White House Gives In On Bush-Era Tax Cuts

Yes I did! You certainly didn't earn it for me... you can't possibly be serious.

I'm pretty sure systems in place in this great country facilitated your ability to make the money you made.
So that means you got help. :D
You say if you give this money to the government they'll spend it on some other random ***?
In that case you would be fine because if this country is going to break I'd imagine helping the government is going to be a hell of a lot better than letting the ship sink :/
Oh well.
When the economy crashes you'd lose more than the poor either way so it's your loss.
These loss of jobs are your fault specifically.(this is me joking in a serious manner)
I might not know as much as you "claim to know" about political posturing but the wealthy keeping the money they made on the backs of the poor obviously isn't being redistributed properly or we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.
I am going to address this last line in bold each time you try to make an argument about it if you like?
Or which other one would you like me to go back to?
and why do you think I am getting your money?
are you stupid?
like the government taxing YOU gives me money.
your wealth was facilitated and developed within the US government.
they allowed you to get as wealthy as you possibly can be.
if you want to throw them under the bus because you are busy questioning their motives that's all on you.
you are the reason our economy is failing.
as well as the fact that the wealthy are...lol wat the government themselves!
crazy!

You're saying by keeping them they are magically going to produce jobs though. How it that so, when clearly they haven't been.

Unemployment steadily rose starting the end of 2003 with a small drop in between 2006-2007 then sky rocketed in 2008.

People seem to think, especially rich people, that the money they have is all theirs. They're called Federal Reserve Notes for a reason.

The government can recall anything they issue. Federal Reserve Notes are worthless without the government to back them up.

If you can find someone to work for who will pay you in housing, clothing, food, and all the things you need directly then by all means go for it.

However we exchange government issued currency. It crazy to think that you shouldn't have give some of it back to the very same government that makes it usefulness possible.

Don't like being taxed? Don't use their money then. Go barter.

Corporations tend to run tighter ships than the government does. Corporations are faced with actually having to deal with possible bankruptcy and they try to at least increase their profit margins.

The government on the other hand.. can make money out of thin air to "bail themselves"(with promises that taxpayers will eventually pay back the lenders) out of bankruptcy for as long as it takes for them to get back on track(which at this rate, we're only worsening). They increase taxes in order to fight this, but it almost always turns out the same way.. government programs come out of no where or just get bigger. They get taxes to pay for all their programs, but almost always end up overshooting the budget. If a corporation or business did this, they would be bankrupt.

What's the solution? Either keep government small and increase liberties, or have everyone work for the government and live by the government and limit freedom.

Your numbers are just wrong there is no other way to put it.

www.bls.gov

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/385002-markfl/24117-monthly-unemployment-rate-january-1948-to-july-2009

Taking them away will create more unemployment. Why don't you tell me why it wouldn't be so?

because they can't see past the fact that they are giving the government money for a service AKA protecting them.
From a business standpoint their logic is fine...but you have to take that logic into account with all the other things that they *** about be it jobs or debt.
You gonna answer my last post Zandra?
If you do I might not answer right away, be back in 30.

After carefully reading each post thoroughly I can honestly say that I am so thrilled that none of you are in charge of anything important.

Do you have a Freddy and Fanny backed mortgage? Then you specifically getting my money...

Do you take public transportation? Then you specifically are getting my money...

Do you eat farm produce, drive an automobile, smoke tobacco, read anti tobacco advertising, visit national parks, use electricity, drink water, etc etc etc?

If you use, interact with any kind of industry that receives government subsidies? Then you specifically are getting my money...

are you stupid???

Here's an idea, I don't want to spend your money for you, especially on some of the ridiculous things that its being spent on. Instead, I want YOU to spend it on what you want to spend it on.

^^ HA!

You are such a troll... Its too hilarious, I really do enjoy watching how uncomfortable my comments make you.

It would be different, the government wouldn't be able to count on Zandra's tax-paying money and as such the deficit would increase.

Lol thanks, your link just gave me more accurate data.

So in 2001 before the tax cuts took effect jan-dec the rates of unemployment were (1rst half enacted june 2001):
4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
Bold is june in case you wondered

Then in 2002 & 2003 with them in effect:
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0

2003 (2nd half enacted May):
5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
Bold is May.

