- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You used the word ONLY, and it is my opinion that absolutes should not be used. Leave out the word only, and I might be more inclined to buy into your statement...
and, I think encouraging spending from the private sector thru selected tax cuts aimed at the trillions tied up in stagnant retiree accounts is the way to go...
No, they aren't but it isn't because of the tax cuts, it is because of other economic conditions that cost people jobs. Hard to cut taxes on unemployment benefits.
You really think the GOP doesn't pick and choose?Why do you want to pick and choose who has money to spend and who gets tax cuts? Believe it or not the rich spend their money just like the middle class. Freeing up money from stagnant retiree accounts is good but not as good as across the board tax cuts. I cannot get anyone here to tell us how to get 16 million people employed. One poster claimed improve consumer confidence. Wonder if that post knows what a consumer is? Don't know about you but having more spendable income improves my confidence and believe it or not I am a consumer
Charts are only meaningless when the don't support your point of view....:2razz:I don't know what motivates people like you to pick and choose what you respond to and then only post data that you believe supports your point of view. Cannot help but you didn't respond to the current charts at all and continue to buy the rhetoric of the Obama Administration. I guess people from Oregon have been brainwashed so long that there must not be a lot of brain left.
If you bothered to pay attention to the current charts you would see that unemployment is higher each month in 2010 than it was in 2009 and that employment continues to decline as well.
Now I understand your strong desire to go back to the Bush years and compare them to previous Administrations as if that matters today. I could refute your charts but you just ignore anything that refutes your posts so why waste the time. Instead I will continue to point out the disaster that you apparently voted for and the mess he has created.
Blaming Bush doesn't solve the problems we have today nor does diverting to meaningless charts comparing Bush to previous Administrations. There are 16 million people unemployed today so my question is when are you and any other Obama supporter going to get around to addressing that problem?
The Bush tax cuts that currently exist aren't growing jobs, are they?
Charts are only meaningless when the don't support your point of view....:2razz:
Charts are only meaningless when the don't support your point of view....:2razz:
In this case it's probably true and I think he was correct. The tax cuts were enacted to fight a recession inherited from Clinton. They began to work, but 9/11 hit which caused further damage to the economy. Followed by another round of tax cuts, I beleive. While the tax cuts probably created the benefits they normally do, those benefits were partially mitigated by other factors affecting the economy
but I don't believe that sustained tax cuts are good long term. There was a time when we had little unemployment, higher tax rates, and we were a lender nation. I guess you have to be old to remember that far back.
I doubt I will ever make enough to be taxed at 90%...tho we did get into the 34% bracket a few years a go when we withdrew IRA funds to build a house...I don't see why not. If it causes the economy to grow quicker (or not contract as much) I see no reason that sustained tax cuts aren't fine. That's just my opinion, though
Anyway, I imagine that since you don't think tax cuts should be sustained, then we need to go back to the 90.0% top marginal rates? Anything less that that would essentially be a tax cut.
No, they aren't but it isn't because of the tax cuts, it is because of other economic conditions that cost people jobs. Hard to cut taxes on unemployment benefits.
Why are so many here against keeping more of their own money? Please don't tell me it is because they believe it is for the good of the nation!
Indeed! Except Republicans have made it quite clear that any tax increase whatsoever will be completely unacceptable. They have offered at MOST extremely vague and wishy-washy proposals for cutting spending (or proposals they have no chance in hell of implementing; I'm looking at you "Abolish the Department of Education" people).
That's why politicians invented the term "government waste." So you never actually have to take a POSITION on anything. It's easier to campaign on "cutting waste" than "cutting Program X, Y, Z" because you don't have to deal with people who like Program X, Y, Z. It's also a great term because there's no way to hold someone accountable since you never have to articulate what your goal is.
You're 100% correct. There are three ways to attack the National Debt:
- Raise Taxes to raise revenue.
- Cut spending to lower costs.
- Balance the budget and let the debt inflate away.
Anybody who thinks we can solve the problem with a "one prong" approach is simply deluded.
