This is an interesting article on the subject. It's easy to forget that tax increases would in some ways be reinstating taxes that were already in place. You keep hearing rumors of the potential for the perfect economic storm. It might be time to start tightening the belt and making the tough decisions. This would also include spending cuts.
[color=darkred]Smart bombs
Deal or no deal?
Gary Crooks
The Spokesman-Review
April 19, 2008
Barack Obama wants to raise your taxes! So does Hillary Clinton!
That's the drumbeat about the Democratic candidates for president, but upon closer examination it looks as if the main fear is that the Bush tax cuts will end in 2010.
And why is that? Because they have an expiration date. And why is that? Because back when they were proposed there was a budget surplus and long-term forecasts showed that deficits would return if the cuts remained. So an expiration date was attached to woo the more fiscally responsible members of Congress.
That was the deal.
The hope among aggressive tax cutters was that the budget predictions would be wrong and that the lower rates would expand the economy enough to bring in sufficient revenue to balance the budget. With that evidence in hand, proponents could then make a plausible case for making the tax cuts permanent.
When this supply-side fantasy didn't materialize, politicians and activists began deriding any wish to abide by the deal as "a tax hike." The trick, you see, is to convince voters that Republican leaders in Congress and the president were somehow unaware of this technicality.
Don't fall for it. If this planned-for resetting of tax rates is a tax increase, then it was set into motion by the very leaders who pretend to find it appalling.
Running on empty. To understand the absurdity of labeling expiration dates "tax hikes," consider U.S. Sen. John McCain's proposal for a gas-tax holiday.
He suggests lifting the federal government's levy on gasoline this summer. But guess what? The tax cut would end on Labor Day.
That's right: John McCain wants to raise your taxes!
Blackjack John. The tax cuts were reckless from the beginning, because the projections used to justify them didn't allow for economic downturns or new government spending.
I'm not saying President Bush should've been able to predict the Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war, a massive prescription drug program for Medicare or the bursting of the housing bubble. But it was safe to assume that the rosy scenario would encounter some smudges along the way.
Budget hawk McCain voted against the tax cuts. He's always been a proponent of balanced budgets. So, with the benefit of hindsight and the reality of today's daunting budget challenges staring him right in the face, Sen. Straight Talk naturally wants to reverse course, right?
Um … no. McCain has decided to double down. Not only does he want the tax cuts made permanent, he wants to make them almost twice as big. [/color]
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". Orwell
I haven't seen belt tightening from either side of the aisle in so long I am not sure they could figure it out between them. The problem has never been revenue, it has been expenditures. Some people just don't get it.
I haven't seen belt tightening from either side of the aisle in so long I am not sure they could figure it out between them. The problem has never been revenue, it has been expenditures. Some people just don't get it.
I agree with you about both sides of the aisle being terrible controlling spending. Although, Clinton and his republican congress seemed to be heading down the right track in that regard.
But I disagree a bit with your blanket statement about spending. Federal spending helped defeat the evil empire. Federal spending helped create a vibrant middle class that helped us rise in the 20th century to become the worlds #1 super power.
It's not the simple, you've got to spend some money to make some money. The trick is to be smart on how you spend it.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". Orwell
I haven't seen belt tightening from either side of the aisle in so long I am not sure they could figure it out between them. The problem has never been revenue, it has been expenditures. Some people just don't get it.
I agree with you about both sides of the aisle being terrible controlling spending. Although, Clinton and his republican congress seemed to be heading down the right track in that regard.
But I disagree a bit with your blanket statement about spending. Federal spending helped defeat the evil empire. Federal spending helped create a vibrant middle class that helped us rise in the 20th century to become the worlds #1 super power.
It's not the simple, you've got to spend some money to make some money. The trick is to be smart on how you spend it.
I am not sure how you made that leap about blanket statements on spending on my part. I do not advocate an end to spending, in fact I would increase spending in certain areas. I just do not subscribe to promising everything to everyone simply to try and get elected. Of course the Fed has to spend some money, but they waste billions and I don't think anyone can refute it. Simply throwing money at problems doesn't solve them.
