Cost of Extending Bush Tax Cuts and AMT Relief: $4.4 Trillion

[Peelback79]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: arkcom
In other news: Not robbing banks has cost me $3.4 million this year.

This.

Win.

 

[piasabird]

Uhh, Deficeits are not created by reducing the tax burden, Deficeits are caused by spending. I just wanted to point out this silly little concept. Take economics 101. When you take out your checkbook and write checks for money you dont have it costs you more than if you had just budgeted your money to begin with. Any fool knows this. If you get a credit card from the bank of China and you keeping running up a line of credit eventually you have to start paying back the principal plus interest.

Just start firing some of the overpaid people working in government. Maybe congress needs a pay reduction.

 

[StageLeft]

Everyone here agrees that success involves:

1) Investments made in you by others, whether it was your parents feeding you when you were 6 months old, primary school, or free college, that's up for debate.
2) Work you put in, be it little to none or a great deal
3) Luck

All I'm seeing is people debating over the particular weighting of these categories. Personally, I have had a lot of things thrown my way and it has helped a great deal. On a grand scale those of us in the West, simply by virtue of our place of birth, have a lot given to us.

PS I was wondering when zegermans was going to get booted. Perhaps he has PTSD.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Specop 007
I really dont understand how there can be 13 pages on such a childish thread. The OP is attempting to blame a previous administrations TAX CUTS on financial problems rather then looking at the current administrations SPENDING. Wow. So its bad bad bad to let people keep MORE of their OWN money, but its ok to spend?

Childish and silly logic.

You have no logic

Seems to be the case. I can only assume it was sucked right out of my head, like evrybody elses, when they clicked on this stupid thread.

But, its well known the Democrats have never wanted to let hard working people actually keep what they worked so hard for.... Isnt that right Comrade.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

Your grasp of logic and reason is truly amazing.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Specop 007
I really dont understand how there can be 13 pages on such a childish thread. The OP is attempting to blame a previous administrations TAX CUTS on financial problems rather then looking at the current administrations SPENDING. Wow. So its bad bad bad to let people keep MORE of their OWN money, but its ok to spend?

Childish and silly logic.

You have no logic

Seems to be the case. I can only assume it was sucked right out of my head, like evrybody elses, when they clicked on this stupid thread.

But, its well known the Democrats have never wanted to let hard working people actually keep what they worked so hard for.... Isnt that right Comrade.

It's not so much that they don't want you to keep it, as they want to make sure you share it with the voter base.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

He keeps him around so he can feel better than someone else. Social class is ssssoooo important. This moron actually thinks it will make him a better person if he makes more money. What a shallow, pathetic existence. Have fun at the country club try to impress the people who think you're a piece of shit!

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

He keeps him around so he can feel better than someone else. Social class is ssssoooo important. This moron actually thinks it will make him a better person if he makes more money. What a shallow, pathetic existence. Have fun at the country club try to impress the people who think you're a piece of shit!

Have we found Dave's long-lost twin brother, perhaps?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

He keeps him around so he can feel better than someone else. Social class is ssssoooo important. This moron actually thinks it will make him a better person if he makes more money. What a shallow, pathetic existence. Have fun at the country club try to impress the people who think you're a piece of shit!

Holy lack of logic, Batman! JKing is posting again!

Why is it that you lefties always have to try to start class warfare? Now it seems we can't have friends who might be at a different point or financial stage in their lives than we are, or else we're only doing it to "make ourselves feel better." What an idiot.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

How does one make such an incredible leap to arrive at that ridiculous conclusion? Oh wait, it is Mr. "$10 per gallon of gas" himself. Nevermind.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

He keeps him around so he can feel better than someone else. Social class is ssssoooo important. This moron actually thinks it will make him a better person if he makes more money. What a shallow, pathetic existence. Have fun at the country club try to impress the people who think you're a piece of shit!

Holy hell the class envy is deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep up in hur, get the wadin' boots ma.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Specop 007
I really dont understand how there can be 13 pages on such a childish thread. The OP is attempting to blame a previous administrations TAX CUTS on financial problems rather then looking at the current administrations SPENDING. Wow. So its bad bad bad to let people keep MORE of their OWN money, but its ok to spend?

Childish and silly logic.

You have no logic

Seems to be the case. I can only assume it was sucked right out of my head, like evrybody elses, when they clicked on this stupid thread.

But, its well known the Democrats have never wanted to let hard working people actually keep what they worked so hard for.... Isnt that right Comrade.

Well you can't certainly put ALL the blame on the Obama administration. Part of it comes from Bush's spending problems. But to blame it on tax cuts is irresponsible because just because we're lowering revenues from the status quo doesn't mean this country is fvcked. Of course some people will always see lower tax revenues as a loss to the government and a sign we're totally screwed while completely ignoring the other side of the equation (spending).

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

Fuck you Dave. Dont you have a board elsewhere to moderate?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

He keeps him around so he can feel better than someone else. Social class is ssssoooo important. This moron actually thinks it will make him a better person if he makes more money. What a shallow, pathetic existence. Have fun at the country club try to impress the people who think you're a piece of shit!

