2/3 of Americans want repeal of Bush tax cuts

Tabasco said:
Good point. If you include that, it would probably account for over 33% of Federal spending.
Click to expand...

You could also lump the VA and other federal security expenditures in with the military argument as well. It is definitely the job of law enforcement to protect property.

Can you link the budget source you're using from the Congressional Budget Office, I'm still not seeing the $600 billion figure.
 
Tabasco said:
Good point. If you include that, it would probably account for over 33% of Federal spending.
Click to expand...

I think 35% according to this article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0206/p02s02-usmi.html

Although it only appears that they're talking about 2008, they don't say it specifically. (The title has "2008" and it says that US defense spending has ballooned to 35% of the budget including Iraq and Afghanistan, so if it's talking about another year, I don't imagine it can be far off.)

The Iraq war is just one of the worst decisions we ever made, even if we do turn out in victory. It would be great to have a democracy in the middle east, but I find it hard to imagine that there weren't better ways that money could've been spent, or even better wars to be fought.
 
Watermark said:
I think 35% according to this article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0206/p02s02-usmi.html

Although it only appears that they're talking about 2008, they don't say it specifically. (The title has "2008" and it says that US defense spending has ballooned to 35% of the budget including Iraq and Afghanistan, so if it's talking about another year, I don't imagine it can be far off.)

The Iraq war is just one of the worst decisions we ever made, even if we do turn out in victory. It would be great to have a democracy in the middle east, but I find it hard to imagine that there weren't better ways that money could've been spent, or even better wars to be fought.
Click to expand...

Iraq is far from being even close to a "victory". The idea that because violence has been reduced in some areas of the country that we've achieved our objective of creating a stable Iraq is laughable. The best we can hope for is some marginally fucked up Iraq that's only sort of friendly with Iran.
 
ImaTanArmyMan said:
Iraq is far from being even close to a "victory". The idea that because violence has been reduced in some areas of the country that we've achieved our objective of creating a stable Iraq is laughable. The best we can hope for is some marginally fucked up Iraq that's only sort of friendly with Iran.
Click to expand...

Preaching to the choir.
 
Tabasco said:
The Bush tax cuts lowered the bottom bracket from 15% to 10%. That is a 33% cut, which is far more significant than the 11.6% cut received by top earners (from 39.6% to 35%). It is intellectually dishonest to claim that the Bush tax cuts were merely "tax cuts for the rich."

As of CY2003, the top 5% of wage earners in the United States pay approximately 54.36% of income taxes. The top 50% pays 96.54% of the share.
Click to expand...

But the top 5% controls over 60% of the wealth. Meaning they aren't paying their fair share.

There can be no arguing that the Bush tax cuts were regressive in nature. Particularly for those in middle income brackets. I know from my own taxes over the Bush years, the small decrease in taxes I recieved was more than made up from the regressive increases in sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, levees, administrative fees, etc, etc. To make a long story short, I paid more in taxes as a percentage of income over the Bush years then I did during the Clinton years. While those who made in excess of $250,000 received substantially higher tax cuts.

But that's not what galls me about the Bush tax cuts. When you consider that at the same time the Bush tax cuts were issued, these moron Republicans also eliminated PAYGO, went to war and deregulated the investment community which all summed up in economic disaster of the worst sorts.

What we need to do is act responsibly. We cannot afford the Bush tax cuts at this time, so they have to go for the time being. Congress cant' be trusted on spending and Republicans have been worse then Democrats. They just the money (and more of it) if different places then the Dems do so PAYGO must be reimplemented. We are at war. Let's be clear about this. WE ARE AT WAR. If we are to maintain these wars then the wealthy must, just absolutely must perform their patriotic duty and pay for these wars. Otherwise we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan. When we are not at war and economic prosperity has returned then we can talk about tax cuts but only it the revenue is being generated to support current programs or we must make the hard decisions to kill other spending programs.

Till then I"m fed up with Republicans spending money like drunken sailors on a foreign war we can't afford.
 
Last edited:
Problem winds up being you attack the rich and they spend less. Yes it's true they pay the most taxes. And by definition they drive the economy. Stop shooting!!!!
 
Topspin said:
Problem winds up being you attack the rich and they spend less. Yes it's true they pay the most taxes. And by definition they drive the economy. Stop shooting!!!!
Click to expand...

They spend less? Hm... So if I tax them they won't buy that extra Rolex? I find that hard to believe. Especially given that the rich buy luxury items when the middle and lower class buy staple goods.
 
Watermark said:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/3/5/16718/79446

Fox News Poll: 2/3 Of Americans Want Repeal Of Bush Tax Cuts
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy


To: Evan Bayh

From: American People

Re: Repealing Bush Tax Cuts

Do you support or oppose raising taxes on households earning over $250,000 a year and, at the same time, lowering taxes for most other households?

Support 66
Oppose 33

Speaking for me only
Click to expand...

well that would included going back on his word of no tax increases under 250k. SO of course he wouldn't do that.
 
Topspin said:
Problem winds up being you attack the rich and they spend less. Yes it's true they pay the most taxes. And by definition they drive the economy. Stop shooting!!!!
Click to expand...

I don't advocate that under normal circumstances but these are not normal circumstances. We are at war. It has always been implicit between the classes that the upper classes supply the treasure and the middle/lower classes supply the blood in times of war. If the wealthy don't want to pay taxes to support this war then let's declare victory and get the hell out of Iraq and Afhanistan.
 
