Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That is exactly what will happen if the Bush Tax cuts are cancelled..........you bracket will go from 10 to 15 percent and to 28 to 31 percent. That is what the Democrats and Hussein Obama want to pay for their social programs...........
Romney is the one who will raise taxes on the middle class, he calls it "broadening the base". The mortgage deduction is in his sights.
It is the only deduction that most of the middle class can get and killing it will raise the trillions needed to cover further tax cuts for the top 1%.
Obama will end the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% and make them permanent for the rest of us. You choose.
Did you even read the link? Unbelieveable........
That is exactly what will happen if the Bush Tax cuts are cancelled..........you bracket will go from 10 to 15 percent and to 28 to 31 percent. That is what the Democrats and Hussein Obama want to pay for their social programs...........
What is your point in referring to him by his middle name? Yes, it is his middle name... so what? It's not like he chose it. It's not like he uses it in daily life. It's not like he was born after people like Saddam came to power, and his parents chose it for that reason. Hence, it doesn't mean anything... AT ALL.That is exactly what will happen if the Bush Tax cuts are cancelled..........you bracket will go from 10 to 15 percent and to 28 to 31 percent. That is what the Democrats and Hussein Obama want to pay for their social programs...........
Preparing for the End of the Bush Tax Cuts - WSJ.comLinks, proof?
Or, let me guess, you heard it on the radio?
You didn't post a link navy.
And as far as raising taxes go, I think taxes need to be raised on everyone, proportional to the amount they're able to afford. This will mean larger percent raises on the wealthiest and lower percent on the poorest, but I think everyone needs to be paying more until we start getting our debt paid off.
Unfortunately this isn't the 90's and it won't be anytime soon. The only reason spending rested at such reasonable levels in the 90's is because of the absolutely robust economic climate. The economy needed no prodding to incentivise growth, no stimulus to aid in job creation. It was self sustained and continuous growth. It also allowed taxes to be raised without the fear of negatively affecting employment. Our current situation however, is in direct contradiction. Cutting spending at this point could very well undermine already meager growth and further decrease consumption. (See the affects of modest local cuts and the corresponding dip in employment). Raising taxes on everyone (IE Clinton era levels) at this point would also exacerbate the problem. Most disposable income on lower to middle wage earners is currently being used to pay down debt or buy absolute necessities. Raising taxes and further reducing disposable income will not promote the growth necessary to pull us out of this cycle.Unfortunately, I do believe (remember - this is only an opinion) that we must return to the taxation levels AND spending levels of the Clinton era. As the only country in the world that can print dollars (legally), we are getting away with a staggering load of irresponsibility.
We prospered during the 90s, and at least a decent portion of that wealth was spread around to all the classes. If we continue on our present path, we are behaving no more sensibly than Greece or Spain and even we, eventually, will "pay the Piper".
No, raising taxes on middle income earners would be highly counterproductive. With consumption growing at an anemic pace (especially among the low to mid wage brackets), removing excess income that could be used to invest, pay off excess debt or spend on discretionary items would only help prolong the trend.
Unfortunately, I do believe (remember - this is only an opinion) that we must return to the taxation levels AND spending levels of the Clinton era. As the only country in the world that can print dollars (legally), we are getting away with a staggering load of irresponsibility.
We prospered during the 90s, and at least a decent portion of that wealth was spread around to all the classes. If we continue on our present path, we are behaving no more sensibly than Greece or Spain and even we, eventually, will "pay the Piper".
Unfortunately, I do believe (remember - this is only an opinion) that we must return to the taxation levels AND spending levels of the Clinton era. As the only country in the world that can print dollars (legally), we are getting away with a staggering load of irresponsibility.
We prospered during the 90s, and at least a decent portion of that wealth was spread around to all the classes. If we continue on our present path, we are behaving no more sensibly than Greece or Spain and even we, eventually, will "pay the Piper".
As retirees, our adjusted gross income is only about $60K for 2012, it won't affect us much if at all....
Our 2 houses are paid for, our total debt isn't much, and will be zero soon.
Without debt, it is not that hard to live well.
I wonder when the govt will figure that out, and stop putting us deeper in debt.
Both parties do it, and if that isn't unpatriotic, it is at least idiotic...
[/B]
The problem is in the history of man kind no one has spent or put us in more debt then Hussein Obama........
and that absolves the lesser criminals? like the Bush clan who sacrificed many, many American lives at the altar of their collective ego?[/B]
The problem is in the history of man kind no one has spent or put us in more debt then Hussein Obama........
As retirees, our adjusted gross income is only about $60K for 2012, it won't affect us much if at all....
Our 2 houses are paid for, our total debt isn't much, and will be zero soon.
Without debt, it is not that hard to live well.
I wonder when the govt will figure that out, and stop putting us deeper in debt.
Both parties do it, and if that isn't unpatriotic, it is at least idiotic...
Unfortunately this isn't the 90's and it won't be anytime soon. The only reason spending rested at such reasonable levels in the 90's is because of the absolutely robust economic climate. The economy needed no prodding to incentivise growth, no stimulus to aid in job creation. It was self sustained and continuous growth. It also allowed taxes to be raised without the fear of negatively affecting employment. Our current situation however, is in direct contradiction. Cutting spending at this point could very well undermine already meager growth and further decrease consumption. (See the affects of modest local cuts and the corresponding dip in employment). Raising taxes on everyone (IE Clinton era levels) at this point would also exacerbate the problem. Most disposable income on lower to middle wage earners is currently being used to pay down debt or buy absolute necessities. Raising taxes and further reducing disposable income will not promote the growth necessary to pull us out of this cycle.
Navy Pride: Under Clinton we had the dot com boom......are you planning on another one of them...
Yes, I am planning on another boom AND I see so many ways that spending could be drastically reduced without harm to anyone except a few zillionaires and a pack of thieves.
Because of the ineffective ways of the financial hemorrhage, reverting the tax rates and avoiding the $35,000.00 toilet seat along with a more challenging interest rate, such money as the Government distributes could be more wisely invested in things of substance and future value. The present system is so totally Tammany (sp?) Hall that we're breeding a generation of traders and speculators while producers are left in the dust or go overseas to create things.
The boom I predict is robots. I've been watching this minuscule industry and if our banks were investing in robot development companies instead of cotton and oil futures, we would be early online with a product that everyone in the world will want yet we are best at building (like airplanes, weapons and heavy construction equipment.
The pre-Bush tax rates are actually very fair and will have almost no impact on lower income workers. We've been doing this guns AND butter thing for too longg. Wew need to collectively participate in restoring our country.
Now, do I believe that our current crop of clowns playing politicians are smart enough or interested enough to recognize my genius n this regard? No, probably not. RThey'll porobably use the additional revenue to build statues of themselves. So, why am I supporting giving them more money? Because I'm an idiot who still holds out hope that we can change our ways and embrace the 21st Century. Wishful thinking. Oh, and they'll probably lower interest rates to zero so we can push the market to 13,500.....
What is your point in referring to him by his middle name? Yes, it is his middle name... so what? It's not like he chose it. It's not like he uses it in daily life. It's not like he was born after people like Saddam came to power, and his parents chose it for that reason. Hence, it doesn't mean anything... AT ALL.The problem is in the history of man kind no one has spent or put us in more debt then Hussein Obama........
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?