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.
I have no problem with austerity. However, I think a revenue and cutting solution is needed. And saying that does not make me a socialist.
I am well aware that SS is going through the roof, but I don't get how cutting taxes helps us to deal with it. It seems to me that raising taxes NOW is a start, along with cutting. But the GOP is so enslaved to Grover Norquist, that applying simple arithmetic has become a communist plot..
"I don't get how cutting taxes helps us"
And therein lies the problem.
Do some research on history and see where when taxes were REDUCED, revenues INCREASED.
The left always claims that lower taxes is a "cost" and the gov't looses money when in fact it creates just the opposite.
An example:
"Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
"But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
""I don't get how cutting taxes helps us"
So, NOW you know.
Reagan slashed taxes, but to balance things out he also slashed loop-holes, but when Obama said he wanted to do the same by cutting corporate tax from 35% to 25%, while removing loop-holes, he was called an anti-business socialist who just wants to remove loop-holes to make it more difficult for corporations to succeed.
AND the dems PROMISED to CUT SPENDING which of course the DIDN'T.
Oh, fine! We'll abolish public schools, then, and make everyone pay for private schools, ...um...with what money? Public schools were set up for a reason, you know. The State has an interest in ensuring an educated, informed voting public. They want people to be able to read and do basic math, or do you have a problem with that?
People making minimum wage or a few dollars above that aren't able to save for retirement. If the government weren't funding medical research, the only research that gets done would be whatever the pharma industry could make the biggest profits from. Gov't funded medical research helps advance medical knowledge and the quality of your medical care. Were you planning on paying for your own neighborhood fire department and police force, too? Your own neighborhood library?
"Oh, fine! We'll abolish public schools," Then we have the usual GROSS exaggeration of the issue.
NO ONE is suggesting to abolish public schools. And to claim such is beyond reason.
I guess you don't know that public schools are a STATE RESPONSIBILITY so cutting the Dept of Ed has NOTHING TO DO with Abolishing them.
"Were you planning on paying for your own neighborhood fire department and police force, too?
You are a lost case.
I see where the term "Low information voter" came about.
Since the 1980s, it seems to me that we have seen a relentless series of tax cuts of various types, but especially for those at the top. Now that we are running a deficit, folks who want to balance the budget with some revenue options (back to, say, 1990s tax and spending levels) are considered socialists and communists. How can after 15 steps to the right 2 steps to the left be a socialist revolution?
My wife thinks it is pure political mud slinging (say the most outrageous thing you can get by with and hope it sticks). Is she right?
It might get support if there was any evidence that tax dollars would be used to balance the budget. If politicans try to keep spending levels even and simply do not increase spending, they get called draconian.
Why would the banksters that actually control our economy want the government to stop borrowing money? that would mean they would have to lend the billions to the private sector at far increased risk. Banks are not into taking risks.
We live in a society where the government provides socialist security for the very rich and powerful players in the economy and a heavily taxed and rigged market for the rest of us. This is not an accident but the results of seventy years of carefully implemented plans.
Since the 1980s, it seems to me that we have seen a relentless series of tax cuts of various types, but especially for those at the top. Now that we are running a deficit, folks who want to balance the budget with some revenue options (back to, say, 1990s tax and spending levels) are considered socialists and communists. How can after 15 steps to the right 2 steps to the left be a socialist revolution?
My wife thinks it is pure political mud slinging (say the most outrageous thing you can get by with and hope it sticks). Is she right?
And we are headed to another Wall Street free for all for the banksters now that the birther-in-chief has loaded his cabinet with the Goldman Sachs crew who will see to it that regulations are no more. You know, the ones that Hillary was vilified for being in bed with. That being said OP...yes, it will more Privatize the Profits/Socialize the Losses when this motley crew is done and gone.
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.
