nate_1979 9 #1 May 11, 2006 We are about to have to replace our countries debt clock because our debt has almost grown to more than what it can display, almost $10,000,000,000,000 ... A new tax cut, which is being referred to as a "long-sought election year victory" by Bush and his GOP allies on capitol hill, is flawed to say the least. (edited to add that this has not fully passed yet, just the house ) Two questions that I have are 1. Is a tax cut what this country needs right now? 2. If so, who should benefit from these tax cuts? The country is at war, like it or not. War costs ALOT of money. This is not the time, IMO, to be taking money away from the US Budget. We, as US Citizens and taxpayers, want tax cuts anyway... The tax cuts which have just passed the house today help out the citizens of our country who make the most money. The tax cuts favor the rich. taxpayers who make more than $1 million per year in income can expect to save $42,000 per year in taxes, an amount that is more than many people I know even make in a year. How about the average taxpayer? As a tax payer that makes around $50,000 per year, I can expect to save a whopping $46.. Whoopty fucking do.. Just think of all the things I can do with that. IMO they should just keep the damn money and try to do something good with it. Yes, I know deep down that it just gets wasted by the gov't with the way they spend on stupid shit, but that's a whole nother rant. Take the savings that the rich are going to receive (and probably not even notice in many cases) and give them to the lower class income earners that need them, or just keep the $70 billion dollars that this will take away from the government during the next 5 years and do something useful like help those in our country who are deserving and less fortunate, and no I do not mean the welfare cases who choose to be less fortunate, yet another rant... It's the thought that we pass things like this for a political agenda (election year) and the fact that they blow off whether or not it's good for the country all so that they can show us / give us what we think we want / save their seats in office is disappointing.. More disappointing than that is that it will probably help them because we let it. Just shows that we are a greedy nation and as long as it increases the bottom dollar in our pocket we really dont give a ratts ass what it does to our country or how it could help others / be put to better use. Whats going to suffer for this? Who knows, could be anything from School funding to taking care of our aging population to saying fuck a pay raise for the military.. The money is going to come from somewhere that probably needs it, people must understand this.. FGF #??? I miss the sky... There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #2 May 11, 2006 It's absolutely the time to take money away from the government. However, it really depends on what the money is taken from. If it's taken from wasteful, ineffective programs, then it's just less money for the government to waste. If it's taken from essential defense funds, that's not so good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nate_1979 9 #3 May 11, 2006 QuoteIt's absolutely the time to take money away from the government. However, it really depends on what the money is taken from. If it's taken from wasteful, ineffective programs, then it's just less money for the government to waste. If it's taken from essential defense funds, that's not so good. But who's to say which programs the money will be taken from, I promise you it won't be congresses retrirement budget which provides 1 term seat warmers with $15,000+ per month retirement income! FGF #??? I miss the sky... There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #4 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt's absolutely the time to take money away from the government. However, it really depends on what the money is taken from. If it's taken from wasteful, ineffective programs, then it's just less money for the government to waste. If it's taken from essential defense funds, that's not so good. But who's to say which programs the money will be taken from, I promise you it won't be congresses retrirement budget which provides 1 term seat warmers with $15,000+ per month retirement income! Until people get over their entitlement mentality politicians are going to continue to bring home the pork. It's always someone else's program that ought to be cut. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #5 May 11, 2006 Answer to your two questions: 1. We can always use tax cuts...the government needs to exercise some fiscal responsibility to make up the difference. The absolute LAST thing I want the government to have is a surplus. That means they're holding our money for no reason. I'd rather the government be in debt. 2. Whoever pays taxes should benefit. For some reason, I see nothing wrong with rich people who pay more in taxes benefiting more from tax cuts, considering they pay the largest share. If you don't pay taxes, you get nothing back.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 May 11, 2006 For those who don't think tax cuts stimulate the economy. QuoteApril Tax Revenue 2nd-Highest in History May 10 2:23 PM US/Eastern Email this story By MARTIN CRUTSINGER AP Economics Writer WASHINGTON A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month. In its monthly accounting of the government's books, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that revenue for the month totaled $315.1 billion as Americans filed their tax returns by the April deadline. The gusher of tax revenue pushed total receipts up by 13.4 percent from April 2005. It marked the largest one-month receipt total since the government collected $332 billion in revenue in April 2001, reflecting a boom in capital gains from stock investors lucky enough to cash out their investments before the bursting of the stock market bubble in early 2000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 May 11, 2006 this particular bill is about two forms of taxation: AMT - which hurts an increasing number of middle income families in high tax states like California. This would be a rare bone to our state from an Administration that has proposed eliminating the mortgage deduction. taxing dividends like capital gains rather than regular income. This encourages investment in established companies that pay dividends. The risk level is much lower for the same level of payoff investing in these sort of stocks rather than all or nothing tech stocks. So I'm not convinced that this really only benefits the rich. They would save more for the obvious reason that they have a higher tax base to start with. Whether you agree with that or not, the doubling of tax rates on dividend income will cause some interesting effects on the stock market, and esp the Dow 30. