Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

The problem is spending, not revenues. There is no shortage of revenue. There has been a huge surge in entitlement spending. Spending has increased dramatically under Obama and his administration. Raising taxes to support this spending does not put the country on the right course for economic recovery or a substainable future.

We need a strong economy to increase revenues to support the federal coffers to cover downsized government spending at sustainable levels. Keeping the current tax policy is not a tax cut.

Raising taxes will provide a very, very modest boost to revenue and do nothing to offset the spending and entitlement problems the remaining working taxpayers are facing.

Raising taxes will slow the economy. Raising taxes on work and investment will mean less work and investment. True small businesses will be negatively impacted with the proposal to increase their taxes. That is something we can't afford in this country with the unemployment rate looming at near 10 percent.

The trillion dollar stimulus Obama passed didn't stimulate the economy like he promised and now he is playing cover-up and a blame game instead of admitting he was wrong. I can't see how increasing taxes on hard working Americans and entrepreneurs will help Americans get back to work or help the economy recover.

It is disappointing that you have not yet responded to my question about allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those earning more than 250K per year.
I spent a lot of time studying the two lengthy pieces you sent me, responded that they did not show evidence of your points, and you haven't commented about that either.

In this post you have now changed the subject to spending. Within it you are making some huge generalizations (like BBQman, who also got off topic). I refer you to my answer to him about those stimulus plan generalizations.

And finally, in your next post you spent a bunch of space creating a 'make fun' scenario of my suggestion that we all need to contribute, (work together) to get out of this mess. If you are going to do that, I'd prefer you did it by PM rather than publicly.

Once again, I'd like to see even one solid reason why you disagree with my original question.

What is wrong with exempting the wealthiest from the tax cuts and getting this legislation passed?

I don't know how many ways to say it to make you understand what I'm saying. I'll try one more time.

I don't like to see anyone pay one penny of their money to the government in tax dollars that are wasted.

I don't think taking more of anyone's money and giving it to this reckless government will get us back on the right track.

We need to get our spending under control first and foremost. I don't think the solution is "getting this bill passed." I think the solution is getting the economy moving again and taking more money from someone isn't going to get the economy moving again.

The number one reason I don't think it is right to take money from one select group of people is because I don't like this class warfare game that is being played by Obama.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Even though you are not making any attempt to answer my question, I will respond to your enormous generalizations about the stimulus program.

They are completely wrong.

There is ample evidence that the stimulus was essential to prevent what likely would have been the worst depression in history, the failure of hundreds of blue-chip businesses, the resultant market crash that would have made 1929 look puny and unemployment triple or more than what it was last year. No, not everyone is back to work magically in 18 months. That would be impossible. But you would be denying reality if you did not recognize the gains made in the face of our worst crisis in history. All this is due largely to the stimulus plan (and new financial regulations). No, it's not the ideal situation to have the current deficit, but the actions taken were ESSENTIAL!!

This is another assertion that the stimulus program addressed the bank credit crisis. It did not. In another thread, I addressed a similar assertion that confused the successful TARP program with the stimulus program. Here is what I posted in reply to this assertion:

"The troubled asset relief program (TARP) addressed a liquidity crisis in the banking system that required immediate large sums be lent to a number of banks. This crisis had been caused by the 'mortgage for everyone' debacle driven by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac policies. We can argue forever about who did what, but that gets us nowhere.

TARP was put into place during the last three months of the Bush administration. This was done in full consultation with Obama's team and the leaders of Congress. Approximately half of the appropriated funds were used by the Bush administration with the balance left to the Obama administration. TARP did what it was intended to do and stabled the banking and credit system. This was intended to be a program in which the government would receive repayment with interest of the amounts provided. This has been happening and continues to go forth. This was accomplished through a bipartisan effort that should have been the example for what came after.

Unfortunately, this did not happen. The stimulus bill had nothing to do with the banking crisis or the recovery from it. The stimulus bill was far from being a bipartisan approach. Republicans were not consulted as the bill was drafted behind closed doors with no one from either the press or the Republicans present. No news organization,members of the public or member of Congress were given the opportunity to even read the bill, much less provide input before it was put to a vote. This rush was justified by the promise that if the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment would never rise above 8%.

