How to avoid a lost decade

[Denny Crane]

blazerboy30 better quit while you're ahead.

FIFY

 

[blazerboy30]

Republicans had 2 reasons to include the SS cut: 1) It was a pretty ornament so they could say the middle class was getting a cut too. 2) The revenue cut moved up the year that SS will run out of money, so Republicans had new propaganda ammo to call for SS cuts. You notice they immediately followed this SS revenue cut with increased calls for future SS payout cuts.

So you're complaining about following a revenue cut with a spending cut? Didn't you say you were an accountant?

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama demanded the SS cuts in exchange for not vetoing the extension of Bush tax cuts. And those Bush tax cuts applied to everyone who pays taxes, not just the "rich."

 

[MARIS61]

And those Bush tax cuts applied to everyone who pays taxes, not just the "rich."

Bet you can't say that with a straight face.

 

[Denny Crane]

Another Mellon Scaife owned mouthpiece, CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

What happens on Jan. 1 if Congress does nothing?

Everyone's federal income and investment tax rates will go back up to where they were before the 2001 tax cuts were passed. In other words, your tax bill next year would increase.

If the tax cuts do expire and tax rates go up, you may notice the difference in your wallet as early as January, when your employer starts to withhold more taxes from your paycheck.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that a married couple with two kids under 13 and a household income of roughly $75,000 could end up paying about $2,600 more in federal income taxes next year than they would if the tax cuts were extended.

 

[MARIS61]

Your link is nearly a year old, before the cuts for the rich were extended. I question it's accuracy and relevance to something that might happen another 6 months from now.

The example they cite is laughable and deceptive.

Taxes stay the same or disappear entirely for most Americans.

 

[MARIS61]

A more accurate and less deceptive way to read that graph is in reverse, since the numbers on the right are what was the norm before Bush changed it.

Reading backwards shows clearly who the 1.1 trillion went to.

 

[jlprk]

Obama demanded the SS cuts in exchange for not vetoing the extension of Bush tax cuts.

That was the cover story he arranged with Republican leadership. I gave 2 ways Republicans benefited from their supposed concession. The fake compromise was window dressing.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

What happens on Jan. 1 if Congress does nothing? Everyone's federal income and investment tax rates will go back up to where they were before the 2001 tax cuts...a married couple with two kids under 13 and a household income of roughly $75,000 could end up paying about $2,600 more

This would return us to the halcyon days of the late 1990s, when the entire national deficit was a decade away from completely vanishing. If we could return to then, the $75,000 guy would find that in the improved economy, unemployment would disappear before the decade was out, he'd develop triple the customers, and he'd be making a lot more than when his taxes had been lower.

If conservatives could have just waited out the decade, they'd now have untold riches to squander on wars and tax cuts for the rich. That era would have started a decade after Republicans destroyed the surplus, right now. But they just couldn't wait to cash in. Their priorities are--their immediate bank accounts, ahead of the national good or even their own long-term wallets. If we cut social security now, the deficit won't change, because Republicans will again wipe out any surplus with a tax cut for themselves. Same as last time.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your link is nearly a year old, before the cuts for the rich were extended. I question it's accuracy and relevance to something that might happen another 6 months from now.

The example they cite is laughable and deceptive.

Taxes stay the same or disappear entirely for most Americans.

My time frame of my link was right before Obama and republicans agreed to extend the tax cuts. The analysis is correct, as was mine - that everyone's taxes were affected by those cuts.

 

[blazerboy30]

Your link is nearly a year old, before the cuts for the rich were extended. I question it's accuracy and relevance to something that might happen another 6 months from now.

The example they cite is laughable and deceptive.

Taxes stay the same or disappear entirely for most Americans.

Silly, uninformed Maris. Most Americans (over 50%) don't pay any Federal Income Tax anyway. You want them to pay less than zero?

 

[MARIS61]

My time frame of my link was right before Obama and republicans agreed to extend the tax cuts. The analysis is correct, as was mine - that everyone's taxes were affected by those cuts.

Affected, yes, but not proportionately nor fairly.

The rich got massively richer, the poor got a recession that threatens to destroy their country.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Half of American households got a 30% reduction in the amount of money they pay the government. What more do you want?