First Prev
of 3
Next Last
american

Elizabethtown, KY

#1 Mar 3, 2013
—The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were first proposed by Texas Gov. George W. Bush as he campaigned for president in 2000. At the time, the economy was enjoying rare multi-year budget surpluses and government economists were predicting surpluses well into the future. Bush told cheering audiences his tax cuts would return to taxpayers "what is rightfully yours."

Those cuts long have outlived the surpluses, which vanished in Bush's first year in office. Deficits returned with a vengeance and have grown ever since.
cutter668

Elizabethtown, KY

#2 Mar 3, 2013
The IRS reported for several years in a row during the Bush presidency that there were record revenues. The tax cuts cause more revenue for the government. The defects were brought on by spending. Wars, prescription drug benefit, and entitlement programs that need to be reformed are the reasons not the cuts themselves. Because of the recent tax hikes by the current president you will see more debt and falling revenues. This has been the case throughout our history.
The Point

Elizabethtown, KY

#3 Mar 3, 2013
You're both a little right. Both Bush and Obama have been propping up a very sick global economy through stimulus. Bush did it through tax cuts (to spur consumer spending) and through doubling military spending. Obama did it through propping up State Governments and through infrastructure spending. But with unemployment going from 4% to 12% (cutting out a lot of tax and entitlement revenue) and with more entitlement bills coming due, that deficit is going to grow. The hard truth is that, until the employment number picks back up, any decrease in government spending or increase in income taxation will have a negative effect on the economy and get us no where. The global economy is starting to grow and heal a little now, so both sides need to be patient and lay off the populist BS about cutting this or taxing that.
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#4 Mar 4, 2013
The Point wrote:
You're both a little right. Both Bush and Obama have been propping up a very sick global economy through stimulus. Bush did it through tax cuts (to spur consumer spending) and through doubling military spending. Obama did it through propping up State Governments and through infrastructure spending. But with unemployment going from 4% to 12%(cutting out a lot of tax and entitlement revenue) and with more entitlement bills coming due, that deficit is going to grow. The hard truth is that, until the employment number picks back up, any decrease in government spending or increase in income taxation will have a negative effect on the economy and get us no where. The global economy is starting to grow and heal a little now, so both sides need to be patient and lay off the populist BS about cutting this or taxing that.
you say that a couple of months after a tax increase, that you personally approved of? now that income taxes have been increased, you have the audacity too say, " any decrease in government spending or increase in income taxation will have a negative effect on the economy". ummmm, we had our tax increase....do you remember? guess what, it caused the negative effect you are speaking of,and democrats assured wouldnt happen!
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#5 Mar 4, 2013
The Point wrote:
You're both a little right. Both Bush and Obama have been propping up a very sick global economy through stimulus. Bush did it through tax cuts (to spur consumer spending) and through doubling military spending. Obama did it through propping up State Governments and through infrastructure spending. But with unemployment going from 4% to 12%(cutting out a lot of tax and entitlement revenue) and with more entitlement bills coming due, that deficit is going to grow. The hard truth is that, until the employment number picks back up, any decrease in government spending or increase in income taxation will have a negative effect on the economy and get us no where. The global economy is starting to grow and heal a little now, so both sides need to be patient and lay off the populist BS about cutting this or taxing that.
and please dont lie,and make me go thru countless topix archives to find you talking about "paying fair share of taxes", i will! did you change your mind? are you scared that democrat policy will make america look like detriot?
Fluffy the Rat

Vine Grove, KY

#6 Mar 4, 2013
The dems, and Obama in particular, have hurt the economy of the US to a point where it is almost not recoverable.

Wait until the job numbers come out on Friday.

It will be further condemnation of a policy (if you can call it that) that has no basis in economic reality.
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#7 Mar 4, 2013
believe a cracker wrote:
<quoted text>you say that a couple of months after a tax increase, that you personally approved of? now that income taxes have been increased, you have the audacity too say, " any decrease in government spending or increase in income taxation will have a negative effect on the economy". ummmm, we had our tax increase....do you remember? guess what, it caused the negative effect you are speaking of,and democrats assured wouldnt happen!
bush cut taxes like a republican,but spent money like a democrat.....(if we are going to do the party line thing),but who is going to lower taxes,decrease regulation,and cut spending?
lets take the city of detriot(my favorite place on earth besides here), what happened there? it was a town full of union labor, high wages, and welfare all around for the citizens that "needed" it. my God, it sounds like a progressive utopia?!? what happened? i thought your policies worked?
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#8 Mar 4, 2013
Fluffy the Rat wrote:
The dems, and Obama in particular, have hurt the economy of the US to a point where it is almost not recoverable.
Wait until the job numbers come out on Friday.
It will be further condemnation of a policy (if you can call it that) that has no basis in economic reality.
you are correct,and it sounds like some of the dems are doing some backtracking.
The Point

