1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tax cuts

Discussion in 'The OT' started by lee635, May 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    "The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II."

    "If the Administration’s latest tax proposals — which would make permanent most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and establish new tax cuts on top of that — are enacted, the long-term results are likely to be even more troubling. Over the next 10 years, total tax-cut costs will equal $3.9 trillion, reaching nearly $600 billion or 3.3 percent of the economy in 2014 alone. (These calculations include the effects of the higher interest payments caused by the tax cuts.) The resulting higher deficits will slow future economic growth, saddle future generations with sizable interest payments, and leave the nation ill-prepared not only for the retirement of baby boomers but also for responding to potential future crises — from security matters to natural or environmental disasters — the particulars of which are unknown today."

    Center on budget and policy priorities
     
  2. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Those damn borrow-and-spend politicans!
     
  3. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,905
    208
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Hold no illusions that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is an unbiased research and analysis organization. The "center" produces studies and reports that are in full alignment with the liberal democratic agenda.

    From the CBPP website:

    Mission Statement - The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation’s premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.

    The Center conducts research and analysis to inform public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that the needs of low-income families and individuals are considered in these debates.
    (Underlines added)

    It is notable that there was no mention in the report cited by Lee365 above of the beneficial impact tax cuts have on the economy overall, including increased consumer spending, ramping up of manufacturing, and the generation of new tax revenues that ultimately exceed the amount of tax cuts previously made.

    Since "low-income families and individuals", those whom the CBPP seeks to serve, pay few taxes, they were not in a position to initially and directly benefit from tax rebates and cuts. Simply put, if you didn't pay taxes, you didn't get a rebate. A simple concept, but one that was vigorously challenged by low-income groups and democratic politicians.

    The CBPP is not an impartial research organization. It exists solely to support government welfare programs that favor the poor, and to vehemently oppose actions that might tend to diminish the largess of such programs.

    If you think I overstate the CBPP's pro-welfare stance, consider this. Among its pet government welfare programs, the CBPP website lists the following in a box entitled "Special Series":

    - Child Tax Credit
    - Earned Income Tax Credit
    - Housing Voucher Program
    - Medicare Funded) Prescription Drug Legislation
    - State Fiscal Crisis (as relates to a state's financial ability to assist low-income families)
    - TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Reauthorization
    - Unemployment Insurance

    Any CBPP report addressing the effects of the Bush tax cuts or any other fiscal issue should be viewed with a critical eye by any fair-minded individual.
     
  4. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    You want more tax cuts?VOTE OUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!! Localy and nationaly.
     
  5. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,905
    208
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Oh jeez! Did I wake Steve up with my insightful and well-written post? :whatdidid :bang
     
  6. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    It's funny (in a sad way) but yesterday I had a young lady show up at my ministorage business, with two young kids (a son about 6 months and a daughter about two years old) in tow, to rent a space. She wanted to store some personal furnishings and set up a desk for her computer so that she could bring it in once in a while to do some "work". When I had her fill out the paperwork the address she gave was the homeless shelter here in Vero Beach. The phone number given was to her cell phone. As we were talking she said that she is self employed as a "Massage Therapist" and would be bringing the computer over here to work on promotions and advertising away from the shelter. She said she was "looking forward" to eventually getting out of the shelter and getting into some Section 8 welfare supported houseing. Her goal seems to be to go from one form of welfare to another. The nice thing about the homeless shelter here is that it is supported in very large part, if not in full, by private donations rather than a government check. I would prefer to see her remain in the private "charity" sector than go to the government dole. I strongly suspect that about 20 years down from now her kids will probably be traveling down the same road as she is. At least they will have the CBPP speaking for them.
     
  7. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    I think welfare should be abolished all together.Not Social Secuity but welfare!If youre able to work you dont get a free check with free money.I think they should rename welfare to disabilty assistance.If your born disabled with something wrong with you then i think you need assistance from the goverment like food stamps and section 8 housing.But if your able to work and have nothing wrong with you,Then you get an 8 hour a day job and sweat like everyone else.
    So re-elect republicans we pay less taxes and less social programs.
     
  8. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    NOW see what you did, with your narrowminded and self-centered post. :D
     
  9. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Jeez and I just woke him from his nap.
     
  10. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Why was this single mom living in a homeless shelter with her two little kids? Did her husband leave her? Rich, not everyone can go straight from a homeless shelter to their own home. Some need to move up the ladder on their way to recovery. You have absolutely (at least not from what you have told us) proof that she will be in section 8 forever. This woman is working, doing her best to get on her feet, and you condemn her because she is going to need some help along the way. And her children may very well appreciate a mom who got herself on her feet so she could take care of them.
     
  11. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Other comments that she made gave me the impression that she had the kids on her own (so to speak) and by her own choice. I got the impression that there isn't and wasn't a husband on the scene.
     
  12. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    What about the children? Why should they be forced to live under such conditions? The kids didn't make any of these choices?

    I know that's a tough issue to work through over the net, but really, why should the kids be made to suffer for their parents' choices?
     
  13. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Well the children can be put up for adoption of parents cant afford to take care of them.If you cant afford to have children then you shouldnt have them.
     
  14. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    But none of this answers the question of how tax cuts, without spending cuts, are really tax cuts. They are simply spending future dollars without regard as to where those dollars will come from. Borrow-and-spend is far worse than tax-and-spend in that it delays the pain and lures people in a false sense of getting something for nothing. A tax cut without a spending cut is essentially gubbamint welfare.

    If we need to fund a war, lets fund it right with current income and not burden future generations with incredible debt.
     
  15. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,905
    208
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    No A tax rebate is a return of monies that were withheld from a wage-earners paycheck. A tax cut simply means that taxpayers won't have to pay in as much. It's not the gubbamint's money to begin with. If the dems would match Bush's tax cuts with federal spending cuts, then the budget could be balanced.

    Remember, a dollar returned to the taxpayer and subsequently spent will multiply itself as it circulates through the economy. Additional taxes will be collected from that dollar, and jobs will be created as consumer demand is increased. Your basic economics.
     
  16. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    I guess the kids should be taken away and placed with "parents" who make wiser choices.
     
  17. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Its my money!! I should decide how its spent.Not bureaucrats!
     
  18. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Nick, just a small reminder that the Republicans are now in control of both the Senate and the House plus the White House. Why is it the Democrats responsibility to cut spending? The Republicans seem to be doing a fine job of spending themselves. Are you admitting that the Republicans are the uncles who generously give the kids whatever they want, while the Democrats are actually the responsible adults who have to make sure the budget comes out right?
     
  19. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Where are the spending cut proposals from the Republicans, who control both houses of Congress and the White House?
     
  20. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    For the Democrats to correct the spending problems in this nation we are going to have to elect more Democrats.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page