Make the Tax Cuts Permanent!!

[quote]hspder wrote:

At least admit it: the reason you like it is because it benefits YOU – you don’t have debt and your business is doing well, so you couldn’t care less about inflation and interest rates; you’re more than smart enough that it does, however, hurt – a LOT – the majority of Americans who are not as fortunate as you are.

[/quote]

RJ,

He’s sad that you are prosperous and earn your living from your own honest effort. You should want to go bankrupt, working 14 hour days, to pay the bills that he and his lib buddies have built up.

Also, you are ‘fortunate’. This means that your success was purely a matter of luck. Like all mystics, they believe that wealth is created by magic, so we should have no ill feeling about giving away the product of our efforts.

I must admit, the way the libs ignore the solemn individual mind of man just fascinates the hell out of me. Only ‘the group’ matters. They don’t realize that a group is no more than a collection of INDIVIDUALS. This allows them to think of us as cattle or sheep, to be milked or fleeced when they get some cockeyed idea in their heads.

Absolutely fascinating!

[quote]hspder wrote:

At this point, the overwhelming majority of Federal taxes is being (mis)used to pay for the war in Iraq. I do not feel that this administration is worthy of a dime, much less of thousands of dollars.[/quote]

Is this true or is this made up liberal crap? The OVERWHELMING majority of Federal taxes is being used to pay for the war in Iraq?

[quote]
This administration clearly thinks they can have the cake and eat it too… Well, no cake from me![/quote]

How much extra money did you send the feds in the 90s during the glorious heyday of the Clintons?

Get rid of the income tax first. Eliminating that makes it harder for politicians to use class warfare as a vote getting tool. Create a consumption tax placed only on the final product purchased with essential items such as food and required medications excluded.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
You’re so fucking stupid you deserve to be kicked in the nuts on a daily basis. You continue to lie and cheat. Just like your precious Bush, a liar and a coward.

The fact is that there was a surplus under Clinton. He started to pay off the debt he inherited.
Bush squandered to surplus and has plunged the US in the biggest debt ever.

Spin that pig.

There is a big, big, big difference between a projected budget suprlus - and being debt free. You really need to prepare before coming in here and proving your stupidity so blatantly.

Simply show me where - since the Revolutionary war - the United States has not owed money to someone some where.

No spin required…the truth is the truth. Whether or not you can wrap your retarded brain around it is not really my concern.

[/quote]

You’re a fucking liar. There was no projected surplus. There was an actual surplus.
But you are such a fucking moron that you expect Clinton, the man you hate so much, not only to run a surplus but to also pay off all the debt he inherited form previous presidents.
And in the same time you give Bush, you’re precious chimp, a free pass on running up the biggest debt in history.

Yes, the truth is the truth: you’re a retard.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

No, I know why they think this is a good thing. Because they are stupid fucks.

Reducing a deficit is nothing to be proud about when you’ve first allow it to rise to the highest level in history.

Look honey, we’re doing great, now we’re only overspending 2.000 dollars a month.

Only stupid fucks would be happy with such a statement.
But we all know you’re a stupid fuck eh rainjack.

The budget deficit is coming down at a much faster rate than predicted. That is a fact. Revenues are up. That is a fact. I keep more of my own money. That is a fact.

Facts v. Wreckless’ emotional outbursts -

I may be a stupid fuck - but compared to you I am a freaking genius. That is a fact.

[/quote]

I’ll say it again, reducing a deficit is nothing to be proud about when you’ve first allowed it to rise to the highest level in history.

No, compared to me you’re still a stupid fuck. You only have namecalling and you never answer to argument.

THAT’S what makes you a stupid fuck. And that’s a fact.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Is this true or is this made up liberal crap? The OVERWHELMING majority of Federal taxes is being used to pay for the war in Iraq? [/quote]

Yes. The President’s 2007 Budget:

  • Provides $439.3 billion for the Department of Defense’s base budget – a 7-percent increase over 2006 and a 48-percent increase over 2001

  • Requests $50 billion in 2007 bridge funding to support the military’s efforts in Iraq

Total: US$489.3b

That is by far the biggest chunk (and over half, hence, the majority) of the $927.2b in individual income tax receipts.

