700 billions dollar debt increase is the republican's first goal.

ooh gone again

 

!!

 

!!

 

Honestly, I bet very few people will really 'need', let alone 'desperately need' the tax cuts involved. Certainly not the 6 figure incomers that will get it or even the high 5er's. But multiply the cuts across the millions of taxpayers and you get the 3 or 4 trillion dollar bar tab. So again, if you are going to waste all that money, 700 hundred billion more is nothing to get overly excited about one way or the other.

 

Yawn.....tax cuts do not cost the government....they bring in more revenue.....read your history.
Steve, when we gonna lose the troll so we all can enjoy intelligent conversation again.

 

I think you got your wish Jack...Both Lehigh and Tom seem to be MIA. No loss either way in my opinion.

I'd like someone to address the topic of this thread though. How is it even possible for our government not to run up huge deficits by not raising taxes for 10 years while at the same time fighting two costly wars, passing Medicare part D without funding it, bailing out wall street, the auto industry, and the world's largest insurance industry, all while seeing a serve decrease in revenue thanks to a global recession/depression? And don't tell me by cutting costs because cutting to the bare bone wouldn't even make a dent in the deficit. We need to let the upper 2% start paying a decent tax rate in order to not mortgage our children's future. Let the tax cuts expire. They were never designed to be permanent. If 10 years of tax breaks didn't spur job growth, why would extending them bring a different result?

 

..adding troll and stupid to the list of acceptable insults. Got 'em.

 

There's actually been intelligent conversation here?

 

I love this place for entertainment if nothing else and it's usually the latter.

 

As it's been pointed out time & time again, the upper 2% of wage earners are already paying nearly 95% of the taxes while the bottom 50% of the earners pay nearly nothing (but benefit the most from programs funded taxation). And remember, the "earners" that are paying the bulk of the taxes aren't necessarily the wealthiest among us. People like John Kerry, Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, John Edwards and the like aren't taxed on their wealth only their income...and some don't have regular taxable incomes they just live off amassed wealth, which is taxed differently. If Warren Buffett only takes $1 a year salary from BH then he is taxed at whatever rate he falls into. The tax on his wealth is calculated at a much different (lower) rate. This is why the libs advocate higher income taxes. The elites don't have incomes, only amassed wealth, so they don't feel the same pain.
And for Dr moen, I'll refer you back to your Dave Ramsey post in another thread- For our budget/deficit, it's not an income-side problem, it's a spending-side problem. Easy to fix. Spend less than what you bring in. Change the tax system...tax consumption. Look at the FairTax!!

 

I have posted it before and not gotten any bites so I won't post the budget link again...but I will simply say... It is easy to say cuts. Republicans do it all the time. "We are going to cut spending!"

As Penn and Teller would say...Bull****. Show me what you would cut that is going to make an actual difference in a 1.27 trillion dollar yearly deficit.

 

I really doubt it is that simple of relationship, otherwise we would just cut the tax to 0% and watch the money roll into the government coffers.

 

The Fairtax would tax consumption, not income, and it would bring all the tax dodgers, criminals, illegals and visitors from abroad into the tax system. Talk about helping the middle class! Imagine what you could do, how much you could save, if you were able to bring home virtually every penny you earned. The mega-rich, like John Kerry, wouldn't get to play games when they buy their yachts to see which state it benefits them to register in from a tax perspective. No tax loopholes...everyone contributes.

And to address Stu's question....how about across the board cuts of say 5-10%? Every program, every agency. That's a start. Then, no spending increases for 1, 2 or 3 years. Pass a balanced budget amendment. Make to so no spending measure can occur unless it's paid for. These are things the TEA Party has advocated. Do these sound feasible? Would they work in the real world? Ask Sarah Palin. She took this path in Alaska & had incredible results...she was the envy of every governor in the country + she issued tax refunds to the residents of her state.
Let the games begin.....

 

Well it is a safe bet that they are not talking about cutting the military budget or their other pet programs like corporate welfare and farm subsidies. We need to spend more than the entire rest of the world on defense. We need to have 3/4 of our corporations paying ZERO in Federal taxes. We need to keep subsidizing inefficient family farms.

Point being that the only cuts Republicans want are cuts in programs the Democrats protect and the only cuts Democrats want are in programs the Republicans protect. No one in Washington cares about the deficit, they simply want to hog as much of the pie for their lobbyists as possible. We simply get to subsidize their corruption and the system of legalized bribery we call congress. If you ever want this to end it isn’t going to happen by cutting taxes or cutting spending or even raising taxes. It’ll happen when money is removed from the equation. Publically fund campaigns and make them shorter.

 

No way will Social Security and Medicare be cut 10% by any politician...not even these tea party folks. And I refuse to believe the Republicans, of any flavor beverage, have any intention of cutting the military 10% when we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But, let's say they do cut all spending by 10% across the board (except for interest payment)...that will leave us a 2011 deficit of about....a trillion dollars, maybe 900 billion depending upon the Bush Tax cuts.

 

I agree pretty much 100% with your assessment.

 

Wouldn't you agree that we have to start somewhere? You responded to one portion of my post...what about my other suggestions? You argued why you think 1 piece of it would be tough to make happen but there were other components to my idea.
You're one of those guys here who routinely critiques all sides but seem to be short on ideas so I would welcome your ideas as well.

 

Same here. Every now and then, Mr Moen hits the nail on the head

 

You must not read many of my posts to not know what my ideas are. I haven't been shy about them. Maybe my posts were too long. I hope you have a spare half hour to finish this one.

Let the Bush stimulus expire. 400 billion a year deficit reduction immediately.

I have also advocated eliminating our world protection duties by bringing the military home...not only from Afghanistan and Iraq but from every other place we have fought a war and never left. I don't have hard numbers there but I would be shocked to see that result in less than 100 to 200 billion in defense savings.

So me, with no ideas, has just cut the deficit probably in half. lol

As far as fair tax...

A consumption tax or any other tax reform has to increase revenue because both revenue and spending cuts will have to be addressed to tackle the numbers we are dealing with. One side of the equation or the other is not going to fix the problem. So, regardless of whether it is consumption, reform or outright increases, tax revenues need to go up overall. Otherwise, it is just another political shell game.

 

How about this idea. A 10% across the board spending cut. Everything. Yes including defense. I'm sure everyone at some point has had to do this or simular or more. Why can't the government?