Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Blue, I never stated my opinion on whether the Bush tax cuts were right or wrong.
I am a "higher" income earner, owning my own business, and so I personally saw my own income taxes go down, a lot, in 2003 when the Bush tax cuts went into effect.
One year ago, the Bush tax cuts were set to simply expire.
It was a very difficult decision as to extend them or not, because the loss of that income adds every day to the growing federal deficit and gets put on the National Debt.
But how do you not keep the tax cuts in place when the economy is in severe recession and Obama, correctly in my opinion, believed that money is spent better by private citizens than by government, and so when both the House and Senate voted to extend the tax cuts, well it was the "will" of congress, and so Obama signed it into law.
My ONLY personal "problem" with the tax cuts is that they add greatly to the deficit, and that the cuts did indeed go predominantly to the higher earners, like me.
I don't know how much you make, but I pay a LOT less in Federal income tax now.
And honestly, this big tax cut I get did not make me hire any more employees, it just goes into my bank account as extra profit over what I used to have.
Personally, I write a check out every year for the difference the tax cuts gave me and send it to the general fund of the US Treasury.
I just don't think it is "fair" that I should pay so little of what I used to pay, and I AM very concerned about interest rates eventually rising rapidly because of the interest on the national debt that the growing deficits puts pressure on
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Norton, if they were so wrong then why did Obama extend them? Because the Republican Congress made the budget and the President doesn't have a line-item veto. He fought hard to eliminate the tax cuts but had to sign the bill to get the other things he wanted.
The issue came to a head during the lame duck session of the 111th Congress. At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, 2010, President Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts.[14] President Obama wanted to extend the tax cuts for taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year. Congressional Republicans agreed but also wanted to extend the tax cuts for those making over that amount.[15] Indeed, all 42 Republican senators joined in saying that, until the tax dispute was resolved, they would filibuster to prevent consideration of any other legislation, except for bills to fund the U.S. government.[16][17][18][19] Note that Obama only wanted to eliminate the tax cuts for those making more than $250K per year. He wanted to extend them for you (presumably) and me.
Sorry, fattrad's (presumably) tax cut would have expired.
Remember, these tax cuts were signed by Shrub and WERE SET TO EXPIRE at the end of 2010.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
But what you fail to see is that this contributes to the deficit.
No, spending more contributes to the deficit. And borrowing more. And raising the debt-ceiling.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Any honest economist (or historian) would agree that Marx and Engels had some useful insights into such matters, especially at a theoretical level, although a lot of what they said was plain wrong. (Maybe JE is around and can comment.) All liberal democratic countries, including the US, have been strongly influenced by the emphasis that Marx (and many others) put on the importance of reasonably equitable economic policies, and decent treatment of the working classes.
The various brands of communists, once in power, invariably claimed to be practicing pure Marxism. Their policies were quite varied, however, and who knows what "real" Marxism or "real" communism would be. (China is allegedly a Marxist/communist nation, but what would Marx have said about its actual policies?) Most forms of supposed communism/Marxism that were actually practiced were eventually social, cultural and economic failures, and the only remaining states that claim to be communist/Marxist are Cuba, North Korea, China and a few others.
And no, socialist let alone social democrat does not equate with Marxist or communist - under standard communist doctrine, socialists and social democrats are their worst enemy. Indeed, pure communists seem almost as doctrinaire and inflexible as true Republicans.
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
Nederland
|
|
Any honest economist (or historian)
HAH!
Please provide examples.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Hey, they hang out with the honest lawyers.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
But what you fail to see is that this contributes to the deficit.
No, spending more contributes to the deficit. And borrowing more. And raising the debt-ceiling.
How can you not see cutting taxes contributes to the deficit? It doesn't matter if you raise spending $1 or cut taxes $1 it does the same to the deficit.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of this chart without a lot of research I'm not going to do, but I've seen other similar charts. Taking the budget under Clinton with a surplus as a baseline and looking what has happened since then Bush's tax cuts are a major, if not THE most significant contributor to the deficit.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
We really need to look at all spending public and private and how they contribute to the economy.
Some government spending is good for the economy: smart, targeted - education, infrastructure, research.
Some government spending is a waste: bridge to nowhere, pork barrel projects on both sides of the aisle, the Iraq war.
Some tax cuts that keep more money in private hands is good: middle class tax cuts that go to spending.
