That Liberal Media Volume XVIII: Tax cut = Tax Increase

what the hell?

 

If you do away with the FDA, you are stating "a person can decide for themselves what they put in their body". It would be weird to do this and then say "but we are gonna keep all those old policies that don't follow this claim". I figured it was implied all FDA policies would be eliminated with the FDA. Again, sorry for not being specific enough for you.

 

My apologies for feeding the troll. My last post to it.

So, by your logic, if we eliminate the EPA (and it's policies), it will no longer be illegal to poison the environment with DDT.

So, by your logic, if we eliminate the Parks & Wildlife Dept. (and it's policies), it will no longer be illegal to fish with dynamite.

 

Well now that we've wasted 3 pages of derail, I'd like to go back to my question in this post...

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5577498&postcount=104

I mean which programs are you going to get rid of? How are you going to reduce the deficit? How do you cut taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time?

It seems I'm not alone in my assessment that the teapublicans cannot come up with a viable answer to my question.

Republicans Want To Cut Federal Spending But Have No Idea What Programs To Cut

Part of the GOP’s election strategy this year has been to try to claim that it is the Party of fiscal conservatism. As part of that campaign, Republicans regularly repeat the mantra that in order to get the deficit under control, the federal government needs to “cut spending” (despite also calling for $700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy that aren’t paid for). They argue that if they were in control of government they would do just that. But all too often, when asked what spending cuts they would enact, Republicans don’t have an answer.

Yesterday on ABC’s Top Line, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) offered an example of the GOP’s obfuscation. Calling for extending all the Bush tax cuts, Gregg said, “The issue right now is the profligate spending of this Congress and this Presidency.” But when Gregg was asked for specific cuts, he couldn’t offer any:

Similarly, CNBC host Larry Kudlow asked GOP U.S. Senate candidate in California Carly Fiornia what she would cut. All she could muster was bringing spending back to 2008 levels. Another CNBC host asked Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) last month what he would cut. “We’ve got spending to cut in the short term what we’ve got is a huge problem in the long term,” said Cantor, who repeatedly couldn’t give an answer on what he would cut when pressed by the host.

And in March, ThinkProgress asked Rep. John Boozman (R-AR) repeatedly what he would cut in order to reduce federal spending and he couldn’t identify any specifics.

 

That's the problem for anybody who claims they want to cut spending (just happens to be Republicans and Tea Party supporters who are the loudest). It's analagous to the "Not-in-my-backyard" argument. Anybody can advocate cutting spending, but very few people are willing to name specific programs that they will cut, usually because it will tick off whoever happens to benefit from that specific program.

The biggest government spending still occurs in non-discretionary programs such as Social Security, Medicaire, and Medicaid along with Defense. So until someone is willing to significantly cut funding for those golden eggs, we're not gonna get very far in "cutting government spending."

Moreover, because taxes are a dirty word, there is even less hope of decreasing the deficit much less balcing the budget, because no one is willing to call for even the most reasonable of tax increases. This goes for Democrats as well as Republicans, although once again, the right is usually far more guilty of playing political games with this.

I just wish the leaders of this country would have the common sense and stones to make some politically unpopular choices to get the country back on track (at least fiscally) and that the electorate would be willing to be patient and understand that some sacrifices may have to be made for the long-term health of this country.

 

Agreed; people turn violent before they will give up an entitlement. It's why Republican candidates won't answer the question directly; it's really risky. It takes a really ballsy candidate to do something like that (Rand Paul comes to mind).

 

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not a tax increase. The whole tax cut in the first place was a sham. I could see it then: "Let's make a massive tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest in this country, but in order to not make it look as expensive, let's make it for 10 years...by then, everyone will be accustomed to it and politicians will ahve to renew it so it doesn't look like a tax increase."

Also, the argument the other fallacy in the argument against this being a huge tax increase for everyone making more than $250K is that most people with incomes above that threshold will still have lower taxes because they will benefit from the lower tax %s at all the brackets below them. Only income greater than $250K gets taxed at the new rate. So yes, they will be paying more in absolute terms than last year, but relative to 2000, they will still be paying less. The farther one gets above that threshold, the more the tax hit will be, but also the less sympathy I have for their personal financial situation.

I personally think the Bush tax cuts should probably be allowed to expire for all tax brackets, not just the wealthy. I can live with the argument that they should perhaps be extended for a year or two until we come out of the recession, but I fear that we'll still lack the fortitude to undo them just the same in 2 years.

 

We
Are tha'
Paulbots.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XtPAMlpfdEA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XtPAMlpfdEA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

We have that leader and he's doing it.

And people did quite well under the tax rates during the Clinton years.

 

is it risky or they just don't have the answer?

 

For some Republican candidates it is probably one way for other candidates it's probably the other way.

 

That is called political reality. Unfortunately, the world we have to live in.

"The Law" is cumulative, built on precedent,. That's why you can't propose drastic change and be taken seriously. Or why a President who wants change can't get traction. Peoples lives, primarily their economic lives, adapt to the status quo. No change is entirely predictable because of the complexity of the interrelationships (The Butterfly Effect).

So people settle for the devil they know.

 

Typical Sami, always leaving out criticla facts....

The dems were the ones who insisted on the "expiration" being put into the initial tax cuts in the first place.

So why all this hatred for the wealthy? Has the government-media complex really brainwashed you people into encouraging a class warfare? I thought the American dream was to become one of the rich? Heck 50% of the people don't even pay income taxes so I'd say the wealthy are paying quite an "unfair share".

 

The rich have been waging class warfare on the lower and middle classes for decades. Fox "News" actively pushes people to parrot lines like '50% of the people don't even pay income taxes so I'd say the wealthy are paying quite an "unfair share."' Of course, this leaves out all the other taxes that all of us pay, the fact that Social Security and Medicare are disproportionately funded by the lower and middle classes, and the fact that the lower and middle classes are getting hammered right now.

According to Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith, the rich should pay for ALL of the operations of government so that the lower and middle classes don't share the burden of supporting a system that disproportionately benefits the people who have the vast majority of the money.

 

Why no love for the poor brutha?

 

Gold futures hit third record high on weak US data

 

Did you know that you actually live in a real world where things actually happened and are documented, rather than a fantasy world where you make up your own facts?