Should the Bush Tax cuts be made permanent?

[PRICEPLUS]

Should the Presidents tax cuts be made permanent? Why? Why not?

[VJW]

Originally Posted by PRICEPLUS

Should the Presidents tax cuts be made permanent?

Should I not stop hitting you in the head with a hammer ?

Why?

Because they’ve been dismal failures, unless the intent was to allow his wealthy friends to back trucks up to the Treasury Department and haul off massive amounts of our nation’s wealth.

#

[Optsol]

No, not with the current debt & deficit. They were certainly assistive to me, but I would have rather been paying into a surplus condition to reduce the debt.

[PRICEPLUS]

VJW,

I take it you really don't like Bush et al. Oh, please! No more hammers on the head! Just asking a question and not looling for an argument!

[VJW]

Heh heh.

Don’t like or dislike him. I feel sorry for him. I do dislike the failed policies immensely.

Over the past five years, there have been four rounds of tax cuts, all of which overwhelmingly benefited the Rich & Corporate. The result has been that there are MORE jobless workers in our national economy, Poverty has increased each of those five years, wages of the vast majority of workers have gone backwards, and there are MASSIVE record high federal deficits.

The record indicates the policy is a dismal failure.

#

[PrincessPerky]

You mean should I start paying extra because I am married again? those tax cuts I like!

is it possible to leave just that one?

[VJW]

I’m highly doubtful that you actually accrued any benefit from the ill-named “Marriage Penalty” tax cut, as the vast overwhelming majority of couples actually pay LESS taxes because they are married and file jointly. The only group that COULD have paid higher taxes was a tiny fraction of the couples who are dual high-income taxpayers, but even they could have avoided any extra tax simply by filing under ‘Married Filing Separately’.

Just ANOTHER benefit for the wealthy.

#

[Fern]

have to agree with VJW. Bush has done little to benefit everyday Americans who don't enjoy lifetime health insurance, security, parking privileges and other freebies that he and elected politicians enjoy.

[jmjj215]

I want to see the govt. act under a surplus. I don't want to see taxes raised (though I would like to see self-employed individuals get a break from the huge SE tax - I'm totally biased there), and I want to see spending under control. I don't like being owned (through debt) by foreign governments and having to pay it back because the politicians before us couldn't keep a lid on spending.

[PrincessPerky]

hmm I must be the only weirdo right on the poverty line who benifited then. (and I am poor enough to get WIC and free medical care, and prolly some food stuff too, havn't checked for food - I sais I could not that II take any of it - but I am definatly NOT in the 'wealthy' group.)

[Fern]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

hmm I must be the only weirdo right on the poverty line who benifited then. (and I am poor enough to get WIC and free medical care, and prolly some food stuff too, havn't checked for food - I sais I could not that II take any of it - but I am definatly NOT in the 'wealthy' group.)

weren't these programs in place before 2001?

[VJW]

Originally Posted by jmjj215

I want to see the govt. act under a surplus. I don't want to see taxes raised

Those two are currently mutually exclusive.

You could not possibly create a surplus with spending cuts. You could shut down large parts of the federal government, close all the federal prisons, shut down the federal courts, etc., and still not even come close, as almost 2/3rds of the federal budget is comprised of spending on the Military Industrial Complex and interest on the Reagan/Bush/Bush federal debt.

Federal tax revenue recently plummeted to 1959 levels because of the massive four rounds of tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate. Outside of Social Security, current federal revenue covers less than 68% of the current total government spending by the federal government.

There is no there there as far as arriving at a surplus by cutting spending.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

hmm I must be the only weirdo right on the poverty line who benifited then.

If your income is that low, then you didn’t benefit from the so-called ‘Marriage Penalty’ removal tax. You likely saw a reduction from the bottom tax rate dropping from 15% down to 10%, although there is no actual 10% rate, it is basically a virtual rate. Long story.

#