soccerboy22
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 10,721
- Reaction score
- 4,120
- Location
- A warm place
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
When was the last true spending cut? ever? not a slowdown of growth but a real cut (outside of defense)
1) Keeping the Bush/Obama tax rates for the "middle class"
2) sticking it to the rich with a tax hike
Why would saving tax cuts for the middle class necessitate saving them for the rich as well? The Democrats hold all the cards here. If push comes to shove, they can do absolutely nothing and all the tax cuts will expire. Then they can introduce a tax cut for the middle-class...and what Republican would dare oppose it?
Besides, I don't see retaining the Bush tax cuts for the Middle-Class but increasing them for the wealthy as "sticking it to the rich". I see it as a necessary move in order for the government to pay down the debt, thereby reducing the deficit, and maintaining our government's ability to properly function WITHOUT turning up the volumn on the Treasury's printing press.
We can talk cuts to federal spending, saving money by reducing entitlement spending, eliminate certain tax subsidies or rely on commercial papers from the Treasury (i.e., T-Bills) to generate revenue, but all these things alone won't reduce the deficit or eliminate the debt. The Middle-Class really has nothing more to give while the wealth-class has continued to make money even while the economy has struggled along. I think it's only fair and reasonable to ask those who can afford to help keep the government solvent should do so. And if such tax measures work to increase revenue while improving economic outcomes, I say we should do it. After all, we have tried it the other way - lowering taxes for the wealthy - for over a decade now and where has that gotten us?
Answer: Exactly in the debt crisis we find ourselves in now. No, lower taxes for the rich didn't cause the problem, but it certain hasn't created the tricke-down effect in job creation as has been proposed since the Reagan era.
if paying down the debt (rather than pandering for votes) really mattered the middle class tax "cuts" would go first since they involve more money
how about we do both at the same time?
$1 trillion in more tax-revenue from the rich
$3 trillion in spending cuts on the middle-class.
sounds good to me.
are you too cowardly to choose?
if the choice is keeping your tax cuts and the rich would keep theirs OR jacking up their taxes while yours would rise too, what is more important to you
its an easy question
what is more important for you
Apparently any nuance in views would go right over your head. :roll:
If for some reason we were faced with that illogical binary choice, I would favor keeping taxes on the rich and middle-class low in the short-term (1-2 years) and raising them in the long-term. If even THAT is too much nuance for you, then let's just say I'd prefer raising them.
It is why you cut costs too. People need to realize to really get a handle on this debt, taxes need to go up and spending needs to go down. Doing one or the other will not do it.
how about we do both at the same time?
$1 trillion in more tax-revenue from the rich
$3 trillion in spending cuts on the middle-class.
sounds good to me.
I love your appeal to mediocrity
Actually, I think raising everyone's taxes 5% is an excellent idea.
My problem with any increase, however, is that we have absolutely no reason to believe the extra revenue will reduce the deficit. Absolutely none.
I am not until the government proves that it can really make cuts-
I am not until the middle class pays the same share of the income tax as their share of the income
Cop out. They can do both at the same time, real and backed by law. No one has to accept anything, except the law.
Oh, and the middle class is taking the biggest beating right now. If anyone needs help, it's them. Working people who can't afford insurance, who are working two, sometimes three jobs. Again, you won't trade places with them, so save the whining for someone who swallows that ****.
Anybody else find it hilarious that democrats will lean on the "there are no jobs" defense in order to justify hiking taxes on the more productive....
but as soon as you claim that the Stimulus has been a failure and that the Obama administration has been a massive wet blanket on job creation, they loudly insist that in fact there has been turn-around and jobs a-plenty?
Oh, but you misunderstand. Obama has no desire to "stick it to the rich". Per his tv commercials, he's only going to raise their taxes a "little bit".1) Keeping the Bush/Obama tax rates for the "middle class"
2) sticking it to the rich with a tax hike
I would nominate this for Post of the Day, but it was yesterday.Actually, I think raising everyone's taxes 5% is an excellent idea.
My problem with any increase, however, is that we have absolutely no reason to believe the extra revenue will reduce the deficit. Absolutely none.
You will not receive any answers that are satisfiable to your standards until your silly preconceived notion that everyone that wants to raise taxes, at all, is only doing it out of hatred. That is a defense mechanism you have created for yourself so that you can always revert back to your typical retorts when any uncomfortable information is presented to you or any uncomfortable questions are asked of you. It is basically a strong-hold type defense against learning anything new or gaining any insight. You might enjoy having this barrier, but you will be better off dropping it.I figured the Obama tax fans would not be able to provide an answer
what means more to you
keeping your tax cuts if it means I keep mine
or sticking it to us "evil rich" but having to suffer a tax hike yourself
what is more important
hikes for everyone
current tax rates for everyone?
why do you believe in giving a wasteful bloated government more money when you already admit it would do nothing to reduce the deficit
why cannot people DEMAND that there be SIGNIFICANT cuts before anyone pays another extra dime to this hog of a government?
Not alone. Anyone serious wants to cut spending an increase taxes. Where we will have real disagreement is where to make the cuts.
FIne-then raise the taxes on those who are not paying for even what they use
not on those who are paying for what millons of others use because what you want is to encourage the takers to demand even more
I want to give them proper feedback so as to lessen their demands to suckle more from the public tit
Well, there's George, and Sandy, and Phil, and Mary, and...Be specific. Who are these people?
those who want the rich to pay more and vote for big governmentBe specific. Who are these people?
Oh, but you misunderstand. Obama has no desire to "stick it to the rich". Per his tv commercials, he's only going to raise their taxes a "little bit".
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?