The 'Bush' tax cuts are set to expire...now BHO wants to continue them for 'some Americans'.......

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/04/pf/taxes/bush_obama_tax_cuts/index.htm

What say you?? For those who railed against these tax cuts...are they now a good idea since BHO wants to continue them??

ETA....my opinion is that, while I agree with extending the tax custs, that this is just another example of BHO saying he is going to do one thing and actually doing another. This would be exempt from the 'pay-go' rules that he just signed into law and he used the Bush tax custs as one of the primary reasons for the economic deficit and crisis that he 'inherited from the previous administration', as he is so fond of saying.

Per the rules, please include what YOU think. Thank you

Wait, these tax cuts were only for the rich, right? They're eeeeeeevil and must be repealed, right? :rolleyes:

I am all for maintaining the tax cuts if Congress and Obama find a way to pay for them. It is far too much money to be adding to the already gargantuan national debt. We cannot continue to mortgage the future to pay for today. Any way you slice it, that is what is happening right now.

Well, my opinion is that he should let all of those tax cuts expire. But, fwiw it worth, the term "Bush Tax Cuts" has come to colloquially refer to the cut in the top marginal rate bracket for individuals from 39.6% down to 35%. Even if Bammy Boy preserves some of the cuts put in by W, no chance he doesn't make sure that rate goes back up. Hence, I think there's a bit of semantics going on here...BHO has supported numerous deficit bloating tax cuts, including the stimulus package which was largely tax cuts but has never supported the reduction in the top marginal rate bracket for ordinary income that occurred under the Bush Administration.

BCBulldog wrote: I am all for maintaining the tax cuts if Congress and Obama find a way to pay for them. It is far too much money to be adding to the already gargantuan national debt. We cannot continue to mortgage the future to pay for today. Any way you slice it, that is what is happening right now.

Didn't realize it was the governments money in the first place.


How do you find a way to pay for something using money that really isn't yours in the first place?

Why don't we just cut spending across the board by say 10- 15% and let the people that EARN the money keep it and spend it the way the wish?

This thinking that its the "governments money" and they just happen to let us have little now and then is total BS!

Shane Falco wrote:

BCBulldog wrote: I am all for maintaining the tax cuts if Congress and Obama find a way to pay for them. It is far too much money to be adding to the already gargantuan national debt. We cannot continue to mortgage the future to pay for today. Any way you slice it, that is what is happening right now.

Didn't realize it was the governments money in the first place.


How do you find a way to pay for something using money that really isn't yours in the first place?

Why don't we just cut spending across the board by say 10- 15% and let the people that EARN the money keep it and spend it the way the wish?

This thinking that its the "governments money" and they just happen to let us have little now and then is total BS!

How do you propose cutting
1. Medicare
2. Social Security
3. Defense

That is what has to get cut and they are all three sacred cows basically.

BoatShoes wrote:

Shane Falco wrote:

BCBulldog wrote: I am all for maintaining the tax cuts if Congress and Obama find a way to pay for them. It is far too much money to be adding to the already gargantuan national debt. We cannot continue to mortgage the future to pay for today. Any way you slice it, that is what is happening right now.

Didn't realize it was the governments money in the first place.


How do you find a way to pay for something using money that really isn't yours in the first place?

Why don't we just cut spending across the board by say 10- 15% and let the people that EARN the money keep it and spend it the way the wish?

This thinking that its the "governments money" and they just happen to let us have little now and then is total BS!

How do you propose cutting
1. Medicare
2. Social Security
3. Defense

That is what has to get cut and they are all three sacred cows basically.

You are forgetting interest on the national debt, which is somewhat manageable right now with interest rates at zero but within the next few years will be eating up $5-600 Billion in just dead money that doesn't do a lick of good to anyone.

To actually ever balance the budget at this point in actuality we need to run a huge surplus, because when you lop off half a trillion dollars right off the bat you haven't paid any normal bills or provided any services, you are just paying the credit card down. It will end up being the silent killer of the decade.

How do I propse it? Really? Is it that hard to understand?

How about:

WE ARE CUTTING ALL SPENDING BY X%!

Clear enough?