And fuck you too

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

He keeps him around so he can feel better than someone else. Social class is ssssoooo important. This moron actually thinks it will make him a better person if he makes more money. What a shallow, pathetic existence. Have fun at the country club try to impress the people who think you're a piece of shit!

And fuck you too

I call 'em like I see 'em, champ. You're still trash to these people you're so eager to suck up to.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

You are friends with him therefore you must be lazy as well.

He keeps him around so he can feel better than someone else. Social class is ssssoooo important. This moron actually thinks it will make him a better person if he makes more money. What a shallow, pathetic existence. Have fun at the country club try to impress the people who think you're a piece of shit!

And fuck you too

I call 'em like I see 'em, champ. You're still trash to these people you're so eager to suck up to.

You know how insulting people over the internet that you don't know, and have never meet based on assumptions makes you look? It's really sad, pathetic.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And fuck you too

I call 'em like I see 'em, champ. You're still trash to these people you're so eager to suck up to.

:laugh:

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: JKing106
He keeps him around so he can feel better than someone else. Social class is ssssoooo important. This moron actually thinks it will make him a better person if he makes more money. What a shallow, pathetic existence. Have fun at the country club try to impress the people who think you're a piece of shit!

Envy is such an ugly disease when people let it consume them.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Or even better, how about cutting spending? Why does that concept seem so foreign to many politicians on both sides of the aisle?

An excellent idea!

Too bad George Bush and the GOP didn't think of off-setting their tax cuts with spending reductions as required by Pay-As-You-Go when they passed the legislation in the first three months of the Bush Administration.

And is case you may have forgotten, the Republican-majority Senate threw out cloture rules to pass the 2003 tax cut legislation 51-50 ... that being the largest tax cut in American history WHILE conducting not one, but two, 'overseas contingency operations' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No spending reductions there, either.

And of course, lest we forget, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, SEC chairman Harvey Pitt and senior economic adviser Larry Lindsey were fired in late 2002 for opposing more tax cuts.

And unfortunately for your posturing, the budget enforcement act of 1990 required spending off-sets for new programs or tax cuts, was reauthorized in 1995, and again in 1997.

From 1991 to 1997, the growth of total discretionary outlays was well below the rate of inflation.

AND finally, in testimony before the House on June 27, 2001, the Director of the OMB set the terms for the re-authorization of Pay-As-You-Go in 2002:

Lawmakers' goal of using the off-budget (Social Security) portion of surpluses to reduce public debt has added an informal but important new component to budgetary discipline. In general, paying down federal debt provides economic benefits that would give lawmakers more flexibility to deal with long-term budget problems linked to the aging of the baby-boom generation.

Many lawmakers support establishing a "lockbox" procedure in law that would make the goal of preserving off-budget surpluses a statutory requirement, on a par with the discretionary spending caps and PAYGO discipline. Many would also extend the lockbox concept to the annual surpluses from the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund.

The Bush Administration and GOP not only chose not to renew Pay-Go but refused to accept a lockbox procedure in law, using off-budget surpluses instead to fund tax cuts, overseas contingency operations and Big Pharma drug programs.


You guys got any more deflections ?

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Or even better, how about cutting spending? Why does that concept seem so foreign to many politicians on both sides of the aisle?

An excellent idea!

Too bad George Bush and the GOP didn't think of off-setting their tax cuts with spending reductions as required by Pay-As-You-Go when they passed the legislation in the first three months of the Bush Administration.

And is case you may have forgotten, the Republican-majority Senate threw out cloture rules to pass the 2003 tax cut legislation 51-50 ... that being the largest tax cut in American history WHILE conducting not one, but two, 'overseas contingency operations' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No spending reductions there, either.

And of course, lest we forget, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, SEC chairman Harvey Pitt and senior economic adviser Larry Lindsey were fired in late 2002 for opposing more tax cuts.

And unfortunately for your posturing, the budget enforcement act of 1990 required spending off-sets for new programs or tax cuts, was reauthorized in 1995, and again in 1997.

From 1991 to 1997, the growth of total discretionary outlays was well below the rate of inflation.

AND finally, in testimony before the House on June 27, 2001, the Director of the OMB set the terms for the re-authorization of Pay-As-You-Go in 2002:

Lawmakers' goal of using the off-budget (Social Security) portion of surpluses to reduce public debt has added an informal but important new component to budgetary discipline. In general, paying down federal debt provides economic benefits that would give lawmakers more flexibility to deal with long-term budget problems linked to the aging of the baby-boom generation.

Many lawmakers support establishing a "lockbox" procedure in law that would make the goal of preserving off-budget surpluses a statutory requirement, on a par with the discretionary spending caps and PAYGO discipline. Many would also extend the lockbox concept to the annual surpluses from the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund.

The Bush Administration and GOP not only chose not to renew Pay-Go but refused to accept a lockbox procedure in law, using off-budget surpluses instead to fund tax cuts, overseas contingency operations and Big Pharma drug programs.


You guys got any more deflections ?

