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.
The problem is raising taxes only on a portion of the population. If you want to raise taxes on everyone, I will hear your argument. What happens when you cut defense spending? thousands of people lose their jobs. How does that help the economy.
We could achieve the same balanced budget without tax increases if the gov't would cut spending across the board. But with record spending the next four years, this country even with higher taxes, might never recover.
As Obama clearly stated almost 3 months ago in front of millions of viewers on Television that he will not take this country down the same road using the same ideologies of the GOP, as their ideologies led us to where we are today. He said this clear as day. The Republicans lost and consider yourself one of the thousands of deadenders, misery loves company...
Last edited by dukester.2; 04-09-2009 at 09:08 PM..
The problem is raising taxes only on a portion of the population. If you want to raise taxes on everyone, I will hear your argument. What happens when you cut defense spending? thousands of people lose their jobs. How does that help the economy.
We could achieve the same balanced budget without tax increases if the gov't would cut spending across the board. But with record spending the next four years, this country even with higher taxes, might never recover.
The fact of the matter is it is not so much raising taxes on one group of people as it is repealing tax cuts that was given to one group of people. What I am talking about is simply going back to the 1993 budget reconciliation rates which lead to the surplus of the 1990s. It is not so much targeting a certain group with new taxes as it is returning to the previous rates that were producing balanced budget. Secondly the military is not the most efficient means of stimulating the economy. Simply put I believe the money can be more effectively spend elsewhere. Every other department in the government has made do with budget cuts with relatively few layoffs I do not believe the military will be all that effected especially if cuts are made in areas that are inefficient and the GAO agrees with me. It is not the governments responsibility to give people jobs.
You are correct but in 2001 and 2003 American's hadn't lost 40-60% of our savings and 401K's. So at this time this is the only chance that people have to recoup some of their losses.
I don't think people need tax cuts now, but I do think we have to cut the taxes for businesses. We are losing to other countries because we are one of the highest, I repeat, HIGHEST taxes for businesses. Soooo they pack up their toys and go elsewhere and we, the American workers are losing the jobs.
Take that and pile on 13+ million illegals in this country and we are sitting here saying "why is our unemployment so high?" We can't keep spending and taxing and watching US companies go overseas. We have to start to get more competitive and grow this country again.
We do have a high tax rate for business on paper, but we also have so many loop holes that our effective tax rate on business is lower than in many other countries.
Edit: additionally people who have lost money can write off their losses against their gains in regards to capital gains taxes if you had a net loss you can write it off against any earnings you may have had. As such I am not sure how a capital gains tax cut will help people who are already writing off their capital gains taxes based on poor performance in their portfolio.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-09-2009 at 09:33 PM..
Reason: additional info
Believe me, the GOP is just digging themselves deeper and deeper in he hole. Who you going to run against Obama, Palin, Jindal? Let's see what happens in 2016.
But, Jindal's parents were born in India and not citizens at the time of his birth! LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennySquirrel
You are correct but in 2001 and 2003 American's hadn't lost 40-60% of our savings and 401K's. So at this time this is the only chance that people have to recoup some of their losses.
.
Like H***! I remember it well. Just as my daughter was going off to college in 2002, the bottom dropped out of our investments.
Where were these protests when Bush but us into HUGE national debt?
Check out the differences in the deficits. This chart, which can be found all over the internet, is a comparison of Obama's preojected estimate and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's projections. Also shows the deficit over the last several years. Quite a difference.
BTW, the CBO concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.
SOURCE: CBO, White House Office of Management and Budget | The Washington Post - March 21, 2009
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.