Elizabethtown, KY

#9 Mar 4, 2013
believe a cracker wrote:
<quoted text>you are correct,and it sounds like some of the dems are doing some backtracking.
No, you're just too simple to see the difference between forms of taxation and which benefit the middle class. "Tax like a Republican, spend like a Democrat"...what are you, in 6th grade? Both Republicans and Democrats use taxation and spending in the same way, they just have different benefactors...Romney, like Bush and Reagan before him, would have just shifted spending from infrastructure to military...but still the same stimulus strategy. No one really believes that the US economy would be better off if you took out the 40% of the economy that relies on government spending and that no one has to pay for that...that's just the dumbed-down populist message for teabaggers who think the US economy operates like their personal economies. Econ 101, again: US is a consumer-driven economy, so you don't cut government spending or raise taxes on consumers when the economy is weak. You can only cut spending and raise middle-class taxes when it is strong (like in the 90's). But YOU CAN raise taxes on estates and investments (i.e. the Buffett rule) to raise revenue without it having a negative impact on economic activity...that's the fairness part. Business activity is driven by demand and return on investment, not taxation, so no business wants a tax cuts if it means fewer customers. And regulation makes no difference if it is applied to all market participants equally (see A. Smith)...that's like whining about the referees when your team loses. Class dismissed.
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#10 Mar 4, 2013
The Point wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're just too simple to see the difference between forms of taxation and which benefit the middle class. "Tax like a Republican, spend like a Democrat"...what are you, in 6th grade? Both Republicans and Democrats use taxation and spending in the same way, they just have different benefactors...Romney, like Bush and Reagan before him, would have just shifted spending from infrastructure to military...but still the same stimulus strategy. No one really believes that the US economy would be better off if you took out the 40% of the economy that relies on government spending and that no one has to pay for that...that's just the dumbed-down populist message for teabaggers who think the US economy operates like their personal economies. Econ 101, again: US is a consumer-driven economy, so you don't cut government spending or raise taxes on consumers when the economy is weak. You can only cut spending and raise middle-class taxes when it is strong (like in the 90's). But YOU CAN raise taxes on estates and investments (i.e. the Buffett rule) to raise revenue without it having a negative impact on economic activity...that's the fairness part. Business activity is driven by demand and return on investment, not taxation, so no business wants a tax cuts if it means fewer customers. And regulation makes no difference if it is applied to all market participants equally (see A. Smith)...that's like whining about the referees when your team loses. Class dismissed.
are you in the sixth grade? investment is money earned and invested! how many times is it taxed? if i earn money thru my income(taxed at 20%) and them make an investment that pays off with my money....what rate should i be taxed at again?
btw, you said income tax,and income tax was raised on everybody!
the only reason the us economy doesnt work like my personal finances is because i CANT print money when i go in the red! neither can the city of detroit ,and thats why they are bankrupt!
you idiot,i guess inflation counts for nothing! quit talking out of both sides of your mouth,we just have to read your post to see it! TEABAG ON THAT!
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#11 Mar 4, 2013
The Point wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're just too simple to see the difference between forms of taxation and which benefit the middle class. "Tax like a Republican, spend like a Democrat"...what are you, in 6th grade? Both Republicans and Democrats use taxation and spending in the same way, they just have different benefactors...Romney, like Bush and Reagan before him, would have just shifted spending from infrastructure to military...but still the same stimulus strategy. No one really believes that the US economy would be better off if you took out the 40% of the economy that relies on government spending and that no one has to pay for that...that's just the dumbed-down populist message for teabaggers who think the US economy operates like their personal economies. Econ 101, again: US is a consumer-driven economy, so you don't cut government spending or raise taxes on consumers when the economy is weak. You can only cut spending and raise middle-class taxes when it is strong (like in the 90's). But YOU CAN raise taxes on estates and investments (i.e. the Buffett rule) to raise revenue without it having a negative impact on economic activity...that's the fairness part. Business activity is driven by demand and return on investment, not taxation, so no business wants a tax cuts if it means fewer customers. And regulation makes no difference if it is applied to all market participants equally (see A. Smith)...that's like whining about the referees when your team loses. Class dismissed.
