Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

Australianlibertarian said:

You [Navy Pride] are confusing correlation with causation.
.....

Click to expand...

He Really is!

As with the BS Reagonomics, the economy (and Stock Market/1987) Crashed 7 years into the Borrowing Fest/'Good economy'.
Anyone can lower taxes, but not spending, and create a good economy/low unemployment.

In the Out years (6-8) the incremental stimulous of that years Immorality isn't big enough to outweigh the Cumulative deficits piled up in the first 6+.

So Voila, History repeats.
What a Shock.
Thankfully I lived thru the first while worlking on Wall Street and got out. A simpler Deja Vu rarely happens.

This one structurally a little worse as corporate, bank, and personal Irresponsibility all coincided .
It Was 1929, we just knew what to do this time.

It was Bush and 6 years of the GOP that ran up those deficits.. and are in large/most part responsible for all the bailout and stimulous money Obama has spent.
Except for Health Care/under 10%, this was another Bush caused Budget Deficit and wouldn't have been much different under McCain. The Bailout was not optional.

As to the OP? LOL
Not only CAN'T we afford to extend the Bush tax cuts, rates will have to increase from pre-Bush rates.
Social Security just crossed into deficit last month.

Top Marginal rates are historically near the Bottom. They were 50%-90% when we were a "Communist" country (and had less income disparity) in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and early 80's.
But most posters being young (not to mention hoodwinked).. simply don't remember.
Any attempt to return to Historic NORMS, much less eliminate the extra Bush Pig-fest/Cap Gains/Divs/Estate tax cuts, is "Class warfare". Just ask Hannity.
Class warfare, as Buffett has said, His side has already won.
-

Navy Pride said:

You can spin it anyway you want but in 2006 when the democrats took control of the congress unemployment was at 5.5%, in 2007 it was up to almost 7%, with his stimulus package Obama said it would not get above 8%, it has been as high as 10% and its almost there now and if you count the people who have stopped looking for work its up to 17%....That is the most pressing problem in this country...To get people back to work someone with money has to hire them......If you increase taxes on them that won't happen and the economy will be stagnent or worse.

Those are the facts simplified for some of my left wing friends in DP..

Click to expand...

I think you mean oversimplified.

I should tell you, if you take the facts out of context, you can project any image or conclusion you want. That seems to be your only tactic in a debate, and I must say, its pretty sad.

The economy was still finishing its downward spiral when Obama took office, and it has leveled out a few months ago. If you take all the factors into account, unemployement was going to rise substantially regardless of who the president was, and what he/she did.

In every case of a stimulus package, it is afflicted with what's known as a delay. First, there is a problem delay, where people figure out whats wrong. Next, there is the decision delay, where people decide what to do about it. Last, there is the implementation delay, where politicians take their sweet time in doing whatever it is they decided to do (I changed the names, but the delays are there nonetheless).

After all these delays are taken into account, you have to realize that unemployement is also the last variable to be affected by a stimulus package. First, its inflation, along with the DJIA often enough. next, its manufacturing data, and consumer spending is next. After all these things happen, the job supplyers in the economy have finally gotten the effects of the stim package, and can increase employement, and expand their business.

Thats how it has, did, and always will work. Don't even try to deny that.

Catawba said:

From the same place they got the money from during our Golden Era (from 1950 to Reaganomics) before Reagan drastically cut the tax rates for the top tax brackets.

Click to expand...

And how is that?? By exponentially jacking up prices on goods and services or cutting costs.

Bassman said:

And how is that?? By exponentially jacking up prices on goods and services or cutting costs.

Click to expand...

I think cutting profits was how they did it and it didn't seem to hurt us during our most prosperous period in history! And as a result during that period, the middle class still had enough money to buy the products. If your customers cannot afford your products , it creates the situation we are in today!

The capacity is greater than the demand.

