Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:00 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Cost of the the Bush Tax Cuts. Back to Topics
btc1

Champion Author
Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 10:44:38 AM

The Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich are Adding $12 Million to Our Debt Every Hour. Now add the cost of the Iraq War on to that credit card debt!

Cost of just the tax cuts.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,953
Points:3,047,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 1:02:38 PM

cbuck has it right. Higher taxes will lead to economic slowdown.

The result will be less revenue to the federal government, not more. The economy will slip into recession, raising the need again for government assistance to those who lose jobs. Unemployment insurance is paid by those employers (all employers pay in). Other government payments to individuals such as food stamps must be budgeted from the declining revenue stream. The next result will be high deficits. (Is any of this starting to sound uncomfortably familiar?)
The answer to the current economic stagnation and stalemate is: Tax Cuts and Spending Cuts.
Get busy, Congress. Get some bills passed that address these basic truths and sent up Pennsylvania Avenue to get Obama's signature. Unless economic recovery is not the program that Obama wants to have bear his signature.....

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 12/10/2012 1:03:52 PM EST]
Profile Pic
cbuck80
Champion Author Massachusetts

Posts:2,690
Points:850,230
Joined:Jan 2012
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 12:56:03 PM

If we get get rid of the tax cuts altogether it will sink the economy even further.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 12:21:15 PM

YOu progs keep on whimpering about the so called 'Bush tax cuts for the rich' , which by the way became teh obama tax cuts when he signed the bill to extend them. Be honest with yourself for a change.

But if they originally reduced taxes for everyone and lots of poor had their taxes reduced to zero or less (they got more back than they had with held) and the middle folks got fat tax cuts --- how much did the poor an middle tax cuts add up to?

For once it would really be nice for the progs to be honest about anything!!!
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 12:11:03 PM

The term "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich" is so passe!

"In other words, if the Bush cuts actually were just “tax cuts for the rich,” then their expiration couldn’t hurt the middle class. On the other hand, if their expiration would hurt the middle class, then characterizing them as “tax cuts for the rich” was a false message all along."

"Bottom line: suddenly there is near-unanimity that the Bush tax cuts were beneficial to everyone at all income levels — not just the small portion of taxpayers at the top income levels."
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,953
Points:3,047,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 8:23:31 AM

>>Maybe because the top 2% aren't the job creators that cons believe they are.<

I don't know where you work (public school?) but every job I have ever had has been at a company started or owned by a person (probably a white male too) in that top 2%. Yes, the top 2% does contain the job creators. In one example, that person was not in the top 2% when he founded the company, but achieved that level of income because he did start his own company. He had the experience and vision, he took the risks, he invested his own money, and he reaped the success of a thriving business venture. and ended up in the top 2%. (He is probably not in the top 1%)
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,048
Points:3,331,910
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 3:06:52 AM

The Obumer tax increases will do far more harm.
Profile Pic
wackiness
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:9,677
Points:1,254,380
Joined:Jan 2007
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 9:32:34 PM

owt
Hit the nail on the head

2013 tax season I wonder how many deductions I'll lose
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,023
Points:323,165
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 9:25:41 PM

"If the Bush tax cuts are such a bad thing for the economy, why is Obama so passionate to keep them in place for everyone except the "top 2%"?

Maybe because the top 2% aren't the job creators that cons believe they are.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,088
Points:2,323,160
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 9:02:58 PM

If the Bush tax cuts are such a bad thing for the economy, why is Obama so passionate to keep them in place for everyone except the "top 2%"?

The hypocrisy of this thread is showing!
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 6:12:24 PM

We should spend more now. The faster we spend what we don't have, the sooner the economy will collapse, and the sooner we can pick up the pieces and start living within our means. As we head toward the cliff Obama should stomp his foot on the gas as hard as he can and yell "Geronimo!".


mudtoe
Profile Pic
owt
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:10,326
Points:1,592,070
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 5:54:48 PM

How many trillions has the Dicatror Obama added to the budget, that's the real question!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 5:09:17 PM

"In 2000 total federal spending was about 1788.95 Billion dollars.

In 2012 total federal spending was about 3754.85 Billion dollars."




Spin it any way you want btc - the bottom lines are the same. Under Obama is over two hundred percent of what Clinton spent in his last year.

You progs want to go back to the nirvana of Clinton taxes - fine we also go back to spending at no more than his levels too. You still want to go back?????
Profile Pic
Pard
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:91,837
Points:3,744,635
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 2:28:09 PM

btc1, It was money that was in the government coffers, that, politicians gave back to buy votes. You must think we should get all the benefits of America without cost. <<<

I don't see how you can conclude that from what I wrote.

Marty, please look up the meaning of the word 'hoi-polloi'.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 2:25:13 PM

btc1: "Fly, do you mean this?"

