Xantheus Diabolus wrote:
Fiscal responsiblity starts with the government.
you spell it responsibility, and your correct, we have not seen that out of government in the last 20+ years
Xantheus Diabolus wrote:
I don't know what Devil's problem is with liberals or any apparently non-conservative view. Perhaps it's his/her apparent lack of an education that would allow proper spelling and grammar and any sense.
Wow I expected the flame but to go after a guy's grammar & spelling with out knowing him is something that I would have not expected. F.Y.I. I have a Masters Degree in Computers, I also have Dyslexia. But we are not going there.
What I said is that it funny that you attack the writer as being a hack, when he stated nothing but the truth then you attacked me when I pointed that out.
Xantheus Diabolus wrote:
Conservatives say the proper way to stimulate the economy and make things better is to cut taxes. Am I really supposed to believe that the best way to encourage the American people is to reduce the amount of money coming in to the government and increase the budget deficit? What example does this set?
Bobby Jindal himself said last night we need to cut taxes to make things better.
Quote:
That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses,
That's right, reduce the amount of money coming into the federal government.
Quote:
Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need?
Wait, doesn't increasing the budget deficit by reducing the amount of taxes coming in do just that? It has worked so well in Louisiana.
Quote:
In Louisiana, we took a different approach. Since I became governor, we cut more than 250 earmarks from our state budget. And to create jobs for our citizens, we cut taxes six times -- including the largest income tax cut in the history of our state.
And the result of those tax cuts??
Quote:
Louisiana lawmakers grappling with an expected $1.2 billion drop in state tax income next year could get a partial bailout from Washington, but state senators were told Thursday that the federal money won't fill all the gaps.
So they have gone from a budget surplus to a budget deficit. Am I missing where this looks like a brilliant idea? Add to that the fact that Jindal doesn't want to accept the bailout money. This guy is a genius!
Quote:
In 2006, the highest-income 20 percent of Louisiana residents (those with income above $90,000) paid 7.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while the bottom 20 percent paid 12.1 percent — an effective tax rate one and a half times as large.
Absolutely brilliant tax plan. Definitely one we should model our federal income tax system around.
I just don't understand how conservatives criticize the bailout because it spends so much money on things, yet they want to cut taxes and reduce the amount of income for the federal government. At least in the case of a bailout we get something for our money in the form of programs whose intention is to create some more jobs. Tax cuts can give more money to the family that is already working and bringing in money, but it really doesn't do that much to create jobs except in the case of significant tax cuts for businesses and mostly large businesses. That's the conservative's view though. Cut taxes for the big businesses and HOPEFULLY they will hire more workers, therefore trickling some of those cuts down to the little guy. That shit does not work.
So If I read this right you saying that tax cuts accost the board don't work because of Louisiana?
here are some other places you should look.
[2] Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006), pp. 25–26, Table 1.3, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... f/hist.pdf (January 16, 2007), with final 2006 revenue figures added in.
[3] According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the 1980s recession ended in fiscal year (FY) 1983 (November 1982), the 1990s recession ended in FY 1991 (March 1991), and the early 2000s recession ended in FY 2002 (November 2001). National Bureau of Economic Research, "US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions," at
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html (January 16, 2007).
[4] See Brian M. Riedl, "Federal Spending: By the Numbers," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 989, February 6, 2006, at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm989.cfm.
[5] See Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2001–2010," January 2000, p. xvi, Summary Table 2, at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/18xx/doc1820/e&b0100.pdf (January 16, 2007). The January 2000 baseline projected that 2006 tax revenues would reach $2,465 billion, and they instead reached $2,407 billion. The same baseline projected that 2006 spending would reach $2,140 billion, and it actually totaled $2,654 billion.
[6] See Congressional Budget Office, "An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2004," March 2003, p. 36, Table 4, at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/41xx/doc4129 ... -Final.pdf (January 16, 2007). The March 2003 baseline projected that 2006 tax revenues would reach $2,360 billion, and they instead reached $2,407 billion. That same baseline projected that 2006 spending would reach $2,417 billion, and it actually totaled $2,654 billion.
[7] While the March 2001 baseline was the last created before the tax cuts, it does not provide a realistic baseline for measuring subsequent policies. This baseline assumed that the stock market bubble would continue, and the CBO consequently projected that revenues would stay above 20.2 percent of GDP indefinitely, even though that level had been reached only once since World War II. The January 2000 baseline more accurately reflected future economic performance.
