Bush Tax Cuts here to stay

• FatHobbit

  

  BoatShoes;554073 wrote:Multiple folks have suggested a lack of faith in the gubment to balance a budget. If that is true...what makes you think they will balance it if we hold on to lower tax rates and just borrow our way into oblivion waiting for this epiphany of fiscal soundness to happen? Maybe it's time to expatriate and move to the Bahamas...I don't think digging in our heels will result in anyone, republicans or democrats getting a clue...

  
  If the choice is higher taxes and the R's and D's spending into oblivion or lower taxes and the R's and D's spending into oblivion we might as well have lower taxes until this thing blows up. No need to give them more of our money when they plan to spend regardless of their budget.
• Ty Webb

  

  Totally disgusting what the Republicans did here....maybe now they will shut up that he hasn't done anything
• Al Bundy

  Ty Webb;554082 wrote:Totally disgusting what the Republicans did here....maybe now they will shut up that he hasn't done anything

  
  Letting people keep more of THEIR EARNED money is "totally disgusting"?
• BoatShoes

  For Fiscal year 2009 the Feds received 2.1 trillion tax receipts. They spent 3.5 Trillion dollars. The U.S. Gross national income for that year was greater than 14.0 Trillion dollars. Hence, 2 trillion of those dollars went to the feds. Nonetheless, if we had coughed up an additional 1.4 trillion to balance the budget...we'd still have 11.5 trillion of income left in the hands of Americans....more than twice the amount of GDP of the next richest sovereign nation, Japan.
  
  With that in mind....it doesn't seem reasonable to me to borrow and wait for spending to decrease (at least after the recession is over).
• tk421

  

  BoatShoes;554138 wrote:For Fiscal year 2009 the Feds received 2.1 trillion tax receipts. They spent 3.5 Trillion dollars. The U.S. Gross national income for that year was greater than 14.0 Trillion dollars. Hence, 2 trillion of those dollars went to the feds. Nonetheless, if we had coughed up an additional 1.4 trillion to balance the budget...we'd still have 11.5 trillion of income left in the hands of Americans....more than twice the amount of GDP of the next richest sovereign nation, Japan.
  
  With that in mind....it doesn't seem reasonable to me to borrow and wait for spending to decrease (at least after the recession is over).

  
  And you honestly can say here that if we raise taxes to "balance" current expenditures, that expenditures WILL NOT go up even further? Honestly? With the people in D.C. and the history of their spending?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  BoatShoes;554138 wrote:For Fiscal year 2009 the Feds received 2.1 trillion tax receipts. They spent 3.5 Trillion dollars. The U.S. Gross national income for that year was greater than 14.0 Trillion dollars. Hence, 2 trillion of those dollars went to the feds. Nonetheless, if we had coughed up an additional 1.4 trillion to balance the budget...we'd still have 11.5 trillion of income left in the hands of Americans....more than twice the amount of GDP of the next richest sovereign nation, Japan.
  
  With that in mind....it doesn't seem reasonable to me to borrow and wait for spending to decrease (at least after the recession is over).

  
  Those numbers are totally irrelevant to the heart of the matter. It doesn't matter how much money remains in the hands of the people. IT'S THEIR MONEY AND DOESN'T BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT.
  
  The government should be living within its means, not borrowing against everyone's future.
  
  A tax increase now (and that is exactly what it would be if you let these cuts expire) is about the last thing this economy needs.
  
  Start cutting government programs and balance the budget.
  
  Once you've done that -- THEN we can talk about further cuts and (likely) tax increases to pay down the debt. I'd be willing to pay more IF the money is earmarked to pay the debt ONLY.
• I Wear Pants

  tk421;554184 wrote:And you honestly can say here that if we raise taxes to "balance" current expenditures, that expenditures WILL NOT go up even further? Honestly? With the people in D.C. and the history of their spending?

  
  Are you honestly saying that if we lower taxes we'll somehow lower expenditures even further to balance the budget?
  
  Seems to me that we need to cap spending, then raise taxes until income meets that capped point and then each year from that lower both the taxes and the spending cap.
  
  We'd have to have some law or regulation for this to happen as neither party is going to quit spending voluntarily. This is obvious.
• HitsRus

  

  Extending the Bush cuts is NOT lowering taxes....it's keeping them the same. Letting any part of them expire is a TAX INCREASE. Stop trying to pass that off as anything else.
  
