Do you want the BUSH ERA tax cuts to be extended?
Drue-AFCL
2012/07/10 03:28:50
|
|
|||||
|
35 votes
|
|
83% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
17% | |||
Top Opinion
-
Laura Lovegood 2012/07/10 03:31:23
In fact if we could lower them some more or institute the FairTax we would be way better off.
Besides that, a lack of demand in the economy is the big problem for the US right now (it is one of the main problems that is leading to a slump in Chinese exports and creating inflationary pressure back in the US), not that taxes are too high; not on top earners, at least, and extending middle class tax cuts or increases in tax credits would be a good way to boost it.
if your revenues drop, any prudent manager would cut spending. amazingly, our spending went up.
America had a $1.35tn surplus when Bush came to power and was poised to pay off its entire national debt by 2013. Bush then instituted his tax cuts, wiped out the surplus, increased spending and the deficit ballooned. Obama inherited a massive structural deficit as a result but managed to ensure that any further increases were kept to a minimum (with Obama presiding over the slowest rate of growth in spending since the Depression), with spending set to start coming down this fiscal year. The numbers speak for themselves.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
that projected surplus was over 10 years. as you can see by today's budgeting, looking out 10 years is absolutely meaningless. we can't budget for the next year. forget 2, 5 or 10.
Bush's increased spending amounted to about $200B/year. it really jumped up when the bubble burst. all said and done, he added $4.4T to the national debt over 96 months. Obama is on track to have added $5.5T to the national debt in 48 months.
LOL! Obama's got the slowest rate of growth... can't you tell when you're being played? or are you trying to tell me that $1 TRILLION plus deficits are the new normal? if he was half the president we needed, he'd have spending down to where Bush ran it for most of Bush's term.
but that's not going to happen. big deficit spending buys constituencies and constituencies vote.
the numbers speak, alright. official unemployment is stuck at 8.2%, and the only thing saving Obama's ass there is the fact that more people are leaving the work force than are getting hired. if those people stayed in and kept looking for work, that official rate would have been climbing these last two months. unofficially, the unemploy...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
that projected surplus was over 10 years. as you can see by today's budgeting, looking out 10 years is absolutely meaningless. we can't budget for the next year. forget 2, 5 or 10.
Bush's increased spending amounted to about $200B/year. it really jumped up when the bubble burst. all said and done, he added $4.4T to the national debt over 96 months. Obama is on track to have added $5.5T to the national debt in 48 months.
LOL! Obama's got the slowest rate of growth... can't you tell when you're being played? or are you trying to tell me that $1 TRILLION plus deficits are the new normal? if he was half the president we needed, he'd have spending down to where Bush ran it for most of Bush's term.
but that's not going to happen. big deficit spending buys constituencies and constituencies vote.
the numbers speak, alright. official unemployment is stuck at 8.2%, and the only thing saving Obama's ass there is the fact that more people are leaving the work force than are getting hired. if those people stayed in and kept looking for work, that official rate would have been climbing these last two months. unofficially, the unemployment rate is somewhere north of 10%. U6 is probably a more accurate number, and its not 8.2%.
GDP growth is sub 2%. and when the taxpocolypse hits on 1/1/13, we're right back in the recessionary crapper.
face it. he's a divisive incompetent that has nothing. he's going down in November...
Well, budgeting projections have historically been useful tools in terms of future budgeting and creating parameters of success (despite the issue of time lags creating some need for revision, of course). It is only really been of late where the have become more volatile.
It is the slowest rate of spending increases as a percentage of the previous fiscal year. It is the highest nominal deficit, but slowest year on year percentage growth.
I wholly agree that unemployment is very high and static and he hasnt been successful in tackling that thusfar. However, it seems to by systemic at present and is shared by all western economies affected by the crisis, whether they are borrowing more or cutting.
I dont think he is incompetent, I just think no-one has an answer to this crisis yet. Things will be no better under Romney or anyone else.
But, back to the original point, I dont think the Bush-era tax cuts should be retained.
i know the democrats seem to take some comfort in saying that, but who could predict what the economy would do after 9/11? or the bubble bursting.
that 'surplus' was a guess, and one that REQUIRED everything to happen per the projection.
cmon. slowest rate of growth? if my wife doubled our household spending and tried to tell me that, 'well, it hasn't doubled again,' we'd be having words.
why would you give that argument a second of credence?
its systemic because Obama has a 'war on capital.' until he gets his jackboot off capital's neck, its never going to get any better. we are unlike the rest of the world. we have the ability to fix ourselves. he/democrats have prevented it
he's had four years and, as you say, he has no answers.
times up.
next guy.
tax revenue is not the problem. spending is.
the 'good paying' jobs went away because of automation.
you might want to listen to people other than democrats. they aren't doing you any favors...