yawn-cutting spending will be better. raising taxes without cutting spending is like bailing a cup of water out of a boat for every 10 gallons that comes rushing in.
You are in favor of class warfare with your tax hike nonsense. I note you haven't called for letting all the tax cuts expire which at least would be intellectually honest.
President Bush had a lot of help, most of that debt was created from 2007-2008 with a Democrat Congress. TARP was part of that debt but most of TARP has been paid back so where did the money go? 9/11 acccording to GAO cost a trillion dollars.
Obama and the Democrat Congress has added 3 trillion in two years.
because so many people keep saying "people are bad if they raise taxes" without realizing that today we have no other option to raise income. Wait until people realize that the new house plans to take away entitlements. You think people hate taxes going up wait until it takes money away from SS and medicare/medicade. Wonder how many would have gotten elected if they told people HOW they were going to balance the budget without raising taxes.
Prior to the housing collapse the biggest deficits during the Bush Years were 2003 and 2004. 2007 was quite a bit lower, 2008 on par with 2004, and 2009 with the worst of the recession it skyrocketed
2007 was about a tenth of what the current deficits are.
Top 10 deficits of all time
Year | Deficit/Surplus | Rep/Dem President
2009 | -1.4 TRILLION | DEM
2010 | -1.35 TRILLION | DEM
1943 | -669.396 BILLION | DEM
1944 | -574.056 BILLION | DEM
1945 | -561.204 BILLION | DEM
2004 | -462.56 BILLION | REP
2008 | -455 BILLION | REP
1983 | -442.614 BILLION | REP
1992 | -438.504 BILLION | REP
2003 | -430.1 BILLION | REP
I think WW 2 provides a rational reason for rather large deficits dont you
Yes, I have no problem with those deficits, just like the early 2000 deficits were due in part to 9/11.
2003-2004 were due to two main factors the voluntary invasion of Iraq and the tax cuts
Wrong, the invasion of Iraq occurred in March of 2003 and the expenses didn't hit until 2004. The Bush tax cuts raised govt. revenue. Canadians shouldn't try to re-write U.S. history.
Notice the decrease in tax revenue for 2003 and that revenue for 2004 was still below that of 2001Year revenue
2001 1,991,426
2002 1,853,395
2003 1,782,532
2004 1,880,279
2005 2,153,859
Wrong on the tax cuts
Notice the decrease in tax revenue for 2003 and that revenue for 2004 was still below that of 2001
Wrong on the tax cuts
Notice the decrease in tax revenue for 2003 and that revenue for 2004 was still below that of 2001
Please recall that I said 2003-2004 regarding the Iraq was as well
The tax cuts enacted by this legislation were retroactive to January 1, 2003 and first applied to taxes filed for the 2003 tax year. These individual rate reductions are scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2011 along with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 unless further legislation is enacted to make its changes permanent.[2] This comparison shows how the ordinary taxable income brackets for each filing status were changed
Source for those tax revenue numbers, here is what the Treasury has, all revenue
2000 3,132
2001 3,118
2002 2,987
2003 3,043
2004 3,265
2005 3,659
2006 3,996
2007 4,197
2008 4,072
because so many people keep saying "people are bad if they raise taxes" without realizing that today we have no other option to raise income. Wait until people realize that the new house plans to take away entitlements. You think people hate taxes going up wait until it takes money away from SS and medicare/medicade. Wonder how many would have gotten elected if they told people HOW they were going to balance the budget without raising taxes.
Top 10 deficits of all time
Year | Deficit/Surplus | Rep/Dem President
2009 | -1.4 TRILLION | DEM
2010 | -1.35 TRILLION | DEM
1943 | -669.396 BILLION | DEM
1944 | -574.056 BILLION | DEM
1945 | -561.204 BILLION | DEM
2004 | -462.56 BILLION | REP
2008 | -455 BILLION | REP
1983 | -442.614 BILLION | REP
1992 | -438.504 BILLION | REP
2003 | -430.1 BILLION | REP
Including in your monthly paycheck over 12-months. I'd say that's "putting more money back into taxpayer's pockets. Wouldn't you? "Allowing them to keep more of what they earnHere are your so called Obama tax cuts?