  The first thing you do is stop new spending. JUST STOP. Then you can work on paring the rest of the fat from the budget. When that is done, and you know what you need to get the budget in a reasonable semblance of balance....THEN you go to the people and ASK for more money.
  
  There is a certain audacity in thinking the government is entitled to levy taxes on it's citizens for its spending excesses.
• I Wear Pants

  I didn't say it was.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;554427 wrote:Those numbers are totally irrelevant to the heart of the matter. It doesn't matter how much money remains in the hands of the people. IT'S THEIR MONEY AND DOESN'T BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT.

  Exactly. We cannot tax & spend our way into prosperity and then hand the the tax debt to future generations for payment. Obama's Porkulus Debacle is a classic example.
  
  I'm still of the opinion that the government should get their own fiscal house in order just as we expect everyone else to do. Hell the Feds had the audacity of implementing costly Sarbanes-Oxley laws allegedly designed to prevent Enron-like accounting abuses in private business while turning a blind eye to waste, fraud, and abuse with the Federal checkbook.
  
  Why not implement a Sarbanes-Oxley Act to cap Federal spending, get military contracting under control, and make consolidating redundant and wasteful Federal spending the law of the land?
  
  Bottom-line: When the Feds get their own fiscal house in order, then they come to me and ask me to open my wallet for tax increases including allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Some of the tax cuts should expire, but not all.
  
  As I have mentioned, in order to get through this mess, Americans will have to sacrifice-a lot. Americans have not been asked to sacrifice in a long time and may not be willing to do so. Now, it is time to do so. Now, is a time to suck it up, and help pay down debt and reduce our means.
  
  This means tax cuts expire for most people, not the middle class for a few years. But, taxes gradually go up as the economy improves and AT THE SAME TIME, the federal budget is greatly reduced, including SS, Medicare, and Defense.
  
  It is a mixture of both in the next 5 years that will help guide us in the right direction.
  Letting all of the tax cuts expires is not wise, but not letting them all expire is also unwise. A mixture is needed to ensure some economic growth in the next two years.
• Con_Alma

  believer;554692 wrote:...
  
  Bottom-line: When the Feds get their own fiscal house in order, then they come to me and ask me to open my wallet for tax increases including allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

  
  ^^^^^
  This can't be posted enough.
  
  To expect that cuts to the extent of a true balanced budget and increased taxes will occur simultaneously is simply blind faith with no rational justification. There's nothing to suggest that it will be done. Nothing.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;554800 wrote:^^^^^
  This can't be posted enough.
  
  To expect that cuts to the extent of a true balanced budget and increased taxes will occur simultaneously is simply blind faith with no rational justification. There's nothing to suggest that it will be done. Nothing.

  
  In order for the feds to get their "fiscal house in order" we have to get ours in order, the people. Even if accept that the public has not desired anything the Unholy Trinity has done...it must be true that America wanted the fiscal irresponsibility stemming back to FDR.
  
  If it is true that Medicare and Social Security, etc. were bad choices....we the people who kept electing people who would protect them are responsible. The irresponsibility of government is directly reflected by the irresponsibility of most of us Americans. Savings are at an all time. People that don't save aren't going to elect people that will save.
  
  This Government vs. Us dichotomy is missing the point I think. Our government is by the people, for the people and of the people.
  
  We all are responsible for these budget deficits. We all stopped joining bowling leagues and building social capital with our fellow citizens and convincing each other of the wisdom of conservativism over a cold genny cream. We've been using the credit card in our personal lives and through our agents in Congress. At some point, we've got to poney up some of hard earned dollars for these programs the People wanted; even if they were mistakes....just like we have to do in our personal lives. We're all shareholders in this Constitution.
  
  We've got at least two more years with dems in charge of two houses of Congress. No way Medicare and Social Security get privatized in that time. Even if you want that to be the end goal, wouldn't the prudent thing be to at least try to pay a little more for them and mitigate what you put on the credit card for the next two years?
  
  Even if Obamacare is the worst bill the country has ever seen...if we're going to be honest...can't we agree that it's not going to be repealed and replaced (if ever), for another two years...shouldn't we at least try to mitigate its effects on the deficits?
  
  Like I've said, it's a delicate balance raising taxes in a recession. FDR made that mistake and it countered against his spending programs.
  