if this country didnt spend more than it brought in, would we be having this conversation? its a simple question you dont want to answer! why shouldnt taxpayers money work like it does in personal finance? is that a hard concept to understand for you? oh we have watched "econ 101" in europe,california....ect guess what? bankrupt! thank you for your lesson! is there anything else you progressives would like to teach us teabaggers about economics? i hope not, there isnt much time,or money left for your lessons!
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#12 Mar 4, 2013
The Point wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're just too simple to see the difference between forms of taxation and which benefit the middle class. "Tax like a Republican, spend like a Democrat"...what are you, in 6th grade? Both Republicans and Democrats use taxation and spending in the same way, they just have different benefactors...Romney, like Bush and Reagan before him, would have just shifted spending from infrastructure to military...but still the same stimulus strategy. No one really believes that the US economy would be better off if you took out the 40% of the economy that relies on government spending and that no one has to pay for that...that's just the dumbed-down populist message for teabaggers who think the US economy operates like their personal economies. Econ 101, again: US is a consumer-driven economy, so you don't cut government spending or raise taxes on consumers when the economy is weak. You can only cut spending and raise middle-class taxes when it is strong (like in the 90's). But YOU CAN raise taxes on estates and investments (i.e. the Buffett rule) to raise revenue without it having a negative impact on economic activity...that's the fairness part. Business activity is driven by demand and return on investment, not taxation, so no business wants a tax cuts if it means fewer customers. And regulation makes no difference if it is applied to all market participants equally (see A. Smith)...that's like whining about the referees when your team loses. Class dismissed.
my personal finances are alot different than the federal governments,you are correct. i dont have a money printer, could i have a small bernanke money printer to pay my electric bill if i overspend and dont have the money? oh wait, i want a new 40,000 dollar pick up. could i print my own money to buy it, if its in my budget or not. no i couldnt,because when anyone prints money beyond value.....ITS WORTHLESS!
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#13 Mar 4, 2013
The Point wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're just too simple to see the difference between forms of taxation and which benefit the middle class. "Tax like a Republican, spend like a Democrat"...what are you, in 6th grade? Both Republicans and Democrats use taxation and spending in the same way, they just have different benefactors...Romney, like Bush and Reagan before him, would have just shifted spending from infrastructure to military...but still the same stimulus strategy. No one really believes that the US economy would be better off if you took out the 40% of the economy that relies on government spending and that no one has to pay for that...that's just the dumbed-down populist message for teabaggers who think the US economy operates like their personal economies. Econ 101, again: US is a consumer-driven economy, so you don't cut government spending or raise taxes on consumers when the economy is weak. You can only cut spending and raise middle-class taxes when it is strong (like in the 90's). But YOU CAN raise taxes on estates and investments (i.e. the Buffett rule) to raise revenue without it having a negative impact on economic activity...that's the fairness part. Business activity is driven by demand and return on investment, not taxation, so no business wants a tax cuts if it means fewer customers. And regulation makes no difference if it is applied to all market participants equally (see A. Smith)...that's like whining about the referees when your team loses. Class dismissed.
you are too simple to know how brainwashed you really are!
The Point

