Bush Tax Cuts

[PennSkinsFan]

Please vote

[Spence]

I voted NO on the tax cuts, of course. All they've given us is a gigantic budget deficit. [About $500 billion this year and growing. That's by far the largest budget deficit in the history of the human species, by the way.] Where is that economic recovery we were promised? About 400K new jobless this week. The unemployment figures for September will go up a bit. That's not much of an economic recovery.

But let's recall that the tax cuts were never about economic recovery. Bush proposed these cuts back during the 2000 election season, when the economy was still growing robustly and the unemployment rate was far lower.

The purpose of the tax cuts is/was/always will be a reward to the wealthy special interests who have bankrolled Mr Bush's entire political career.

[PennSkinsFan]

Ummm, it is kind of obvious. deficits are bulging larger than at anytime in history, which unfortunately, my generation and my kids will have to pay for.

[jsarno]

I have no opinion thus far since I do not know enough about all the tax cuts to make a true vote.

I will say that my initial reaction is that he's cutting too many taxes.
It reminds me of the commercial (forget who) but this guy is sitting talking to a conselor about a dream he had with a "magic cost cutting sword". By the end of the commercial The counselor said"perhaps there are no more costs to cut, perhaps you should be....more productive."
I feel this is the direction the government should head in. Cutting taxes without fixing the spending is not the answer. It help us right now, sure, but in the long run unless you fix the underlying problem you're just creating a bigger problem.

[Skins57]

This tax cuts were just a way to raise his approval rating, yes it helped some people in the shoort term but it will hurt in the long run.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Spence
I voted NO on the tax cuts, of course. All they've given us is a gigantic budget deficit. [About $500 billion this year and growing. That's by far the largest budget deficit in the history of the human species, by the way.] Where is that economic recovery we were promised? About 400K new jobless this week. The unemployment figures for September will go up a bit. That's not much of an economic recovery.

But let's recall that the tax cuts were never about economic recovery. Bush proposed these cuts back during the 2000 election season, when the economy was still growing robustly and the unemployment rate was far lower.

The purpose of the tax cuts is/was/always will be a reward to the wealthy special interests who have bankrolled Mr Bush's entire political career.

Sorry Spence, but for once you are wrong. Link (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P62344.asp)

[Spence]

Please, Robert. One dude writes a column about a big stock market rally and I'm supposed to get behind tax cuts that have placed a gigantic burden on our national finances.

I still recall that right-wing dope James Glassman writing his book about how the Dow would be at 39,000 by now. How did that work out?

[IowaSkinsFan]

I guess you only see what you want to see. You ask for written proof, someone provides it, you deny it or write it off.

[IowaSkinsFan]

And why do you stoop to name calling "right wing dope"? That's kind of immature, isn't it?

[Spence]

Originally posted by robert11273
I guess you only see what you want to see. You ask for written proof, someone provides it, you deny it or write it off. No, I don't want written proof. There is no such thing as that. Not in this case. The proof is in the pudding [the economy, the deficit, unemployment], not in some column. I'm not writing the column off, I'm just not prepared to believe it right now. I see things quite differently. I'm willing to be persuaded, but we're not even close to that happening.

[Spence]

Originally posted by robert11273
And why do you stoop to name calling "right wing dope"? That's kind of immature, isn't it? Well, I sat in during an interview of Glassman once and when he was asked if he felt silly about his 39,000 prediction [a pretty fair question, I thought, for someone who presents himself as a sober academic], he blew up and acted as if no one has a right to compare his predictions to reality. He didn't get angry at me, but almost everyone in the room was pretty appalled. The "right wing" part is a description of Glassman I think you'd agree with. The "dope" part is just my personal experience with him.

[Chief Seeway]

What "tax cuts"? That's a little vague. Could you be more specific?

[Ford]

If one journalists' opinion was the definitive opinion of the state of the economy .. this would all be easier to understand wouldn't it? Unfortunately that's not the case. Funny thing is ... while the stock market was struggling all I heard were convservatives telling me how the stock market was NOT a good indicator of the economy .. now they're pointing at it as if it proves everything is back to normal. It's been a good quarter in the stock market .. decent year .. but when stocks suffer as much as they did for much of Bush's term, they will correct themselves. Tech stocks and stocks in general were rediculously overpriced, then it came way down, and now it seems to be leveling out some.

[Skinzaholic]

Actually... the decline of the economy during Bush's early tenure can just as easily be blamed on the Clinton Administration. It is a process called "Trickle Down Economics" and has just as much to blame.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Actually... the decline of the economy during Bush's early tenure can just as easily be blamed on the Clinton Administration. It is a process called "Trickle Down Economics" and has just as much to blame.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Skinz, this is the second time I've seen you refer to "trickle down economics" as something other than what it is. Let's get the facts straight.

"Trickle down economics" is a term used by President Ronald Reagan to describe his own economic policy. The idea was that if you give gigantic tax cuts to the wealthy, they will spend more and this wealth will "trickle down" to the rest of society, thus helping everyone. That was the theory, anyway. Didn't seem to work all that well if you consider the massive growth in disparity between the rich and the poor during the 1980s, but that wasn't really the point of it anyway. "Trickle down economics" was never supposed to enrich everyone, just a few people who were already rich. It worked.

If my description of "trickle down economics" bothers you, take it up with Ronald Reagan. I got it straight from him.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
If my description of "trickle down economics" bothers you, take it up with Ronald Reagan. I got it straight from him.


No, your deifinition of "trickle down economics" doesn't bother me... but it is a very limited view (as I am CERTAIN you know). Ronald Reagan didn't invent this term... he simply used it to describe his current tax plan... but the term itself is used to describe exactly what I said... basically that the decisions we make today will affect our economy tomorrow.

