Poll: Don’t Extend Bush Cuts for Wealthy

[Boo Radley]

Saving it where? At those banks that are badly under-capitalized which lead to over-leveraging which helped exasperate the financial crisis? Somehow I see that as a good thing

There are far more businesses that are staying, so the fact that some do leave really holds no influence. Businesses should not have a concern over health care, unless health care is their business. Its also a fools game to try and appease the masses.

Yes, at banks, where they already have funds, and tax cuts won't change them amount near enough to lay any significant role. SO, it is really a meaningless thing.

And it isn't about appeasing the masses, it's about paying our bills and having all those who can contribute. Being too poor to tax is more of a reason than being favored.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Sure, that's why we're still at over 8% unemployment.

If you don't want to believe your own eyes....who am I to argue...?

 

[Billy the Kid]

Weren't these supposed to expire in 2010? And the majority decided not to let them by a good margin? And didn't President Obama sign off on letting the Bush tax cuts continue?

 

[American]

If you don't want to believe your own eyes....who am I to argue...?

You really believe your pretty pictures are going to convince the people in this country? Show that graph to the unemployed. I think Obama should end the Bush tax cuts today, so it can really be his economy.

 

[American]

Weren't these supposed to expire in 2010? And the majority decided not to let them by a good margin? And didn't President Obama sign off on letting the Bush tax cuts continue?

Yes, because his a big ***** and too scared to implement his leftwing agenda.

 

[Boo Radley]

Weren't these supposed to expire in 2010? And the majority decided not to let them by a good margin? And didn't President Obama sign off on letting the Bush tax cuts continue?

Yep. But the move was political than anything else. Not something based on anything factual or prudent.

 

[Billy the Kid]

Yes, because his a big ***** and too scared to implement his leftwing agenda.

Or afraid he would then have to own the whole mess?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

really? Gosh, I wonder why the wealthy would want to leave the US. why do you think?

Tell us about your experience...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You really believe your pretty pictures are going to convince the people in this country? Show that graph to the unemployed. I think Obama should end the Bush tax cuts today, so it can really be his economy.

My pretty pictures....the same source and data cp used?

OK.

 

[Born Free]

Oh boy, that's a whopper. You only have to go back to the Bush tax cuts to debunk that bull****.

Holly Crow, look at the increase in spending, I'll bet that red line is straight up from 09 to president.

 

[Aberration]

Yes, at banks, where they already have funds, and tax cuts won't change them amount near enough to lay any significant role. SO, it is really a meaningless thing.

And it isn't about appeasing the masses, it's about paying our bills and having all those who can contribute. Being too poor to tax is more of a reason than being favored.

They already have funds? Have you not been paying attention for the last years? Where do you think that 61% in the S&P came from? Hope and Change?

It is about appeasing the masses. If it was about paying bills, we would be making drastic cuts. And, the poor are favored when it comes to social spending.

 

[Aberration]

Holly Crow, look at the increase in spending, I'll bet that red line is straight up from 09 to president.

Yet somehow tax cuts are the problem, not spending :roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

They already have funds? Have you not been paying attention for the last years? Where do you think that 61% in the S&P came from? Hope and Change?

It is about appeasing the masses. If it was about paying bills, we would be making drastic cuts. And, the poor are favored when it comes to social spending.

we should be doing both, cutting spending and raising taxes. But yes, studies have shown the rich don't spend. And the trouble has not been wealthy not saving enough, but banks and lending institutions being reckless, as has the market. It has not been about the wealthy not saving.

 

[Boo Radley]

Yet somehow tax cuts are the problem, not spending :roll:

Both are the problem. Also not something new to what I've been saying.

 

[cpwill]

Saving it. It's what they do. Taxes don't effect their spending habits at all.

No, taxes are not the deciding factor. As I said, business left places where there were no taxes at all. And while states can hurt themselves by playing the appeasement game with business, a lot leave the country altogether, not because of taxes, but because they see a cheap labor force and no concern over healthcare. It's a fools game in trying too hard to appease business.

State taxes are indeed a major deciding factor - as are regulatory costs and the threat of unionization. If it's a fools' game trying to create business friendly atmosphere's, why are the states that do so successful and the states that do the opposite run into trouble? Texas, last I looked, seemed to be doing a good bit better than California. Indiana sure seems to be better off than Illinois.

 

[TurtleDude]

The tax isn't wasteful. What's wasteful is people trying to scheme around it.