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #8 May 11, 2006 Quote If it's taken from essential defense funds, that's not so good. Define "essential". The US already spends 25 times as much on defense as Russia, and spends more than the next 8 nations combined. What exactly costs so much to DEFEND. Seems to me, based on our recent history and spending, we should call it an OFFENSE budget. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #9 May 11, 2006 I was actually referring to defense, not offense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #10 May 11, 2006 QuoteIt's absolutely the time to take money away from the government. However, it really depends on what the money is taken from. If it's taken from wasteful, ineffective programs, then it's just less money for the government to waste. If it's taken from essential defense funds, that's not so good. More war, less social programs? I sense the majic wand of the Libertarian comming out! Seriously homegirl, more nukes / fewer souplines is what we need????? Would socialized medicine be unneccessary to you? Must be nice to have medical coverage and look down on the rest of us that don't. But either way with social programs, how about basic value of the dollar issues? Even if we raised taxes to pay for the debt, and the value of the dollar rose as the debt shrunk, wouldn't that be an investment back into our country? As for not giving our money to the government, don;t worry, we've (Republicans primarily) been maxing out that card for decades..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #11 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's absolutely the time to take money away from the government. However, it really depends on what the money is taken from. If it's taken from wasteful, ineffective programs, then it's just less money for the government to waste. If it's taken from essential defense funds, that's not so good. But who's to say which programs the money will be taken from, I promise you it won't be congresses retrirement budget which provides 1 term seat warmers with $15,000+ per month retirement income! Until people get over their entitlement mentality politicians are going to continue to bring home the pork. It's always someone else's program that ought to be cut. - How about just paying back the national debt crediot card we've been maxiing out? Forget entitlements, we have a debt to pay. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's absolutely the time to take money away from the government. However, it really depends on what the money is taken from. If it's taken from wasteful, ineffective programs, then it's just less money for the government to waste. If it's taken from essential defense funds, that's not so good. But who's to say which programs the money will be taken from, I promise you it won't be congresses retrirement budget which provides 1 term seat warmers with $15,000+ per month retirement income! Until people get over their entitlement mentality politicians are going to continue to bring home the pork. It's always someone else's program that ought to be cut. - How about just paying back the national debt crediot card we've been maxiing out? Forget entitlements, we have a debt to pay. Oh please tell us your plan to pay down the debt without reducing entitlements. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #13 May 11, 2006 QuoteAnswer to your two questions: 1. We can always use tax cuts...the government needs to exercise some fiscal responsibility to make up the difference. The absolute LAST thing I want the government to have is a surplus. That means they're holding our money for no reason. I'd rather the government be in debt. 2. Whoever pays taxes should benefit. For some reason, I see nothing wrong with rich people who pay more in taxes benefiting more from tax cuts, considering they pay the largest share. If you don't pay taxes, you get nothing back. QuoteWe can always use tax cuts...the government needs to exercise some fiscal responsibility to make up the difference. A) They go to the wrong people B) We have been slamming the cards for decades, so isn't it responsible to pay them back? QuoteThe absolute LAST thing I want the government to have is a surplus. Oh, then Bush is your man! He took a 230B annual surplus and turned it into a 500+B deficit. As for debt, we have been a debtor nation for over 50 years. So I agree, let's pay down the debt and not carry a national surplus, but we need to have an annual surplus in order to pay down the monsterous national debt. W/o sarcasm, you do understand the difference between the debt and an annual budget, yes? It is a very commin misconception. Clinton was the first president in 40 years to leave an annual surplus, which is why the debt turned horizontal, meaning it quit rising for a while until Bush took office, then turned vertical. Here's what I'm refering to: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm QuoteThat means they're holding our money for no reason. I'd rather the government be in debt. Oh contrare, we are holding their money. How can you say that they are holding our money when the national debt amount is astronomical? And this debt is fairly new, basically 30 years. To say they are holding our money is to say that maxing out your credit cards means the credit card companies are holding your money..... makes no sense. Downside to having a national debt is that we have to pay interest from our tax receipts and that it devalues the dollar, meaning foreign products cost more due to a poor exchange rate. Still think a ebt is good? QuoteIf you don't pay taxes, you get nothing back. That's a great recipe for an anti-social nation. You can't complain of there were a class war, becuase that's what happens when you advocate class supremacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #14 May 11, 2006 QuoteFor those who don't think tax cuts stimulate the economy. QuoteApril Tax Revenue 2nd-Highest in History May 10 2:23 PM US/Eastern Email this story By MARTIN CRUTSINGER AP Economics Writer WASHINGTON A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month. In its monthly accounting of the government's books, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that revenue for the month totaled $315.1 billion as Americans filed their tax returns by the April deadline. The gusher of tax revenue pushed total receipts up by 13.4 percent from April 2005. It marked the largest one-month receipt total since the government collected $332 billion in revenue in April 2001, reflecting a boom in capital gains from stock investors lucky enough to cash out their investments before the bursting of the stock market bubble in early 2000. Those illustrate aberrations. That's like saying the guy that wins lap #125 of a 345 lap race, wins the race. The debt is still soaring, so until we maintain tax receipts and can pay down the debt on a constant basis, we will continue to devalue the dollar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #15 May 