Want to Extend the Bush Tax Cuts?

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
tax-cut_debt-710.gif


We either want a smaller decifit or we don't.
Think our Dems can sell a knife to a man who's hanging?

My opinion, better end those tax cuts for the rich, you got to start bringing some revenue in! signal
 
Or, and this is a insane idea I know, how about some SPENDING cuts? I know it sounds utterly mad, but normally when I make less money, I typically spend less.
 
Why do people fall for this shit? Do we have a foggy fucking clue what the economy is going to be like in 2030? Hell, they got it wrong just predicting what today's economy would look like when they were making predictions a year ago.

Scare mongering by the tax-everything-in-site and spend even more liberals.

Not to mention the age old lie about the tax cuts only affecting the rich.
 
just the ones for the middle and lower classes

as for spending cuts, economists say that the feds should deficit spend during depressions/recessions
 
Good Luck said:
Why do people fall for this shit? Do we have a foggy fucking clue what the economy is going to be like in 2030? Hell, they got it wrong just predicting what today's economy would look like when they were making predictions a year ago.

Scare mongering by the tax-everything-in-site and spend even more liberals.

Not to mention the age old lie about the tax cuts only affecting the rich.
Click to expand...

Kind of like in 2000 when they were predicting budget surpluses 'as far as the eye can see' as if the dot com boom were to go on forever.
 
WE need to do the opposit, slowly start to decrease spending and increase taxes until the deficate gets more under control.
 
DonQuixote said:
just the ones for the middle and lower classes

as for spending cuts, economists say that the feds should deficit spend during depressions/recessions
Click to expand...
SOME economists suggest spending like drunken sailors through a recession. Others understand the basic truth that someone must pay eventually. Deficit spending creates a false economy. False economies cannot be sustained forever and then you either increase spending again, or end up right back in a recession. It has been going on since the WWI post war depression and each time we cycle down, "More government spending" is the suggestion we get from the economist crazies.

(Isn't one functional definition of insanity doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result?)
 
We either want a smaller decifit or we don't.
Think our Dems can sell a knife to a man who's hanging?

My opinion, better end those tax cuts for the rich, you got to start bringing some revenue in! signal[/QUOTE]

Is that silly little obamacare thing included in these figures? I know that in the grand scheme of things, it's an insignificant sum (only 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS and climbing!)but if we cut that out, it might save a FEW bucks, don't you think? And exactly how much do you think you can wring out of the "evil rich" anyway? I've heard estimates of 30 billion a year, money taken out of the private sector that could be used to grow businesses and hire people. But that ain't obama's goal, is it? My opinion? Leave the Bush tax cuts alone, maybe even kick 'em up a notch, cut up the credit card and stop these stupid social programs. Who knows? Obama could end up a hero instead of an idiot.:rofl: Who the hell am I kidding, he's a certifiable idiot and we are all doomed.
 
Good Luck said:
SOME economists suggest spending like drunken sailors through a recession. Others understand the basic truth that someone must pay eventually. Deficit spending creates a false economy. False economies cannot be sustained forever and then you either increase spending again, or end up right back in a recession. It has been going on since the WWI post war depression and each time we cycle down, "More government spending" is the suggestion we get from the economist crazies.

(Isn't one functional definition of insanity doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result?)
Click to expand...

The logic behind deficit spending on, say, infrastructure is similar to a family man being out of work. He's unemployed and his wife is working. The man can sit at home and do nothing while he continues to cost money (food, clothes, a few beers) or they can borrow some money and he can build a deck or finish the basement or paint the interior of the home. When he returns to work he starts to pay back the loan. If he did none of those things and waited until he was working he wouldn't have time so he would have to pay someone else to do them.

The same applies to governments. Now is the time to get contracts as contractors are looking for work. Their rates will be lower than during a busy season. The men they hire will stop receiving unemployment or welfare and start doing something for their money. It's a win-win situation.

When the economy picks up and wages/contractor rates climb the government won't require as many contractors. The government will save money by not requiring expensive contractors plus they will have saved money by not paying welfare and other benefits and getting nothing in return.

For example, let's say a skilled worker makes $50,000/yr. If he has a family of four to support he may collect $900/month on welfare and $500 worth of food stamps. (http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/) $1400/month X 12 months = $16,800/yr.

If he is hired the government will be getting a $50,000/yr employee for $33,200/yr. as they are already paying $16,800. ($50,000 - $16,800 = $33,200)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top