Elizabethtown, KY

#14 Mar 4, 2013
believe a cracker wrote:
<quoted text>are you in the sixth grade? investment is money earned and invested! how many times is it taxed? if i earn money thru my income(taxed at 20%) and them make an investment that pays off with my money....what rate should i be taxed at again?
btw, you said income tax,and income tax was raised on everybody!
the only reason the us economy doesnt work like my personal finances is because i CANT print money when i go in the red! neither can the city of detroit ,and thats why they are bankrupt!
you idiot,i guess inflation counts for nothing! quit talking out of both sides of your mouth,we just have to read your post to see it! TEABAG ON THAT!
You're not taxed on the money, you're taxed on the income from investments...it's new money. Why should you pay less on the money you earned from investment than what you earned from labor? Why did you just lie about income taxes going up on everybody? It went up 4.6% on individuals above $400K (families above $450K)...nobody else. Are you confused by the expiration of the payroll tax holiday? Man, you've swallowed so many lies that they just bubble back out of you.
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#15 Mar 4, 2013
The Point wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not taxed on the money, you're taxed on the income from investments...it's new money. Why should you pay less on the money you earned from investment than what you earned from labor? Why did you just lie about income taxes going up on everybody? It went up 4.6% on individuals above $400K (families above $450K)...nobody else. Are you confused by the expiration of the payroll tax holiday? Man, you've swallowed so many lies that they just bubble back out of you.
if i as a blue collar guy make an investment with my taxed payroll money, is it new money? if my investment does well is it taxed again?
i can assure you that i make alot less than 400k a year,but my with holdings cut the bank twenty bucks a week. im sure any average american with a job has witnessed the loss(i guess you dont have a job)
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#16 Mar 4, 2013
The Point wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not taxed on the money, you're taxed on the income from investments...it's new money. Why should you pay less on the money you earned from investment than what you earned from labor? Why did you just lie about income taxes going up on everybody? It went up 4.6% on individuals above $400K (families above $450K)...nobody else. Are you confused by the expiration of the payroll tax holiday? Man, you've swallowed so many lies that they just bubble back out of you.
look, we both know you are just some snot nosed kid regurgitating "internet facts" with no life experience. you have copied and pasted every google,bing concept within the last three searches in the past couple of years i have been going back n forth with you. what are you trying to prove? my mind cant regurgitate facts as quick as what you google,but eventually i catch up,and the common sense of the human mind prevails.
detroit. by your philosophy, everything you wanted from your progressive point of view existed there. in your opinion why did this economy fail(in your own words please) if you google that $hit im going to copy and paste to prove my point. this is your chance to make me look stupid.:)
The Point

Elizabethtown, KY

#17 Mar 4, 2013
believe a cracker wrote:
<quoted text>if i as a blue collar guy make an investment with my taxed payroll money, is it new money? if my investment does well is it taxed again?
i can assure you that i make alot less than 400k a year,but my with holdings cut the bank twenty bucks a week. im sure any average american with a job has witnessed the loss(i guess you dont have a job)
Your invested money isn't taxed any more than the money you have in the bank or mattress is. If you make income off that money, that income is taxed...at a much lower rate than had you worked for it. If that money loses money, you get a tax credit for that loss. There is nothing magical about dividend or capital gains income that warrants it being taxed at half the rate of labor income...other than investors have better lobbyists than laborers.
believe a cracker

Greensburg, KY

#18 Mar 5, 2013
The Point wrote:
<quoted text>
Your invested money isn't taxed any more than the money you have in the bank or mattress is. If you make income off that money, that income is taxed...at a much lower rate than had you worked for it. If that money loses money, you get a tax credit for that loss. There is nothing magical about dividend or capital gains income that warrants it being taxed at half the rate of labor income...other than investors have better lobbyists than laborers.
im curious, whats your take on the duke energy contribution? ive noticed that you have a wealth of knowledge about power companies. since we are on the topic of taxes.
The Point

Elizabethtown, KY

#19 Mar 5, 2013
believe a cracker wrote:
<quoted text>im curious, whats your take on the duke energy contribution? ive noticed that you have a wealth of knowledge about power companies. since we are on the topic of taxes.
Contribution to what? You mean the money they gave to support the convention in Charlotte? They're headquartered in Charlotte, so I suspect they give a lot of money to sponsor events there. Most of those sponsorships are written off as charity. What's the story?
The Point

Elizabethtown, KY

#20 Mar 5, 2013
believe a cracker wrote:
<quoted text>im curious, whats your take on the duke energy contribution? ive noticed that you have a wealth of knowledge about power companies. since we are on the topic of taxes.
So, are you outraged that corporations can give $80 million to party with politicians at their conventions, and then turn around and deduct half of that from their taxes? Yes, I agree that those kinds of deductions should be ended to increase government revenue (instead of cutting more services). Is that the question?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vine Grove Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
KY 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min mudfoot 153,602
KY What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... 8 min A POST LEE 5,040
William Reeves 2 hr his girlfriend Ai... 1
prostitues 5 hr Wild one 4
New restaurant 5 hr chip 2
Tweekers 5 hr Yall 3
all this talk about women cheating 6 hr 5444-5444cmr 6
•••
•••
•••

Vine Grove Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Vine Grove People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Vine Grove News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Vine Grove
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••