Obama Tax cuts
Total: $288 billion
Tax cuts for individuals
Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
Shifted the level of the flat exemption upward. Meaning instead of being able to exempt earn income at say, $65,000 (or whatever the level was before the increase, you now have to earn MORE money in order to claim the AMT.• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
You're talking about individuals who quite likely work in low-income jobs or work part-time. These individuals may not earn enough to pay into the federal income tax, but I'm sure many of them do pay state taxes. Regardless, I know for a fact that there are some people who fall in this category that DO have children. Now, I agree with your premise here, that if you don't pay "federal" income tax, why should you qualify for a "federal" tax credit? Problem here is, the states usually don't have this credit. So, in a sense the parent is being penalized for what? Having the exact same qualifier that millions of other people have but the only reason he/she is disqualified is because they didn't earn enough money? Yet, both the millionaire and the waitress have a "qualifying kid"? Does that make much sense to you? You qualify for the child tax credit not because you merely had a child but because you happened to earn enough money.• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
This one is a no-brainer. College tuition costs are out the roof! It makes sense to provide tax credits towards the biggest investing this country can ever think worthy to preserve its prosperity - the education of the youth of tomorrow!! If you're not willing to investing in that, you're just a prude!!• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
I can understand the resistance here considering how we got into this subprime mess, but the key thing to remember is this is for FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS. I don't know if there were other restrictions, i.e., the home's value had to be over a certain amount or the home couldn't be purchased in certain economically depressed areas, but since it is the "home buying market" that's suffering right now, I'd think folks like you would be happy that the government is trying to do something to rid its books of these so-called "troubled assets that have lost their value" (assuming that the second provision I mentioned wasn't a restriction).• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
I'm with you on this one. You get so much for unemployment benefits (generally in relation to how long you've worked/earned over time. But as we all know, many people won't look for work if they know those unemployment checks are coming. Yet, this period in our nation's history is alittle different. In many depressed areas across the country, there still aren't any jobs for people to look for. Still, their unemployment benefits were extended once already. And although I think in most cases it's by no fault of the individual that he/she is unemployed, I do think that if you've received beyond what your original benefit entitlement was you've likely received more than generous amount of Uncle Sam's money even due to the effects of the recession. So, here I agree. No tax write-off.• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
Not sure I understand this one. I think the EIC qualifier just moved from a "family of two children" to a "family of three children". I'd have to research it to be sure.• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
I can get behind this one. It's about "energy conservation and making homes more energy efficient. Why be upset about this? It's a good thing. Plus, if enough people take advantage of this credit it creates demand for those energy efficient products, i.e., windows, doors, sunroofs, kitchen appliances, etc., pretty much anything with the "EnergyStar" logo on it.• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
This one kinda goes with the first-time homebuyer's credit in that two of the nation's auto companies needed to be bailed out in part because they extended too much credit to undeserving customers. But here again, if you want to spur growth in the auto industry - the very auto industry you're hoping to get a large return on investment from because your taxpayer dollars bailed them out - I'd think you'd want this industry to do extremely well.• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
How did any of this help the private sector and why selective tax cuts to individuals who don't pay any taxes? Here is a tax cut that worked...
Bush Tax cuts...
An ebbing tide lowers all boats.I generally operate under the concept that the government has a high burden of proof to meet when engaging in what is redistributive actions that are most likely not properly authorized by the United States Constitution.
the recession is over by whose standards? the banks? yours?? the down jones industrial average going up, corporate profits going up, doesnt equal a recovery for those still looking for work. what you consider 'waking up' for the American People is actually frustration , and not a ringing endorsement for republicans or their platform. maybe YOU are the one that needs to wake up.