[quote]doogie wrote:
How much extra money did you send the feds in the 90s during the glorious heyday of the Clintons?[/quote]

Not only I did not take any deductions, I actually sent the Treasury Department about $500k in total (over the 8 years) specifically to pay down public debt.

I am not kidding.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wait a minute. You spent 3/4 of this post to berate me for being selfish with my own money - yet you just tell me that you don’t want to pay taxes because you disagree with the administration?[/quote]

Absolutely. Handing out money for this administration to misuse would not be generous – it would be stupid.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I am not a economist, but if more money is being controlled by the government(higher taxes) that reduces the money available for goods and services(private sector). Is that not a fair statement?[/quote]

Not necessarily. The government will probably be using those taxes to buy stuff from the private sector.

Please bear in mind we’re discussing TAXES, which are used for the government to buy stuff, not social security. That’s a totally different discussion.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Assuming you agree - then if there is less money available doesn’t it become more valuable/expensive(inflation)?[/quote]

Quite the contrary. Macroeconomics 101: less money in the economy, expensive money => deflation. More money in the economy, cheap money => inflation.

Let’s use a hypothetical example:

We start 1 oz of Gold = US$100.

If there’s less money, money becomes expensive, 1 oz of Gold might buy you only US$90. Deflation.

If there’s more money, money becomes cheap, 1 oz of Gold might buy you US$110. Inflation.

Because we left the Gold Standard, things are not that simple these days (China, for example, is manipulating the value of their currency to the point of being immoral, hereby avoiding exploding inflation), but the principle still stands.

Bernanke is increasing interest rates to take money out – make money more expensive – hence causing deflation.

The ONLY way for you to REALLY have more money in your pocket is to work more – to increase productivity. Period. Any “helicopter drop” of money (Bernanke’s expression) will eventually come back to bite us – with interest (pun intended).

[quote]rainjack wrote:
But I could be wrong - and I more than certain you will show me the error of my ways. [/quote]

I am absolutely serious when I say this: it is my job to.

  1. You didn’t say the overwhelming majority of individual income tax receipts.

  2. Not even you are dishonest enough to pretend the ENTIRE defense budget is going to pay for the war in Iraq.

[quote]hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
Is this true or is this made up liberal crap? The OVERWHELMING majority of Federal taxes is being used to pay for the war in Iraq?

Yes. The President’s 2007 Budget:

  • Provides $439.3 billion for the Department of Defense’s base budget – a 7-percent increase over 2006 and a 48-percent increase over 2001

  • Requests $50 billion in 2007 bridge funding to support the military’s efforts in Iraq

Total: US$489.3b

That is by far the biggest chunk (and over half, hence, the majority) of the $927.2b in individual income tax receipts.

doogie wrote:
How much extra money did you send the feds in the 90s during the glorious heyday of the Clintons?

Not only I did not take any deductions, I actually sent the Treasury Department about $500k in total (over the 8 years) specifically to pay down public debt.

I am not kidding.[/quote]

If you make the money you say you make - you lose all of your deductions anyway.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you make the money you say you make - you lose all of your deductions anyway. [/quote]

Oh, c’mon, you’re a CPA – are you really that naive?

[quote]doogie wrote:

  1. You didn’t say the overwhelming majority of individual income tax receipts.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure you were the only person around here to whom it wasn’t obvious that is what I meant. I was talking about the Federal Taxes I pay. I pay individual income tax. Did you really need for me to connect the dots for you? Am I really the one being intellectually dishonest here?

[quote]doogie wrote:
2. Not even you are dishonest enough to pretend the ENTIRE defense budget is going to pay for the war in Iraq.
[/quote]
Oh, c’mon, you’re the Math Nazi now? Did you miss all the extra spending that was requested from congress, plus the 41% increase in discretionary spending of the DoD since 2001?

