tax cut

perhaps you gentlemen have mistaken my point. my point is that someone who has no education, no ambition, etc. should not get a gov't check with money that was taken from people who have worked hard to achieve. i'm sure you make decent money spuds. so, my question is how can you support somebody that wants to take a portion of your hard earned money and give it to a mother of 7 from 5 different dads who hasn't worked a hard day in their lives? what's wrong with this picture? am I missing something here or am i just too old and outdated?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Coach</div><div class="ubbcode-body">perhaps you gentlemen have mistaken my point. my point is that someone who has no education, no ambition, etc. should not get a gov't check with money that was taken from people who have worked hard to achieve. i'm sure you make decent money spuds. so, my question is how can you support somebody that wants to take a portion of your hard earned money and give it to a mother of 7 from 5 different dads who hasn't worked a hard day in their lives? what's wrong with this picture? am I missing something here or am i just too old and outdated? </div></div>
Who said I did? We are doing the free thing now and Bush has been in office for 8 years. Might have been more against the 10 bil a month in Iraq....might have voted 3rd party. We gave some big tax breaks to the oil industry, same handout as your other example. Both groups don't exactly tell the truth. You complaning about a real problem, but the 10 Bil a month and the national debt at a record means we are waisting more than enough to feed one extra family. I couldn't see how anyone could be for Bush tax cuts, since we finally had a surplus..justa little and we might have started to reverse the trend on the debt- but you got the top heavy tax cuts. Thousand bucks, one time isn't gonna make or break me, should have just left the taxes alone. We are going to have to pay for our federal services, sooner or later.

[/quote]
I couldn't see how anyone could be for Bush tax cuts, since we finally had a surplus..justa little and we might have started to reverse the trend on the debt- but you got the top heavy tax cuts. [/quote]

Most people don't seem to realize the Bush tax <span style='font-family: Arial Black'>CUTS</span> produced more revenue than the Clinton tax <span style='font-family: Arial Black'>INCREASES</span>. Revenue hasn't been the problem. It's the spending. And now we have King HUSSEIN who wants to INCREASE both taxes and spending.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PVVikeFan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I couldn't see how anyone could be for Bush tax cuts, since we finally had a surplus..justa little and we might have started to reverse the trend on the debt- but you got the top heavy tax cuts. </div></div>

Most people don't seem to realize the Bush tax <span style='font-family: Arial Black'>CUTS</span> produced more revenue than the Clinton tax <span style='font-family: Arial Black'>INCREASES</span>. Revenue hasn't been the problem. It's the spending. And now we have King HUSSEIN who wants to INCREASE both taxes and spending. </div></div>

What you don't seem to realize is that Bush expanded the government in his 8 years, so spending did NOT go down. Add two wars on top of that, in which we're spending billions of $$$/day on.

You say Bush's cuts created more revenue than Clinton's increases. Well that makes about as much sense as a jackass in a tin barn--even if that's true (which I'm skeptical since conventional economic wisdom says otherwise), the only ways that could happen are:

1) The tax brackets changed and we had more people to tax in the lower brackets, and/or

2) He taxed someone else in lower brackets a lot harder in order to make up the tax revenue shortfall that's sure to happen when you cut taxes at the top.

Here's the bottom line folks--we've got a crapload of debt. We're gonna have to increse taxes and be smarter about spending money than we have ever been before. There are things that the former regime did to waste money and weaken our economy, all in the name of "stimulating" it.

Obama's gonna have a chance to make tough choices and sometimes, unpopular ones in the short term. In the long term, it's up to him to make those choices and get us right side up. Anyone who's preaching/believes that things are going to be OK right away on Jan. 20th needs to wake up. This is one hell of a mess and it's gonna take time to fix.

Another line to consider- much of our military is worn out. The troops have been deployed over and over again and the machines have been in constant use since the last 6 years. We will have to fund the re-build.

In the first 6 years of the current administration tax revenue increased. Lower taxes but more people actually working and paying taxes. The tax cuts created more jobs. The problem was the spending. Things have changed in the past 2 years but not just in this country. We are in a world wide slowdown. Taking money from businesses in this economy is going to create a major disaster.

Myth 1: Tax cuts "pay for themselves."?

"You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase."? "? President Bush, February 8, 2006

"You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves."? "? Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006

Reality: A study by the President's own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

Proponents of tax cuts often claim that "dynamic scoring"? "? that is, considering tax cuts' economic effects when calculating their costs "? would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.

But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President's tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts' total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted
The chart says 48% of the "large debt" is paying for the tax cuts. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]
Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years. Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending). Yet the President and some Congressional leaders decline to acknowledge the tax cuts' role in the nation's budget problems, falling back instead on the discredited nostrum that tax cuts "pay for themselves."?

Hard to believe all that about the cuts generating money.

I saw on TV, don't remember which network but it wasn't FOX [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img], they were comparing tax revenue for the last 2 administrations. Had all the numbers on the screen. More people working and paying taxes. More revenue. Much of that created by small busiinesses increasing payroll.

But now that I think about it I am almost certain I was in Illinois when I saw that. So there is a good possibility it could be a "non truth" like other things there. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PVVikeFan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I saw on TV, don't remember which network but it wasn't FOX [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img], they were comparing tax revenue for the last 2 administrations. Had all the numbers on the screen. More people working and paying taxes. More revenue. Much of that created by small busiinesses increasing payroll.

But now that I think about it I am almost certain I was in Illinois when I saw that. So there is a good possibility it could be a "non truth" like other things there. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]
</div></div>
Could be figures just for the state. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] If you don't like Ill, why spend so much time there? Course it looks like there will be enough to go around.

The figures were Fed.
Spend TOOOOO much time in Il. Nothing about that state I like.
The only reason I keep going back is they are supposed to be the first state to distribute government cheese. I thought I might get my hands on a couple of boxes. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]