Ok I was wrong the steady increase took place earlier than I thought.

Don't feel like copying and pasting the rest, but surely look at your link
There's the 2006-2007 small decrease I mentioned.
Then the huge rise in 2008.

So yeah your own link just proved the tax cuts did nothing for job growth, thanks!

I wish I was, unfortunately my criminal record and drug use history would kill me in the polls, lmao!

Would be a PR nightmare.

I might not know as much as you "claim to know" about political posturing but the wealthy keeping a more than substantial amount of the money they made on the backs of the poor obviously isn't being redistributed properly or we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

Not a huge fan of coke, crack is ok.
Opiates are my true <3 lol

Want to prove Zandra wrong, just keep asking questions and eventually he/she proves themselves wrong with the data. Some sweet lulz!

After carefully reading this post thoroughly I can honestly say that I am so thrilled that you have this massive insight over someone posting about politics on a video game forum...
/eyeroll.

Increasing taxes:
Government grows and more programs are started. If you continue to increase taxes, government eventually starts taking over different aspects of life. Maybe they start making cars for you and those corporations that used to make cars are shut down as government takes full authority of such. If this trend continues, you'll eventually be paying 100% of your money to the government for them to provide for you. You'll also be working for the government, in whatever position you're best fit for. Choices are reduced and new ideas essentially cease to exist.

Decreasing taxes:
Faced with two obvious long-term effects.
1. Government is forced to cut-back spending on useless programs or ones with huge overhead. Government gets smaller.
2. Goverment continues same spending(or increased spending) and the National Debt increases. National Debt is basically saying: "I can't pay it off now, but my children or their children might be able to".


In my opinion, number one of decreasing taxes is the ideal situation, however, not many people have the balls to do it. Also, you likely won't even get into office if you're going to screw over the big wigs who helped you get there. And it's like saying: "I'll take a paycut because I'm useless and I want the people I work with to lose their jobs as well!" Kind of a difficult thing to do.

I just don't understand why your first example of increasing taxes magically has the government turning into some police state owning everything?
Seems more like sensationalism and exaggeration to me :/
and then you make the second part become more reasonable which just seems silly to me.
I guess it's a fear of the unknown :/
Hell Zandra's post was complaining of exactly that...government spending on ***that they didn't want...what if you knew for a fact they'd be putting it in something positive rather than being a paranoid nut I'd say that might help?
But who knows...being paranoid is fine, but that what if is going to be both good and bad...because hell what if the tax increase helped the economy?
What if you knew that truth going into it?
Would you pay it since it will make you more money in the end?

I say that if the trend continues in that fashion. If government continues to grow and continues to increase taxes, then that's the eventual outcome. The more programs people think we should add to government instead of having it privatized, the more it becomes like that.

Isn't that a big vague?
and how do you know these programs are going to come to be?
aren't we in a big what if wiff fest here?
the wealthy made out being wealthy when taxes were higher in the 90's so I dunno what you're talking about :/
it's obvious the government should grow to an extent because the country is growing and evolving and learning to deal with this crazy world economy we have.
I'm not saying there is any specific right answer...but tax cuts that have been in place almost a decade haven't really fixed the economy have they?
but who knows.
maybe if the taxes stayed in play the economy would be worse...we just don't know about that.
and the whole world economy could very well have an effect on how all of this works in the end-run.
but honestly?
Do these people need billions of dollars to live comfortably?
Not really.
That might be an emotional argument but you can't really come to a logical one predicting the future with so many variables.

The model this country was founded on was for economic and social freedom and that's the model I would like to see us continue to follow. You don't get economic freedom if you leave it up to elected officials to decide what cars you buy. We started off saying that government should be small and just provide safety for citizens. Regulations for things that need regulating as to not play towards corruption. Instead, the government itself has become the corrupted part. Growing without bounds and without reason.

We started this country with a National Debt, and Andrew Jackson was able to bring the Debt of the entire country back to 0. Since then, it's been growing and growing and no president is expected to do anything about it. People just say that that's a lost cause and it's been hard enough for people to even create an accurate and debt-reducing budget. It doesn't help that as the number grows, the interest alone on that debt is getting unwieldly.

I don't want no government, I just want people to do something about this, and increasing taxes is not the way.