Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Ace, name one president since Nixon who hasn't participated in some kind of government bailout.
Spoiler: There is only one out of the eight: Clinton.
|
I don't know.
I understand why it happens, I believe it is unfair to those who do the right things to be successful. For people in the academic world to me it would be like a professor giving a test and then not counting the results because some did not do well on the test - what about those who did do well on the test? I have never liked this kind of stuff and never will regardless of the circumstance, political party and even if I am the beneficiary - I would have guilt and it would make me uncomfortable.
---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace, I simply pointed out that your assertion about the Bush tax cuts was wrong. But of course, you ignore that and do the ace "question dodge" to avoid the facts put before you. If you want an honest discussion, why do you always do that?
|
I think my assertion is correct. I did not ignore your disagreement. My question is at the root of the dispute. I do not understand the basis of your belief that I am wrong. That is as honest as I can get. The only way I know how to increase my understanding is to actively ask questions and seek answers as I go. You call this dodging, but if you ever decided to answer my questions, the connections will become clear. Otherwise on the surface or in attempts to circumvent what you may anticipate in an exchange with me you either have a point or you prematurely end an exchange before it gains traction.
Quote:
|
What I am assuming is that the Republican plan including gutting Medicare while refusing to seriously cut defense spending, along with the bullshit with issues like eliminating Planned Parenthood funding for abortions will be significant campaign issues.
|
Do Republicans control the political agenda in Washington D.C.?
Quote:
|
Alienating Independents, seniors and women who dont support an ideological slash and burn strategy rather than a shares sacrifice (including the top taxpayers) is a loser for the Republicans.
|
Right, I get it. As a Republican I am a racist, I am a sexist, I want old people to die, I want poor children to starve, I want to destroy the environment, and I want to make polar bears extinct. And all Republicans are the same and dealing with a person like Boehner is no different than dealing with a person like Ryan. If that is the theme and message from liberals, I look forward to 2012
Quote:
|
CBO crunched the numbers on making the Bush top bracket tax cuts permanent, and concluded, even under the best scenario, a $3-4 trillion contribution to the debt over the next 10 years.
|
Obama released a budget in February. CBO did a recalculation recently and concluded that his budget proposal adds about $10 trillion to the debt. My point is that the Bush tax cuts won't fix the problem with spending. I am not sure but I assume that Obama's budget even included ending the Bush tax cuts.
On another issue. Why do we keep calling them the Bush tax cuts? They were set to expire and Obama extended them - why aren;t they now Obama's tax cuts? Is it because he was against them before he signed the extension, for them while signing the extension and now against them. So its like two against and one for so he nets out against? Or is it simply Obama has no convictions and will play political games on every issue?
Quote:
|
[INDENT]In sum, and as CBO has reported before: Permanently or temporarily extending all or part of the expiring income tax cuts would boost income and employment in the next few years relative to what would occur under current law. However, even a temporary extension would add to federal debt and reduce future income if it was not accompanied by other changes in policy. A permanent extension of all of those tax cuts without future increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending would roughly double the projected budget deficit in 2020; a permanent extension of those cuts except for certain provisions that would apply only to high-income taxpayers would increase the budget deficit by roughly three-quarters to four-fifths as much.
|
The above analysis is incorrect. Going through the reasons has no point because it requires a detailed analysis of the assumptions CBO used and that won't happen here.
Quote:
|
Stockman, Reagan's former budget guru had it right - RED - revenue (tax increases), entitlements (reform, not gutting), defense, also acknowledging that supply side/trickle down fuzzy math economics is a failed policy.
|
Stop being obsessed with tax rates. The point of me pointing out GE is to show that profitable corporations and "rich" people can avoid paying the top rate.
Why don't you see that? They can raise the top rate to 100%/200% whatever, as long as the system is structured the way that it is the top rate can be avoided.
Look at GE's financial statements. They had cash flow that was over four times profits from operations. Major corporations are generating huge amounts of cash, paying no taxes on that cash, and they are sitting on it.
End the superficial argument of "tax the rich".
---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The Bush tax cuts, dollar for dollar, are an inefficient means to an economic strategy. High-income earners tend to save their discretionary income at a much higher rate---i.e., as a percentage---compared to those who earn less than they do.
|
A) Savings is not a bad thing. Savings are leveraged through loans to people investing in economic growth. The guy who has a million invested in a CD, helps the landscape contractor get a loan to start a business that will employ people.
B) High-income earners invest more than they save. Investment in the economy fuels growth. Again the key question is who is better at investing capital, individuals or government?
Quote:
|
The potential receipts earned as a consequence of allowing the Bush tax cuts expire could go directly towards reducing the deficit without requiring cuts to something as essential as Medicare, upon which so many Americans depend.
|
It won't be enough. No matter what is done with the Bush Tax cuts, spending has to be reduced.
Quote:
|
If medical services are reduced, do you think that the average American is going to eagerly dig into their own pocket to make up for the difference?
|
Is this an acknowledgment that Obama-care won't generate any real savings?
Most Americans do not benefit from Medicare or Medicaid and already dig into their own pocket one way or another. We need real reforms to bring costs under control.
Many complain about the prescription drug benefit passed under Bush. If it was so bad, why not repeal it? If it was not paid for, why not pay for it? When does Obama take ownership of anything? Obama is running for re-election already, again I don't get it, does he assume people are stupid? Who is he running against? Why doesn't he just work on the problems as he sees them?
Quote:
|
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire make sense.
|
If true, Obama should have let them expire. But he did not. So, what does that say about Obama or what does that say about the cuts making sense?