Another post that oozes fail. That is like saying cancer is not expensive but treating it is

 

[cpwill]

Saving it where? At those banks that are badly under-capitalized which lead to over-leveraging which helped exasperate the financial crisis? Saving it investments that drive the stock market? Somehow I see that as a good thing

I really think they have this idea they can't shake of the wealthy keeping all their cash in money in a giant silo, swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck. Too many things they claim make no sense otherwise.

 

[AdamT]

Another post that oozes fail. That is like saying cancer is not expensive but treating it is

It's like saying that it's stupid to pay for cancer treatments when you don't have cancer.

 

[cpwill]

we should be doing both, cutting spending and raising taxes. But yes, studies have shown the rich don't spend. And the trouble has not been wealthy not saving enough, but banks and lending institutions being reckless, as has the market. It has not been about the wealthy not saving.

I hope the wealthy do save and invest. I hope everyone saves and invests. It makes us a much more productive and sustainable economy. When a wealthy person invests in a business, it opens up opportunity for me to get a job there. When a wealthy person leaves capital in the bank, it helps the bank lend that money cheaper to me so I can more easily afford a house.

This whole notion that the wealthy have the wealth "locked away" where it's no good to anyone is ludicrous and damaging in the policy it informs.

 

[cpwill]

It's like saying that it's stupid to pay for cancer treatments when you don't have cancer.

well, i imagine if they didn't face the tax, they wouldn't try to minimize their exposure to it :roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

State taxes are indeed a major deciding factor - as are regulatory costs and the threat of unionization. If it's a fools' game trying to create business friendly atmosphere's, why are the states that do so successful and the states that do the opposite run into trouble? Texas, last I looked, seemed to be doing a good bit better than California. Indiana sure seems to be better off than Illinois.

You have a better argument with low wages and health care being attached to business than taxes. And yes, business can destroy the environment and harm workers elsewhere in the world. I'm not sure this is a positive. I think business should be ashamed, but I'm sure you would disagree.

And a closer look at Texas isn't all that good. They have a lot of low wage jobs and people hurting. They also do a lot of illegals.

 

[cpwill]

They already have funds? Have you not been paying attention for the last years? Where do you think that 61% in the S&P came from? Hope and Change?

It is about appeasing the masses. If it was about paying bills, we would be making drastic cuts. And, the poor are favored when it comes to social spending.

actually that is no longer true. the poor turned out to be unreliable voters, so now the majority of bribes social transfers goes to the middle class.

 

[Catawba]

actually that is no longer true. the poor turned out to be unreliable voters, so now the majority of bribes social transfers goes to the middle class.

Having a job that pays enough to keep the middle class living above poverty with affordable health care........... yeah, that's bribery alright. People should shun it, shun it I tell you and just keep a right on taking up the ass so the rich can get an even bigger tax cut! That's the ticket!

 

[cpwill]

You have a better argument with low wages and health care being attached to business than taxes.

The cost of labor and of government regulation - I brought up both of those things. All other things being equal, if State A says you have to pay for any plastic surgery that your employees want and State B says you aren't legally required to cover plastic surgery if you don't want to, State B is a lower-cost state to operate in, and State B will get the business.

And yes, business can destroy the environment and harm workers elsewhere in the world. I'm not sure this is a positive. I think business should be ashamed, but I'm sure you would disagree.

:shrug: if individuals who are business leaders make decisions to destroy the environment and hurt their workers, sure, they should be ashamed of their actions. But "Business" does not do these things, and "business" should not be ashamed of it any more than "Government" commits forced abortions in China and therefore "Government" in the form of your local county board should walk around in ashes and sackcloth for penance.

And a closer look at Texas isn't all that good. They have a lot of low wage jobs and people hurting. They also do a lot of illegals.

Texas is doing pretty daggum well - they have been growing not least because they have been (and this is important) capturing many of the businesses fleeing from California. People are fleeing California, and they are flooding to Texas because Texas with it's lower tax and regulatory burdens is a better state to do business in.

Yes, they have a lot of low wage jobs; that is tied to two things, one of which (massive illegal immigration) is the fault of the Federal Government. The other, however, is that Texas also has a significantly lower cost of living than California. $35K in Texas is much better than $35K in Cali.

 

[cpwill]

Having a job that pays enough to keep the middle class living above poverty with affordable health care........... yeah, that's bribery alright.

Reading comprehension much? We are talking about government expenditures. Do try to keep up.