LET'S RAISE TAXES!

Post Reply New Topic

The Bush tax-cuts were a stupid, freaking useless idea, and we should start slapping the imbecilic half-wits who champion them. The Bushites act like the tax-cuts are the most wonderful thing in all history or something, but FREAKING LOOK AROUND YOU, YOU FOOLS! THE ECONOMY HAS GONE TO CRAP! THEY FAILED, YOU MISERABLE ret*ds! THEY HAVE FAILED UTTERLY AND TOTALLY! WHY CAN'T YOU IDIOT BUSH GOONS GET THAT THROUGH YOUR ret*d HEADS? Your ideology has been the greatest economic failure since the British tried to revert to the gold standard during 1920s! EVEN CHURCHILL ADMITTED EVENTUALLY IT WAS A STUPID IDEA. Oh, and, contrary to popular belief (which is almost always wrong about everything), Churchill didn't exactly champion the idea but was sort of bullied into it. He just happened to be chancellor of Exchequer and caught the blame, like happened to him in Dardanelles. It was a failure to show spine at the proper time that caused both calamities.

In the name of holy Christ, remove the freaking tax-cuts before the whole country sinks into smoke and ruin!

WHAT!??? You don't want to pay a higher tax??? Are you freaking kidding me? YOU DON'T MAKE THAT MUCH MONEY, AND YOU NEVER WILL, YOU IGNORANT LOSER. Unless you make a six-figure income, which if you are reading this you probably don't, you would not be affected for crap if we did away with the tax-cuts right now. You wouldn't pay an extra dime. And please, if you are ignorant enough to believe that BS about taxes contributing to unemployment, you are full of crap. Taxes haven't gone up a smidge, as*hole, but look around you. f*****g look around you, with your own eyes. Do you see the tent cities out there? WE'RE IN A FREAKING ECONOMIC DEPRESSION, LAMEBRAIN! That hasn't been under any tax-structure cooked up by the Democrats. We've been going through it while following YOUR ideas, you offensive doofus. If you're one of those fools who still champion the Bush-era tax-cuts, I'm talking to YOU.

Kill the tax-cuts! Kill the tax-cuts! Let's all march on Washington, in a big angry mob, and demand that they do away with those idiotic measures that were supposed to somehow stimulate our economy by trickling down or some stupid voodoo crap like that. They have been an absolute waste of money. The people who have been supposedly benefiting from the tax-cuts are even losing money because, right about now, interest rates are not even keeping up with inflation. If you have money in the bank right now, you are losing money because the value of our currency is inflating into useless trash at a greater rate than you are raking the stuff in, so the joke's on you.

Inflation is great. My GOD, I love inflation. It is the greatest instrument of economic equalization in the world. By allowing our currency to gradually become useless trash, we effectively nullify economic disparity. Oh, my dear GOD, I love inflation. But the thing is, if you are a millionaire, the situation right now, I mean right now, is that your economic situation is spiraling down the drain as a RESULT of inflation because NOBODY IS DOING ENOUGH BUSINESS RIGHT NOW to keep your bank accounts profitable. Seriously, if you have been getting some great big laugh and think you've made a killing at other people's expense, look at the gas prices lately, moron. The joke's on you.

The tax-cuts were a stupid idea borne of shallow minds. Kill them now.

Some of us cannot handle that much perceived emotive speech and will not read more than a few lines not focussed on straightforward fact or clear opinion.

It actually is a fact that interest rates are not keeping up with inflation.

+1.26 ( http://www.bankrate.com/cd.aspx )
- 3.6 ( http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... lation-cpi )
- 2.34, and that is a loss, boobullah. No matter how much you cut taxes, if interest rates are down that bad, inflation constitutes one giant hole in your pocket. The buying power of your money is diminishing at a faster pace than you have it coming in. Everyone is losing in this economy.

Is that enough factuality for you?

The tax cuts have NOT worked! The economy, children, is in the gutter. It sucks. Our whole country has turned into one great big pile of suck. If you cut taxes without cutting your spending, you are effectively HEMORRHAGING MONEY, okay? Yeah, spending must be cut. We must reform the giant welfare state in the USA. Good point. It's also a fact that we can never solve the problem by jacking up taxes and doing that and that alone. Good point. Entitlements have to go. BUT THE BUSH TAX CUTS ARE AN ABORTION, CALAMITY, DISASTER and CATASTROPHE.