I know Im not teaching you anything new due to your background Tom. Definitely not even trying to... but this term is eveident in ANY capitalistic economy whether Republican or Democrat. My point was simply to show that it is illogical to place 100% blame on the current President for the economic crunch during the early part of his term.

Now, if (and a big IF) the Democratic nominee wins the election in 2004... then I will also embrace this definition... even if the economy spirals further due to Bush's mistakes that everyone so loudly points out.

[Ford]

Trickle down economics are a joke. It originated with Alexander Hamilton and has basically been disproven as effective again and again ..

It doesn't mean that the decisions we make today will affect our economy tomorrow .. it basically means that if you put alot of money into the pockets of the rich through tax breaks, etc .. they'll spend it and it will 'trickle down' to the masses like that. Doesn't work if people save their money ..... doesn't work in general.

[Chief Seeway]

I wonder if the people that complain most about the poor state of the economy are those who are least prepared?

Those critics we see in the media... wouldnt it be smarter for these people to prepare themselves rather than count on the government to do it for them?

[PennSkinsFan]

Originally posted by seeway
I wonder if the people that complain most about the poor state of the economy are those who are least prepared?


This comment baffles me. How do you want people to prepare? I am talking about real people, not Oil Tycoons. People who work hard day in and day out for Companies like Enron, who think they are preparing for rainy days and retirement days, only to have friends of Cheney, laugh with their money the whole way tot he bank.

Tom..I know many people who work damn hard, live pay check to pay check, didn't get breaks in life like maybe you and I have, but nonetheless put up a damn hard goo day of work to make CEOs int his Country richer than hell, then when the economy tighen, plants are pulled closed, shut down, empl;oyees are locked out, companies file bankruptcy and employees are left int he cold, while the CEO's continues to get their $35 million stock options.

Take a look at AT&T. A week after they laid all 20,000 workers nationwide, the AT& T chairman received his multi-million dollar bonus.

How can you say people are least prepared?

I agree with ya, there are some out there that are just damn lazy, don't wanna work, andhave money handed to them by a flawed Welfare and Disability system. BUT, there are also people out there that work hard, penny for penny, that wake up in the AM to go to work to find the company gate locked, with no pay check insight, health care gone, pension embezelled. Yet, we somehow say they were not prepared?

[Spence]

Originally posted by seeway
I wonder if the people that complain most about the poor state of the economy are those who are least prepared?

Those critics we see in the media... wouldnt it be smarter for these people to prepare themselves rather than count on the government to do it for them? The elite media doesn't complain about Bushonomics. And why should they? All those talking heads you see on TV every day [especially Sunday]? They're all rich. They're doing quite nicely from Mr Bush's tax cuts. And I guarandamntee you that absolutely none of them has a son or daughter in Iraq. So what do they care?

Seeway, I've also benefitted materially from these tax cuts. I make a good living and don't really worry about money issues very often at all. But I know there are more important things this country needs to be doing than giving tax cuts to people like me. I was doing just fine before and I'm not at all happy about a policy that is designed to pass the debt of my generation down to future generations. It's bad economics and it is downright immoral.

Everyone says they want pro-family policies. Welll, pro-family policies do not include burying our kids under a mountain of debt.

[PennSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Spence
The elite media doesn't complain about Bushonomics. And why should they? All those talking heads you see on TV every day [especially Sunday]? They're all rich. They're doing quite nicely from Mr Bush's tax cuts. And I guarandamntee you that absolutely none of them has a son or daughter in Iraq. So what do they care?

Seeway, I've also benefitted materially from these tax cuts. I make a good living and don't really worry about money issues very often at all. But I know there are more important things this country needs to be doing than giving tax cuts to people like me. I was doing just fine before and I'm not at all happy about a policy that is designed to pass the debt of my generation down to future generations. It's bad economics and it is downright immoral.

Everyone says they want pro-family policies. Welll, pro-family policies do not include burying our kids under a mountain of debt.

Well put.

[Chief Seeway]

Nice point about the tax cuts. Every tax bracket has been reduced 2 to 4 percent. But all of these cuts revert back within 3 to 5 years. (I'll look for the report I read on this) Thats hardly burying our kids. Personally I don't think there should be any income tax. I say use sales, property, and luxury taxes, REAL luxury taxes.

PSF, you referenced large company's going under and locking their gates. People lose their pension, 401k, etc... Thats exactly my point. The days of our fathers and grandfathers working for one company for 30 some odd years, getting the gold watch and a livable pension are over. The American worker is not preparing himself for such events. I dont have the figure in my head, but I'll look for it. I've seen studies that estimate less then 6% of the current work force is prepared for life without or a drastic decrees income whether its from retirement or a layoff. That should scare the hell out of all of us! I'm not going to rely on the Navy, the government, or any corporation to feed me and my family and finance my kids future. I'll take care of that on my own. I trust me.

By the way, I never said if I was for or against the current tax cuts. :cool:

[Chief Seeway]

CORRECTION:

All tax rates above 15% have been lowered by 2% except for the highest, 38.6% has dropped to 35%.

The 15% rate has increased from $46,450 to $56,800 (taxable income)

Also, these rates are set for six years.

[Spence]

Seeway, you forgot to mention that the Bush admin wants to make the cuts permanent. That's burying our kids under a mountain of debt.

[Chief Seeway]

Honestly, I don't know what the Bush admin's plan is. We all know that there will be new tax law/code introduced before these cuts run their tenure.

Also, the child credit of $1000 wil be lowered eventually to $500 in the next few years.