Wasn't the Bush tax cuts, simply tax cuts for the rich? That has been the Democrat mantra since day 1. If the Bush Tax cuts did nothing for the middle class and poor, by the Democrat claim, why did they need to be preserved? The middle class and the poor, according to the Dems, experienced very little tax cuts so by a logical conclusion the tax increase, due to expiration, should not even been noticed.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
LOL. Excellent post.
Yet, if you turn on AM radio you'd swear Obama didn't do anything the Republicans wanted.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I seem to remember this being tossed around 2 years ago by Democrats seeking election.
Of course, Democrats today will deny this... OR if they don't deny it, they'll use the excuse that they're "compromising" and working "together" with the other side for the "good" of America.
I think the government is just being exposed for what they ware. I think we can always argue about health care reform, wars, and tax cuts... But I think we can all agree that the government is bought off and run by special interests. I think that's why the Demos didn't stick with their "standards." They too are rich and have ties to those who didn't want to lose their tax cuts.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
The last two years have been blockbuster years for big corporations USA. Tax cuts extended, bailouts handed out, "stimuluses" to help them grow... From the economic standpoint, what has Obama done differently than Bush?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Serious question,
I remember watching just a few weeks ago him saying on TV, "I'll sign off on the Bush tax cuts if the Republicans can show how they'll pay for them."
So what's the Republican's plans? What did they come up with that his cabinet couldn't? What's the plan? How are they going to be paid for?
Because remember now, Obama said that he wouldn't agree w/the Repubs unless they showed how these tax cuts wouldn't add to the deficit. Soooooooo....
I remember watching just a few weeks ago him saying on TV, "I'll sign off on the Bush tax cuts if the Republicans can show how they'll pay for them."
So what's the Republican's plans? What did they come up with that his cabinet couldn't? What's the plan? How are they going to be paid for?
Because remember now, Obama said that he wouldn't agree w/the Repubs unless they showed how these tax cuts wouldn't add to the deficit. Soooooooo....
There were no tax cuts. The choice was not tax cuts/no tax cuts. The choice was keeping marginal rates the same or raising them. The only choice was to raise taxes or not.
Don't fall for improper framing of the issue.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I understand that. So why not raise taxes?
We're cutting taxes while spending more and more. Cuts are unrealistic, since no one wants to have their Medicare or defensive spending touched. Especially with the baby boomer's retiring. That whole issue of Medicare/SS is completely off the table.
Because, with proper framing, maintaining a temporary tax cut is not cutting taxes. Allowing the rate to return to the planned rate is raising taxes. Don't want to frame these things improperly, after all.
TheMulletMutilator
Member
Paying for them is not going to happen unless they do the unthinkable and go after social security and medicare. It is political suicide but the only way to try to reduce the deficit as I have pointed out. As for pre-Bush tax rates.... I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of wealthy people move their money etc. I could be wrong, we'll see what happens.
We don't raise taxes because nobody wants their taxes raised. There are the sirkicky and the buffett's of the world, but they are a very small minority. The democrats are in bed with the rich as much as the republicans. Simply look at the Wall St., Ivy League, Democrat connection. It is deep, wide, and entrenched. Not every rich liberal wants their taxes raised.
This compromise is standard operating procedure since the early 80's. Shoot for lower taxes, no controls on spending, keep the poor dependent, keep the rich happy, throw the far extremes of the party under the bus because they have no where else to go.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I'm actually beginning to think that this tax cut is losing it's "temporary" title. Weren't there those in the Bush administration that wanted to make them permanent? Actually, wasn't that what McCain campaigned on?
Anyway, I just don't understand with "raising" tax cuts to the rate that they were before?
I think we're living in la la land by thinking that we can have more government (wars, medicare, etc) without raising taxes. I'm not calling for an immediate tax hike of 1000 %. But we desperately need to start considering the future. Is this current tax rate maintainable since we're obviously never going to make drastic cuts to defensive spending and health care.