Where are you cutting spending?

cbus4life wrote: Where are you cutting spending?

Damn. Beat me to it.

Seriously though....say defense (or medicare/SS or whatever) currently is say, 45% of the federal budget. The CBO releases the estimated Treasury income for the upcoming FY, and said agency gets 45% of that amount as their budget. The head of said agency is now tasked to make the decisions necessary to live within that budget. Isn't that what we pay them for?

fish82 wrote:

cbus4life wrote: Where are you cutting spending?

Damn. Beat me to it.

Seriously though....say defense (or medicare/SS or whatever) currently is say, 45% of the federal budget. The CBO releases the estimated Treasury income for the upcoming FY, and said agency gets 45% of that amount as their budget. The head of said agency is now tasked to make the decisions necessary to live within that budget. Isn't that what we pay them for?

Theoretically.

Just hasn't been the accountability there for a long, long time.

fish82 wrote:

cbus4life wrote: Where are you cutting spending?

Damn. Beat me to it.

Seriously though....say defense (or medicare/SS or whatever) currently is say, 45% of the federal budget. The CBO releases the estimated Treasury income for the upcoming FY, and said agency gets 45% of that amount as their budget. The head of said agency is now tasked to make the decisions necessary to live within that budget. Isn't that what we pay them for?

This sounds like a good plan to me. It's not politically possible, however, because retirees would go crazy if you cut SS by X%. Fixed income, etc.

We'll see if Obama sticks by his pledge of not raising taxes on families making less than $250k. FWIW, the WSJ had an article the other day about how the HENRYs (high earners, not rich yet) are getting royally screwed here. It's the people who make $250-500k who get hit with true marginal tax rates upwards of 60-70% in some areas because their income is not from dividends but from, you know, income.

If we truly want to balance the budget, we'll need to massively cut spending and increase taxes on all Americans, not just those making $250k and up. The tax base must become much broader for this to work. I'm willing to bet there will be howls when those Americans who have been free-riding (while complaining about how the rich don't pay their fair share . . . as if . . .) suddenly have to put some skin in the game.

We'll see if Obama sticks by his pledge of not raising taxes on families making less than $250k.

He's already started to back off that in the sense that he has said that the economic situation in this country has changed dramatically from when he made that pledge initially, and that everything (taxes and spending) has to be on the table.

I agree about the need to deal with the tax brackets because as it stands a doctor making $300,000 a year is taxed at the same rate as Warren Buffet. In fact, the super wealthy are actually taxed at a much lower percentage because most of their income is passive and taxed at lower marginal rate than someone making a similar amount of money through an actual paycheck. Billions of dollars a year are also lost to those who work at hedge funds and private equity firms as they only pay a 15% tax on their share the carried interest they are payed with from.

Spending needs to be attacked, but even the most Conservative economists have conceded that we can't grow our way out of this, and taxes are going to have to go up.

We deserve everything coming our way though, as we kept voting the same buffoons and parties into office without ever holding them accountable for the debt they were running up. Every tax cut we have had for the past 30 years has been nothing more than a temporary loan to be collected later because spending was never kept in check, yet we were all thrilled to get something for nothing. In the immortal words of the good reverand Jeremiah Wright, "the chickens are coming home to roost".

fan_from_texas wrote:

fish82 wrote:

cbus4life wrote: Where are you cutting spending?

Damn. Beat me to it.

Seriously though....say defense (or medicare/SS or whatever) currently is say, 45% of the federal budget. The CBO releases the estimated Treasury income for the upcoming FY, and said agency gets 45% of that amount as their budget. The head of said agency is now tasked to make the decisions necessary to live within that budget. Isn't that what we pay them for?

This sounds like a good plan to me. It's not politically possible, however, because retirees would go crazy if you cut SS by X%. Fixed income, etc.

We'll see if Obama sticks by his pledge of not raising taxes on families making less than $250k. FWIW, the WSJ had an article the other day about how the HENRYs (high earners, not rich yet) are getting royally screwed here. It's the people who make $250-500k who get hit with true marginal tax rates upwards of 60-70% in some areas because their income is not from dividends but from, you know, income.

