It's storming through congress backed by both sides for the most part.

 

The Rich get a chunk back'

The Middle Class gets a bit back

and The Poorest Americans get part of the cost.

 

Their's nothing wrong with middle class tax cuts but come on, maybe we can get our spending and defecit worries pushed to the side before giving even more back.

 

A part of this money will be coming from The Poorest Americans who are making under 10k who will see their Child Tax Credit shrunk if not in some cases disappear.

 

Their's much better ways to go about cutting spending than this.

anybody realize that those who make money pay taxes! that is why it is income tax!

capefish, what may I ask is your opinion of the monumental debt we have right now?

capefish, what may I ask is your opinion of the monumental debt we have right now?

569816[/snapback]

it will get paid. cut taxes and let the economy start producing. I don't see democrats doing a thing to help the economy or debt. this is a time where you must spend with reason. these tax cuts are working. we started our business with our tax cut.

capefish, what may I ask is your opinion of the monumental debt we have right now?

569816[/snapback]

I don't see democrats doing a thing to help the economy or debt.

569820[/snapback]

 

I believe that thing was you know Clinton's balanced budget and cut in unemployment after Bush 1. So yeah, Democrats are all lazy bastards who can't see the benefits of taking from the poor.

capefish, what may I ask is your opinion of the monumental debt we have right now?

569816[/snapback]

it will get paid.

569820[/snapback]

How about providing some REAL info on the issue rather than just a "it will get paid" , how, when. Some facts would be nice than just a simple statement.

I remember tonyi and I having a conversation about this. If he'll forgive me, Ill just quote him:

 

I'm not arguing for "trickle down" as a stimulus BTW. I'm arguing that money recirculation is a closed loop system. I don't think the Bush tax cut stimulated anything - I do think the Fed's lowering the interest rates stimulated a lot - particularly the housing boom.

 

 

 

http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...topic=28232&hl=

Here is some stuff I pointed to in that thread:

 

He is saying the results of having the wealthy spend their money hasnt had the effect Bush argues. You know, the multiplier?

 

 

There are so many inconsistencies with trickdown theory.

 

-During late term tax cuts of the Regean Bush terms, mainly the years around 1991, GDP growth went to negative levels.

 

-Two of the three highest growth years were during the tax heavy 1950s for the wealthy.

 

-Data shows income decreases after tax cuts of the late 80s and increase after Clinton tax increase for the wealthy.

 

-The highest median income growth was 4.7% in 1972, when tax rates for the wealthy was much higher.

 

-Like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

 

-During the 50s, wages grew at a rate of at least 1% a year, when the tax rate for the high bracket was 91%. How would that be possible?

 

-Three of the four largest unemployment decreases post 1950 took place when the tax rate for high brackets was around 91%. How were those jobs created? Mana from heaven?

It's storming through congress backed by both sides for the most part.

 

The Rich get a chunk back'

The Middle Class gets a bit back

and The Poorest Americans get part of the cost.

 

Their's nothing wrong with middle class tax cuts but come on, maybe we can get our spending and defecit worries pushed to the side before giving even more back.

 

A part of this money will be coming from The Poorest Americans who are making under 10k? who will see their Child Tax Credit shrunk if not in some cases disappear.

 

Their's much better ways to go about cutting spending than this.

569795[/snapback]

 

Nothing is coming from "The Poorest Americans."

 

Any adult making 10k a year (much less someone making 10k a year with kids) isn't paying a dime in income tax anyways.

 

The Rich get a chunk back'

The Middle Class gets a bit back

and The Poorest Americans get part of the cost

 

Sounds about right, since when it comes to getting taxed:

 

The rich pay the biggest chunk

The middle class pays a bit

The poorest americans cost the most.

WASHINGTON -- The House and Senate overwhelmingly voted Thursday night to extend three tax cuts aimed at the middle class along with a bevy of business tax breaks, sending President Bush a $146 billion tax cut that will be his fourth in four years.

 

With the approval of the legislation, virtually all of Bush's first-term tax agenda -- four tax measures worth nearly $1.9 trillion over 10 years -- will survive a potential second Bush term unless Washington elects to change the tax code again. The total is $300 billion more in tax relief than Bush envisioned with his first tax cut proposal in 2001.

 

But the tax cut will exacerbate a budget deficit that will likely have to be addressed in the next presidential term. Some Democrats and moderate Republicans argued this summer that the extensions should be financed with spending cuts or tax loophole closures, but that opposition withered with the approaching election. The tax cut passed the House 339-65 Thursday night. It then passed the Senate 92-3, with only retiring Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., and budget hawks Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., opposed.

 

Bush's opponent for the White House, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., backed the tax cuts, which were to expire at year's end.

 

The legislation extends the $1,000-per-child tax credit. It extends tax breaks for married couples. And it prevents the 10 percent income tax bracket from being applied to smaller amounts of earned income, as it had been.

 

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/181231-5840-010.html

It's storming through congress backed by both sides for the most part.

 

The Rich get a chunk back'

The Middle Class gets a bit back

and The Poorest Americans get part of the cost.

 

Their's nothing wrong with middle class tax cuts but come on, maybe we can get our spending and defecit worries pushed to the side before giving even more back.

 

A part of this money will be coming from The Poorest Americans who are making under 10k? who will see their Child Tax Credit shrunk if not in some cases disappear.

 

Their's much better ways to go about cutting spending than this.

569795[/snapback]

 

Nothing is coming from "The Poorest Americans."