Some tax cuts that keep more money in private hands doesn't benefit the economy: tax cuts for the wealthy that just increase their savings.
We should make policies that benefit the economy as a whole, not just for 1% of people. Which... is what OWS is primarily about IMO.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Lovesgas, you can try to dilute the message of the Communist Party USA all you like, but they are commies. The aren't a welcome form of gov't here. This is why they are small and trivialized.
CPUSA is very active, but they will never prevail as long as the US Constitution remains.
Wes is correct too about the corporate lobbying in Washinton. Gotta stop. But let's start with Jeff Immelt, Solyndra, and Fannie/Freddie. And Goldman.
EDIT: Good points FET. Except for this one;
Some tax cuts that keep more money in private hands doesn't benefit the economy: tax cuts for the wealthy that just increase their savings.
You assume they just hoard money? They don't put their money back into the economy?
I'd disagree.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
You assume they just hoard money? They don't put their money back into the economy?
Some do, some don't. But I think it would be safe to say tax cuts for the poor and middle class are more likely to go back into the economy as consumer spending versus tax cuts for the wealthy (above $250,000 income).
I'd also say that the poor and middle class have had more difficulty in economic downturn (wich the data confirms big time), but more tax cuts went to the wealthy. Doesn't make sense, except for Bush rewarding his base.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Well, my next door neighbor is an example.
She married well, and is worth some 30 million.
When Bush cut her taxes in 2003 she laughed and said that's all the more that is going into my bank accounts.
She is very typical of the very wealthy, she just sits on her money.
She does not create anything, does not employ anyone but banking lawyers.
The very wealthy either inherited their wealth or way back when tax rates were HIGHER they started a company and made it successful.
Their income comes from dividends and capital gains.
And they pay LESS percent tax on that income than the regular working person.
And that in my opinion is just flat wrong.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Bush rewarding his base equates to bribing the populace in trade for votes which leads to more power and corruption between the republican party and the monied interests...Meanwhile the common folk eat sh#t...The middle class eating sh#t is spun off as communism...Fannie Mae and Solyandra are weak examples of corruption thrust into the main stream media to divert blame from the biggest republican sponsored scandals..More media manipulation by the Conservatives....Meathead
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Fannie Mae and Solyandra are weak examples of corruption thrust into the main stream media to divert blame from the biggest republican sponsored scandals.
Don't forget MF Global.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Norton..greed is good...Tax breaks for the wealthy creates jobs for the peons...Middle class folks complaining about the lack of jobs is communism...RJ
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Middle class folks complaining about the lack of jobs is communism...RJ
Blame your gov't for that, not corporations seeking to remain profitable.
Once a corp isn't profitable it LOSES money and dies and cannot produce the goods that ungrateful people like you take for granted!
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
This is so good it needs repeating.
Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing, and has been compared in Playboy magazine to Thomas Paine as being "one of the great American leaders of the nonsocialist left."
SkipDip why do you hate Playboy Magazine? Does it make your wee wee twitchy?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
I had a futures trading account at MF Global for many years, now am with Interactive Brokers.
The owners of MF Global bet (wrongly) on the Euro currency direction, and they did it with the company's money, including some accounts that were held by private traders.
What MF Global did was legally wrong and they lost some 6 billion dollars doing it.
I don't care. They as much as anyone, understand that they are big boys and they gambled in the free market, and they lost.
If the Euro had moved in the direction they thought it would, they would be very very wealthy.
They gambled and lost. What they did has nothing to do with politics.
They deserve bankruptcy and liquidation. Sh#t happens, deal with it.
|
|
cliffhanger
Trad climber
California
|
|
Here's an excellent article by Bill Moyers:
http://www.truth-out.org/how-did-happen/1320278111
short excerpt:
Barack Obama criticizes bankers as “fat cats”, then invites them to dine at a pricey New York restaurant where the tasting menu runs to $195 a person.
That’s now the norm, and they get away with it. The President has raised more money from banks, hedge funds, and private equity managers than any Republican candidate, including Mitt Romney. Inch by inch he has conceded ground to them while espousing populist rhetoric that his very actions betray.
Let’s name this for what it is: hypocrisy made worse, the further perversion of democracy.
Democratic deviancy defined further downward. Our politicians are little more than money launderers in the trafficking of power and policy – fewer than six degrees of separation from the spirit and tactics of Tony Soprano.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!