GOP extension of Tax Cuts will add 36 Billion to deficit

[kaiser soze]

I guess the GOP argument against Obama's handling of our deficit is null and void now :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081105864.html?hpid=topnews

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

so how does this help our economy? Are theses millionaires starting businesses and hiring individuals? Tax cuts add more to deficit, meaning someone will be taxed more in the future leading to less spent on goods/services hurting our economy.

[valvano]

sorry you fail

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/08/70-of-economists-.html

of course, the idea of cutting govt spending never cross your mind?
we all know, the govt knows better how to spend money than private individuals.

just look at how well the "Summer of Recovery" is going...:p

[Burnout18]

Cutting govt spending and tax cuts are supposed to balance the budget. But what the GOP fails to accomplish, under reagan and bush, is the cutting spending part.

[valvano]

Cutting govt spending and tax cuts are supposed to balance the budget. But what the GOP fails to accomplish, under reagan and bush, is the cutting spending part.


"we dont need more taxes, we need more tax payors" - R. Reagan

tax cuts did their part, they have increased govt revenues

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

however, congress, mainly under the control of democrats but with a few periods of republican control, have totally failed to cut spending

of course, it would be awesome if the president had the power of a line item veto, or the fed govt was forced to do what many states must do, have a balanced budget.



what % right now pay no federal income taxes??
anybody ? anybody?

[kaiser soze]

oh valvano, the only reason why I fail is because you fail to see the truth

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2004/0919useconomics_gale.aspx

So who holds up the weight of the tax cuts?

Paying for the tax cuts would require monumental reductions in spending or increases in other taxes. To offset the revenue losses in 2014 would require, for example, a 48 percent reduction in Social Security benefits, a 57 percent cut in Medicare benefits, or a 117 percent increase in corporate taxes.

I know you hate these kind of programs, but hate to say it - half of YOUR elderly family and every other Conservative's family probably rely on them.

Making the tax cuts permanent is likely to reduce long-term economic growth, not increase it. Studies by the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, as well as our own research, indicate that making the tax cuts permanent would increase the size of the economy slightly and temporarily but would reduce growth in the long term, in part because higher federal deficits will have a negative effect on long-term saving, investment and capital accumulation.

Sound familiar? These cuts might have worked when our economy was put on ice soon after 9/11 but look what it is reaping now? Sure let's cut spending and funding of what matters so we can continue to line the pockets of the wealthiest few.

[valvano]

oh valvano, the only reason why I fail is because you fail to see the truth

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2004/0919useconomics_gale.aspx

So who holds up the weight of the tax cuts?



I know you hate these kind of programs, but hate to say it - half of YOUR elderly family and every other Conservative's family probably rely on them.



Sound familiar? These cuts might have worked when our economy was put on ice soon after 9/11 but look what it is reaping now? Sure let's cut spending and funding of what matters so we can continue to line the pockets of the wealthiest few.

vs. Obama using tax payor money to line the pockets of union workers?

how many jobs do the wealthy create vs jobs created by those in poverty?

yes, lets punish those who are successful:rolleyes:

[kaiser soze]

Alright, you win - 36 billion on the deficit is ok for the rich. I guess you gauge success by who has the most control and influence, right? I see tons of "successful" rich getting richer for doing shit (ie: cashing in stock options HANDED to them even though they failed to do their job), for fucking up corporations, for scamming millions, for losing jobs for thousands of hard working Americans. It appears the rich have been rinsing jobs out from the feet of many.

Please do give me some positive examples of the rich making jobs - and if the tax breaks are helping them do such then why are you so upset of Obama's attempts to make jobs - keep him out of this right? Isn't that small government philosophy? So please once again provide SOLID examples of how these tax breaks trickle down.

You do realize the stimulus packages added a double yummy for the tax break rich right? Considering it is they who have the largest stakes in Wallstreet. Nobody who is wealthy is suffering from anything - they are not victims in the slightest bit.

Funny how you bitch about it selectively, I don't support any handouts - Those who brought businesses to the brink of ruin should have lost their control and quite possibly their businesses as well.

[valvano]

Alright, you win - 36 billion on the deficit is ok for the rich. I guess you gauge success by who has the most control and influence, right? I see tons of "successful" rich getting richer for doing shit (ie: cashing in stock options HANDED to them even though they failed to do their job), for fucking up corporations, for scamming millions, for losing jobs for thousands of hard working Americans. It appears the rich have been rinsing jobs out from the feet of many.

Please do give me some positive examples of the rich making jobs - and if the tax breaks are helping them do such then why are you so upset of Obama's attempts to make jobs - keep him out of this right? Isn't that small government philosophy? So please once again provide SOLID examples of how these tax breaks trickle down.

You do realize the stimulus packages added a double yummy for the tax break rich right? Considering it is they who have the largest stakes in Wallstreet. Nobody who is wealthy is suffering from anything - they are not victims in the slightest bit.

Funny how you bitch about it selectively, I don't support any handouts - Those who brought businesses to the brink of ruin should have lost their control and quite possibly their businesses as well.

yes, the top 1% who pay 35% of all federal taxes obviously are not paying their fair share :rolleyes:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13984

but i do have an example of how raising taxes creates jobs...
look at all the wealthy moving down south to lower tax rate states, thats creating jobs in the moving industry

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/14/where-the-rich-are-moving-business-beltway-rich-migration.html

sounds to be that you have a thing against the "rich" i guess that makes you feel better about your personal failings :p

[Burnout18]

"we dont need more taxes, we need more tax payors" - R. Reagan

tax cuts did their part, they have increased govt revenues

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

however, congress, mainly under the control of democrats but with a few periods of republican control, have totally failed to cut spending

of course, it would be awesome if the president had the power of a line item veto, or the fed govt was forced to do what many states must do, have a balanced budget.



what % right now pay no federal income taxes??
anybody ? anybody?


hey who had control of the congress and the white house at the beginning of the 00's when we had a surplus.

anybody ? andybody?

Feel free to bash the dems all you want but lets be honest the alternative is just as bad if not worse. Making it seep like the GOP won't spend its face off is naive. Awwww how naive.

[Echewta]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0819/Stimulus-and-tax-cuts-now-smaller-economy-later-CBO-report-says

On the sobering side, the same Thursday report suggested that economic stimulants can be harmful to long-term health.

In their report, Congress's nonpartisan budget accountants estimated that maintaining the Bush tax cuts and avoiding cutbacks in government spending would have some positive effects on the economy in the short run. By pumping more money into the economy now, the gross domestic product (GDP) would be larger next year, and unemployment might be about half a percentage point lower.

But, because it would increase the nation's public debt, the boost would come at a price.

"Later in the coming decade, real GDP would fall below the level in CBO’s baseline, because the larger budget deficits would reduce investment in productive capital," the CBO report says.

So more tax-cut and spending stimulus now means a smaller economy later. The government would be eating up resources that could otherwise be used to create private-sector jobs that expand the nation's wealth and productivity.

[kaiser soze]

and there you go, a double full butt fuck - from both sides

and this is where I have always stood - anti-tax cut, anti-handouts

The majority of stimulus $$ was predominantly given to the wealthy and powerful anyways.

[travesty]

The classic Democratic rope-a-dope. Spend until the populus gets concerned about the deficit then blame the Republicans for not being "reasonable" enough to raise taxes. It is shameful yet happens every time the Dems have control of the Congress. I am certainly not defending the Repub's on this, they spent just as freely but the recent Dems action has put us at a boiling point and now they want to shift the blame. Wanna reduce the deficit Barry? Stop the wars bro.