If we truly want to balance the budget, we'll need to massively cut spending and increase taxes on all Americans, not just those making $250k and up. The tax base must become much broader for this to work. I'm willing to bet there will be howls when those Americans who have been free-riding (while complaining about how the rich don't pay their fair share . . . as if . . .) suddenly have to put some skin in the game.

This is Spot on, especially with the HENRY's. But to be fair it's not just class warfare artists who want to suck on the rich teet who aren't paying federal income tax. A lot of folks who suggest that Americans are "Taxed. Enough. Already. .. are among those who don't have much skin in the game as far as federal income tax dollars go.

IggyPride00 wrote:

We'll see if Obama sticks by his pledge of not raising taxes on families making less than $250k.

He's already started to back off that in the sense that he has said that the economic situation in this country has changed dramatically from when he made that pledge initially, and that everything (taxes and spending) has to be on the table.

I agree with the President that everything needs to be on the table, but that's going to bea very difficult move politically, to which Bush Sr. can attest. Can you imagine the attack ads that would come out of this?

I agree about the need to deal with the tax brackets because as it stands a doctor making $300,000 a year is taxed at the same rate as Warren Buffet. In fact, the super wealthy are actually taxed at a much lower percentage because most of their income is passive and taxed at lower marginal rate than someone making a similar amount of money through an actual paycheck. Billions of dollars a year are also lost to those who work at hedge funds and private equity firms as they only pay a 15% tax on their share the carried interest they are payed with from.

Agreed all-around.

[The baby boomers] deserve everything coming [their] way though, as [they] kept voting the same buffoons and parties into office without ever holding them accountable for the debt they were running up. Every tax cut we have had for the past 30 years has been nothing more than a temporary loan to be collected later [by their children and grandchildren] because spending was never kept in check, yet [the baby boomers] were all thrilled to get something for nothing.

I modified your quote above. While I realize my generation hasn't done much yet to remedy any problems, it does irk me that Social Security is an untouchable and sacred, yet burying my generation with Boomer's debt appears to be a viable option. If Boomers had been more fiscally responsible, we wouldn't be in anywhere near the mess we're in now. I realize that this is assigning a disproportionate share of the blame to one generation (as though they were a homogenuous group) in a simple manner (for a complicated, nuanced issue). Yet, still, if we're facing budget issues, cutting social security--and thus requiring the people who voted to run up the debt to pay for it--seems like a better option than mortgaging the future and kicking the can.

Boatshoes wrote: But to be fair it's not just class warfare artists who want to suck on the rich teet who aren't paying federal income tax. A lot of folks who suggest that Americans are "Taxed. Enough. Already. .. are among those who don't have much skin in the game as far as federal income tax dollars go.

Agreed, as well. I wonder where all these people were 3 years ago when the Bush administration was running up massive deficits. While Obama has been bad on the deficit front, I can't help but be cynical about the sudden concern about the debt on the part of those on the right. The timing seems a little . . . interesting.

BoatShoes wrote: This is Spot on, especially with the HENRY's. But to be fair it's not just class warfare artists who want to suck on the rich teet who aren't paying federal income tax. A lot of folks who suggest that Americans are "Taxed. Enough. Already. .. are among those who don't have much skin in the game as far as federal income tax dollars go.

How do you know, though? We don't know how much those folks pay in taxes...

CenterBHSFan wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: This is Spot on, especially with the HENRY's. But to be fair it's not just class warfare artists who want to suck on the rich teet who aren't paying federal income tax. A lot of folks who suggest that Americans are "Taxed. Enough. Already. .. are among those who don't have much skin in the game as far as federal income tax dollars go.

How do you know, though? We don't know how much those folks pay in taxes...

Since about half of Americans don't pay net income taxes, and since there are millions of TEA Party people, it is extraordinarily likely (to the point of being certain) that some of the people out protesting don't have a tax liability. This is particularly true when considering the number of college students involved. While we don't know about any person in particular, we know for sure that some number of them aren't paying federal income taxes. Perhaps they're annoyed over sales taxes? Or just the principle of the matter?

fan_from_texas wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: This is Spot on, especially with the HENRY's. But to be fair it's not just class warfare artists who want to suck on the rich teet who aren't paying federal income tax. A lot of folks who suggest that Americans are "Taxed. Enough. Already. .. are among those who don't have much skin in the game as far as federal income tax dollars go.

