For those who ask (what I believe is) the silly question of how will we “pay for” tax cuts, the answer can be found here:
The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday’s numbers provided a “continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy.”
“In fact, Friday’s gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation’s history – 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year,” Quarles said in a statement.
Short version: they pay for themselves.
Who’s paying for this war with Iraq we are not having?
Oh and as for me and my wife our gross income was about $225,000 in 2006 and the value of our 2 properties is about $1.2 million and about $500,000 in retirement funds to date.
Why do libs always have to bring up that they are wealthy? While championing the “little guy”?
Keep your liberal guilt to yourself, nuir. If you want to pay more in taxes, go ahead. Or donate to the causes that move you. But keep you hands off of my wallet. Esp since it is smaller than yours.
muirgeo I really doubt someone with your venom actually earns what you claim you do. looks like you are suffering from a severe case of class envy.
if we follow your logic that republicans are on the hook for portion of the national debt that you would apportion to them, then we ought to balance bill democrats/socialists for the services that debt paid for.
if the ceo makes 300 times what the janitor makes, so what? there are a lot more qualified janitors than ceo’s. there is no socialist clause in the constitution. it’s not the government’s role to redistribute wealth and it’s not it’s role to tell me on what and who’s goods I have to purchase.
perhaps it’s time to abolish the secret vote and tax people on the way they vote, putting your money where your mouth is. vote left, pay left rates. funny thing, who would of ever thought that Reagan and Bush are the most successful socialist politicians in our history. together they have taken half the country effectively off the income tax roles yet reaping the benefit of the other halves’s taxes to the non payers.
“Jimmy Carter oversaw one in the 1970’s that featured the “triple doubles” of double-digit inflation rates, unemployment, and interest rates…” — Jay Tea
Let this provide yet another example to the reader for being cautious about believing what Jay Tea writes. The unemployment rate NEVER hit double digits during the Carter years, the highest it ever got was 7.8 percent in July, 1980.
The unemployment rate did however hit double digits during the Reagan presidency, reaching as high as 10.8 percent during November and December of 1982, and staying double-digits for ten months in a row.
The source for my information comes from http://www.bls.gov , a good place for Jay Tea to visit, rather than rely on his jaded memory.
tell me who was in charge the years prior to the great depression of 1929 and the depression of 1893?
I lost a house and 2 jobs during the disastrous presidency that was Jimmy Carter’s. Unemployment remained high at 7.5 percent; and volatile interest rates reached a high of 20 percent. Fortunately, I was a young man without a family of my own, so I came through okay. My father, as millions of other Americans, never recovered. Now you have the temerity to refer to depressions that occurred before my birth, while ignoring an economic fiasco that affected more people living today. And that, friends, represents the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that is liberalism. Every last one of them gleefully performs a’la Lewinsky at the crotches of their gods and will not acknowledge the least imperfection in them. Go ahead. Swallow, bitches.
I’m changing your name to “muerto – from the neck up”.
“The American People for the most part don’t give two shits about China’s MFN status, to be honest…hell, some of them would be hard pressed to find China on a map.” — James Cloninger
Thank you, James, for providing an excellent reason why the government needs to spend more on education.
“but it has been proven time and time again that when tax rates are cut, the economy is stimulated and revenue increases.” — Lorie Byrd
Ah, the Laffer curve argument again, an argument whose “reasoning” is beloved by conservatives everywhere: the notion that the best way to for the federal government to gain money is to deprive itself of money. Well, let’s suppose you buy into this Laffer curve stuff (which I don’t). Even then, unless you believe that by cutting taxes 99.9 percent the government would wind up as a quadrillionaire, you must concede that it’s possible for a proposed tax cut to be simply too much. Well, then, couldn’t the Bush tax cuts be too excessive?? Most likely the ten Nobel Laureates in Economics who supported Kerry in the last election would say that they were, favoring instead a smaller tax cut (as Clinton left a federal-budget surplus) that would have gone primarily to the middle class.
And now we’re stuck with a quarter-of-a-trillion dollar deficit.
Thanks a lot, conservatives.
Herman unless your in the top 20 per cent your not stuck with paying for anything. Your just not sufficiently brazen to admit that your problem with the national debt is that to the extent my taxes that are paying for it is funds that aren’t being used to provide you with even more benefits. Would you be happy if spending were cut enough to provide a surplus and apply the surplus to debt reduction?
“If he [FDR] was not President, the Depression would neither have lasted nearly as long nor been nearly as lengthy.”
“Unemployment wouldn’t have averaged 14% for EIGHT YEARS of his tenure as President and only drop below 10 when the war started.”
And what exactly was the unemployment rate under FDR’s Republican predecessor??? Got an answer, Mike? Well???
Hoover’s strategy for dealing with the Great Depression was to do nothing. Not surprisingly, nothing came as a result. The American electorate didn’t appreciate Hoover’s strategy, and so in the 1932 election he was trounced.
Under FDR, the unemployment rate went down over time. And the American public re-elected FDR by large margins in both 1936 and 1940.