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, Homeland Security has a separate budget (outside the half trillion dollars I mention above), which is only around $50b. Apparently, defending our own land is 5 to 10x less valuable than defending Iraq.

Good for them.

Oh, and before you pull the “we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here” GOP talking point – that’s as insanely stupid as those action movies where the Bad Guys wait in turn to have their asses kicked by the Good Guy. Al-Qaeda is everywhere, not just sitting in Iraq waiting to get their asses kicked. Even worse: they are the ones kicking OUR ass in Iraq.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
hspder wrote:
I asked this in another thread, but I got no answers, so let me ask this again:

Let me see if I understand this: you’d rather believe Bush and Cheney, who probably never picked up a Macroeconomics book in their lives, than every single renowned Macroeconomist on the planet, including, but not limited to, Ben Bernanke?

'Cause the latter group is pretty much unanimous in saying the tax cuts should NOT be made permanent.

Is it that this falls into one of those “junk science” bins (“Macronomics is not really a science – I mean, it never agrees with the GOP dogma, so I can’t be!”)? Or is it the “they’re confused” bin? Or is it “he’s the president, he is ALWAYS right”? I can’t really tell, can you educate me a bit on GOP spin?

Hmmm…one person (Bush) says: “Its your money, you sweated for it, you earned it. We will take as small a part as possible to run the government.”

Others say: “We have these grandiose spending plans and you’re too stupid to know what to do with your money anyway…so, hand it over.”

I choose the first.

Headhunter

[/quote]

You are to stupid to know what to do with it.

Hand it over.

Government needs money. During a just war, we need to sacrifice. For a just cause, we, as americans, must sacrifice.

The tax cuts benefit the rich and upper-middle class, because my family isn’t all to thrilled with the extra $180…

I’ll take a good public education, medical care, and other governmental services over 200 dollars thanks.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
hspder wrote:
I asked this in another thread, but I got no answers, so let me ask this again:

Let me see if I understand this: you’d rather believe Bush and Cheney, who probably never picked up a Macroeconomics book in their lives, than every single renowned Macroeconomist on the planet, including, but not limited to, Ben Bernanke?

'Cause the latter group is pretty much unanimous in saying the tax cuts should NOT be made permanent.

Is it that this falls into one of those “junk science” bins (“Macronomics is not really a science – I mean, it never agrees with the GOP dogma, so I can’t be!”)? Or is it the “they’re confused” bin? Or is it “he’s the president, he is ALWAYS right”? I can’t really tell, can you educate me a bit on GOP spin?

Hmmm…one person (Bush) says: “Its your money, you sweated for it, you earned it. We will take as small a part as possible to run the government.”

Others say: “We have these grandiose spending plans and you’re too stupid to know what to do with your money anyway…so, hand it over.”

I choose the first.

Headhunter

You are to stupid to know what to do with it.

Hand it over.

Government needs money. During a just war, we need to sacrifice. For a just cause, we, as americans, must sacrifice.

The tax cuts benefit the rich and upper-middle class, because my family isn’t all to thrilled with the extra $180…

I’ll take a good public education, medical care, and other governmental services over 200 dollars thanks.[/quote]

I cannot believe the stupidity of those on here that do not get the fact that a tax cut benefits those that actually pay taxes. This was not a Government hand out.

In fact - if you were in the 15% tax bracket - you got to move the first 10K (MFJ) down to 10%.

If you paid little or no taxes - guess what? You got little or no refund.

Well - that is not exactly true - if you had kids under 17 you got a refundable tax credit - not to mention the EIC.

But those that actually paid the taxes got a tax break.

What the hell is so hard to understand about that? And on top of the that - revenues are up.

Stupidity knows no bounds.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
hspder wrote:
I asked this in another thread, but I got no answers, so let me ask this again:

Let me see if I understand this: you’d rather believe Bush and Cheney, who probably never picked up a Macroeconomics book in their lives, than every single renowned Macroeconomist on the planet, including, but not limited to, Ben Bernanke?