[8] See Arthur B. Laffer, "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1765, June 1, 2004, at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm.
[9] Edward C. Prescott, "Why Do Americans Work So Much More Than Europeans?" Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, Vol. 28, No. 1 (July 2004), at
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr2811.pdf (January 16, 2007).
[10]For early projections, see Congressional Budget Office, "An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2004." For actual figures, see Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008–2017," January 2007, p. 86, Table 4-3, at
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7731&sequence=0 (January 25, 2007).
[11] Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D., and Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., "What Is Really Happening to Government Revenues: Long-Run Forecasts Show Sharp Rise in Tax Burden," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1957,July 28, 2006, at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/ ... g_1957.pdf. This is based on data from Congressional Budget Office, "The Long-Term Budget Outlook," December 2005, at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6982 ... utlook.pdf (January 16, 2007). These baselines do not assume that lawmakers will adjust the AMT threshold. If the Bush tax cuts are made permanent and the AMT is adjusted annually, the CBO's 2050 revenue projections are 19.8 percent of GDP, which is still well above the historical average.
[12] Congressional Budget Office, "The Long-Term Budget Outlook." The CBO's "low tax and intermediate spending" scenario projects that federal spending will reach 37.7 percent of GDP by 2050. Even that may be a large underestimate. See Brian M. Riedl, "Entitlement-Driven Long-Term Budget Substantially Worse Than Previously Projected," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1897, November 30, 2005, at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget ... 6356_1.pdf.
[13] Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, pp. 25–26, Table 1.3, and Internal Revenue Service, "U.S. Individual Income Tax: Personal Exemptions and Lowest and Highest Bracket Tax Rates, and Tax Base for Regular Tax, Tax Years 1913– 2005," at
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histaba.pdf (January 16, 2007).
[14] Figures include child credit outlays. Heritage Foundation calculations using Joint Committee on Taxation scores of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, and Tax Increase Prevention and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2005.
[15]See Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D., "Lowering Marginal Tax Rates: The Key to Pro-Growth Tax Relief," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1443, May 22, 2001, at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443.cfm.
[16] U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA Tables, Table 1.1.1, revised December 21, 2006, at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp (January 16, 2007); Yahoo Finance, "S&P 500 Index," at
http://www.finance.yahoo.com/ q/hp?s=%5EGSPC (January 16, 2007); and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)," at
http://www.data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Sur ... ol=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth (January 16, 2007).
[17] Scott A. Hodge, "40 Million Filers Pay No Income Taxes, Many Get Generous Refunds," Tax Foundation Fiscal Facts No. 6, June 5, 2003, at
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/207.html (January 16, 2007).
[18] Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004," December 2006, at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=7718&type=1 (January 17, 2007).
Bovinity Divinity wrote:
I don't entirely agree or disagree with that.
I do believe that, as the wealthiest nation in the world, we do owe our citizens fair, equitable and effective health care. That's not a luxury, it just makes sense.
I agree I just don't want to pay for anybody's but my own.
Bovinity Divinity wrote:
As for the last part...I do believe that if you work hard, don't spend completely irresponsibly, and try to make your family's life better that you do deserve to be well off and be able to retire at a decent age.
But all too often that's not even the case, it's almost depressing to look ahead 40 years and see people that worked their ass off all their life and see that they'll probably just have to keep on working because of a shitty economy, or a company ganking their retirement funds, or their place of work cutting their strings a year before they're eligible for full retirement, etc etc.
I agree with that it is very unfortunate , but no where does it say that it's your given right as an American to be able to retire.
Bovinity Divinity wrote:
The whole "work hard" mindset is great...but at the risk of sounding like a bank commercial, if I'm going to work hard I want my employer/government/etc to work hard for me. All too often that's just not the case.
Agree they all need to work hard too.
Bovinity Divinity wrote:
It's no wonder we as a nation have become very individualistic and selfish...there's this feeling that you almost HAVE to be in order to survive.
I also agree with this, I bust my ass to save and get a 30 year mortgage on a house and that bitch in California who is having kids like a mouse does nothing and is getting a 1.6 million dollar house, and the tax payers are footing the bill.