You are referring to a Wikipedia entry that is based almost entirely on a highly faulty analysis by the left acclaimed, former-Republican, fiercely anti-GWB Bruce Bartlett. I wouldn't put much credence in any of those figures. Most importantly, Obama institutionalized most of the temporary spending authorized by Bush to fight the recession in 2008/2009. He didn't stop the war spending. He further decreased taxes on top of continuing all Bush tax cuts that were scheduled to end. In other words, virtually the entire deficit above about $400B/year (Bush's last non-emergency budget) is due to Obama's policies and choices. That's approaching $1T/year or 66% of the deficit every year of his Presidency. Thus, your 33% is actually closer to 66%.

[Edited by: turbosaab at 12/9/2012 2:28:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 11:01:43 AM

Fly, do you mean this?

"The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)

$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases

$1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending

$1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

$1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances

$0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[38]

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

Recessions or the business cycle (37%);

Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);

Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and

New policies from President Obama (10%)."

As you can see only 33% is the result of President Obama's spending. If you remove all that was created by Bush, then it is only 10% increase in spending by President Obama. Keep on defending the Bush administration. With 90% of the increase in debt due to his administration since 2001, you surely can see why we are still blaming Bush.

The Democrats are left to clean up this mess and avoid the Republican created "Fiscal Cliff".

US Debt since 2001.

[Edited by: btc1 at 12/9/2012 11:02:43 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 10:52:01 AM

Marty - just cause I know sometimes its tough --- here is a source for what I'm talking about....

In 2000 total federal spending was about 1788.95 Billion dollars.

In 2012 total federal spending was about 3754.85 Billion dollars.

Now if you people keep on wanting to go back to some idealistic era you seem to have fallen in love with fine.... But you cant cherry p[ick just the things you like.

If you want the same tax rates - fine make them the same for everyone as they were then. No cherry picking and just gong back for some but not all. Dont forget the other part of the picture - spending. If you want the same tax rates for all citizens as then fine but we have to have the same spending rates too.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 10:35:08 AM

Spending cuts - what spending cuts??????

Marty look up what spending was when Clinton was leaving and waht they are now.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,023
Points:323,165
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 10:32:54 AM

"Lets eliminate the entire Bush tax cut thing from our laws."

All that's necessary for that to happen is for Congress to do nothing. I see in the news that a number of rich hoi-polloi have increased their charitable giving (out of fear for expiring tax cuts) in order to decrease their taxable income for 2012. A crap shoot for them, to be sure, but at least some of our poor are being helped as a result of the threat of expiring tax cuts.



"GO BACK TO THE SAME SPENDING LEVELS TOO!!!!!!!!"

See, that's the part that's not gonna happen... what with all that across-the-board spending cuts to which Congress agreed. Sure is a pickle, 'eh?



[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 12/9/2012 10:33:56 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 10:07:44 AM

Ok btc -- just to silence the incessant whining and libelous statements made by the extremeists on both sides [but the progs more than others :-)] ----

Lets eliminate the entire Bush tax cut thing from our laws. Lets go back to those wonderous days of youre that all the progs like so much. Lets go back to exactly the same tax code, in its entirety, that Bill Clinton had the week before he left office. But as a compromise to rich fat cats everywhere --- GO BACK TO THE SAME SPENDING LEVELS TOO!!!!!!!!I say again - if you want to go back to pre Bush taxing then you have to go back to "GO BACK TO THE SAME SPENDING LEVELS TOO!!!!!!!!"

Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 9:42:04 AM

Pard, how ridiculous!

It was money that was in the government coffers, that, politicians gave back to buy votes. You must think we should get all the benefits of America without cost.
Profile Pic
Pard
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:91,837
Points:3,744,635
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 8:03:54 AM

'Cost of the tax cuts' starts from the premise that all money belongs to the government.
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,048
Points:3,331,910
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2012 7:25:59 AM

This is an absolute lie. Those tax cuts were for everybody.
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 11:44:03 AM

And also let us not forget, that the only thing stopping Warren from writing up his donation check to the treasury dept is .... Warren,

and the apparent lack of a working ink pen.

That, and once you give up the money, also goes the power of spending it in the way which you choose, unlike da gubr'ment. Why hasn't he called off the legal staff at the tax tribunal and settled, just doesn't make sense compared to what he's been sayin lately...
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 11:31:33 AM

I've posted this a number of times over the past few years and without exception our friends on the left will never respond to it. Of course, they can't refute my facts, so they put their head in the sand and act like those facts don't exist. Buffet is also being disingenuous when he talks about his secretary paying a higher tax rate than he does, because he knows very well the effects of inflation. That makes him a liar in my book.