  I mean, I guess what I'm saying is...even if we want government to get smaller, and people are "finally waking up," it doesn't mean you're repudiating small government if you accept, at least for the time being, that government is pretty damn big and it might be prudent to pay for all of it while we work on getting rid of it....at least if we take our disgust of debt seriously. Like pulling the Obama card. "When we got here we inherited a pretty big gubment. It's not gonna shrink over night." I mean hell, we've had a military that is so big and powerful that with the right demagogue could have ripped away all the freedoms we have for many years. As big as the defense budget is; there's no way it gets much smaller in any real way for quite some time, IMO.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;554854 wrote:In order for the feds to get their "fiscal house in order" we have to get ours in order, the people. Even if accept that the public has not desired anything the Unholy Trinity has done...it must be true that America wanted the fiscal irresponsibility stemming back to FDR.
  .

  This U.S. Citizen only wants fiscal irresponsibility for short periods of time and only when massive military expenses are requir3ed for our ultimate survival. Everything else is simply a social experiment.
  
  A country can be run on the current amount of revenue being supplied by our tax payers. I am asking our government to do so. When and if they do I will consider a discussion of increase. It can be done.
• FatHobbit

  

  BoatShoes;554854 wrote: Even if you want that to be the end goal, wouldn't the prudent thing be to at least try to pay a little more for them and mitigate what you put on the credit card for the next two years?

  
  I get what you're saying here, but I disagree. To go back to your example of the wife who buys a ferrari you don't want. You can scream at her all you want, but if you just continue to pay off her purchases then why should she stop? Sure she has to listen to you yell, but there are no real consequences and she continues to spend and spend.
• Con_Alma

  No, Boatshoes, and here's why. Debt is a result of habit and practice. You don't add to it in order to eliminate it.
  
  You take the ramifications associated with the elimination of the debt by entirely ridding yourself of it. The ramifications become a deterrent for future debt accumulation.
  
  Stop the habit and practice now.
• jmog

  Ty Webb;554082 wrote:Totally disgusting what the Republicans did here....maybe now they will shut up that he hasn't done anything

  You can't be serious.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;554897 wrote:This U.S. Citizen only wants fiscal irresponsibility for short periods of time and only when massive military expenses are requir3ed for our ultimate survival. Everything else is simply a social experiment.
  
  A country can be run on the current amount of revenue being supplied by our tax payers. I am asking our government to do so. When and if they do I will consider a discussion of increase. It can be done.

  Can't be done with anyone in office or that will be in office.
  
  If we could balance the budget with cuts and some tax increases I'd be for it as long as it was stipulated that there would be tax decreases every year to coincide with further spending cuts.
  
  And as far as only wanting fiscal irresponsibility for short periods of time with massive military expenses, what does that mean about long wars with vaguely defined victory paremeters that have nothing to do with our survival as a country?
• Ty Webb

  

  jmog;555077 wrote:You can't be serious.

  Al Bundy;554125 wrote:Letting people keep more of THEIR EARNED money is "totally disgusting"?

  
  Holding up keeping the middle class tax cuts to force President Obama to keep tax cuts for their rich buddies is disgusting and there is no way you can defend it
• jmog

  Ty Webb;555161 wrote:Holding up keeping the middle class tax cuts to force President Obama to keep tax cuts for their rich buddies is disgusting and there is no way you can defend it

  
  If you don't think that Obama and the Ds have just as many or more "rich buddies" you really don't know what's going on.
  
  Until someone actually starts working a real job/career and sees how much money the government takes out of your check, they shouldn't comment on tax rates and tax cuts.
  
  Shoot, I've had bonus checks where the net was barely more than half the gross. The government (all combined) took basically half my money that I earned. There is NO section of the society, no matter how rich, that the government should be allowed to take half their money.
• Ty Webb

  

  I do work a real job jmog,I do have taxes taken out,so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about
• LJ

  

  Ty Webb;555161 wrote:Holding up keeping the middle class tax cuts to force President Obama to keep tax cuts for their rich buddies is disgusting and there is no way you can defend it

  I didn't know people like my Dr, my dentist, my builder friends, etc, were rich buddies of the Republicans. I would put money on the majority of people making over 250k don't know anyone higher than state govt
• Ty Webb

  

  LJ;555205 wrote:I didn't know people like my Dr, my dentist, my builder friends, etc, were rich buddies of the Republicans. I would put money on the majority of people making over 250k don't know anyone higher than state govt

  
  Do you even understand what I'm saying LJ? Do I need to say it slower
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Ty Webb;555208 wrote:Do you even understand what I'm saying LJ? Do I need to say it slower

  Please do!
• Writerbuckeye

  

  CenterBHSFan;555212 wrote:Please do!

  
  Agreed. For the entertainment value, alone.