How do you know, though? We don't know how much those folks pay in taxes...

Since about half of Americans don't pay net income taxes, and since there are millions of TEA Party people, it is extraordinarily likely (to the point of being certain) that some of the people out protesting don't have a tax liability. This is particularly true when considering the number of college students involved. While we don't know about any person in particular, we know for sure that some number of them aren't paying federal income taxes. Perhaps they're annoyed over sales taxes? Or just the principle of the matter?

Some? Absolutely. I'll wager though that the number is small enough that trying to whip out the hypocrisy brush would be a losing strategery.

Shane Falco wrote:Didn't realize it was the governments money in the first place.

It's not, but they have been spending it like it is. At some point, we as a citizenry have to stop the bleeding. I'm open to all suggestions that are viable.

Shane Falco wrote:How do you find a way to pay for something using money that really isn't yours in the first place?

Only two ways to do it, increase tax revenue or spend less. Neither party has been willing to do either without political motivation being the lead factor.

Shane Falco wrote:Why don't we just cut spending across the board by say 10- 15% and let the people that EARN the money keep it and spend it the way the wish?

I'm ok with that if it will generate more tax revenue (Laffer Curve concept) to help pay down the debt. If not, what good is an extra dollar if it has no relative value?

Shane Falco wrote:This thinking that its the "governments money" and they just happen to let us have little now and then is total BS!

Thinking that the government can be responsible with money is the problem. They want to regulate the private sector, but they are the biggest example of poor financial behavior. Let's start with a balanced budget amendment and work on the debt from there.

BTW, I never meant to imply that I see it as the government' money, just that the government has created a problem with our money that we have to address before it consumes our economy.

just that the government has created a problem with our money

Government didn't create the problem with our money, we did. For 30 years we have had presidents and Congress that had little regard for fiscal responsibiltiy, and ultimately we kept sending the same people back to Congress to screw it up even worse. That is not government's fault, but our fault, because without our votes they aren't there to screw it up in the first place.

Government is not some independent 3rd party that imposes its will on citizens with no fear of recourse. Government is made of the people we vote into office, and if we don't like the decisions they make we can terminate them. They only do what we allow them to, and if as a citizenry we are too disengaged to take notice of whats going on in Washington or just don't care then it is encumbent on us to fix the problems.

We all want something for nothing though, as we don't want to pay taxes, but at the same time want our S.S, Medicare, Education, strongest military in the world and so on. We can't have it both ways, but somewhere along the line that became the pervasive political philosophy of this country.

IggyPride00 wrote:

just that the government has created a problem with our money

Government didn't create the problem with our money, we did. For 30 years we have had presidents and Congress that had little regard for fiscal responsibiltiy, and ultimately we kept sending the same people back to Congress to screw it up even worse. That is not government's fault, but our fault, because without our votes they aren't there to screw it up in the first place.

Government is not some independent 3rd party that imposes its will on citizens with no fear of recourse. Government is made of the people we vote into office, and if we don't like the decisions they make we can terminate them. They only do what we allow them to, and if as a citizenry we are too disengaged to take notice of whats going on in Washington or just don't care then it is encumbent on us to fix the problems.

We all want something for nothing though, as we don't want to pay taxes, but at the same time want our S.S, Medicare, Education, strongest military in the world and so on. We can't have it both ways, but somewhere along the line that became the pervasive political philosophy of this country.

Certainly, "we the people" allowed this to happen, but if you don't believe that the government, as it functions today, is a 3rd party (really, two parties acting as one) ruling class, then you may be a little naive.

I'm not saying we should sit here and take it, but it is not as simple as just replacing the current guy with the next guy. We did that with the highest position and we went from one spendthrift to another. Until the type of people that are willing to make the difficult decisions on SS, Medicare and Defense are elected, we will continue to get what we've always got.

I don't know who that would be, but we need it and we need it now.