A Question On The Bush Tax Cuts That Are Sunsetting

MenziesMenzies Posts: 19,289 AG
Why did we need them at that time anyway?

We were reducing the deficit, employment was high, etc. etc.
Maybe if we tell people that the brain is an App, they will start using it.
«1

Replies

  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    Menzies wrote: »
    Why did we need them at that time anyway?

    We were reducing the deficit, employment was high, etc. etc.

    Republicans are idiots. That's why.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • MenziesMenzies Posts: 19,289 AG
    Republicans are idiots. That's why.

    I'm sure there is an more rational explanation than that.
    Maybe if we tell people that the brain is an App, they will start using it.
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,467 AG
    Because there was (is) way to much $$$$ flowing from the citizens and private sector of this nation into the federal govt. Need to cut a bunch more and become better fiscal stewards of our economy.


    Spending is out of control..Our fiscal issues have nothing to do with revenue.

    Any increase of revenue will have NO effect on the deficit therefore the progressive desire for tax increases is symbolic and only meant to make them look good in the eyes of their base.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    Menzies wrote: »
    I'm sure there is an more rational explanation than that.

    Nope . . succinct and to the point. The GOP could not stand Ronnies and HW's debt being paid off.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    fins4me wrote: »
    Because there was (is) way to much $$$$ flowing from the citizens and private sector of this nation into the federal govt. Need to cut a bunch more and become better fiscal stewards of our economy.


    Spending is out of control..Our fiscal issues have nothing to do with revenue.

    Any increase of revenue will have NO effect on the deficit therefore the progressive desire for tax increases is symbolic and only meant to make them look good in the eyes of their base.

    How can you rationally say things like that? What changed from 2000 to 2009. REPUBLICANS! Unfunded Tax Cuts, Unfunded Wars, Unfunded Drug Plans, etc . .
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • SuperFlukeSuperFluke Posts: 1,889 Captain
    fins4me wrote: »
    Because there was (is) way to much $$$$ flowing from the citizens and private sector of this nation into the federal govt. Need to cut a bunch more and become better fiscal stewards of our economy.


    Spending is out of control..Our fiscal issues have nothing to do with revenue.

    Any increase of revenue will have NO effect on the deficit therefore the progressive desire for tax increases is symbolic and only meant to make them look good in the eyes of their base.

    freebie for you:

    slowest-spending.png
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,467 AG
    How can you rationally say things like that? What changed from 2000 to 2009. REPUBLICANS! Unfunded Tax Cuts, Unfunded Wars, Unfunded Drug Plans, etc . .

    First off,,, you are confusing the Republican party with conservative intent...

    Secondly,, I argued against occupying any nation period. We could have broken them from the air then left them to smolder...

    Third,, I was very much against the stupid drug freebie plan and still am.


    There is no such thing as an "unfunded tax cut" The money wasn't the govts to begin with therefore no need to fund anything.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • rickcrickc Posts: 9,172 Admiral
    Righties "Just Can't Handle the Truth"
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    fins4me wrote: »

    There is no such thing as an "unfunded tax cut" The money wasn't the govts to begin with therefore no need to fund anything.

    Sure there is .. if spending does not match it, it's unfunded. As for your first point, who represents the "Conservative Ideology", more important, who did you vote for to pursue your ideology?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,467 AG
    Sure there is .. if spending does not match it, it's unfunded. As for your first point, who represents the "Conservative Ideology", more important, who did you vote for to pursue your ideology?

    as I have stated MANY times,,, no one even came close to my position on the political spectrum.. It is a matter of degrees when making a political choice..

    Govt Spending should be limited to rational levels based off of modest tax collections. If that means cutting even to the bone I am all for it.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    fins4me wrote: »
    as I have stated MANY times,,, no one even came close to my position on the political spectrum.. It is a matter of degrees when making a political choice..

    Govt Spending should be limited to rational levels based off of modest tax collections. If that means cutting even to the bone I am all for it.

    OK, fine, should we go back to Clinton era taxing, Reagan era, HW Era? Out of curiosity what would you cut? Defense? Medicaid? as SS and medicare are NOT entitlements.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,467 AG
    We should have an iron clad balanced budget amendment.. If the fed govt runs out (wastes) all of it's available revenue by mid year then shut down all non essential services until funds are available. Keep us safe from invasion and the very basics then turn the other lights out.. After that happens once or twice they will learn to spend our money more carefully.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,467 AG
    OK, fine, should we go back to Clinton era taxing, Reagan era, HW Era? Out of curiosity what would you cut? Defense? Medicaid? as SS and medicare are NOT entitlements.

    The day that SS and medicare began spending more than they took in they became entitlements.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,467 AG
    20 years from now when our children and grandchildren are having to devote the lion's share of every cent they earn to keep up with the idiotic mess that the entitlement society has crafted,, tell them then it isn't an entitlement.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • kodiakzachkodiakzach Posts: 6,078 Admiral
    fins4me wrote: »
    We should have an iron clad balanced budget amendment.. If the fed govt runs out (wastes) all of it's available revenue by mid year then shut down all non essential services until funds are available. Keep us safe from invasion and the very basics then turn the other lights out.. After that happens once or twice they will learn to spend our money more carefully.

    I like this!
  • esteroestero Posts: 2,041 Captain
    fins4me wrote: »
    The day that SS and medicare began spending more than they took in they became entitlements.

    That could be from a lot of money taken out of those funds that have nothing to do with them in the first place.
    I would not cal them entitlements either.

    Just because you’re  Offended  Doesn’t mean you right!

  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,435 AG
    Menzies wrote: »
    Why did we need them at that time anyway?

    We were reducing the deficit, employment was high, etc. etc.

