Hey middle class... FUCK YOU!

[VinnieKulick]

It's not a "semantic argument." It's an accurate description of the legilsative process. It's the difference between a temporary tax cut and a permanent tax cut. The tax cuts are expiring because they were passed through reconciliation. The 2001 bill didn't have the 60 votes as the Senate requires and they used budget reconciliation to pass the bill. Bills passed through reconciliation expire after 10 years.

So, people who were previously getting the tax break, who are now going to have a larger burden, are not experiencing an increase in the amount of taxes they are paying? You and I both know it's bullshit to call it anything OTHER than what it is, and what it does.

Bush's 400 billion deficit was during a period of low unemployment. There should have been a surplus during that time. You're forgetting again that we were on Bush's budget until Sept 30, 2009. The 2009 deficit was 1,412.7 trillion. According to the CBO, 85% of the debt in 2009 was due to Bush's budget or programs enacted by his administration (TARP).

And you are again, blaming bush for what he did, and ignoring what Obama is doing. The 1.4 trillion deficit that bush left is almost as much as Obama and the Congress have upped the debt ceiling by. You can spin all you want, but we're further in debt due to obama's spending, than we were before he took office.

People would be a lot better off it they knew what they were talking about instead of whining and constantly playing the victim.

A lot of people would be better off if they didn't keep pointing to the past, and saying something that's happening now is somebody else's fault.

[Ugmo]

So, people who were previously getting the tax break, who are now going to have a larger burden, are not experiencing an increase in the amount of taxes they are paying? You and I both know it's bullshit to call it anything OTHER than what it is, and what it does.

People who were getting the extremely irresponsible, unpaid-for, deficit-inflating tax break implemented by Bush. Don't forget that part!

Anybody who complains about their taxes going up had better not complain about the deficit, because otherwise they are hypocrites.

And you are again, blaming bush for what he did, and ignoring what Obama is doing. The 1.4 trillion deficit that bush left is almost as much as Obama and the Congress have upped the debt ceiling by. You can spin all you want, but we're further in debt due to obama's spending, than we were before he took office.

The federal debt was 10.5 trillion bucks when GWB left office, and that was almost exclusively due to the last three Republican presidents. Where was your outrage over that?

A lot of people would be better off if they didn't keep pointing to the past, and saying something that's happening now is somebody else's fault.

Yeah, but what's happening largely IS someone else's faut. You are placing the blame on the wrong guy, because you can't handle the truth that the Republicans have been the party of fiscal irresponsibility in recent history.

[VinnieKulick]

Ugmo.

If you leave taxes where they are and DONT SPEND AT DEFICIT LEVELS, the deficit stays the same or goes down.

If you lose more money to the government, you have less to spend, less to pay bills with, less to 'stimulate the economy' as it were.
Are we going to have to pull out the misery index again?

And again, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... et.html?hp

If you look at the budget, the "Most important thing we must do", healthcare, gets an 11% cut at the state level. Glad it's so important.

And, saying that the people effected by the tax cuts expiring are somehow benefiting from something shady implies they did something wrong, when they never did. They got a better deal from their government and they make the most of it.

[Ugmo]

If you leave taxes where they are and DONT SPEND AT DEFICIT LEVELS, the deficit stays the same or goes down.

Unless the GDP all of a sudden shrinks by 6 percent. Oops!

If you lose more money to the government, you have less to spend, less to pay bills with, less to 'stimulate the economy' as it were.
Are we going to have to pull out the misery index again?

And again, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... et.html?hp

If you look at the budget, the "Most important thing we must do", healthcare, gets an 11% cut at the state level. Glad it's so important.

And, saying that the people effected by the tax cuts expiring are somehow benefiting from something shady implies they did something wrong, when they never did. They got a better deal from their government and they make the most of it.

That is a myth that has been disproven time and again by EYU. The reality is that the Republicans for decades have run up the deficits by increasing spending and cutting taxes. It is incredibly insincere of you to blame Barry O for the shitstorm his is facing that was actually created by his predecessor.

[UncleTomsCabin]

I have fun laughing at all of you on here and how no one on here knows anything.

[thejuggernaut]

If you leave taxes where they are and DONT SPEND AT DEFICIT LEVELS, the deficit stays the same or goes down.

Unless the GDP all of a sudden shrinks by 6 percent. Oops!

If you lose more money to the government, you have less to spend, less to pay bills with, less to 'stimulate the economy' as it were.
Are we going to have to pull out the misery index again?

And again, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... et.html?hp

If you look at the budget, the "Most important thing we must do", healthcare, gets an 11% cut at the state level. Glad it's so important.

And, saying that the people effected by the tax cuts expiring are somehow benefiting from something shady implies they did something wrong, when they never did. They got a better deal from their government and they make the most of it.

That is a myth that has been disproven time and again by EYU. The reality is that the Republicans for decades have run up the deficits by increasing spending and cutting taxes. It is incredibly insincere of you to blame Barry O for the shitstorm his is facing that was actually created by his predecessor.

What EYU has proven is liberals/Democrats are generally thick as Republicans in how they have fallen for the words of politicians.

In the past 30-40 years, what president has really cut taxes ? off the top of my head, Clinton came the closest to cutting taxes.

[VinnieKulick]

That is a myth that has been disproven time and again by EYU. The reality is that the Republicans for decades have run up the deficits by increasing spending and cutting taxes. It is incredibly insincere of you to blame Barry O for the shitstorm his is facing that was actually created by his predecessor.