Catawba said:

I think cutting profits was how they did it and it didn't seem to hurt us during our most prosperous period in history! And as a result during that period, the middle class still had enough money to buy the products. If your customers cannot afford your products , it creates the situation we are in today!

The capacity is greater than the demand.

Click to expand...

But that is the entire idea of entrepeneurship. Businesses do not exist to be social welfare agencies.

Bassman said:

But that is the entire idea of entrepeneurship. Businesses do not exist to be social welfare agencies.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford found that he had to increase the pay to his workers so they could afford to buy his cars. He found a slightly smaller profit was necessary to make his business successful.

That is what people do not get today, and why our economy is not as successful with such a wide disparity of wealth between the upper class and the middle class.

Catawba said:

From the same place they got the money from during our Golden Era (from 1950 to Reaganomics) before Reagan drastically cut the tax rates for the top tax brackets.

Click to expand...

You forget my left wing friend that long ago JFK cut taxes too...

Tax cut for the wealthy.....I get so tired of those left wing talking points......The only reason the left wants tax cuts to the wealthy stopped is so they will get more tax money for their failed welfare programs.......

I am waiting for these liberals to refuse their tax cuts but I won't hold my breath....talk is cheap.....:roll:

barefootguy, Catawba, Chappy, disneydude, donc, Goldenboy219, Groucho, hazlnut, Maximus Zeebra, megaprogman, molten_dragon, Ockham, repeter, Vader

Navy Pride said:

Tax cut for the wealthy.....I get so tired of those left wing talking points......The only reason the left wants tax cuts to the wealthy stopped is so they will get more tax money for their failed welfare programs.......

Click to expand...

And for the ten millionth time, you are a huge leech on the system yourself and you are a strong supporter of those "failed welfare programs." Using Rush Limbaugh's talking points doesn't work when you support the programs he's trying to get rid of, my Marxist friend.

Kandahar said:

And for the ten millionth time, you are a huge leech on the system yourself and you are a strong supporter of those "failed welfare programs." Using Rush Limbaugh's talking points doesn't work when you support the programs he's trying to get rid of, my Marxist friend.

Click to expand...

Its amazing how left wingers like you hate our military so much that you even begrudge them a pension when they retire after protecting your ass for 20 or thirty years.....Don't worry you can begrudge us the measly pension we are paid for long deployments away from our families, 16 hours a day working we will still protect you.......

Catawba said:

You will have to document for me any plan to take away tax cuts from anyone making less than $250,000.

Obama's plan is to let the tax cut for the wealthy expire for those making more than $250,000.

Is there another plan out there I have not heard about?

Click to expand...

I'm discussing what the OP wrote:

Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?

Click to expand...

After reading the attached file in the OP - I realize that the OP should have written 'OVER $250K' - because, you're right, this issue is not directed towards people who make UNDER $250,000/year.

:dohI should have read the link thoroughly - 'cause then I would have caught the oops without being thrown way off.

With what's actually being proposed - no - I don't disagree with it on a large scale. there are some details I don't approve of in the attached plan, but those aren't pertaining to the tax-cut itself.

Navy Pride said:

I am waiting for these liberals to refuse their tax cuts but I won't hold my breath....talk is cheap.....:roll:

barefootguy, Catawba, Chappy, disneydude, donc, Goldenboy219, Groucho, hazlnut, Maximus Zeebra, megaprogman, molten_dragon, Ockham, repeter, Vader

Click to expand...

Ever heard of deadweight loss? Thats what happens when you refuse tax cuts. Economically, its bad to have tax cuts, but its even worse to refuse them.

And yes, I understand what I'm saying, and I can't wait for you to start jumping up and down yelling, "hypocrisy by a liberal!"

Catawba said:

From the same place they got the money from during our Golden Era (from 1950 to Reaganomics) before Reagan drastically cut the tax rates for the top tax brackets.

Click to expand...

Oh.

You mean the Golden Shower Era under Carter, where businesses couldn't get capital because everyone was taxed too much.

