UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Couldn't we just pass them along to our children and grandchildren?
Biden - Tology
- Thread starter tieguy
- Start date
Couldn't we just pass them along to our children and grandchildren?
No. Why would we want to?
M
MenInBrown
Guest
more spent in the last 3 1/2 years than the previous 8 years...so whats getting paid? Another term from Obama and he will amass more debt than all previous presidents combined...so whats getting paid?
M
MenInBrown
Guest
It looks as though we may not a choice but to pass it on.
menotyou
bella amicizia
We don't have a choice but to pass on the prescription drug scam, either. Paul Ryan had no problem passing the unfunded entitlement, by the way.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Oh, we most certainly have a choice--it's called the fiscal cliff and personally I think we should let the Bush tax cuts and other costs savings measure lapse, implement the proposed spending cuts and let the chips fall where they may.
M
MenInBrown
Guest
Its ALL getting passed on.
M
MenInBrown
Guest
Post #194 will tell you what raising taxes will do to this economy...why does everyone want the economy to get worst??? That will take thousands of dollars more away from families who have seen a steady decline in household incomes.
M
MenInBrown
Guest
If we were gonna let the chips fall where they may, Obama should have not done the stimulus or extended the Bush tax cuts. Obama new what the tax cuts would have done to the economy, thus his chances at a re-election, thats why he extended them. Not only those taxes...the UN is trying to pass global taxes that Obama wants that take more money away from us...Why are we trying to weaken ourselves to the rest of the world?
menotyou
bella amicizia
If you want to let the chips fall, we shouldn't have gone after a dictator who threatened the Bush that had a brain.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
You asked if we had a choice---we most certainly have a choice--I never said it would be a pleasant one.
In regards to the fiscal cliff---Congress will agree to extend the Bush tax cuts and the 2% payroll tax cut and will delay implementing the spending cuts.
M
MenInBrown
Guest
I hope so.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I don't. I think they should let the Bush tax cuts expire and repeal the 2% payroll tax cut ($20 extra per week---whoop dee do). I think they should slowly phase in the proposed spending cuts over the next 4 years.
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
You can't be serious! You are talking about a TRILLION dollars - That is 1000 BILLION. BO spent a TRILLION to get us to WHERE ??? Over 8% unemployment for 43 straight months. You have no concept of what a BILLION is let alone a TRILLION!!!!!!
WOW - He is one HELL OF A Leader and manager of our money.
You want REALITY???? HA HA HA HA !
moreluck
golden ticket member
Dr. Keith Ablow made me chuckle this morning. He said, watch the tapes of Biden's behavior at the debate. Forget that he's the vice president of the U.S........and look at him as your dad,or your grandpa.......the inappropriate laughing, the statement of facts that turn out not true ??
You see signs of early onset of dementia.
Dr. Keith Ablow
You see signs of early onset of dementia.
Dr. Keith Ablow
M
MenInBrown
Guest
Do you know what the other taxes add up to per person whoop dee do? What about the new taxes from Obamacare whoop dee do? Do you even know the percentage of your income that actually goes to some form of tax whoop dee do? They were implemented to get us out of a recession...now that we are on the verg of a double dip you want to raise taxes to try and put us in to a downward crash. Good thing you arent president.
M
MenInBrown
Guest
Maybe this will help you understand the problem.
MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits.
FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. The problem has not been taxes. The problem has been runaway spending. Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once:
· Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%.
· Under Nixon revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 21%.
· Under Ford revenue grew by 11%, but spending grew by 22%.
· Under Carter revenue grew by 20%, but spending grew by 13%.
· Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%.
· Under Bush Sr. revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 18%.
· Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%.
· Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%.
If we would just stop spending so much money, we would have a surplus, taxes could be even lower than they are now, and we could start paying off the national debt. The problem isn’t that we aren’t being taxed enough. The problem is that the government is spending too much money.
MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth.
FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997.
Dr. J. D. Foster:
Following the [Clinton] tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. . . .
In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill:
* Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
* Created a new $500 child tax credit;
* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
* Established education IRAs;
* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax. . . .
In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again. (Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom)
MYTH: JFK’s tax cuts were more responsible than Reagan’s or Bush’s. They were aimed at the middle class and didn’t help the rich.
FACT: JFK cut taxes more than Reagan did. JFK’s tax cut was larger than the Reagan tax cuts and any single Bush tax cut compared with national income, and it was larger than all three Bush tax cuts combined in relation to the federal budget. In addition, JFK gave a huge tax cut to the rich.
The Tax Foundation:
Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.
Comparing the size of these tax cuts with the federal budget shows that the Kennedy’s tax cuts represented 8.8 percent of the budget. In 1981, Reagan’s tax cuts represented 5.3 percent of the budget. Each of Bush’s tax cuts are smaller than Reagan’s—EGTRRA (3.8 percent), JCWA (2.5 percent) and the 2003 Tax Cut (1.8 percent). When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1 percent), they would be larger than Reagan’s tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedy’s tax cut. ("Fiscal Facts," Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html)
Jeff Jacoby:
By any rational yardstick, the Kennedy tax cut was enormous, and it was a boon to the rich. It cut the top marginal rate a whopping 21 percentage points, from 91 to 70. Bush's plan lowers rates at the top by only 6.6 percentage points. For those in the lowest bracket, JFK cut the tax rate to 14 percent. . . . (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby031601.asp)
MYTH: Lower tax rates don’t cause economic growth.
FACT: Even JFK understood that lower tax rates produce economic growth and even higher tax revenue. According to President Kennedy:
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I sleep better at night knowing you are not in charge of our fiscal policies.
The 2% payroll tax cut, which works out to about $20/week, was designed to stimulate the economy---didn't work. The Bush tax cuts simply need to expire.
We need to implement the proposed spending cuts---I would prefer they be done all at once but doing so could very well throw us back in to an even deeper recession. Phasing them in over a 4 year period would ease the pain.
We need to increase revenue while reducing spending. It is that simple.
I know exactly what my tax obligation is and adjust accordingly.
Similar threads