'Cause the latter group is pretty much unanimous in saying the tax cuts should NOT be made permanent.

Is it that this falls into one of those “junk science” bins (“Macronomics is not really a science – I mean, it never agrees with the GOP dogma, so I can’t be!”)? Or is it the “they’re confused” bin? Or is it “he’s the president, he is ALWAYS right”? I can’t really tell, can you educate me a bit on GOP spin?

Hmmm…one person (Bush) says: “Its your money, you sweated for it, you earned it. We will take as small a part as possible to run the government.”

Others say: “We have these grandiose spending plans and you’re too stupid to know what to do with your money anyway…so, hand it over.”

I choose the first.

Headhunter

You are to stupid to know what to do with it.

Hand it over.

Government needs money. During a just war, we need to sacrifice. For a just cause, we, as americans, must sacrifice.

The tax cuts benefit the rich and upper-middle class, because my family isn’t all to thrilled with the extra $180…

I’ll take a good public education, medical care, and other governmental services over 200 dollars thanks.

I cannot believe the stupidity of those on here that do not get the fact that a tax cut benefits those that actually pay taxes. This was not a Government hand out.

In fact - if you were in the 15% tax bracket - you got to move the first 10K (MFJ) down to 10%.

If you paid little or no taxes - guess what? You got little or no refund.

Well - that is not exactly true - if you had kids under 17 you got a refundable tax credit - not to mention the EIC.

But those that actually paid the taxes got a tax break.

What the hell is so hard to understand about that? And on top of the that - revenues are up.

Stupidity knows no bounds.
[/quote]

Again revenue temporarily up (That’s the OMB talking) and even now they are historically low and obviously they are still not making up for the cost of the tax cuts (Still Bush’s OMB talking) and regardless revenue increases aren’t coming from increased economic growth. Other than that though, YEA!

[quote]100meters wrote:

Again revenue temporarily up (That’s the OMB talking) and even now they are historically low and obviously they are still not making up for the cost of the tax cuts (Still Bush’s OMB talking) and regardless revenue increases aren’t coming from increased economic growth. Other than that though, YEA![/quote]

Again, temporarily up because the tax cuts are only temporary. Revenues are at a historic high. You are talking about low as a percent of GDP. SO what? What in the world makes you think the economy isn’t growing?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

You are to stupid to know what to do with it.

[/quote]

You are too stupid to know the difference between “to” and “too.”

[quote]doogie wrote:
100meters wrote:

Again revenue temporarily up (That’s the OMB talking) and even now they are historically low and obviously they are still not making up for the cost of the tax cuts (Still Bush’s OMB talking) and regardless revenue increases aren’t coming from increased economic growth. Other than that though, YEA!

Again, temporarily up because the tax cuts are only temporary. Revenues are at a historic high. You are talking about low as a percent of GDP. SO what? What in the world makes you think the economy isn’t growing?
[/quote]

Uh no that’s not the reason, try again.
And I said “revenue increases aren’t coming from increased economic growth.”
As in one unfortunately doesn’t explain the other. (Not to be translated as: zero economic growth)

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

You are to stupid to know what to do with it.

[/quote]

If you plan to call someone else stupid, at least learn the difference between ‘too’ and ‘to’. LMAO!

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

You are to stupid to know what to do with it.

[quote]

If you plan to call someone else stupid, at least learn the difference between ‘too’ and ‘to’. LMAO!

[quote]100meters wrote:
Again revenue temporarily up (That’s the OMB talking) and even now they are historically low and obviously they are still not making up for the cost of the tax cuts (Still Bush’s OMB talking) and regardless revenue increases aren’t coming from increased economic growth. Other than that though, YEA![/quote]

Temporary being at least three years in a row that receipts have increased?

We are brining in more revenue now than at anytime in the Clinton era.

I think the problem is more that of spending than earning.