The truth here is that TARP, drafted and administered in a bipartisan manner worked and did prevent a banking and liquidity crisis that could have thrown the US and the rest of the world into a serious recession or even a depression. This action was led by the Bush administration.

The stimulus program was a totally partisan program rammed through by the Obama administration. It has cost approximately one trillion dollars to date and has failed miserably in its intended objectives."

Differentiating between TARP and the stimulus program is essential to understanding what is happening in the US economy today. Once that is understood then we need to come to grips with the fact that cutting government spending not increasing it is the key to economic growth.

BBQman,

I made no reference to TARP.

My views of the benefits of the stimulus spending are as stated. My parenthetical reference to financial regulations referred to the 'strings' attached to stimulus spending, which I think helped make those expenditures more effective.

ps: I like TARP too!

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

What is wrong with exempting the wealthiest from the tax cuts and getting this legislation passed?

I don't know how many ways to say it to make you understand what I'm saying. I'll try one more time.

I don't like to see anyone pay one penny of their money to the government in tax dollars that are wasted.

I don't think taking more of anyone's money and giving it to this reckless government will get us back on the right track.

We need to get our spending under control first and foremost. I don't think the solution is "getting this bill passed." I think the solution is getting the economy moving again and taking more money from someone isn't going to get the economy moving again.

The number one reason I don't think it is right to take money from one select group of people is because I don't like this class warfare game that is being played by Obama.

I agree that pennies are wasted and that shouldn't be. But it's going to happen in an imperfect world and we STILL MUST PAY to have a stable government which protects it's citizens and their opportunity to lead productive, peaceful lives.

We have been "taking peoples' money" for over 200 years. We have ALWAYS had some "ability to pay" differentiation in the tax structure. I'm staying in that context, and just asking if this new wrinkle (expiring credits for 250k's) is a good idea or not.

And forgive me, but I look at statements like "class warfare", and "reckless government" as emotional rather than factual descriptions of our situation. If there is any substance to those descriptors, lay out the facts.

In my view, two hundred years of some form of "ability to pay" nullifies the "class warfare" idea. And there are literally millions of us out there who are relieved that instead of being "reckless", government intervention has provided a job, kept our mutual fund from becoming worthless, stopped some planned terrorist attacks on domestic targets, made BP put 20 billion in the bank, etc., etc.

OK, let's end this. I'll assume that most folks here are finally willing to admit it's not horrific to allow the tax credits for $250K earners to expire.

But you've suggested an interesting next question: Since eighty thousand is a pretty good sample, can you find ANYONE in TV whose life has been negatively changed to a significant degree by action of the reckless Obama administration?

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

I agree that pennies are wasted and that shouldn't be. But it's going to happen in an imperfect world and we STILL MUST PAY to have a stable government which protects it's citizens and their opportunity to lead productive, peaceful lives.

We have been "taking peoples' money" for over 200 years. We have ALWAYS had some "ability to pay" differentiation in the tax structure. I'm staying in that context, and just asking if this new wrinkle (expiring credits for 250k's) is a good idea or not.

And forgive me, but I look at statements like "class warfare", and "reckless government" as emotional rather than factual descriptions of our situation. If there is any substance to those descriptors, lay out the facts.

In my view, two hundred years of some form of "ability to pay" nullifies the "class warfare" idea. And there are literally millions of us out there who are relieved that instead of being "reckless", government intervention has provided a job, kept our mutual fund from becoming worthless, stopped some planned terrorist attacks on domestic targets, made BP put 20 billion in the bank, etc., etc.

OK, let's end this. I'll assume that most folks here are finally willing to admit it's not horrific to allow the tax credits for $250K earners to expire.

But you've suggested an interesting next question: Since eighty thousand is a pretty good sample, can you find ANYONE in TV whose life has been negatively changed to a significant degree by action of the reckless Obama administration?

Pennies are wasted? I would hope you are using hyperbole here.

