Bush Tax Cuts- Let them Expire or Renew?

YAWN.......................... ........

I'll say this first it dosn't bother me one way or other however I do think the rich people really don't need a break they have tax people to find the loopholes so its kinded a waste of time. However I do find non super rich people who rant about giving them breaks stupid but I said I don't care one way or other my tax person is great so there I said it.

YAWN.......................... ........ Originally Posted by dirty dog

Yep my topics are so boring, but you take time out of your busy exciting day to respond to this boring thread!!!! Wow! just freaking WOW! There's an old saying DD it goes: Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the one who follows the fool?
In other words when you belittle my threads and say how dumb or useless(your words paraphrased) my threads are, but then respond to them- you fit the perfect meaning of the old saying above.

This is all I have to say on the subject; They have had 10 years to invest that 2% and help the country and the economy, and yet here we are 10 years later and we are still waiting for them to invest in jobs for americans and to help us recover from
and absolutely awful recession, maybe if we give them another 10 years they will but
I wouldnt bet on it!

Yep my topics are so boring, but you take time out of your busy exciting day to respond to this boring thread!!!! Wow! just freaking WOW! There's an old saying DD it goes: Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the one who follows the fool?
In other words when you belittle my threads and say how dumb or useless(your words paraphrased) my threads are, but then respond to them- you fit the perfect meaning of the old saying above. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Blah, blah, blah, blah

This is all I have to say on the subject; They have had 10 years to invest that 2% and help the country and the economy, and yet here we are 10 years later and we are still waiting for them to invest in jobs for americans and to help us recover from
and absolutely awful recession, maybe if we give them another 10 years they will but
I wouldnt bet on it! Originally Posted by kcmark

That is a good point, but it is hard to tell what effects it would have had otherwise. Also, I don't believe the reduced taxes have been in effect for 10 years.

A little off subject, this is one thing that bothers me about the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats say without the stimulus, unemployment would have been higher. It is possible, but there is no proof since there was a stimulus. Republicans say without the tax cuts, the current economic situation would have been worse. Once again, there is no proof since there were tax cuts.

Yes, it is hard to prove a negative. But those negatives that you are trying to prove aren't the same.

Democrats: If you want to see the effects of the stimulus money, just try removing that same amount of money from the economy and see what happens to employment figures. I think you'll agree that an $800Billion anti-stimulus bill would create a huge mess.

Republicans: The Bush tax cuts were approved and phased in long before the recession started. Those cuts robbed the federal government of hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been spent on an even larger stimulus bill. Translation: large short term gains for the richest, followed by longer term losses for the poorer.

The above chart shows the "gift" that Republican policies will leave for the rest of us.

"Those cuts robbed the federal government of hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been spent on an even larger stimulus bill"

Tax cuts and stimulus are two sides of the same coin. Both are intended to get money into the economy fast. Both involve borrowing Chinese money. The argument is over which method gets money into the economy fastest.

But tax cuts didn't 'rob' the federal governement any more or any less than stimulous 'robbed' the federal government. They are the same thing served on a different platter.

And IMHO neither 'robs' from the federal government. Any action that increases debt robs from our own future. Collectively we are the federal government. Standing alone, the federal government is nothing.

If we are talking about the top 2%, thats worth $700 billion over a ten year period. In this era where trillions are thrown around, $70 billion a year seems to have more political value than monetary value. The 2010 budget was 3.55 trillion...so this whole discussion over taxes on the top 2% actually covers a little less than 2% of the budget.

What does that tell me? Well, I'm pretty sure that the remaining 98% of us can't make up the other 98% of the budget. So, our politicians have got us tricked into discussing the molehill, and shielded us from seeing the mountain.

I don't care about the top 2%...lets look at the real reasons we are in debt.

The real reason we're in debt? Congress spends too much.

The real reason we're in debt? Congress spends too much. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Definitely agree COG.

Here's a question to ponder... Would we be willing to have a tax increase if all increases went to pay off of the national debt? After all, a debt free US would have no economical match. Say it was 5% tax increase for a 15-20 year period. Sure it sucks having to pay more, but are we patriotic enough to agree to this in order to make a much stronger union? At the same time, I would like to see some government programs cut (defense and a lower EIC) or eliminated (projects like Alaska's bridge to nowhere). I know this is idealistic, but I just want to know people's responses to a hypothetical.

Definitely agree COG.

Here's a question to ponder... Would we be willing to have a tax increase if all increases went to pay off of the national debt? After all, a debt free US would have no economical match. Say it was 5% tax increase for a 15-20 year period. Sure it sucks having to pay more, but are we patriotic enough to agree to this in order to make a much stronger union? At the same time, I would like to see some government programs cut (defense and a lower EIC) or eliminated (projects like Alaska's bridge to nowhere). I know this is idealistic, but I just want to know people's responses to a hypothetical. Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

The problem is that these idiots in Congress have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted to use the money generated by this type of tax for its intended purpose. Look at how the excess Social Security money has been spent over the years and now the trust fund is full of worthless Harry and Lloyd style IOU's.

I have voted many times to raise my own taxes (sales tax referendums). I think a large majority would agree to a tax increase, if they had any confidence the money was being spent wisely to reduce debt. But there is no confidence whatsoever in congress.

The problem is that these idiots in Congress have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted to use the money generated by this type of tax for its intended purpose. Look at how the excess Social Security money has been spent over the years and now the trust fund is full of worthless Harry and Lloyd style IOU's. Originally Posted by jac01

But Jac, in the hypothetical situation I provided, where all the revenues from the tax increase would go toward the national debt, what would you say? I know that Congress is not responsible, that isn't the question though.

Convenient that the chart starts in 2009 when the democrats took over Congress in 2007. How about going back to 2001 and have some projections about what 9/11 cost this nation?

Remove the cap on Social Security witholding beyond $106,000 and it would be funded for a long time.

Remove earmarks from Congress and make them submit a bill for each expenditure.

Let the last increment of the Bush bill expire. You owe something to your country for the opportunities to make the money that you do. Every entreprenuer thinks they did it themselves. This is never reality just ego.