Funny, isn't it, how the economy crapped out in the 70's, just (ahem) coincidentally after the imposition of the Great Society on a formerly free nation?

repeter said:

Ever heard of deadweight loss? Thats what happens when you refuse tax cuts. Economically, its bad to have tax cuts, but its even worse to refuse them.

And yes, I understand what I'm saying, and I can't wait for you to start jumping up and down yelling, "hypocrisy by a liberal!"

Click to expand...

Oooooh!

What's it called when a Tax Me More Fund is established and all the liberals clamoring for tax increases stay away from it?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Oooooh!

What's it called when a Tax Me More Fund is established and all the liberals clamoring for tax increases stay away from it?

Click to expand...

aint gonna happen. I saw Bill Maher whine about the Bush tax cuts so someone asked him if he planned on sending as much to the IRS as he had under Clinton and the Clinton tax hikes. He hemmed and hawed and basically said no.

Liberals are hypocrites in this area. Look at that fraud Buffett whining about how his secretary pays a lower rate than he does. That is because he SET HIS OWN COMPENSATION so that very little is salary. And its amazing how many envious class warfare jihadists drink that clown's bathwater as if it is champaigne

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Oooooh!

What's it called when a Tax Me More Fund is established and all the liberals clamoring for tax increases stay away from it?

Click to expand...

Microeconomic sense :lol:

No seriously, a bit of hypocrisy, along with some common sense. No one wants to pay more taxes, but that doesn't mean they are wrong if they call for more taxes. But regardless, if you want tax hikes, you should pay for them. If I was in a position to vote aye for tax increase, I'd make damn sure I payed them.

Catawba said:

Henry Ford found that he had to increase the pay to his workers so they could afford to buy his cars. He found a slightly smaller profit was necessary to make his business successful.

That is what people do not get today, and why our economy is not as successful with such a wide disparity of wealth between the upper class and the middle class.

Click to expand...

Then you fail to understand the principle of Capitalism. You seem to think that businesses ought to just break even every year.

Bassman said:

Then you fail to understand the principle of Capitalism. You seem to think that businesses ought to just break even every year.

Click to expand...

In a perfect competition problem, thats all a business could expect to do. Great example is a farm, without subsidies.

repeter said:

In a perfect competition problem, thats all a business could expect to do. Great example is a farm, without subsidies.

Click to expand...

But that's not how businesses thrive, or survive. The very nature of Capitalism is competetive.

Bassman said:

But that's not how businesses thrive, or survive. The very nature of Capitalism is competetive.

Click to expand...

True, but eventually unchecked capitalism would reach a point where the entire economy would be completely monopolized.

repeter said:

True, but eventually unchecked capitalism would reach a point where the entire economy would be completely monopolized.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a few household names rather than a bunch of unrecognizable Ma and Pa products. Again, nature of the beast.

Bassman said:

Nothing wrong with a few household names rather than a bunch of unrecognizable Ma and Pa products. Again, nature of the beast.

Click to expand...

Or one enormous corporation which has expanded to control every aspect of a citizen's daily life. That is an extreme, I admit, but thats what would happen with unchecked capitalism. The best corporation would win in the end, and then it would be able to immediatly kill any and all competition it encounters.

repeter said:

Or one enormous corporation which has expanded to control every aspect of a citizen's daily life. That is an extreme, I admit, but thats what would happen with unchecked capitalism. The best corporation would win in the end, and then it would be able to immediatly kill any and all competition it encounters.

Click to expand...

But on the other hand, if businesses are forced to jump through hoops like they are now, but with even more regulations, they would close because the cost of doing business would be prohibitive.

Bassman said:

But on the other hand, if businesses are forced to jump through hoops like they are now, but with even more regulations, they would close because the cost of doing business would be prohibitive.

Click to expand...

Completely valid. Any system needs a balance between free market principles, and government regulation. I personally feel the balance is a bit to the regulation side of things, but I'm sure you'd feel more on the free market side of things, right?