    Do you know how to use google?
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,439 AG
    Menzies wrote: »
    Why did we need them at that time anyway?

    We were reducing the deficit, employment was high, etc. etc.

    We entered a recession in 2001 due to the dotcom bust. Bush cut taxes to stimulate the economy. The effect of the tax cut and the recession in 2001 caused a drop in revenue, along with the wars we were fighting, led to high deficit spending for 2002 to 2005. the deficit started to close in 2005 to 2007. We would have been back to a balance budget in 2009 or 2010 had not the Great recession hit in 2007.

    Best case scenario would probably take us until 2030 to get close to a balanced budget again.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,331 AG
    fins4me wrote: »
    First off,,, you are confusing the Republican party with conservative intent...

    On this we agree, there are plenty of Republicans who love America and root for her success, not too many conservatives fit that bill.

    The elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts is automatic at midnight.

    Anything after that will be the Obama Tax Cuts.
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    Menzies wrote: »
    Why did we need them at that time anyway?

    We were reducing the deficit, employment was high, etc. etc.

    Alan Greenspan was worried that we would pay off the debt and too much private money would be in control of government. Greenspan also thought spending should be reduced and the tax cuts should have a trigger when to be discontinued.

    Of course, Bush sold it as a stimulus during an economic downturn, started two wars and didn't call for a trigger. As is usual with politicians trying to stay in office, most Democrats went along with the plan.

    Welcome to America screwed.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • cprcpr Posts: 9,309 Admiral
    Menzies wrote: »
    Why did we need them at that time anyway?

    We were reducing the deficit, employment was high, etc. etc.

    Because the more money you give politicians the more they will spend. It's a fairly simple concept. Of course if they don't have it they just borrow it from the future and print it like wallpaper.

    Also people want to keep more of the money they earned, another fairly simple concept.
    "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

    "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,439 AG
    cpr wrote: »
    Because the more money you give politicians the more they will spend. It's a fairly simple concept. Of course if they don't have it they just borrow it from the future and print it like wallpaper.

    Also people want to keep more of the money they earned, another fairly simple concept.

    That is simply not true and keeps getting repeated as the mantra for the conservative talk show circuit and repeated here. From 1990 to 2000 revenue increased every year and spending did not keep up with it or we would not have had a balanced budget in 2000 and 2001. It also did not hold true in 2006 and 2007 when revenue was again increasing faster than expenses.

    In simple reality, our government has no real connection between taxes and spending. They are two different entities within our elected officials mindset. Historically, one has had nothing to do with the other due to the ability to borrow money cheaply.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,439 AG
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    Alan Greenspan was worried that we would pay off the debt and too much private money would be in control of government. Greenspan also thought spending should be reduced and the tax cuts should have a trigger when to be discontinued.

    Of course, Bush sold it as a stimulus during an economic downturn, started two wars and didn't call for a trigger. As is usual with politicians trying to stay in office, most Democrats went along with the plan.

    Welcome to America screwed.

    That was a long term concern of Greenspans. He made a mistake in endorsing the Bush tax cuts, but he knew the economy was headed to a recession. He did not see the added expenses of two wars. The concern was the deficit would have been paid off within 10 years and too much revenue would still be coming in.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Anonymous3Anonymous3 Posts: 5,987 Officer
    Menzies wrote: »
    Why did we need them at that time anyway?

    We were reducing the deficit, employment was high, etc. etc.
    Considering the way you think...... why shouldn't you give me all of your money, I will spend it more wisely than you. I'll give you back what I don't spend in one year, if I spend more than you give me.... I take your off-springs money until such time that your children repay your debt to me. When would you like to make the arrangements ?
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    cadman wrote: »
    That was a long term concern of Greenspans. He made a mistake in endorsing the Bush tax cuts, but he knew the economy was headed to a recession. He did not see the added expenses of two wars. The concern was the deficit would have been paid off within 10 years and too much revenue would still be coming in.

    Greenspan knew the growth of the economy during the nineties was not likely to continue into the next decade and once the debt was retired did not want the government to accumulate and manage private assets which I believe was a correct decision. I also think he suggested using some excess funds to shore up social security for the future shortfall he knew as coming.

    I agree with you than he never considered having to fund two wars, and I lay that at the feet of Bush and his cabinet.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,439 AG
    If I remember correctly Greenspan thought a tax cut could be done and the debt still paid off in about 20 years. I doubt he meant for Bush to cut taxes by the amount he did. I think Greenspan was looking for about $100 billion a year tax cut. At that time the CBO was projecting a $5 trillion surplus over ten years. i think the final Bush tax cuts were about $200 billion a year.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    The last sentence in Greenspans address to the Federal Reserve in 2001. He may not have known what was coming and he was cautious, but the question by the OP is why the tax cuts were enacted.

    With today's euphoria surrounding the surpluses, it is not difficult to imagine the hard-earned fiscal restraint developed in recent years rapidly dissipating. We need to resist those policies that could readily resurrect the deficits of the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their wake.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm
    Vote for the other candidate
  • MenziesMenzies Posts: 19,289 AG
    Considering the way you think...... why shouldn't you give me all of your money, I will spend it more wisely than you. I'll give you back what I don't spend in one year, if I spend more than you give me.... I take your off-springs money until such time that your children repay your debt to me. When would you like to make the arrangements ?

    Wayne, any thoughts of giving up the sauce in the new year?
    Maybe if we tell people that the brain is an App, they will start using it.
  • Anonymous3Anonymous3 Posts: 5,987 Officer
    Exactly as I thought, good for thee but not for me. Typical.
  • MenziesMenzies Posts: 19,289 AG
    Exactly as I thought, good for thee but not for me. Typical.

    The sauce?
    Maybe if we tell people that the brain is an App, they will start using it.
Sign In or Register to comment.