I'm sure these numbers exist somewhere in the bowels of the IRS, but it would be very interesting to know the total dollar value of all long term capital gains reported per year, and the average length of time those assets where held. From that you could figure out what the true average tax rate is in inflation adjusted terms on long term investments (i.e. the percentage tax paid on the gain in purchasing power of those investments). Since these numbers aren't published that leads me to believe that it's in excess of the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income. Otherwise they would have been published and used as more justification to raise the capital gains rate.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,953
Points:3,047,620
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 11:03:53 AM

Mudtoe absolutely hits this issue out of the park in his post of 20 minutes ago.
Inflation is the hidden tax. Long term capital gains taxes are based on a number of dollars gained, all the while each and every one of those dollars is worth less. The tax code ought to at least exempt a portion of any capital gain for the stated inflation rate for the years the asset was held.
What good is the Consumer Price Index if it is not used? It is good enough to give people on government entitlement programs a raise every year, but no benefit for the taxpayers who makes all those entitlements possible?
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 11:00:11 AM

btc1: "Higher incomes often have the advantage of business and tax shelters to negate quite a bit of income, through deductions and tax credits prior to their personal income."

This is true, but what do you want?

1) Notice that the average AGI of the top 1% is still almost $1M. That seems too high if they are all taking advantage of the deductions you mention. Surely their high priced accountants could do better than that!

2) The deductions that you cite are built into the tax code to incentivise business activity. Do you want to disincentivise business? If so, encourage congress to re-write the code!

3) If you are correct, then increasing tax rates on "rich" will do even less than anticipated. Obviously, more income will be buried in their corporate returns.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 10:55:44 AM

MM: ""Rich job creators" doesn't add up"


Who was the last poor person that offered you a job?



mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 12/8/2012 10:56:21 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,023
Points:323,165
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 10:45:38 AM

"So where is the other 95% going to come from?"

Bring our troops home. Stop buying war machines. Send "security" soldiers-for-hire packing. Close up military bases that have sprung up over all creation. Stop involving ourselves in conflicts that don't directly involve our own defense.

I hope you're not suggesting that you refuse tax increases on the rich just because it doesn't solve 100% of the problem. "Rich job creators" doesn't add up.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 12/8/2012 10:47:10 AM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 10:44:56 AM

Hold it, turbo. Higher incomes often have the advantage of business and tax shelters to negate quite a bit of income, through deductions and tax credits prior to their personal income. S-corps and LLCs are a prime example of this. Plus cap gain income is another.

so is this still a true example of what incomes are? No.

AND there still should have been a tax or some type of payment for the Iraq war at least. LBJ instituted a 10% income tax in 1968 to pay for the Vietnam War.

[Edited by: btc1 at 12/8/2012 10:48:59 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 10:40:21 AM

turbo: "Even if they only pay capital gains tax, they are paying twice the rate of the average middle class tax payer. "


The other dirty little secret about the long term capital gains tax that the left never ever wants to talk about is that it doesn't take into account inflation. This tax is on assets held over a year, and therefore inflation comes into play.

As an example, if you bought $10,000 worth of stock ten years ago, and it's now worth say $15,000, and inflation was a "mild" 3% during those ten years, that $15,000 you sold it for today has the same purchasing power as $11,161 did when you bought the stock; so your "real" gain is $1,161. Now, you owe $750 in long term capital gains on that real gain of $1161, which works out to a tax rate of 64%, and that's before state taxes. It could be even worse though. If your investment didn't significantly outpace inflation, or worse yet didn't keep pace with inflation, you could end up owing tax on an investment for which you have already lost purchasing power.

So remember, when the left and idiots like Buffet talk about the wealthy "only" paying at the capital gains rate, they are deliberately being dishonest. Now, if someone would like to propose indexing capital gains for inflation PRIOR to taxing them, then there might be room for discussion.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,778
Points:140,250
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 10:38:07 AM

The government spends $7M per minute, $420M per hour -- 50% minimum of that on the National Debt "credit card".

btc1 just proved, according to his own figures, that taxing the rich will cut our defecit credit card spending by 5% each hour.

So where is the other 95% going to come from? Pelosi says you can't cut spending to solve it. Democrats are not serious, nor do they care. Votes is all they are interested in.

Obama lies don't add up, you can't repeat them until its fact. The defecit isn't slowing using lies -- you own two-thirds of Washington, now start fixing, you already wasted 4 years, your aren't going to coast the next 4.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 10:19:07 AM

btc1: "So do they really PAY that amount? No."

Sorry, but those were the average rates they actually paid *after* deductions and tax breaks.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 10:06:23 AM

Again, turbo, you are cherry-picking to make your point. Who gets the MOST deductions and tax breaks? The top percentile. So do they really PAY that amount? No.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 9:58:43 AM

btc1: "So, turbo, it would be unfair to tax wealthy people at a rate that would be "similar", but, still not as high as many middle class people?"

That's a fallacy. The average tax rate that the wealthy pay is more than three times that of the middle class (24% vs <8%).

btc1: "Giving them a lower tax rate as the Republicans have done, IS discriminatory."