Ugmo, if you are now paying say, 20% of your income in taxes, and next week you start having to pay 25% of your income in taxes, have your taxes:
A) Increased
B) Decreased
C) Stayed the Same

And, EYU hasn't proved anything at all.

And for fuck sake, we have all already agreed that the GOP raised spending levels and cut taxes. Nobody is saying that they haven't. Get off that point, and look at the rest of what is going on.
Record spending. Record deficits. It's not because of Bush, the new budget is Obama's doing. The debt ceiling being raised is because of Obama's spending. It's time for him (and his supporters) to take ownership of what he's doing and stop pointing the finger at the guy who hasn't been in office in over a year.

[Ugmo]

Ugmo, if you are now paying say, 20% of your income in taxes, and next week you start having to pay 25% of your income in taxes, have your taxes:
A) Increased
B) Decreased
C) Stayed the Same

A) Increased. And I would be ecstatic if my taxes increased by 5 percent and were still only 25 percent of my income! That being said, I honestly don't bitch about it much, because I just accept that it costs a fuckload of money to run a first-world government. And if I lived in the U.S. I might even possibly be thankful for 6 or 7 years of artificially low taxes and then accept that it's time to pay the piper because of the huge shithole the country is in.

And for fuck sake, we have all already agreed that the GOP raised spending levels and cut taxes. Nobody is saying that they haven't. Get off that point, and look at the rest of what is going on.
Record spending. Record deficits. It's not because of Bush, the new budget is Obama's doing. The debt ceiling being raised is because of Obama's spending. It's time for him (and his supporters) to take ownership of what he's doing and stop pointing the finger at the guy who hasn't been in office in over a year.

I think it is the point though. Why do you insist on taking the worst economic crisis since WWII out of the equation? That stimulus spending is only temporary, and in a couple of years Obama will be back to having to deal with deficits that are hugely inflated because of Bush. The tax cuts, the wars (by the way, did you realize the war costs weren't actually accounted for in Bush's budgets?), the economy (and related tax revenue shortfalls). To me it's just absolutely unrealistic to expect Obama to all of a sudden slash the budget when circumstances simply do not allow it. That's not being fair to Obama, nor would it be responsible for him to try to reduce the deficit in the current circumstances.

What I'm not seeing from you is an admission that Obama is facing a mountain of problems because of Bush. You're basically saying "Okay, Bush was fiscally responsible, but WHY WON'T OBAMA REDUCE THE DEFICIT???" He can't reduce the deficit any time soon because of the shitstorm Bush left him with, you know? I'm not saying "Bush was fiscally irresponsible too, so Obama should be allowed to be fiscally irresponsible", I'm saying Obama has zero maneuverability to reduce the deficit because of the hand he's been dealt.

[VinnieKulick]

Because Bush made horrible policy mistakes, that doesn't negate the fact that spending has increased, and it's not just in the sectors that the stimulus package are paying for.

And, all the talk about Obama being dealt a shitty hand is moot, when he spends more than Bush, and isn't paying down the debt at all.

If some of the tax increases went to paying off old bills instead of paying into new bills, it wouldn't be an issue.

[Ugmo]

Because Bush made horrible policy mistakes, that doesn't negate the fact that spending has increased, and it's not just in the sectors that the stimulus package are paying for.

And, all the talk about Obama being dealt a shitty hand is moot, when he spends more than Bush, and isn't paying down the debt at all.

If some of the tax increases went to paying off old bills instead of paying into new bills, it wouldn't be an issue.

Once again, spending hasn't increased that much over Bush's spending. The major differences in the actual deficit are 1) the terrible economy and resulting tax revenue shortfall and 2) the stimulus programs.

Paying down the debt is illusory - that's not going to happen any time soon, because tax revenues are going to take a while to recover, and the cost of entitlement programs is going to keep increasing forever unless an overhaul takes place (good luck getting that one through Congress).

[VinnieKulick]

You say Bush spent too much. Then acknowledge that Obama has spent just as much, AND THEN MORE.



Lets say, just for argument's sake, that you took a job as the manager of a store.
The last manager ran up say, $200,000 of debt before you were hired.
You knew this before you were hired.

You take the job, and then you not only hire more employees (spending more money) but you also raise your prices across the board.


How long would you be in business?

[Ugmo]

You say Bush spent too much. Then acknowledge that Obama has spent just as much, AND THEN MORE.



Lets say, just for argument's sake, that you took a job as the manager of a store.
The last manager ran up say, $200,000 of debt before you were hired.
You knew this before you were hired.

You take the job, and then you not only hire more employees (spending more money) but you also raise your prices across the board.


How long would you be in business?

Shit, I wanted to let this sleeping dog lie, but I will try to respond to this without prompting further debate:

In Obama's case he didn't know about the 200 beans before he got hired. The economy collapsed towards the end of the presidential race, so tax revenues also plunged to an extent that no one could yet predict while making their campaign promises (in other words, he now can't break his campaign promise not to raise taxes on indivuals making more than 200,000 bucks or families making 250,000, or at least not without major fallout). Between the election and his taking office, the deficit pretty much doubled just by virtue of that. Also your analogy doesn't include a comparable scenario for the recession, which in itself requires further discretionary spending to prevent further job losses and thus further tax revenue shortfalls.