Now you might argue that doing nothing would have been the wisest strategy for an incoming president in 1933, but let’s just say that the American people at the time had seen what years of doing nothing had accomplished, and had come to believe in Shakespeare’s maxim: “nothing will come of nothing.” They couldn’t afford to take any chances, Mike; do you blame them?
Thank you, James, for providing an excellent reason why the government needs to spend more on education.
No, it’s an excellent reason to hire teachers who are more interested in teaching than tenure or salary perks. Shit, how much money you think we throw at education now? It hasn’t done much good.
“Herman unless your in the top 20 per cent your not stuck with paying for anything. Your just not sufficiently brazen to admit that your problem with the national debt is that to the extent my taxes that are paying for it is funds that aren’t being used to provide you with even more benefits.”
Warren Buffett, the 2nd-wealthiest individual in the world, has denounced the Bush tax cuts as “voodoo” and as “welfare” for the rich. So while you might assume about me, cubanbob, that I’m personally receiving all kinds of “benefits,” (of which I’m unaware), you surely must see that opposition to the tax cuts can be based on the idea that they are bad for the economy.
perhaps it’s time to abolish the secret vote and tax people on the way they vote, putting your money where your mouth is. vote left, pay left rates.
Posted by: cubanbob
That’s the whole point you fool. The deficit spending is almost all from republican Presidents and the recent Republican control government has spent $3.5 Trillion more then it collected…GOT IT? Dim bulb…that’s a fact that doesn’t jive with you BS.
“Jimmy Carter oversaw one in the 1970’s that featured the “triple doubles” of double-digit inflation rates, unemployment, and interest rates…” — Jay Tea
Let this provide yet another example to the reader for being cautious about believing what Jay Tea writes. The unemployment rate NEVER hit double digits during the Carter years, the highest it ever got was 7.8 percent in July, 1980.
Posted by: Herman
Likewise Carter walked into a post vietnam economy not much of his own making.
Would you be happy if spending were cut enough to provide a surplus and apply the surplus to debt reduction?
Posted by: cubanbob
I would have LOVED for the Bush and the Republican Congress to deeply cut into Medicare, Social Security Benifits and Education funding…….they’d of been OUT ON THEIR ASSES in 2004 had they done so because most Americans support those programs.
Instead this Administration takes the most cowardly way. Tax cuts mostly for the rich and increased deficit spending mostly going to corporate welfare.
AND BOZO’S like you think you got a tax cut when in fact all that happened was that Bush and you borrowed money to make rich welfare sluts richer and so YOUR KIDS can pay back the debt….DERN FOOL!!!!
You don’t deserve democracy….go find yourself somewheres were you can Serf for an already established Monarchy…..we threw those Kings and Queens out long ago and you’re ready to let them back….ding dong!
No, it’s an excellent reason to hire teachers who are more interested in teaching than tenure or salary perks. Shit, how much money you think we throw at education now? It hasn’t done much good.
Posted by: James Cloninger
We spend far less per student then it cost to send them to a private school. What did we get for it????Are you kidding? Aren’t we the worlds only superpower? Don’t we contribute disproportionately to the worlds innovation and technological advancement.
Now the system is crumbling as we fritter our money away to corporations and useless wars and to people who don’t like our biased teaching agenda about a world older then 6,000 years.
muirgeo were you born an idiot or is this a recent affliction? why is it the only solution to government deficits is raising taxes? why not cut spending for a change? first public schools are largely financed by local property taxes not federal taxes, so what has that have to do with federal income taxes. Social security and medicare as per fdr and lbj are insurance schemes, paid for by levies on payrolls, not income taxes. personally I would prefer to end the fraud and means test this welfare scheme. you have a problem with that?
being the owner of my business and having paid nearly 170 thousand in ss “contributions” for my “account” and with 20 years more to go in “contributions” frankly I would rather have put my money towards a better retirement plan.
Herman get a grip. under our system everybody “benefits” equally from government services and spending that is why taxes are not a la carte.
muirgeo were you born an idiot or is this a recent affliction? why is it the only solution to government deficits is raising taxes? why not cut spending for a change?
Posted by: cubanbob
Good question. Why not discuss this with the Republicans who are spending out of control?
muirgeo your point being what? democrats cutting spending? I wish we had real republicans instead of rino but the democrat/marxist alternative is even worse.
Herman I am amazed you fell for Warren Buffet’s bullshit. Your confusing revenue with income. Not all dollars are taxed the same. Ask that sanctimonious oracle if he wouldn’t mind if all his revenue were taxed at the ordinary income tax rate that the top end paid under Clinton. Then watch him disassemble and squirm. It’s easy to be noble when a rather large part of your revenue is tax free, tax deferred or exempt or subject to the capital gains rate of 15% instead of the much higher combined federal/state rate. Another super rich hypocrite passing himself off as a man of the people.
Mike during the 50’s and 60’s we had a golden age. The middle class was as strong as ever. A single income could support the whole family. Life expectancy rose dramatically. Poverty diminished. Elders had social security. The debt to GDP fell consistently. A kid could actually pay his way through most collages with a basic job.
1) You have no right, whatsoever, to any Social Security benefits. Don’t fool yourself.
