The Thriller
Well-Known Member
should they be allowed to expire? Why or why not? How will our economy be effected?
Tax Cuts
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
i think we need a paradigm shift
(not sure what that means exactly...)
I also think I need to read up on the issues a little more.
(not sure what that means exactly...)
I also think I need to read up on the issues a little more.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Don't worry about it. Helicopter Ben Bernanke is going to give you the biggest tax of your lifetime in the form of inflation so the 3 or 4 percentage bump income tax is almost irrelevant right now. The Fed just announced QE 2 this week, and God knows what else they are doing that isn't being aired publicly. They don't know how do anything but print money. You're in good hands.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
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.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
What do you see in this picture?
Answer: a job-creating machine!
BTW: this kind of development is, I believe, illegal in New Zealand. You can't privately own property that meets the ocean; all of that is public land. I don't know anybody who has been to New Zealand's coasts that wouldn't immediately say they are more beautiful than the areas of northern and central California which are very comparable topographically and (originally) aesthetically.
Answer: a job-creating machine!
BTW: this kind of development is, I believe, illegal in New Zealand. You can't privately own property that meets the ocean; all of that is public land. I don't know anybody who has been to New Zealand's coasts that wouldn't immediately say they are more beautiful than the areas of northern and central California which are very comparable topographically and (originally) aesthetically.
Last edited:
NAOS
Well-Known Member
careful, a momma grizzly might maul you for that kind of talk.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
You mean here in the United States, or overseas?
careful, a momma grizzly might maul you for that kind of talk.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
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.")
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
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!!!
NAOS
Well-Known Member
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?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
since i'm about to be raked over the coals again for being "radical" I'll take this opportunity to agree with part of what GlassEater is saying: the Democrats have been bloody incompetent. That said, I don't think that Obama has been as bad as most people from both sides make him out to be. Actually, he has governed WAY more to the center than I thought he would, so I haven't really understood the moderate right's stonewalling of him.
obviously, you are right about Palin. She is mind-blowingly stupid. A puppet. But would Gingrich, Romney, or Fred Thompson make you feel any better???
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I like quite a few things about Ron Paul, and he may be able to sway some mainstream republican voters. I think he'll have a hard time with the media: both the MSNBC crowd and FOX (who crucified him the last time they had the shot). Also, I think that most republicans would end up hating him if he ever got into office. He seems to pragmatic to not make some obvious changes... the problem is that those changes (namely, the taxation which is plain needed) will be very unpopular.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
NAOS
Well-Known Member
So, basically you just want to dissolve the government and all of its powers or turn it solely into a war machine? Show me a period in the history of modern bonafide capitalism that has had an unemployment percentage of less than 4%. The entire capitalist venture has a built-in inequity, and your politics essentially just says "too bad, it's part of the game... starvation is a part of nature (or something of the kind)." In other words, you can't realistically believe in capitalism without also accepting the consequences of some poverty... history has shown us this. Moreover, if you look at capitalism more holistically, in the scope of global history, even when the center of power has been at its most affluent and "fully employed" (i.e. somewhere near 5% unemployment), they have been involved in imperial or imperial-like practices abroad that have caused sometimes rampant disease and starvation. All I'm trying to say is that you can't just sit on you hands, support capitalism, and say you can't "justify" other alternatives. That's what leads to revolutions.
This is not a statement of support for our current spending situation. I think the way this bailout process has been handled (from Bush ramrodding hundreds of billions through congress in the waning days of his tenure, to Obama's lack of oversight) will go down as one of the worst government hack jobs in history.
Dude, just because decisions are hard doesn't mean you don't have to make them.
