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.
Your hypothetical person A and B both already pay the same federal gas tax rate, if you raise the gas tax both person A and B will be paying the higher gas tax.
yes, thats the point.. So you undertand the economics of it, but refuse to call it what it is, why?
yes, thats the point.. So you undertand the economics of it, but refuse to call it what it is, why?
That's not broadening the base. Broadening the base means taxing things that aren't taxed or making people who don't pay a certain tax start paying that tax. That's not the case with raising the gas tax.
That's not broadening the base. Broadening the base means taxing things that aren't taxed or making people who don't pay a certain tax start paying that tax. That's not the case with raising the gas tax.
Thats ridiculous..
Definition of broaden: "widen the range of applications"; "broaden your horizon"; "Extend your backyard"
You need to learn the definition of words. If someone says broaden your horizon, this doesnt mean that you didnt have a horizen to begin with, it means to make bigger..
So if we are broadening the tax base by raising taxes on gasoline, then this simply means we are making the gasoline tax liabilities bigger..
If we broaden the tax base of someones home, this doesnt mean their property was tax exempt previously
For example, the property tax base of a house is its value. The property tax base of a city is the collective value of all taxable real estate in the city.
More like we're recognizing it as a step in the right direction. And nobody rational was calling for Bush's impeachment for carrying debt. And the deficits created during the recession are far more acceptable because they were created... in a recession.
And of course you have to throw in an insult. Apparently you can't have a discussion without immature name calling.
Having discussions with liberals who argue out of both sides of their mouths and claim they are correct each time as has been pointed out in this thread is brain damage.
The annual deficit has fallen 32% over the first seven months of this fiscal year compared with same period last year, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Tuesday.
A major reason: A big jump in tax revenue.
Tax collections rose by $220 billion -- or 16% -- between the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1 through April 30. Individual and payroll taxes accounted for $184 billion of that increase.
The tax haul rose sharply primarily because wages and salaries were higher, the payroll tax cut of the past two years expired on Jan. 1 and the fiscal cliff deal brokered over New Year's raised tax rates on high earners.
Spending, meanwhile, fell 1.9% year over year, the CBO estimated.
The biggest percentage drop occurred in the payment of unemployment benefits, which were down nearly 25%, or $15 billion. Defense spending fell 5.3%, or $20 billion, and "other activities" -- primarily spending on nondefense programs -- fell 8.6%, or $58 billion.
In order to review Economics, you have to be knowledgeable about Economics, and since I am, I'll fill in the missing details that you either ignorantly or deceptively (knowingly) omitted.
Its ignorance. The same poster has non stop tried to suggest that sending money to welfare recipiants stimuilates but couldnt once list a town that got stimuluated due to welfare spending.
You nicely explained to him why his theories are crap, but I doubt he understood because its not what Obama said..
It's really not that hard to understand.....when you give massive tax cuts without paying for them (bush era tax cuts), start 12 years and running wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and have a massive economic recession (2008) that is still going and which lowers tax revenues, you will run up deficits.
Revenues almost always fall during a recession. Common sense.
We are creating $3,000,000,000.00 a day. A trillion this year.
This can artificially keep the interest payments on the national debt lower - and therefore the deficits lower. What happens when the interest rates are forced to rise back up and our nearly 17 Trillion and growing debt starts eating our budget with massive interest payments?
It's really not that hard to understand.....when you give massive tax cuts without paying for them (bush era tax cuts), start 12 years and running wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and have a massive economic recession (2008) that is still going and which lowers tax revenues, you will run up deficits.
Revenues almost always fall during a recession. Common sense.
Bush was a poor president...but the housing market didn't help cause the recession and a decline in revenue? What about the NASDAQ collapse in 2000? What about most favored nation status to China ballooning our trade deficit? etc...
It sounds to me like you are bothered that Obama and the Dems in Congress were extremely successful at cutting down the annual deficit?
Another win for the Dems !!!
You've got to be kidding--you think it's a WIN when Obama is spending is ONLY $489 billion MORE THAN WAS COLLECTED IN TAXES so far this year, because last year he spent $720 billion over the same period? Have we become so uneducated that we cannot see that he is STILL adding to our incredible levels of debt, at a rate no previous president has even approached?
First of all, a big chunk of that deficit reduction is due to the expiration of the cut of 2% in Social Security taxes--a tax increase that hits every working American, even those who earn the smallest amount of money. Break out the champagne, the guys working for minimum wage at McDonalds just paid more to Washington.
And let's look at Obama's spending so far while in office: In his first year in office (only part of the fiscal year), Obama added $203 billion to Bush's $1.2 trillion dollar deficit--in other words, he ADDED TO the record level of overspending that Bush's administration had set up. Then, in the next 3 years, he racked up deficits of $1.3 trillion, then another $1.3 trillion, then another $1.2 trillion. So already, Obama has racked up $5.2 trillion in deficit spending--adding $5.2 trillion to an existing debt of over $10 trillion. FactCheck.org : Obama’s Deficit Dodge He took a very bad situation and made it unimaginably worse.
Prior to Obama, we had NEVER had a single year of Washington spending more than $458 billion (and that $458 was Bush's last full year, itself a huge jump over prior levels of overspending).
It seems like liberals take the exact same cavalier attitude toward incredible levels of overspending that Washington politicians do. And they play the same games of pointing to a small reduction in levels of insane irresponsibility, and celebrating as if suddenly America was out of the danger zone. We're not. We're a very long way from it. We're still heading for the cliff, petal to the metal, watching our leaders play the game of hoping the edge is far enough away that some other guy will be in power when we go over.
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.