I haven't seen belt tightening from either side of the aisle in so long I am not sure they could figure it out between them. The problem has never been revenue, it has been expenditures. Some people just don't get it.
I agree with you about both sides of the aisle being terrible controlling spending. Although, Clinton and his republican congress seemed to be heading down the right track in that regard.
But I disagree a bit with your blanket statement about spending. Federal spending helped defeat the evil empire. Federal spending helped create a vibrant middle class that helped us rise in the 20th century to become the worlds #1 super power.
It's not the simple, you've got to spend some money to make some money. The trick is to be smart on how you spend it.
I am not sure how you made that leap about blanket statements on spending on my part. I do not advocate an end to spending, in fact I would increase spending in certain areas. I just do not subscribe to promising everything to everyone simply to try and get elected. Of course the Fed has to spend some money, but they waste billions and I don't think anyone can refute it. Simply throwing money at problems doesn't solve them.
i agree 100 percent. they waste 100s of billions on defense. it's blatant overkill to the nth degree. there are so many programs that if we'd just move a small percentage out of defense, we'd solve so many problems.
the great thing about the right to bear(griz) arms is that you don't need to spend so much on defense. we can defend ourselves just fine. it's feeding ourselves and staying healthy that's hurting us.
I haven't seen belt tightening from either side of the aisle in so long I am not sure they could figure it out between them. The problem has never been revenue, it has been expenditures. Some people just don't get it.
I agree with you about both sides of the aisle being terrible controlling spending. Although, Clinton and his republican congress seemed to be heading down the right track in that regard.
But I disagree a bit with your blanket statement about spending. Federal spending helped defeat the evil empire. Federal spending helped create a vibrant middle class that helped us rise in the 20th century to become the worlds #1 super power.
It's not the simple, you've got to spend some money to make some money. The trick is to be smart on how you spend it.
I am not sure how you made that leap about blanket statements on spending on my part. I do not advocate an end to spending, in fact I would increase spending in certain areas. I just do not subscribe to promising everything to everyone simply to try and get elected. Of course the Fed has to spend some money, but they waste billions and I don't think anyone can refute it. Simply throwing money at problems doesn't solve them.
I agree with virtually everything you say here. But just our of curiosity, which candidate do you think is promising everything to everyone?
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". Orwell
I haven't seen belt tightening from either side of the aisle in so long I am not sure they could figure it out between them. The problem has never been revenue, it has been expenditures. Some people just don't get it.
I agree with you about both sides of the aisle being terrible controlling spending. Although, Clinton and his republican congress seemed to be heading down the right track in that regard.
But I disagree a bit with your blanket statement about spending. Federal spending helped defeat the evil empire. Federal spending helped create a vibrant middle class that helped us rise in the 20th century to become the worlds #1 super power.
It's not the simple, you've got to spend some money to make some money. The trick is to be smart on how you spend it.
I am not sure how you made that leap about blanket statements on spending on my part. I do not advocate an end to spending, in fact I would increase spending in certain areas. I just do not subscribe to promising everything to everyone simply to try and get elected. Of course the Fed has to spend some money, but they waste billions and I don't think anyone can refute it. Simply throwing money at problems doesn't solve them.
I agree with virtually everything you say here. But just our of curiosity, which candidate do you think is promising everything to everyone?
Oh I think clearly BO has made the most promises. That doesn't mean he can deliver on them any more than any previous candidate has.
Oh I think clearly BO has made the most promises. That doesn't mean he can deliver on them any more than any previous candidate has.
You may be right, but they all clearly make promises they can't keep, including being able to recover from this economy without raising taxes.
The frustration lies in the fact that if a candidate is honest and/or remotely cynical, their chances of being elected go down the tubes.
But I assume you agree with the notion from the article that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not really a tax hike?
First of all, saying "Bush Tax Cuts" is purely semantics anyway. If your taxes go up, call them whatever you wish, the fact remains, you are paying more. I have never had a real issue with paying taxes, but I sure have issues with wasteful spending.