So FICA which brings in nearly the same amount doesn't count to you? You have this real big hang up on only income tax to the point you went out of your way to pretend Lord T's post showing the breakdown of taxes where FICA was a few hundred billion short of Income simply did not exist. This suggests you have no use for honest debate as you keep pretending that only income tax exists and that all other taxes aside from the estate simply do not matter despite their large staggering effects upon the budget.
As will there never been an incentive for the minority who gets special privileges and subsidies to vote for decreasing spending. Pretending that doesn't exist too eh? What a simple life. Only the things that negatively effect me are bad and that all of the good things on the same plate that I complain about aren't there. Despite me getting benefits. Honest, you are not.
And GOP does the same thing. Or were you sleeping during the all GOP years?
Some of us have memory superior to that of Goldfish. Some do not.
Gee, I always thought that payroll taxes were SS taxes and that "contributions" to SS would lead to benefits when the individual retired. Didn't know that was the same affect as income taxes. Who would have thought it? Wonder if those calling for a payroll tax cut are also calling for a SS benefit cut when those people retire? Comparisons between both taxes seem to be quite inappropriate but as OC would say what do I know?
Gee, I always thought that payroll taxes were SS taxes and that "contributions" to SS would lead to benefits when the individual retired.
some of us are smart enough to be attacked by the envious. some others are not
and what special privileges do the majority of us targeted for Obamascum tax hikes get? I am talking about people making 200k to a couple million a year. tell me what do we get for having more than half of the next dollar we earn taken by the dem parasites?
and FICA isn't the tax that your Idiot in chief is talking about hiking
Bolding mine.you make the assumption that tax hikes on those who already pay too much of the taxes will lead to increased revenues
I don't think that is true. that is the major problem with liberal arguments. the assumption that people won't change anything other than how big the check they write the parasitic government
Bolding mine.
Exactly! You don't THINK that is true. You're just assuming too.
That is the major problem with conservative arguments. The idea that someone would work their ass off to get rich at a 35% tax rate but would then rather sit their ass and be poor instead of paying a 40% tax rate is simply ridiculous. For one more nickel on the dollar? It's absurd.
If the rich have tax shelters THEY'RE ALREADY USING THEM. Again, nobody is going to work their ass off to shelter money from a 40% tax rate but not a 35% tax rate. If I can stick my money in an account in the Cayman's I'm doing so to avoid a 1% tax rate. Therefore any increase in tax rate WOULD NOT effect evasion since I'm doing it no matter what rate my money is taxed at.
Just another thing to add to your list of things you got wrong.
Bolding mine.
Exactly! You don't THINK that is true. You're just assuming too.
That is the major problem with conservative arguments. The idea that someone would work their ass off to get rich at a 35% tax rate but would then rather sit their ass and be poor instead of paying a 40% tax rate is simply ridiculous. For one more nickel on the dollar? It's absurd.
If the rich have tax shelters THEY'RE ALREADY USING THEM. Again, nobody is going to work their ass off to shelter money from a 40% tax rate but not a 35% tax rate. If I can stick my money in an account in the Cayman's I'm doing so to avoid a 1% tax rate. Therefore any increase in tax rate WOULD NOT effect evasion since I'm doing it no matter what rate my money is taxed at.
Why is it so important to you what someone else pays in taxes and why would you want more of your dollars to go to politicians in D.C.? Regardless of the amount, how does raising taxes employ people?
Some of us are smart enough to realize you're a hack.
Oh look. Once again Turtledude proves he is incapable of addressing what he quotes and instead goes off on irrelevant tirades to hide the fact he has no argument.
Our idiot in chief. Thanks for proving you aren't honest in any way shape or form.
Bolding mine.
Exactly! You don't THINK that is true. You're just assuming too.
That is the major problem with conservative arguments. The idea that someone would work their ass off to get rich at a 35% tax rate but would then rather sit their ass and be poor instead of paying a 40% tax rate is simply ridiculous. For one more nickel on the dollar? It's absurd.
some will, yes. certainly not to the point where you would see a drop in revenues (unless you also increased the capital gains tax and destroyed investment, which is far more sensitive), but some absolutely will.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?