You can only push some people so far before they'll take their money and run. A tax hike on the richest may be the last straw. They have enough money to pick up and leave the country if they want. These millionaires left the state and the tax hike backfired.
Now were did you get your numbers and what do they represent as most definatley the US government did not have revenues of 3.2 trillion dollars in 2004
A tax cut, by Bush,and Congress, AFTER starting the Iraq war......how irresponsible is that? He should have raised taxes, instead.
but it's OK, our grandchildren will pay for that, and the bailouts for Wall Street, and whatever else comes down the road....
I sure hope our grandkids can get good paying jobs...oh, wait, today's college graduates are having a hard time finding a job.
Damn that Obama dude, in only 2 years he failed to undo 8 years of Bush. Let's elect another republican in 2012, I hear Palin might run, that'll fix everything....maybe she can get some really old flake to be her VP. I hear John Boehner looks good in orange...
Including in your monthly paycheck over 12-months. I'd say that's "putting more money back into taxpayer's pockets. Wouldn't you? "Allowing them to keep more of what they earn
Shifted the level of the flat exemption upward. Meaning instead of being able to exempt earn income at say, $65,000 (or whatever the level was before the increase, you now have to earn MORE money in order to claim the AMT.
You're talking about individuals who quite likely work in low-income jobs or work part-time. These individuals may not earn enough to pay into the federal income tax, but I'm sure many of them do pay state taxes. Regardless, I know for a fact that there are some people who fall in this category that DO have children. Now, I agree with your premise here, that if you don't pay "federal" income tax, why should you qualify for a "federal" tax credit? Problem here is, the states usually don't have this credit. So, in a sense the parent is being penalized for what? Having the exact same qualifier that millions of other people have but the only reason he/she is disqualified is because they didn't earn enough money? Yet, both the millionaire and the waitress have a "qualifying kid"? Does that make much sense to you? You qualify for the child tax credit not because you merely had a child but because you happened to earn enough money.
This one is a no-brainer. College tuition costs are out the roof! It makes sense to provide tax credits towards the biggest investing this country can ever think worthy to preserve its prosperity - the education of the youth of tomorrow!! If you're not willing to investing in that, you're just a prude!!
I can understand the resistance here considering how we got into this subprime mess, but the key thing to remember is this is for FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS. I don't know if there were other restrictions, i.e., the home's value had to be over a certain amount or the home couldn't be purchased in certain economically depressed areas, but since it is the "home buying market" that's suffering right now, I'd think folks like you would be happy that the government is trying to do something to rid its books of these so-called "troubled assets that have lost their value" (assuming that the second provision I mentioned wasn't a restriction).
I'm with you on this one. You get so much for unemployment benefits (generally in relation to how long you've worked/earned over time. But as we all know, many people won't look for work if they know those unemployment checks are coming. Yet, this period in our nation's history is alittle different. In many depressed areas across the country, there still aren't any jobs for people to look for. Still, their unemployment benefits were extended once already. And although I think in most cases it's by no fault of the individual that he/she is unemployed, I do think that if you've received beyond what your original benefit entitlement was you've likely received more than generous amount of Uncle Sam's money even due to the effects of the recession. So, here I agree. No tax write-off.
Not sure I understand this one. I think the EIC qualifier just moved from a "family of two children" to a "family of three children". I'd have to research it to be sure.
I can get behind this one. It's about "energy conservation and making homes more energy efficient. Why be upset about this? It's a good thing. Plus, if enough people take advantage of this credit it creates demand for those energy efficient products, i.e., windows, doors, sunroofs, kitchen appliances, etc., pretty much anything with the "EnergyStar" logo on it.
This one kinda goes with the first-time homebuyer's credit in that two of the nation's auto companies needed to be bailed out in part because they extended too much credit to undeserving customers. But here again, if you want to spur growth in the auto industry - the very auto industry you're hoping to get a large return on investment from because your taxpayer dollars bailed them out - I'd think you'd want this industry to do extremely well.
Save it, pal. I've read your "cut-N-paste" propaganda before. Spar me...
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?