Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you know that permanently extending the Bush tax cuts on the lower 98% of us was going to cost $1.8 Trillion over the next decade? But due to some budget trickery, Congress could pretend that it cost nothing? And no one can predict the lost growth due to diminished incentives.
GregW says the tax rate should be 80%. So if I have a chance at putting capital work, I get 100% of the loss and 20% of the gain??!!?? That is a recipe for stagnation and ultimately, national bankruptcy. The Dem's plan is a point on the path between the status quo and ruination.
I'm not the Tea Party. I am pro-growth. A growing economy raises tax revenues, reduces welfare outlays, and makes the debt smaller as a percentage of the economy. The growth ramifications of our policies are more important at this juncture than the debt--Obama for the first time has come down on the side of growth. So I support his compromise.
1. Yes I did know that about the $1.8T. I have never supported any extension of these tax cuts for anyone. I did not support them when they were introduced and I do not support them now
2. I am not GregW. If I had my way within an income tax formate I would return to the Clinton rates and the only change I might favor is having Capital gains tax rates mirror earned income tax rate.
3. I am a fiscal conservative. I want balanced budgets. If something grows the deficit irresponsibly I am against it. I agree growth is important, but I believe it is directly tied to debt. This "compromise" has the potential of affecting interest rates and increasing the cost of borrowing money overall and that has the potential to cripple growth far more then letting these tax cuts expire would.
Correct, because they're spending money they don't have. That needs to stop, or at the very least, lessen.
Yes, but to offset the existing debt you need to raise revenue and cut spending. It is not a matter of doing one, or the other or simply keeping the status quo by reducing spending just enough to cut taxes.
and what was the compromise with the repubs? If you don't do what we say tax cuts are going away along with unemployment extension. Is that really a compromise?
The compromise was the unemployment benefits extension.
Tehre is alos a reduction in SS tax that will also help everyone.
Why would you care if all people get to keep their tax cuts?
Yes, but to offset the existing debt you need to raise revenue and cut spending. It is not a matter of doing one, or the other or simply keeping the status quo by reducing spending just enough to cut taxes.
I don't like tax increases, but if they were done they should be for all citizens, and not just a small segment, even if the lower income class went up a few % points. Most likely they would have deductions in place to offset paying much...
and what was the compromise with the repubs? ............
GOP compromises:
1)Two year extension instead of permanent rate
2) Leaving a return of estate taxes in 2011 to rise from zero in 2010 to 55% in 2011 by not addressing it in this bill.
3) Extension of federal unemployment benefits for those not already receiving benefits out to 99 weeks.
These are the ones which jump to mind first. Please feel free to list additional GOP compromises with Obama in striking an unenforceable deal.
Highest earners..got it? It's the Republicans who won't separate the tax cuts for the middle class from those of the highest earners..It's the Republicans who are holding up extension of unemployment benefits.
No you must not read well. The house Dems rejected the compromise which included middle class tax cuts
No you don't. You can cut spending to the point that it's below revenue.
1. Some spending you cannot cut (servicing the debt)
2. You could do that, but it would mean essentially eliminating a lot of either the military, SS, and/or medicare. I am not sure that is seen as a viable option.
3. There isn't enough left in the budget without 1 and 2.
1. Some spending you cannot cut (servicing the debt)
2. You could do that, but it would mean essentially eliminating a lot of either the military, SS, and/or medicare. I am not sure that is seen as a viable option.
3. There isn't enough left in the budget without 1 and 2.
Not so. Obama has increased discretionary spending by 84%. A big part of the problem is that he doesn't understand the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending. Cut discretionary spending.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