Oh I think clearly BO has made the most promises. That doesn't mean he can deliver on them any more than any previous candidate has.
You may be right, but they all clearly make promises they can't keep, including being able to recover from this economy without raising taxes.
The frustration lies in the fact that if a candidate is honest and/or remotely cynical, their chances of being elected go down the tubes.
But I assume you agree with the notion from the article that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not really a tax hike?
First of all, saying "Bush Tax Cuts" is purely semantics anyway. If your taxes go up, call them whatever you wish, the fact remains, you are paying more. I have never had a real issue with paying taxes, but I sure have issues with wasteful spending.
I agree, but allowing tax cuts to expire is not a tax increase either.
Now, where do we start cutting spending? I'll trade you greater oversight of defense contracts for cuts in abstinence only education funding.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". Orwell
Oh I think clearly BO has made the most promises. That doesn't mean he can deliver on them any more than any previous candidate has.
You may be right, but they all clearly make promises they can't keep, including being able to recover from this economy without raising taxes.
The frustration lies in the fact that if a candidate is honest and/or remotely cynical, their chances of being elected go down the tubes.
But I assume you agree with the notion from the article that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not really a tax hike?
First of all, saying "Bush Tax Cuts" is purely semantics anyway. If your taxes go up, call them whatever you wish, the fact remains, you are paying more. I have never had a real issue with paying taxes, but I sure have issues with wasteful spending.
I agree, but allowing tax cuts to expire is not a tax increase either.
Now, where do we start cutting spending? I'll trade you greater oversight of defense contracts for cuts in abstinence only education funding.
EVERY Government contract should be reviewed. Anyone who believes that there isn't wasteful spending in each and every are of Gvt spending is maybe too politically motivated. I would order an audit of all the books.
We would have to pay those auditors and accountants. Would more scrutiny mean more responsible spending or a larger bureaucratic government that costs more to run?
This is assuming that we wouldn't borrow from the Chinese to pay them.
I don't expect anything from you, except to die and be a very cheap funeral.
We would have to pay those auditors and accountants. Would more scrutiny mean more responsible spending or a larger bureaucratic government that costs more to run?
This is assuming that we wouldn't borrow from the Chinese to pay them.
So what if they have to be paid. Are you trying to tell me an audit wouldn't more than pay for itself. I would be more than happy to spend a few million to rid a few billion in wasteful spending.
There is a big difference between in those that don't want to and those who can't.
Please don't insult both of our intelligence by trying to claim that BO and HC along with the Dems are the only ones looking out for those that cannot help themselves. There are PLENTY of people who are very capable, but simply do not want to work and expect the Govt to take care of them.
Like I said; those who don't want to and those that can't.
I firmly believe that most people want to make a decent living and will if given the opportunity. Not every person that is using social services is a blood sucking leach out to take advantage of the taxpayers in this country. Granted there are some, and they should not be able to do so, but in most situations there is a real need for such services.
I don't expect anything from you, except to die and be a very cheap funeral.
Like I said; those who don't want to and those that can't.
I firmly believe that most people want to make a decent living and will if given the opportunity. Not every person that is using social services is a blood sucking leach out to take advantage of the taxpayers in this country. Granted there are some, and they should not be able to do so, but in most situations there is a real need for such services.
Fair enough. And, for the record, I never said they were.
There is a big difference between in those that don't want to and those who can't.
Please don't insult both of our intelligence by trying to claim that BO and HC along with the Dems are the only ones looking out for those that cannot help themselves. There are PLENTY of people who are very capable, but simply do not want to work and expect the Govt to take care of them.
I agree on the scrutinizing every aspect of government. But can you define plenty, and how big of a problem that really is?
I would submit that in a capitalistic system you will always have the bottom feeders. They are simply a reality and will always represent a certain percentage of our spending. But if we allow them to slip through the cracks too much, that too can become problematic. IE, we're only as good as our weakest link.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". Orwell
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
