Tax and spend isn’t regarding by the populace as being just a liberal theme by any means because as I said in my original post, history points to both parties spending. The Democrats get tagged with that meme because they try and tax what they spend. The Republicans of late just seem to spend.
Even in your post, the vitriol for rich folks is palpable. Why? Not everyone on this planet deserves the same monetary values because not everyone on this planet is willing to work to get there.
The deficit is at an all time high yet the government wants to provide healthcare for all. Great! The liberal idea is to tax the folks some more!
They have a stupid program on TV where big CEOs go undercover and do menial , low paying jobs. They find that people working for close to minimum wage work hard and care about doing a good job. The bosses are always surprised, because they too pretend people are poor because they refuse to work hard or care about the job they are doing. Looking down on poor people is a fun sport for many, but it requires a degree of dishonesty.
No, you are not taxed enough. Our taxes are way too low.They are at a low level in our recent history. We have to pay off the debt again, like the Dems do most of the time. We have to get back on solid financial footing. You can not cut your way out of this mess.
The Health Care Law saves us money. This is something you should know.
The folks that are in danger of having their taxes raised are those that make more than 250k. Those people are taxed extra low right now. We need to move them back to a more sustainable level. This is also something you should know.
If you would tell your government to stop handing out tax breaks and other incentives to the same folks who line the politicians pockets with gold, things would change. Corporate involvement (on both sides of the aisle) in politics is bad has always been bad and will always BE bad.
You are mistaken in your ‘jumped to’ conclusion that I am not amenable to change. I don’t need an R, D, or I by my name to call things as I see them.
I agree. We should, in my opinion, have publicly funded campaigns. I am not hopeful that this will happen any time soon. Barring that, voting for the side that isn’t batshit insane is the better thing to do.
I wasn’t trying to jump to conclusions, it just seemed you were making some factual declarations that weren’t.
No one is getting their taxes raised. Again, there are NO Tax increases. There was a one time, short tem tax reduction. It’s sunset clause has set in, and those tax reductions will expire, thus the taxes will simply reset where they were.
And, Kearsen- this was not a Liberal Idea. It was a compromise, which GWB and the GOP agreed to. The liberals are not trying to raise your taxes. They are simply allowing a one time short term tax reduction to sunset as agreed upon .
This is true. And I should note the lowering of taxes was an utter, worthless failure. But the Republican response to finding out their policy was an utter worthless failure? Do eet again!!1
DrDeth,
I wasn’t inferring in my postings that I was concerned about a new tax that we have. I was referring to just about all taxes that we may decide to install.
Taxation is enough, if the government wants money to fund some new pet project then they need to find the funding in a different way (like cutting costs)
Other than that, maybe by a general vote for the affected districts (like a city asking for a new school)
How would you cut SS specifically? Raise the age eligibility? Unless you raise it right NOW for the 65 year old crowd, this will not kick in for some time. Or would you propose cutting the amount that the over 65 set receives in payments at the present time?
Cutting Medicare - how do you propose that low income people get healthcare? Or if you’re fine with them not receiving healthcare, are you OK with the resultant increase in the death rate due to deaths from curable disease and illness?
How do you define government jobs that are “not sustainable”? For example, government scientists are looking into the current safe levels of bisphenol-A in food packaging (a chemical that has been linked to hormonal defects). Would you define this government job as “self sustainable?”
Should this work be stopped, and perhaps turned over to the food packaging industry, who may not have the best interests of the public at heart?
I simplified the question so as to ignore government jobs. No, I’m not assuming there will be no cuts. I’m assuming there won’t be any. Even if you cut out ALL government jobs outside of those 3 programs, AND rolled back the health care changes, AND eliminated all “optional” government spending (the favorite target of the tea partiers), you’ll STILL be running a deficit. So cutting SS, Medicare, or the military is mandatory without tax increases. And that’s assuming everything else is TOTALLY eliminated.
But those programs will not be cut if the TP’ers win. Their base consists mainly of pro-military retirees or near-retirees. I’d like to see specific propositions from TP’er candidates to reduce these programs. I’m not being snarky, that really would be interesting to see.
This is a pretty big bit of spin to swallow. The fact is that tax rates are going to go up – not because Obama wants them to go up, or Congress is passing a bill directing them to go up, but if nothing happens, taxes are going to go up for virtually all Americans.
Just because the White House didn’t propose a tax increase, doesn’t mean that Americans aren’t going to be paying more in taxes.
Keep in mind I think the top 5% of Americans should have a tax increase, and we should keep the current tax rates in effect for everyone else. Wait, I just thought about this – if I want to keep tax rates the same for middle and lower income people, am I proposing a tax cut?
Funny how no one complained when the tax cut was sold to the public as only costing a fixed amount of money. Well, except me. It was completely obvious that it was a shallow ploy to have it both ways, to claim it only cost a certain amount while attempting to characterize the sunset as an “increase”.
Can’t have it both ways. Again, where was the party of fiscal responsibility when the misleading tax cut was implemented?
That’s my understanding. The Bush tax cuts hit all income brackets, they just provided more benefit for the top 2%. If the cuts sunset they would return to the reasonable Clinton-era rates wouldn’t they?
I understood the Dem argument to be that the bottom 98% should keep the cuts they have to drive the shitty economy.
On edit: I think I misunderstood your issue with the statement. If I did, ignore the post.
No, it’s not “spin”- well unless you agree that the original tax cut bill was “spin”. It was a one time, short term tax cut that was supposed to expire after a certain time, aka a “sunset clause”. Taxes are not going up as much as “returning to where they were”.
Yes, if you wish to make the cuts permament, that is a tax cut. In fact, the Dems want to do that very thing, but it looks like the GOP will stymie that very real Tax cut. In other words, the Dems want to cut taxes, the GOP is apparently going to try and stop them, unless the tax cuts (or keeping the temp cuts for a longer time) apply also to the very rich.