11, 2006 QuoteI was actually referring to defense, not offense. Is the Iraq War defense or offense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #16 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's absolutely the time to take money away from the government. However, it really depends on what the money is taken from. If it's taken from wasteful, ineffective programs, then it's just less money for the government to waste. If it's taken from essential defense funds, that's not so good. But who's to say which programs the money will be taken from, I promise you it won't be congresses retrirement budget which provides 1 term seat warmers with $15,000+ per month retirement income! Until people get over their entitlement mentality politicians are going to continue to bring home the pork. It's always someone else's program that ought to be cut. - How about just paying back the national debt crediot card we've been maxiing out? Forget entitlements, we have a debt to pay. Oh please tell us your plan to pay down the debt without reducing entitlements. - Let's take a page from teh book of CLinton, where he maintained entitlements and still leveled off the debt. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 May 11, 2006 Giving Clinton credit for paying down the debt and balancing the budget almost borders on the psychotic. Clinton and the Democrats were totally against either. The truth is Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a balanced budget. Perhaps you forget The Contract for America. WOW talk about revisionism. http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 May 11, 2006 A little more reading, just to help with those reality breaks you are experiencing. http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #19 May 11, 2006 QuoteGiving Clinton credit for paying down the debt and balancing the budget almost borders on the psychotic. Clinton and the Democrats were totally against either. The truth is Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a balanced budget. Perhaps you forget The Contract for America. WOW talk about revisionism. http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html OK, so it was coincidence that the debt leveled off by the end of his term? You don't need to call me psychotic either - just make your argument. So you're saying all the credit should go to whom? The Republican COngress? Please, we see what they are about now.... So who's fault is this current economic trainwreck? Congress? Bush? Clinton was blessed with great GNP / GDP and didn't lower taxes until things turned around from the economically horrid Reagan/Bush 12 years. Hook or crook, he did level off the debt and leave a surplus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #20 May 11, 2006 QuoteA little more reading, just to help with those reality breaks you are experiencing. http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html - Personal attack #2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #21 May 11, 2006 That's like claiming you were responsible for Mark McGuires record breaking home run because you attended the game and cheered him on. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #22 May 11, 2006 QuoteA little more reading, just to help with those reality breaks you are experiencing. http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html - So you assert it was all the GOP Senate and not the Dem House or Clinton? Alllllrighty then. US all good / you all bad. Thanks for clearing that up. To entertain your assertion, not that I take it seriously, how much different is the Senate now as compared to the 90's? Not that much, so why the spending frenzy now and not then? QuotePart of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton's budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending -- proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. OK, so they are still anti-social, but love military pork? What happened, are they too cowardly to stand up to Bush, according to your article. QuoteNow for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion. So this makes you, if correct, the big social spenders. Whatever the reason, it appears that having a balance in American politics is better than this totalitarian scheme we now have. QuoteWe have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever? Even your partisan righty page calls this a balanced budget that has the debt clock running wildly.... ouch! QuoteSo the budget is balanced, but now comes the harder part: cutting the budget. Bill Clinton has laid down a marker in the political debate with his "save Social Security first," gambit. That theme should be turned against him and his government expansionist agenda. Congress should respond: No new government programs until we have fixed Social Security. This means no IMF bailouts. No new day care subsidies. No extending Medicare coverage to 55-year-olds. (Honestly, if Clinton has his way, it won't be long till teenagers are eligible for Medicare.) OK, so how is it that most other countries around the world extend lifetime medical coverage to all, and still have a better economhy than us, the richest country in the world, that doesn't extend real medical coverage to those who are not in special priv.? Also, what do you do with the 60-year olds that are dying? Do you just let them die in the streets? Do you act in a humane way? Do you invoke the GOP rule of personal responsibility? I think we won;t be having a lot of European immigration. QuoteThe budget surpluses over the next five years could easily exceed $500 billion. Leaving all of that extra money lying around within the grasp of vote-buying politicians is an invitation to financial mischief. If Congress and the president use the surpluses to fund a new spending spree, we may find that surpluses are more a curse than a blessing. Why do GOPers hate surpluses? It might make its way to some poor families? We can't have that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #23 May 11, 2006 QuoteThat's like claiming you were responsible for Mark McGuires record breaking home run because you attended the game and cheered him on. - And even tho the House was Dem, as I recall, the Senate ran the country? RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Your scenario has the batboy getting the credit for the majical homerun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 May 11, 2006 Let me break it down for you. I'm pissed off about what Bush, Republicans and Democrats have done by spending our money like a bunch of morons. If I had my way, I'd toss about 90% on both sides out and start over again. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #25 May 11, 2006 QuoteThat's like claiming you were responsible for Mark McGuires record breaking home run because you attended the game and cheered him on. - Here's a way to look at spending versus GDP: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