2) Just because things went well in the 1950’s does not excuse FDR’s record.
Unemployment rate between 1934 and 1941? An AVERAGE of 14%.
Blacks lost jobs more than anybody else, thanks to the labor laws and forced unionization.
FDR used the public works programs almost exclusively (studies indicate that roughly 80% of the public funding under FDR can be attributed to politics) as a means of assuring his re-election.
He drove up prices, ignorantly believing that
higher wages would stop a depression.
He made owning gold illegal. Why? Because he believed rising gold prices CAUSED an increase in the prices for other goods, which is a patently moronic theory.
He made charging a rate for a service lower than the mandated gov’t rate a crime (one drycleaner was in jail for 3 months for pressing a suit for 5 cents less than the gov’t-mandated rate).
He produced farm policies that only benefitted rich farmers and led to increased hunger.
The TVA actually RETARDED growth in the Tennessee Valley Area and produced one of the bigger boondoggles in the gov’t.
He used executive orders more than any President since. Hell, He used them more than all of the following ones COMBINED.
Thank you, James, for providing an excellent reason why the government needs to spend more on education.
If spending a shitload doesn’t produce a worthy result — perhaps the system is the problem.
Why can’t the poor have the same rights that Democratic pols hold for themselves?
And what exactly was the unemployment rate under FDR’s Republican predecessor??? Got an answer, Mike? Well???
Let’s discuss FDR’s disastrous performance, as nobody holds Hoover up as a great President.
Hoover’s strategy for dealing with the Great Depression was to do nothing.
Factually inaccurate. Several of his ideas were actually lifted directly by FDR. Hoover tried to shore up S & L’s to allow for more mortgages and more home ownership. He tried to increase public spending.
Under FDR, the unemployment rate went down over time. And the American public re-elected FDR by large margins in both 1936 and 1940.
Actually, it didn’t appreciably diminish. The only “new” jobs were jobs by the federal gov’t, which is not a terribly good way to improve an economy. He attacked business like few Presidents ever have and, thus, had one of the worst economic records in history.
Actually, he had the single worst. When you can’t drop unemployment below 14% FOR EIGHT YEARS — you’ve failed miserably.
Now you might argue that doing nothing would have been the wisest strategy for an incoming president in 1933, but let’s just say that the American people at the time had seen what years of doing nothing had accomplished, and had come to believe in Shakespeare’s maxim: “nothing will come of nothing.” They couldn’t afford to take any chances, Mike; do you blame them?
And what they got, instead, was a megalomaniac who decided that he should be the king. If you were starving, but didn’t vote for him, he didn’t care about you. If you lived in a “safe” location for him — namely the South — you didn’t get squat. The money went to swing states. He openly bought votes, which is thoroughly loathesome. He had no clue about economics, lied to the American people time and time again (when he said they’d only re-open “solvent” banks, he blatantly lied. Most of them weren’t actually solvent for almost 2 years). He ruled by fiat and made such things as owning gold a crime.
Warren Buffett, the 2nd-wealthiest individual in the world, has denounced the Bush tax cuts as “voodoo” and as “welfare” for the rich.
Buffett’s “legendary” wisdom is smoke & mirrors and little else. I’d listen to a lottery winner as often as I’d listen to him for financial advice.
Likewise Carter walked into a post vietnam economy not much of his own making.
Yet mentioning Clinton’s intel failure or the horrid economy he left Bush is just verboten.
Apparently, history only impacts Democrats.
I would have LOVED for the Bush and the Republican Congress to deeply cut into Medicare, Social Security Benifits and Education funding…….they’d of been OUT ON THEIR ASSES in 2004 had they done so because most Americans support those programs.
It’s also the only way we become fiscally solvent, so obviously your concern about the deficit is a sham.
We spend far less per student then it cost to send them to a private school. What did we get for it????Are you kidding? Aren’t we the worlds only superpower? Don’t we contribute disproportionately to the worlds innovation and technological advancement.
Thanks immigration. If you look at tests involving public school students, we’re a laughingstock.
-=Mike
I for one don’t care how we “pay” for the tax cuts — because the issue isn’t “How to have tax cuts AND keep spending money” — the issue is A) Whose money is it? Let’s give it back to them — and B) Once we do that — whatever we are left with is our spending limit. If that means shit gets cut — cut it.
Because the real issue liberals (not all, but many) have is this: If a rich man loans a poor man his car — and at the end of the year wants it back — liberals see this as TWO government programs. 1) Give the poor guy the car — and 2) Give the rich man the car. When in reality this is ONE program (poor guy gets the car) and a discontinuation of a program (ie TAX CUT) — RETURNING the rich man’s car to him. There is a huge fundamental “BLUE SKY vs GREEN SKY” difference here — one of us sees it…the other doesn’t. The benefit “conservatives” have here is WE DON’T CARE IF YOU AGREE WITH US. It’s best if you do…because then we all agree the sky is BLUE. But we don’t really care if you don’t see that — your seeing it doesn’t make it so. Conservatives might suck in many ways — but they see the blue sky when it comes to taxes.