 

Any adult making 10k a year (much less someone making 10k a year with kids) isn't paying a dime in income tax anyways.

 

The Rich get a chunk back'

The Middle Class gets a bit back

and The Poorest Americans get part of the cost

 

Sounds about right, since when it comes to getting taxed:

 

The rich pay the biggest chunk

The middle class pays a bit

The poorest americans cost the most.

570286[/snapback]

 

 

This is exactly true and theres no reason why it shouldnt be. We also have to remember that the rich getting back the most is based on dollar amounts not on percentage of cuts to total income. The poorest taxpayers get 100% cuts, already the largest as part of percentage and they dont have to pay a dime. And by the way the 100% tax cuts last time applied to all people making under 30000 a year. Then as the income increased the percentage went down meaning you're probably seeing more money back than the 30,000 bracket but at a smaller percentage and are still paying more taxes. If the richest 1% get a 30% tax cut in terms of pure value it will be higher than anything else. Poor will continue paying nothing and the people who pay more taxes will now have more money to invest in the economy. And for all you clinton fans out there, part of clintons balanced budget, which by the way was a compromise b/w republicans in congress and president clinton on the how to achieve it, actually also included the reforming of several wasteful spending programs, not just avoiding of tax cuts.

We need another situation like that. One party in control of Congress and one in the White House.

We need another situation like that.? One party in control of Congress and one in the White House.

570320[/snapback]

 

One party control ensures pork laden bills and heavy handed treatment of anyone not with the majority.

 

"Gridlock" promotes essentials all can agree to and greater levels of civility because they actually HAVE to work together.

 

Gridlock is goodness. When they're busy bickering about trivialities, that means tthey're not picking my pocket - I like that

570474[/snapback]

Forcible compromise through gridlock is goodness. Lets do a happy dance in celebration of our agreement. :happydance

WASHINGTON -- The House and Senate overwhelmingly voted Thursday night to extend three tax cuts aimed at the middle class along with a bevy of business tax breaks, sending President Bush a $146 billion tax cut that will be his fourth in four years.

 

With the approval of the legislation, virtually all of Bush's first-term tax agenda -- four tax measures worth nearly $1.9 trillion over 10 years -- will survive a potential second Bush term unless Washington elects to change the tax code again. The total is $300 billion more in tax relief than Bush envisioned with his first tax cut proposal in 2001.

 

But the tax cut will exacerbate a budget deficit that will likely have to be addressed in the next presidential term. Some Democrats and moderate Republicans argued this summer that the extensions should be financed with spending cuts or tax loophole closures, but that opposition withered with the approaching election. The tax cut passed the House 339-65 Thursday night. It then passed the Senate 92-3, with only retiring Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., and budget hawks Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., opposed.

 

Bush's opponent for the White House, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., backed the tax cuts, which were to expire at year's end.

 

The legislation extends the $1,000-per-child tax credit. It extends tax breaks for married couples. And it prevents the 10 percent income tax bracket from being applied to smaller amounts of earned income, as it had been.

 

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/181231-5840-010.html

570292[/snapback]

 

Its a political ploy. They want to get Kerry and other Dems any way they can. Why do you think they are pushing through the Supreme Ct restriction on the pledge? I wont falt Kerry for seeing long term goals as more vital.

WASHINGTON -- The House and Senate overwhelmingly voted Thursday night to extend three tax cuts aimed at the middle class along with a bevy of business tax breaks, sending President Bush a $146 billion tax cut that will be his fourth in four years.

 

With the approval of the legislation, virtually all of Bush's first-term tax agenda -- four tax measures worth nearly $1.9 trillion over 10 years -- will survive a potential second Bush term unless Washington elects to change the tax code again. The total is $300 billion more in tax relief than Bush envisioned with his first tax cut proposal in 2001.

 

But the tax cut will exacerbate a budget deficit that will likely have to be addressed in the next presidential term. Some Democrats and moderate Republicans argued this summer that the extensions should be financed with spending cuts or tax loophole closures, but that opposition withered with the approaching election. The tax cut passed the House 339-65 Thursday night. It then passed the Senate 92-3, with only retiring Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., and budget hawks Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., opposed.

 

Bush's opponent for the White House, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., backed the tax cuts, which were to expire at year's end.

 

The legislation extends the $1,000-per-child tax credit. It extends tax breaks for married couples. And it prevents the 10 percent income tax bracket from being applied to smaller amounts of earned income, as it had been.

 

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/181231-5840-010.html

570292[/snapback]

 

Its a political ploy. They want to get Kerry and other Dems any way they can. Why do you think they are pushing through the Supreme Ct restriction on the pledge? I wont falt Kerry for seeing long term goals as more vital.

570513[/snapback]

 

 

What? The vote was overhwleming in favor of the cuts. These are middle class tax cuts for the most part which is what clinton always advocated. not only that but people are being smart about it and syaing we should cut spending and close some other tax loopholes. This is excellent and is a victory for the american people and the majority of congress agrees

Here's a couple of opinions on the issue:

 

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker (Greenspan's predecessor, served under Reagan and Carter and is widely credited with beating inflation in the 80s) as well as Robert Rubin, Treasury Secretary under President Clinton (when we also happened to have a pretty sound economy) have both said the cuts are not useful for short-term fiscal stimulus nor would they spur long-term economic growth, both reasons cited by Bush. Greenspan has also undercut the GOP argument for extending the tax cuts.

 

In fact, Volcker has predicted a 75 percent chance of an economic crisis occurring within five years.

 

Hey but what do they know.....