This isn't a bunch of leftist rhetoric, here. The leftists want to jack up taxes just so they can jack up spending even more. The leftists aren't interested in entitlement reform. I'm about as far-right as I can be without being off-the-deep-end stupid as far as this issue goes, which is unfortunately where every single teabagger in congress actually is. I don't give a crap about social security or medicare. I don't ever intend to draw on either. I have family. I have friends. I have people I can actually count on, and dang it I have freaking money. I'm not going to be the one who loses out when social security blows up. I am hardly saying "let's make a communist utopia" when I say WE CAN'T f*****g AFFORD to maintain these tax-cuts. That's just being freakin' realistic.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPjUsu2-QMQ[/youtube]

I totally agree - out with the f*****g tax cuts for billionaires!
But the thing is, the cretins who pushed the tax cuts through are not so much motivated by any notions of supply side economics, but rather are waging a class war against the have nots by redistributing all the wealth upward.
By the way, I am one who believes in fighting for entitlements, as that my wife and I don't have a pot to piss in today, it's a good guess we won't when we're up in years. Also, being that my daughter is autistic, and my friends are poverty stricken intellectuals and bohemians, it might not be a bright idea to depend on them. Beside, what's wrong with the state taking care of its people?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Not allowing the tax cuts to expire were one of the reasons cited by the S&P that was considered a negative that might lead to a lowering of the credit rating of the US earlier in the year. Prophecy fulfilled today.

I enjoyed those tax cats cuts, saved thousands of dollars. The idea was that most people would spend the money, but after 9/11, many people had a different idea, save for another rainy day like 9/11. Those tax cuts of 2001 were shown to have no economic stimulus impact to the economy. The tax cuts of 2003 for corporations did provide some stimulus; some confuse those cuts with the massive cuts of 2001.

Those tax cuts were not funded, as well as the war in Iraq. In a way the 9/11 attack provided justification for both unecessary acts, which is extremely sad, because the aim of the 9/11 attacks was to cause financial ruin in the country, and unfortunately those two actions, the massive tax cuts of 2001 and the war in Iraq, precipitated by 9/11, are a significant reason for the financial problems we have today.

People often complain about social programs and stealing from the rich, giving to the poor. The tax cuts of 2001 and the Iraq war are social programs for much of the population and social programs for large defense contractors to rebuild what we tore down. The money continues to be stolen from those that face the prospect of repaying it in the future.

While the tax cuts of 2001 have not stimulated the economy, the social programs provided do provide billions of dollars to the economy.

Most people disabled, elderly, and disadvantaged that rely on social programs put every dollar back into the economy. It is a much more effective program to stimulate the economy than tax cuts, for people that do not live paycheck to paycheck.

It would hurt the economy worse to get rid of the dollars that we can be assured to go back into the economy with needed social programs, than to let the tax cuts expire for those that don't live paycheck to paycheck.

People normally will continue to spend what they are spending, as long as they continue to have the money to spend (no matter what they threaten to do, when they complain a about a tax increase, it's human nature, as long as they have the money to spend) .

While there are those that would be impacted living paycheck to paycheck with an expiration of the tax cuts, we can be assured that if the same funds in social programs were cut, it would have a much larger impact on the money that is actually being spent in the economy, because the overwhelming majority of those individuals live paycheck to paycheck.

I doubt the politicians will allow the tax cuts to expire. But it has already been reported today that as a result of the S&P reduction of the US credit rating that it may eventually affect 100 billion dollars of borrowing power in the way of higher mortgage interest rates and auto loan rates.

So while we keep borrowing to pay for those tax cuts, it is likely people are finally going to feel the consequence of providing tax cuts that are stolen from those that will pay for them later. If the tax cuts had been allowed to expire, last year, it's not as likely that the United States would have had their credit rating reduced today.

The first time in history the US credit rating as been dropped, putting us in the category with some countries that aren't considered first world nations.