The dems don't have the cleanest record with pay-go either. Whenever the pay-go rules get in the way, they conveniently find a way to make an exception.


link

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday called for legally binding measures to enforce government spending restraint, but his congressional allies -- and his own actions -- threatened to undermine his message of fiscal discipline.


President Barack Obama speaks to House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) on Tuesday at the White House.
Mr. Obama proposed to give "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules the force of law, which would require Congress to offset entitlement-spending increases and tax cuts, either with spending cuts or tax increases. But critics say the proposed rules are riddled with loopholes and would have little impact.

House appropriators on Tuesday unveiled spending numbers for the coming fiscal year that push up domestic outlays by 10.4%, after lawmakers used gimmicks to get around the pay-as-you-go rules Mr. Obama is embracing.

"This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said he has "serious concerns" about exemptions to the deficit curbs that would run to trillions of dollars.

Over the first five months of his administration, Mr. Obama has struggled to balance his embrace of big spending to combat the financial crisis and recession with pledges to curb the budget deficit.

The president has pledged to cut in half the $1.3 trillion deficit he inherited by the end of his term, in part through restoring 1990s-era measures to enforce spending discipline, such as those announced Tuesday.

"The reckless fiscal policies of the past have left us in a very deep hole, and digging our way out of it will take time, patience, and some tough choices," Mr. Obama said in the White House East Room, flanked by Democratic leaders and members of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog coalition.

Yet the president has also signed a $787-billion stimulus bill and committed more than $60 billion to bail out Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. The deficit is projected to balloon to $1.8 trillion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

Pay-as-you-go was first implemented as part of the 1990 budget deal between congressional Democrats and then-President George H.W. Bush, when Mr. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge. Congress allowed the rules to lapse in 2002.

Under the pay-go proposal Mr. Obama outlined Tuesday, any policy change that increases spending in so-called mandatory entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, would have to be offset by equivalent spending cuts or tax increases. Tax cuts would also be covered. If Congress failed to offset such costs, automatic, across-the-board spending cuts would kick in.

But the administration is leaving itself sizable loopholes. For example, the cost of extending most of former President George W. Bush's tax cuts wouldn't have to be offset, nor would the cost of legislation keeping the alternative minimum tax from expanding. And Congress wouldn't have to offset the cost of legislation?passed every year?to ensure that planned cuts to physicians under Medicare don't actually happen.

Those exemptions spare lawmakers from having to find $2.5 trillion in offsetting spending cuts or tax increases over the next decade.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said it was "implausible" that Congress would ever allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, the AMT to explode or doctors to be hit by severe reimbursement cuts, as current law allows.

Perhaps the biggest loophole is that the rules wouldn't apply to discretionary spending, which will amount to $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2010, about 40% of the budget. In the 1990s, that spending was subject to strict caps. But since those caps, after several years of effective enforcement, ended up being routinely flouted, White House officials say they are not seeking their reinstatement.

Congress is already finding ways around the rules. The budget resolution passed this year, for instance, approved a $2 billion increase in low-income heating assistance as an entitlement change, which would require the painful offsets. But the resolution allowed appropriators to tack that money onto their total "discretionary" spending, no offsets needed. On Tuesday, the appropriators received broad spending allocations, which included the $2 billion for low-income heating assistance without offsets.

In all, the appropriators were given allocations that would allow domestic discretionary spending programs to rise by $39 billion. Including security and foreign aid, discretionary spending would rise by $75 billion, or 7.5%.

White House aides said there is still time to bring those figures down.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

--snip typical "Bu...Bu....But Bush!" text--

You guys got any more deflections ?

There is no deflection except by you and the typical "Bu...Bu....But Bush!" line the lefties have been programmed to recite. Here, let me provide my original quote:

Or even better, how about cutting spending? Why does that concept seem so foreign to many politicians on both sides of the aisle?

Do you see that bolded portion above? What part of "both sides of the aisle" is confusing?

Here, let me spell it out for you:

1. Bush spent ridiculous sums of money and it was inexcusable. I am not defending him.
2. Obama is on track to spend even more. I am not defending him.

Ok, got it? So don't tell me I am "posturing" or "deflecting," because it is BS and you know it.

You can "Bu..Bu...But Bush!" all day long, you can point fingers at Bush 41, Reagan, and hell, even Teddy Roosevelt or Abe Lincoln if you want since they were all Republicans. I am not going to get into a partisan pissing match with you. The point here is that (and I will bold it to get the point across) spending must be cut and I don't give a rat's ass who is the party behind the spending. It needs to be cut, PERIOD.

Simple enough, right? If you want to argue partisan politics, do it with someone like BarrySotero. I have acknowledged many times that Bush was a buffoon and his spending was out of control and the Iraq war was a travesty.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Huh, I read that GWB tax cuts created 8 million new jobs and created 15 trillion in new wealth.


http://www.federalreserve.gov/
http://www.bls.gov/

Tax cuts do not "cost" the government anything. Tax credits might.
Out of control spending is the only thing that "costs" the government money.

Ah wrong. Tax cuts cost revenue.