Obama to GOP: How do you pay for tax cut extensions?

But if we could offer up some spending cuts, maybe he will shut up and just sign the deal. I'll bet he will beg to have them pass the tax cuts when you start trimming the spending.

 

The Govt was definitely getting the money. Up until 2001 when Bush and the Republicans cut taxes and squandered the surplus.

 

Federal income tax revenue is higher after the Bush tax cuts than before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png

 

That would only apply when it was retroactive tax cuts - money that was already collected.

If the money hasn't been collected, it isn't the government's yet. Heck, it hasn't even been earned by anyone yet.

This demand is like the pimp who beats one of his hookers because she only turned three tricks that night. He decided she would turn five, she only turned three, therefore she is stealing from him.

 

No, SPENDING cuts...

 

The 'point' I was noting was the one that pretended there was a difference between tens of millions of folk who do not pay income tax not getting a tax cut under the Bush cuts, and tens of millions of folk who are retired and not paying FICA not getting a tax cut under Obama.

 

Can you believe the chutzpah of Obama voters who expect to get an income tax cut when they don't pay income taxes to begin with?

 

That is only partly correct...true about the tax increase but it took divided government to balance the budget and slow the spending. The dems certainly had no interest in that.

 

Less taxes should mean less spending by government.

 

Instead it means more borrowing by government.

 

To the left welfare is a right.

 

Spending was slowed primarily because of the peace dividend.

The divided government primarily prevented the Republicans from passing the huge tax cuts they wanted.

 

mostly because the left will not stop the spending and considers printing press economics as valid as real money received.

 

Perhaps true of the rank and file but the elected Republicans and Democrats overall have an extensive history of supporting deficit spending. Any member of the Congress which has ever voted to increase the national debt has gone on the record as supporting deficit spending. Increasing the debt limit is a direct action which allows deficit spending. If the debt ceiling is not increased then it prevents deficit spending.

The only elected politician that I understand has never voted to increase the national debt is Ron Paul.

 

About half of them supported deficit tax cutting as well as deficit spending.

 

The Tea Party came to congress in 2010 expressly to cut spending and they have been attacked by all the Washington establishment in both parties and the media.

We can control spending if we keep sending new people to Washington to replace the corrupted old hands.

 

Except the vast majority of Americans like SS, medicare, a strong military, and social safety nets.

 

It is Obama who is trying to bankrupt Social Security and not collecting the payroll tax, not the Tea Party.

We have to cut government spending to balance the budget but SS is not causing the deficit.

 

Or we have to raise taxes, but preferably both.

 

But Americans complain and object to paying the taxes required to support these expendatures. Currently the federal government is spending between $25K-$30K/household/yr and I don't know of many Americans that would support paying that amount annually in taxation to pay for the expendatures. They always want someone else to pay for these expendatures.

We hear that today from Democrats that are calling for the wealthy to pay even more to support this excessive spending. Their call is for the wealthy to "pay their fair share" but refuse to address what the fair share really is for all Americans. What is the "fair share" for a household earning $50K per year when the government is spending $25K-$30K related to that household?

This "gimme-gimme-gimme" attitude that Americans have is the fundamental problem. We need to change to a "no more, no more, no more" demand by Americans related to government spending along with "more taxes, more taxes, more taxes" so that the deficits stop and the national debt can be reduced and eventually eliminated.

 

Obama is cutting the payroll tax which is the opposite of what you say we should do.

 

While at odds on many topics and while there might be disagreement on how to go about this there is a shared opinion that only increasing taxes and reducing expendatures will balance the budget today. With 40% of all federal expendatures being based upon borrowed money we simply can't eliminate that by either raising taxes or cutting expendatures alone. It isn't pragmatically possible.

 

That does not mean they like abusive taxes or inept fiscal management of those programs.

 

Who is this "shared opinion" ?

The problem is that Congreesional Democrats are only pursuing this on a partisan basis. The goal should be increasing revenue.

As noted many times, Barack Obama's appointed non-partisan Debt Reduction Commission lowered every tax bracket. They then reduced deductions and exemptions by a larger amount, producing projected revenue increases of $ 1 Trillion over 10 years. To this they added spending cuts of $3 Trillion, producing the 1:3 ratio many have noted.

However, it is the class-envy partisan Democrats who have rejected those revenue measures, opting instead to foment wealth envy.

Further, they have also rejected the 1:3 raio.

 

The vast majority of Americans have debt because they like to go out to eat, buy useless stuff, drive new cars, wear the newest fashion, etc. The federal government must have a balanced budget amendment with a tax cap. Then the American citizenry can decide how to allocate the funds available.