Taxes

[bergs65]

I'm having trouble understanding why the extension of the tax cuts that have been in place is being referred to as a "tax cut". The tax rates will remain where they are now. Tax Revenues dollars will only go down if the economy goes down. We need to cut expenses/size of government.

 

[shu09]

You are correct, no rates will go down. This is just an extension of the Bush tax cuts which Republicans set to expire at the end of this year.

 

[Section112]

09 is correct. In addition after the tax cuts were made, for a number of years the US govt actually collected much more revenue. The problem was govt. spending increased faster than our revenue and it has ever since. Bush actually had cut taxes and tax revenues increased proving it can be done. Problem was 2 wars and increased Govt spending. And in the last two years much of the same. And in the last four years a Dem controlled Senate and Congress. So lots of blame to go around. But right now the economy cannot handle any tax increases so I hope these knuckleheads (and that applies to all parties) can get the extension done.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by shu09:
YThis is just an extension of the Bush tax cuts which Republicans set to expire at the end of this year.

Actually the Democrats insisted that the cuts have a sunset provision in order for them to get on board.

Extending tax cuts and then calling them tax cuts is just silly, useless Washington political drivel.

 

[shu09]

Republicans were in the majority. They passed it.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by shu09:
Republicans were in the majority. They passed it.

They wanted bipartisan support for it, hence they added the silly sunset provision.

 

[PiratePride]

After the election, I heard Rachel Maddow interview a Republican Senator about the tax cut extensions and she claimed that the extension of the tax cut would add x billions to the deficit. Seems to me that's not the case. That didn't make sense to me. Anyone with a better grasp of these issues care to comment? Rachel's logic escapes me. By the way she is the worst interviewer I have ever heard. Serves me right for channel surfing.

On a slighty different tack, Obama claimed on 60 minutes that Americans are dissatisfied, not with his policies, but with his ability to communicate his policies. Is he serious????? This continued state of denial will only serve his political oppponents.....which is a good thing, IMO. If the Democrats continue with that spin, this next Congress is going to be most entertaining watching the Obamanites continue to self destruct.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by PiratePride:
After the election, I heard Rachel Maddow interview a Republican Senator about the tax cut extensions and she claimed that the extension of the tax cut would add x billions to the deficit. Seems to me that's not the case. That didn't make sense to me. Anyone with a better grasp of these issues care to comment? Rachel's logic escapes me. By the way she is the worst interviewer I have ever heard. Serves me right for channel surfing.

On a slighty different tack, Obama claimed on 60 minutes that Americans are dissatisfied, not with his policies, but with his ability to communicate his policies. Is he serious????? This continued state of denial will only serve his political oppponents.....which is a good thing, IMO. If the Democrats continue with that spin, this next Congress is going to be most entertaining watching the Obamanites continue to self destruct.

Actually, one thing Obama has done a poor job of is over-communicating. No doubt he is an articulate speaker, but no President has been on TV more whether than him and after a while you just tune him out. It's like that number one hit that gets played and played and played on the radio and pretty soon you change the station.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by PiratePride:
After the election, I heard Rachel Maddow interview a Republican Senator about the tax cut extensions and she claimed that the extension of the tax cut would add x billions to the deficit. Seems to me that's not the case. That didn't make sense to me. Anyone with a better grasp of these issues care to comment? Rachel's logic escapes me. By the way she is the worst interviewer I have ever heard. Serves me right for channel surfing.

On a slighty different tack, Obama claimed on 60 minutes that Americans are dissatisfied, not with his policies, but with his ability to communicate his policies. Is he serious????? This continued state of denial will only serve his political oppponents.....which is a good thing, IMO. If the Democrats continue with that spin, this next Congress is going to be most entertaining watching the Obamanites continue to self destruct.

So you watched Maddow once and she is the worst interviewer you ever heard?

Anyway.. "Her logic" is not hers. She is citing reports from the CRS and CBO that say the continued cuts will cost billions over ten years.

Obama claiming that people are not dissatisfied with his policies is actually not too far off. When polled on the healthcare bill by name, people didn't like it. When polled on what was actually in the healthcare bill, people liked it more. Same thing with the financial reform bill... same thing for the stimulus.

 

[PiratePride]

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by PiratePride:
After the election, I heard Rachel Maddow interview a Republican Senator about the tax cut extensions and she claimed that the extension of the tax cut would add x billions to the deficit. Seems to me that's not the case. That didn't make sense to me. Anyone with a better grasp of these issues care to comment? Rachel's logic escapes me. By the way she is the worst interviewer I have ever heard. Serves me right for channel surfing.

On a slighty different tack, Obama claimed on 60 minutes that Americans are dissatisfied, not with his policies, but with his ability to communicate his policies. Is he serious????? This continued state of denial will only serve his political oppponents.....which is a good thing, IMO. If the Democrats continue with that spin, this next Congress is going to be most entertaining watching the Obamanites continue to self destruct.

So you watched Maddow once and she is the worst interviewer you ever heard?

Anyway.. "Her logic" is not hers. She is citing reports from the CRS and CBO that say the continued cuts will cost billions over ten years.

Obama claiming that people are not dissatisfied with his policies is actually not too far off. When polled on the healthcare bill by name, people didn't like it. When polled on what was actually in the healthcare bill, people liked it more. Same thing with the financial reform bill... same thing for the stimulus.

No... I've heard her do hatchet jobs before.. this last interview just served to solidify my opinion

 

[HallOnTheHill]

Originally posted by PiratePride:
After the election, I heard Rachel Maddow interview a Republican Senator about the tax cut extensions and she claimed that the extension of the tax cut would add x billions to the deficit. Seems to me that's not the case. That didn't make sense to me. Anyone with a better grasp of these issues care to comment? Rachel's logic escapes me. By the way she is the worst interviewer I have ever heard. Serves me right for channel surfing.

If all of the Bush tax cuts were to expire, the federal government would collect $3 trillion more in taxes over the next ten years than if they were extended/made permanent. That's the genesis of her logic. If the tax cuts on the rich expire and everyone else's continue, it adds about $700 billion in collections.

Of course, picking one area of federal policy (i.e. taxes on the rich or high speed rail spending) and blaming it for our debt is arbitrary when you consider the gov't plans to take in about $33 trillion over the next ten years and spend $46 trillion. We're all going to wind up paying more/accepting less in services, which will have to include cuts in entitlement spending.
This post was edited on 11/9 4:27 PM by HallOnTheHill