closing some tax loopholes and ending wasteful subsidies would save $8 trillion and effectively bring our budget into balance by 2021,” Bloomberg said in an economic- growth speech in Washington, D.C.
What they're considering right now, 1.5 over @ 10 yrs is window-dressing w/o the lapsing of those Bu$h- era, tax-cuts
 
Last edited:

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
Wasn't there a sunset- provision in his tax-cuts? Discuss...
Yes, but only as a procedural trick. Including the sunset provision was the only way to get deficit-increasing legislation passed via the budget reconciliation process.
 

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,775
Points
48
Personally I'd like to see the whole Tax Code Trashed and replaced with something 100 pages or less. I Neither support bailouts or subsidies.
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
Personally I'd like to see the whole Tax Code Trashed and replaced with something 100 pages or less. I Neither support bailouts or subsidies.
yep a pure flat tax on ALL personal income with NO deductions.

Get the govt out of social engineering thru tax code.
And a flat 20% tax on corporate income.
 
Last edited:

KissMy

Free Breast Exam
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
16,163
Reaction score
3,159
Points
255
Location
In your head
I don't see why tax fines & penalties on small mom & pop corps are the same as large corps. The fines & penalties should be on a percentage basis & not a one size fits all amount. A simple mistake can wipe out a small business yet fines & penalties barely register on large companies balance sheet if they ever get caught in their tax avoidance schemes.
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
I don't see why tax fines & penalties on small mom & pop corps are the same as large corps. The fines & penalties should be on a percentage basis & not a one size fits all amount. A simple mistake can wipe out a small business yet fines & penalties barely register on large companies balance sheet if they ever get caught in their tax avoidance schemes.
Along those lines companies or individuals caught defrauding the US govt should automatically have a fine imposed that is 200% of the amount defrauded from the govt.

If they rip off the govt for 5 million and get a 100k fine it is just a cost of doing business.
 
OP
Dot Com

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bush tax cuts had sunset provisions that made them expire at the end of 2010, since otherwise they would fall under the Byrd Rule.
They were only extended because of the economy and Repub threats
All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.[30][31]
Congressional Democrats offered two attempts to extend the Bush-era rates for "middle income" families but restore the previous, higher rates for "high income" people. The first proposal had a cutoff at $250,000, while the second raised the dividing line to $1 million. Both proposals were able to pass in the House, but on December 4, 2010, both fell short in the Senate, getting only 53 votes and not the 60 needed for cloture
Did $ in politics have anything to do w/ the final Senate vote? :eusa_whistle: Prolly. Until we get $ out of politics, like overturning Citizens United (brought by Bossie & more accurately entitled: Corporations United ;) ), not much of note will be accomplished.
 

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,775
Points
48
Personally I'd like to see the whole Tax Code Trashed and replaced with something 100 pages or less. I Neither support bailouts or subsidies.
yep a pure flat tax on ALL personal income with NO deductions.

Get the govt out of social engineering thru tax code.
And a flat 20% tax on corporate income.
I like the Flat Tax on Income, with no deductions, the same rate for all of us. I'd like to see subsidies eliminated. No more corn for Ethanol either. That fucks too much with food pricing. Limit the Monopolies.

Taxing Business only translates to higher prices for goods and services, it's just transferred to us. How about limiting what Real Property Businesses can own, like stocks, Bonds. Eliminate where the wealth can be hidden from Taxation.

Wouldn't it be fun if the lenders hat to pay the tax on the portion of what they held as an asset, like your house, and you had to pay tax, only on your Eqiity. :lmao:

Seriously.... Flat Tax is good. Based on Income is good. Collected via Sales Tax, is a very bad idea that will only fuel Black Market Competition.
 
OP
Dot Com

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
flat tax is regressive. It hurts the people who live paycheck to paycheck. Gotta love those 1970's wages earned by a large % of the country too :rolleyes:
 

alan1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
18,868
Reaction score
4,357
Points
245
Location
Shoveling the ashes
Personally I'd like to see the whole Tax Code Trashed and replaced with something 100 pages or less. I Neither support bailouts or subsidies.
Something simple,
like,
How much did you make? Send in 9%.

Oh wait, that's one sentence, not 100 pages.
 

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,775
Points
48
I don't see why tax fines & penalties on small mom & pop corps are the same as large corps. The fines & penalties should be on a percentage basis & not a one size fits all amount. A simple mistake can wipe out a small business yet fines & penalties barely register on large companies balance sheet if they ever get caught in their tax avoidance schemes.
Agreed.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top