See above. The wealthy pay a far higher tax rate than the middle class. Even if they only pay capital gains tax, they are paying twice the rate of the average middle class tax payer.

Thus, asking the wealthy alone to "pay their fair share" is unfair and discriminatory.

[Edited by: turbosaab at 12/8/2012 9:59:51 AM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2012 9:17:41 AM

So, turbo, it would be unfair to tax wealthy people at a rate that would be "similar", but, still not as high as many middle class people? How is that discriminatory?

Giving them a lower tax rate as the Republicans have done, IS discriminatory.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 3:34:19 PM

btc1: "...but, if taxes are going to have to go up it should be on them first."

Why? Because they can afford it? Because they deserve it? Because we hate them? It appears that the President and you want to tax them whether their their money makes a difference or not. There's something discriminatory about that plan. What if Obama declared that all African-Americans would have tax increases, would that be OK? What about Jews, Asians or disabled? If revenues have to be increased (and there's no justified reason that they have to), the burden should be shared across all income groups up to the level that satisfies the need.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 3:03:35 PM

They are still LOWER than they ever have been. No one thinks that raising taxes on these wealthy people will solve the problems, but, if taxes are going to have to go up it should be on them first.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 1:49:00 PM

btc: "Taxes are at present, the lowest on the top 2% that they ever have been"


The top 2% pay a greater percentage of the cost of government than at any time in our history. Conversely, the bottom half pay the least than at any other time in our history.

So much for the guilt trip.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 1:42:46 PM

Good to know that the more progressively your income grows, the right side believes your obligation to the government of our country should get less income because of it.

That is their logic. Because the government provides all the infrastructure and a secure country in which capitalism is applauded, then that gives them the right to continue to take from it. You earn more, you usually pay more in to the government. That is until you reach the magic top 2%. Then you should be "rewarded" with less spending on the government needs. Yeah, that makes so much sense.

Taxes are at present, the lowest on the top 2% that they ever have been.

[Edited by: btc1 at 12/7/2012 1:43:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
1OILMAN
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:2,269
Points:221,160
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 1:31:49 PM

About like everything else they believe.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 1:28:24 PM

The left actually believes that government owns everything. Their problem is that they can't just come out and say that.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
1OILMAN
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:2,269
Points:221,160
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 1:18:05 PM

Yes, I have a firm grasp on the obvious. Was wondering if anybody else did.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 1:11:15 PM

1OIL: "Never understood how people keeping their own money "costs" money. "



It makes sense from just one perspective, and that's if you believe that all wealth belongs to government to start with. BTW, the form of government in which the state owns everything is called "Communism".


mudtoe
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,293
Points:2,420,125
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 1:04:24 PM

Still waiting for signs that the cuts did anything positive for the economy.
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,383
Points:1,131,785
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 12:58:13 PM

this country will have hard time getting over tax and spend bama
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,088
Points:2,323,160
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 5:22:53 PM

<<<"The Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich are Adding $12 Million to Our Debt Every Hour. Now add the cost of the Iraq War on to that credit card debt!">>>
*************
First off, the Bush tax cuts are across the board, at least for all people that still pay taxes. If you want to find where the taxpayer money is bleeding, look at entitlements, look at the crappy economy and the high unemployment, look at the "stimulus" money that went into a black hole.

Hey, btc, the election is over, Obama won, you don't have to continue the class warfare anymore. The nation simply voted to keep all of the same people in office, wasting money and keeping gridlock in place. The nation has spoken, accept it for what it is.
Profile Pic
Teslukbla
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:33,957
Points:3,551,305
Joined:Jan 2005
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 5:06:14 PM

Let's keep the Bush tax cuts while terminating immediately Medicare D, all U.S. foreign aide, and all U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Profile Pic
Pard
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:91,837
Points:3,744,635
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 4:29:55 PM

Spot on, Tower!!
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,492
Points:564,410
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 3:52:59 PM

"Never understood how people keeping their own money "costs" money."

Never understood that either.
I suppose its because according to people like btc1 and marty, any amount beyond what they deem is a "living wage" is not really our money and we are not entitled to keep it.
Any amount after that, its the government who always seems to be entitled to our money to redistribute in whatever manner it decides is necessary.
That's the biggest entitlement of them all.
The Government.

[Edited by: theTower at 11/18/2012 3:54:10 PM EST]
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,778
Points:140,250
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2012 2:51:59 PM

A 4% GDP instead of a 1.7% would make the Bush tax cuts look like couch change.

Democrats produced excuses for 4 years, not held accountable for a single thing. How they survive the 2nd Obama term will be a feat never witnessed in US history.

Hey, where is your "Clinton 90s" plan that was supposedly created on higher taxes? Raise taxes, new jobs come!

(yeah right)
Post a reply Back to Topics