Show me with historical facts and links to back it up that "We have been 'taking peoples' money' for over 200 years."

You folks are having a good discussion and I noticed this in this morning's WSJ and just inject it into the discussion...

It's the Spending, Stupid

I'm convinced that beneath all the economic turbulence in the land is anxiety that's been building for years as public spending has continued to grow. What was a chronic "concern" has exploded this year into a broad public movement—in Washington, California, New York, New Jersey and indeed across Europe. This isn't "concern," Mr. President. It's a crisis.

In the article, the President is quoted as talking about how he understands the feelings of the voters and said...

""They saw the Recovery Act," he said. "They saw TARP. They saw the auto bailout. And they look at these and think, 'God, all these huge numbers adding up.' So they're right to be concerned about that."

The writer adds this to the President's statement...


"And the president didn't mention the two $3 trillion-plus budgets passed on his watch or the trillion-dollar health-care entitlement. They, the voters, are not "concerned" about Uncle Sam's spending floating toward the moon. They are enraged, furious, crazed and desperate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

Isolating just one thing is not sufficient for this discussion. It is the path we are on !

The federal government is spending more than it takes in.
It is reported they have to borrow 40 of every dollar of new spending.

Spending is....has been....and always will be the problem when more is spent than one has. Whether it be the government or big or small business or your or my check book.

There is only one exception to the profit and loss equation....the federal government spends what it does not have without penalty. They have an open ended credit line. And when all else fails they print more money.

Spending cannot be allowed to surpass income....it is just that simple.

btk

When I read your answer Billy, I see it as a response to the posted question, "What is wrong with exempting the wealthiest from the tax cuts and getting this legislation passed?"

I understand that we all don't think the same way. It was something I pointed out to Villages Kahuna on a discussion that kept going around and around when he couldn't see the answers that were being given. It is that right brain, left brain thing I suppose.

Sometimes I believe it happens, and I am just as guilty as anyone, when we are so set to prove a point and/or to get an expected answer that we don't think outside a particular word.

I read an excellent column by Thomas Sowell, "The Danger of Catchwords." If you shutdown your thinking because a certain word is said or isn't said, like TARP or stimulus or tax cut or tax increase; well as Sowell points out in his coulumn, in the words of philosopher Thomas Hobbes: words are wise men’s counters but they are the money of fools.

Part 1: http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...money_of_fools

Part 2: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-thomas-sowell

Part 3: http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...fools_part_iii

To bk and bucco,

Yes, this has been a good discussion. As I said in my last post, I am now satisfied that there isn't any good reason to allow the tax cuts to expire for the 250k ers.
Dplong did a good job correcting the misconception that small businesses would be hurt, and none of the other fears expressed in the media or by opponents has any real substance.

So, as I also said, let's put this to rest.

About all that spending: If you read my reply to BBQman you will see my view that while I am not happy about the large deficit, I consider it an absolutely essential step to avert the real catastrophe which would have occurred if the government did nothing. The repair did start with TARP in Bush's final days, but the stimulus program has been just as critical.

As I have also said, there is ample evidence, especially in the last 60 days, with unemployment data and production and inventory figures, that the stimulus has flattened out the recession and real gains are being made.

As many alarmists and media attention seekers as there are telling us that "the sky is falling", and that the "end is near" (or here), there are those who study this period, compare it to our history and conclude that we can and will fully recover economically in a relatively short period of time. I consider "short" to mean that I will live to see it.

I believe I will live to see recovery. And really it comes down to what you believe. Hopefully, if you don't believe we will recover, you formed those opinions on the basis of sound study and information rather than sound bites, long-time political preferences with their sweeping generalizations.

So for those of you who oppose, as bk calls it, the "reckless" Obama administration, I will again ask my new question:

Do you know any single person who lives in TV who has suffered any significant financial loss as a direct result of the administration's actions to date?

Looks like the Democrats see the writing on the wall and are leaving Obama's tax increase plan in droves. Where do I get this news? From some right wing news source? How about CNN.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...a-on-tax-cuts/