The Thriller
Well-Known Member
should they be allowed to expire? Why or why not? How will our economy be effected?
The rationalization for the top tier Bush Tax Cuts in summer of 2001 was to stimulate growth and create more private sector jobs. How many jobs have been created in the last 10 years?
The rationalization for the top tier Bush Tax Cuts in summer of 2001 was to stimulate growth and create more private sector jobs. How many jobs have been created in the last 10 years?
Letting the tax breaks expire will result in less tax revenue. Book it.
I can't remember the exact statistic, but if we let the cuts expire, the incoming revenue would erase something like 30% of the current deficit. With the problems we are in we have to let them expire, and if we were being realistic (which we won't be... especially in a mid-term election year) we'd probably have to raise taxes on people making between (approximately) $250,000 and $150,000 a year. These people need their vacation homes and their sports cars, though.... these things make the world go-round.
I love the thinking here. It is okay to take things that belong to other people (their money in this case) because they will only use the fruits of their labor to enjoy life. All of us miserable wretches who have been victimized by their success deserve their property more than they do!
Taking things from people with more money than we have is awesome.
(This will be followed by NAOS saying he actually makes $200,000+ a year and would have no problem paying "his fair share.")
I love the thinking here. It is okay to take things that belong to other people (their money in this case) because they will only use the fruits of their labor to enjoy life. All of us miserable wretches who have been victimized by their success deserve their property more than they do!
Taking things from people with more money than we have is awesome.
(This will be followed by NAOS saying he actually makes $200,000+ a year and would have no problem paying "his fair share.")
Personally, I think we should all just give our 100% to the US Of Obama. Pelosi and Reid can then decide how much we REALLY need to exist. Mosques near Ground Zero, suing AZ for trying to control the flood of illegals - it's clear where the current leadership is taking this country. But I shudder to think the alternative in 3 years might be dumb-as-a-rock Palin. Please God, END THIS NOW!!!
Romney's whole background is gutting things and making them better - how can anybody argue that he wouldn't be a perfect fit if he was that same guy? That's exactly what we needed in '08 and even more so now. The question with him is if he is an establishment guy that just goes with the flow or not. Based on his record as Governor of Mass and being a member of quite a few of the elite "clubs", the answer is that he is indeed an establishment guy. But you never know if he is just playing the field so he can get a shot at the big job. He is the only name that floats with a legitimate chance to actually do something positive for this country.
Although, Ron Paul is the better choice because you actually know what he'll do and it should be interesting to see if he has enough support to become a mainstream candidate by mid '11 when things start to heat up. I think he will.
Dude, I'm a teacher.
(This will be followed by Gameface talking about the problems with "the liberals" in the education system.)
BTW: because I'm a teacher I can barely afford to pay rent and buy the computer that I'm typing on. Why should educators make a decent living wage anyway? Heck, our kids don't need no learnin'.
Gameface, do you agree that the US needs more tax revenue in order to get out of the pit we are in? Do you think financial de-regulation and tax cuts to the super wealthy had anything to do with the current situation we are in? pray tell. Also, drawing more directly from your quote above, do you think we need to spend money to enjoy the fruits of our labors?
I assumed you were a professor as you seemed to act as though you were an expert in genetics or biology or some such.
I don't have the slightest bit of desire to control the ideas that are presented in any venue. I don't have a problem with liberals in the education system. If their ideas win out then good for them.
I'm not a Republican, in the least. If you had to put me in a category you could call me a libertarian.
I think, as I stated in my first post, that we need to cut spending. If it were up to me spending would decline dramatically. There would be no such thing as social security, medicare, medicaide, or subsidies for anything. Not to mention no more public schools (the apparent ideological battleground), and many other things people often assume couldn't exist without the government providing it. So in that scenario taxes could be reduced. If it meant the economy shrank then so be it. I don't support that position because I think it will make everybody's life better, I support it because I don't know of any other system that is justified. If it is assumed that each person owns their own existence then each person is ultimately responsible for the outcome of their own existence.
EDIT: I guess i should add that I know the majority of people in the U.S. don't want to give any of their benefits up, so in that case, yes, we need to raise taxes on top of letting the Bush tax cuts expire. We should face the full brunt of what our spending actually costs. Our current system is to finance our spending then let constant inflation reduce the impact of that debt.