What they need to do is come out and describe the plan. He's not planning on raising the rich's taxes for 2yrs. He needs to have all his foot soldiers saying it over and over.
I know tanman is a young pup so he wouldn't know. But yes luxury purchases are way down. The guy building the Yatch, the lexus, the jumbo home is out of work.
 
Mottleydude said:
But the top 5% controls over 60% of the wealth. Meaning they aren't paying their fair share.

There can be no arguing that the Bush tax cuts were regressive in nature. Particularly for those in middle income brackets. I know from my own taxes over the Bush years, the small decrease in taxes I recieved was more than made up from the regressive increases in sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, levees, administrative fees, etc, etc. To make a long story short, I paid more in taxes as a percentage of income over the Bush years then I did during the Clinton years. While those who made in excess of $250,000 received substantially higher tax cuts.

But that's not what galls me about the Bush tax cuts. When you consider that at the same time the Bush tax cuts were issued, these moron Republicans also eliminated PAYGO, went to war and deregulated the investment community which all summed up in economic disaster of the worst sorts.

What we need to do is act responsibly. We cannot afford the Bush tax cuts at this time, so they have to go for the time being. Congress cant' be trusted on spending and Republicans have been worse then Democrats. They just the money (and more of it) if different places then the Dems do so PAYGO must be reimplemented. We are at war. Let's be clear about this. WE ARE AT WAR. If we are to maintain these wars then the wealthy must, just absolutely must perform their patriotic duty and pay for these wars. Otherwise we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan. When we are not at war and economic prosperity has returned then we can talk about tax cuts but only it the revenue is being generated to support current programs or we must make the hard decisions to kill other spending programs.

Till then I"m fed up with Republicans spending money like drunken sailors on a foreign war we can't afford.
Click to expand...
If your other taxes increased, go after those who increased them instead of blaming federal taxes. It's a BS argument and you know it.

As far as paygo, it a fucking laugh. We haven't had paygo since before WWII. Even the so called "surplus" of the Clinton administration was a lie propped up by selling U.S. T-notes to the SS fund then using the proceeds in the general fund. (Why is it the dem ass kissers have never wondered what we will use to pay back the SS fund when those t-notes come due? Debt is debt, you fucking dipshits, annd when debt is more than revenue it is NOT a fucking surplus!)

Paygo is most certainly a good idea - I support the concept for individuals as well as the government. But to act as if the Bush admin is the first to ignore paygo is, again, a BS argument.

As far as "affording" the Bush tax cuts at this time, even submoronic imebciles know that increasing tax rates during a severe economic down turn will invariably make things worse.

We'll have to see how the current admin does with paygo after they fuck the American people by letting the Bush tax cuts expire so lower-middle income families see their federal tax burden triple, and innocently claim it is NOT a tax increase. Got a clue: if taxes are (relatively) low - and have been for 6 years, and then they go up because the party in power sits on their collective dead asses, it is an INCREASE.
 
Last edited:
Mottleydude said:
But the top 5% controls over 60% of the wealth. Meaning they aren't paying their fair share.

There can be no arguing that the Bush tax cuts were regressive in nature. Particularly for those in middle income brackets. I know from my own taxes over the Bush years, the small decrease in taxes I recieved was more than made up from the regressive increases in sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, levees, administrative fees, etc, etc. To make a long story short, I paid more in taxes as a percentage of income over the Bush years then I did during the Clinton years. While those who made in excess of $250,000 received substantially higher tax cuts.

But that's not what galls me about the Bush tax cuts. When you consider that at the same time the Bush tax cuts were issued, these moron Republicans also eliminated PAYGO, went to war and deregulated the investment community which all summed up in economic disaster of the worst sorts.

What we need to do is act responsibly. We cannot afford the Bush tax cuts at this time, so they have to go for the time being. Congress cant' be trusted on spending and Republicans have been worse then Democrats. They just the money (and more of it) if different places then the Dems do so PAYGO must be reimplemented. We are at war. Let's be clear about this. WE ARE AT WAR. If we are to maintain these wars then the wealthy must, just absolutely must perform their patriotic duty and pay for these wars. Otherwise we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan. When we are not at war and economic prosperity has returned then we can talk about tax cuts but only it the revenue is being generated to support current programs or we must make the hard decisions to kill other spending programs.

Till then I"m fed up with Republicans spending money like drunken sailors on a foreign war we can't afford.
Click to expand...

Mottley what did the Republicans do to deregulate the investment community?
 
Topspin said:
they sat on their hands and refused to police them.
Click to expand...

Deregulating implies passing legislation that loosened up markets that, in this case, led to abuse. Saying the government did not do a good job of oversight or policing is far from being the same as deregulating.
 
cawacko said:
Deregulating implies passing legislation that loosened up markets that, in this case, led to abuse. Saying the government did not do a good job of oversight or policing is far from being the same as deregulating.
Click to expand...

True non enforcement of laws is derelection of duty and or criminal.
Deregulating now is a legal process.
 
cawacko said:
Deregulating implies passing legislation that loosened up markets that, in this case, led to abuse. Saying the government did not do a good job of oversight or policing is far from being the same as deregulating.
Click to expand...


But if there were regulations in place that were disposed of, like the uptick rule and the sec rules regarding investment bank capital to asset ratios, which required no legislation to change, that is deregulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top