Several reasons were cited by S&P. Most of them political in nature. They note the lack of political appetite for revenue increases, the fact that the debt ceiling has been made into a political football (crazy time) and that deal making is not really possible at the moment and that US politics is more dysfunctional than they suspected.

S&P wanted $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That's what they said, that's what Obama said. The grand bargain was the better deal. But tea baggers and conservatives wouldn't go along with even a small revenue increase and Boehner couldnt control them. They chose to ignore the agencies warnings for the sake of ideological purity and we get this.

Boehner says he got 98% of what he wanted. So 98% of his wishes = this too.

One area that will help greatly with our debt problem is means testing for our entitlement programs of Medicare, and Social Security. Economist Thomas Sowell had a nice write up about this earlier in the week.

"How Images Of 'Poor,' 'Elderly' Distort Reality"
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... eality.htm

excerpt:

"As for being "ill-housed," the average poor American has more living space than the general population — not just the poor population — of London, Paris and other cities in Europe.

Various attempts have been made over the years to depict Americans in poverty as "ill-fed" but the "hunger in America" campaigns that have enjoyed such political and media popularity have usually used some pretty creative methods and definitions.

Actual studies of "the poor" have found their intake of the necessary nutrients to be no less than that of others. In fact, obesity is slightly more prevalent among low-income people.

The real triumph of words over reality, however, is in expensive government programs for "the elderly," including Medicare. The image often invoked is the person who is both ill and elderly, and who has to choose between food and medications.


It is great political theater. But, the most fundamental reality is that the average wealth of the elderly is some multiple of the average wealth owned by people in the other age brackets.

Why should the average taxpayer be subsidizing people who have much more wealth than they do?

If we are concerned about those particular elderly people who are in fact poor — as we are about other people who are genuinely poor, whatever their age might be — then we can simply confine our help to those who are poor by some reasonable means test. It would cost a fraction of what it costs to subsidize everybody who reaches a certain age.

But the political left hates means tests. If government programs were confined to people who were genuinely poor in some meaningful sense, that would shrink the welfare state to a fraction of its current size. The left would lose their human shields.

It is certainly true that the elderly are more likely to have more medical problems and larger medical expenses. But old age is not some unforeseeable misfortune. It is not only foreseeable but inevitable for those who do not die young.

It is one thing to keep people from suffering from unforeseeable things beyond their control. But it is something else to simply subsidize their necessities so that they can spend their money on other things and leave a larger estate to be passed on to their heirs.

People who say they want a government program because "I don't want to be a burden to my children" apparently think it is all right to be a burden to other people's children.

Among the runaway spending behind our current national debt problems is the extravagant luxury of buying political rhetoric."

Here's what we need to realize.

The Bush Tax Cuts over 10 years cost $3 trillion. This is a very generous estimate, which includes tax cuts for lower income families, and excludes any beneficial effects that tax cuts could have had on the market.

That's 300 billion per year, let's say.

The budget deficit per year is 1500+ billion per year.

So if we raise these taxes on everybody (including the middle class),
we only solved 20% of the problem.

80% of the problem lies in spending cuts.

The free tax cuts are one factor in the deficit. The free wars are another factor. Decreased revenue from the great recession is another, general spending is another, including the coming growth in entitlements due to health care costs and demographics. All of them factor in.

And if you manage it all just right, you can balance the budget again for a few years until the next recession. You've still got ~$20 trillion in debt by then. At some point revenues need to rise sustainably (beyond expiring the Bush cuts) to pay that back and that likely means additional tax increases.

"balancing the budget" is the low bar.

Nothing.

Maybe the nation is in debt because Washington spends too much, raises the debt ceiling and then spends more.

Would you be in a debt crises if you did that? I know I would be.

Try asking your employer for a raise when you spend too much.

LET"S TYPE ALL IN CAPS!! ! AND RANDOMLY HIT THE BOLD BUTTON!! ! WHO NEEDS TO MAKE SENSE WHEN HE"S GOT CAPSLOCK AND A BOLD BUTTON!?!?!?!?
F*CK YEAH!! ! NOTHING SAYS "CREDIBLE" LIKE GIANT CURSING!! !



Damn, I'm going to need more Redbull and Vicodin if I'm going to keep this level of discourse up...