Im no linguist -- unless she asks nicely ba dum dum -- but I am going to take it upon myself to provide a new service here on The Aurora and provide translations. A babelfish for the politically minded, if you will.
Nevermind, that I studied french for six years and cant speak a lick -- sorry, le lick -- or have enough spanish cd's to float the entire barrio across the Rio Grande and still no hablo.
Consider this service to be a truth translator.
First lesson:
When liberals talk about tax cuts over the next month....
What they really mean are tax increases.
They want to raise taxes, but realize that doesnt poll well and is devastating in a weak economy. They still want to raise taxes. So they lie and say they oppose tax cuts that dont exist and that no one is proposing.
So, to put it simply, keeping things the same is neither a cut or an increase.
However, to let the current tax structure expire will result in an increase, and thats is what libs want... a tax increase.
Thats just common sense.
And the truth.
16 comments:
The other thing about Washington DC in general, regardless of party, is that if you leave things the same it's considered a cut.
What I mean is that if the federal government said they were going to freeze spending levels at 2010 levels they would consider that a CUT IN SPENDING because they aren't INCREASING it. It's so backwards and idiotic it baffles the mind.
We really really need another Ronald Reagan to save us and I honestly don't see anyone out there who has that kind of courage or the political savvy with maybe 1 exception....and I'm saying MAYBE because we still don't know for sure...but i'm hopeful......don't let me down MARCO RUBIO...don't let me down.
Here's another point about tax cuts by the way...why are these lefties so mean spirited? Why do they care if the "rich" get a tax break? It's not their money. So as long as they're getting a tax break as well why would it make a difference to them? I mean unless they're just bitter that they're lazy losers and never put the effort in to get ahead and now they're bitter because of it.....wait did i just answer my own question?
Theoretically I got a tax break too: I didn't notice. The great majority of the tax cuts went for the richest among us. The poor and middle class have lost ground and the rich have gotten richer. The gap between rich and poor has gotten larger. The wealth has not "trickled down", in fact it has trickled up.
a lick = un lèchement
your point is correct. letting the current tax structure expire will result in a tax increase. and it will result in a structure somewhat equivalent to what we had in the 1990's when a lot of people got rich, there was no life-threatening deficits and the middle class was pretty much holding its own.
as opposed to today.
Gary it's a percentage of taxes. If you didn't notice it that's because you didn't make enough money for it to really register. It also means that you don't pay as much in total dollars. It's very fair.
Anita, the 1990's were a time of economic boom. The tax rate changed during an economic downturn and succeeded in helping turn the economy around. If not for the profiligate spending by the federal government that went along with it we might have avoided another recession, however as we all know the feds did continue to spend.
You can place the blame where you will, that is not the point. The point is that we KNOW that tax CUTS
are ALWAYS a net positive for the economy as a whole and a rising tide lifts all boats.
Therefore the thing to do now (besides cutting the spending)is to lower taxes again, not increase them.
Some Democrats have suggested raising the limit from 250K to a million. Let the Republicans shut down the government to defend lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires. The Democrats will probably cave however, in some ways I wish they were more like Republicans, not in policies, but in their "take no prisoners" political strategy.
I don't agree that tax cuts ALWAYS work. Bush cut taxes and the poor and middle class got poorer. It did not trickle down, the rising tide didn't raise all the boats, or whatever other cliche you want to use.
If tax cuts are ALWAYS a good idea then let me throw a question at you: where should the top tax rate be set? Name a number. Zero?
rhino, that "rising tide lifts all boats" economic concept has been shown to be, for the most part, a fallacy. it's been shown that when the wealthy get tax cuts, they tend to NOT spend but rather save, because they already have enough money to get by and have all the material comforts they need.
when the middle class gets tax cuts, they, out of necessity, spend and that is good for the economy. that is why we absolutely need a progressive tax structure. the rich should pay more and the middle and lower classes should pay less.
Oh, and here is what David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's Budget Director, had to say about taxes last Sunday on Fareed Zakaria's show:
– We need “a higher tax burden on the upper income.”
– “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort.”
– The 2001 Bush tax cut “was totally not needed.”
– On claims that Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher government revenues: “Reagan proved nothing of the kind and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.”
– Former Vice President Cheney “should have known better” than claim the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.
– “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration and Paulson for basically destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party. After that, I don’t know how we ever make the tough choices.”
How can you tell when a lib is being dishonest about taxes?
When they mention the poor.
The liberal concern for "the poor" warms my heart. Sadly its all bullshit. Its not a legitimate argument and only serves to make them feel better.
Well, in my case being concerned about the "poor" is just self-interest, being one of them. I think that the Republicans basically want to take us back to the 1920s, get rid of social security, get rid of unemployment insurance, get rid of environmental and consumer protection, and basically this country will be completely ruled by rich people and corporations (rather than just mostly, as it is today).
1. FACT a rising tide lifts all boats. this doesn't mean that tax cuts lift all boats or that tax cuts alone will improve the economy however when the economy does well in general everyone benefits.
2. Fact .. when wealthy people have more money AND confidence that they won't be penalized for being successful or have confidence in property rights they don't save. They invest. Investment is the key and property rights (property includes $) is the biggest key. When politicians start talking about "tax the rich" or "windfall profits" tax. Wealthy people sit on their money.
3. When you mention 1 Reagan administration employee on 1 issue it makes me wonder.....
Hmmmm... does that mean that you feel Reagan was right about everything else? The 1 guy out of hundreds who 25 years later has changed his mind on what he thinks worked or didn't work is the guy you mention? He's entitled to his opinion, but it's just that. It doesn't mean it's fact.
I don't believe that deficits are a good thing, but they have more to do with spending than tax cuts.
Finally, everything Reagan did wasn't perfect (amnesty for example was a big mistake) but his vision and convictions are what turned the country around. Just thought I would throw out a plug for the Gipper.
reagan (and nixon, even) are liberal by today's tea party standards. neither of those republicans would be able to be elected today. they would be considered too "liberal."
Not true at all.
The core beliefs of the tea party are right in line with Reagan.
Lower taxes,federalism,liberty,strong national defense, etc. Reagan knew what made this country great and believed it was great.
Read some of his old speeches, read some of his old letters, (pretty crazy how many letters he wrote by the way) etc. He would be the ideal tea party candidate.
Gary i didn't answer your question earlier but yes, zero sounds perfect as an income tax level. Thats what half the country pays now so it seems only fair.
More importantly though I think a flat tax is the only fair tax. Steve Forbes had a proposal that I believe was around 20% across the board with a certain percentage of people who are below a certain level who would pay 0.
I remember thinking it sounded pretty good at the time but I honestly don't remember all of the details.
Zero per cent? Supply-siders generally saying that cutting taxes results in higher revenue, but obviously zero percent would mean zero revenue and zero government. I didn't know you were an anarchist.
As for Reagan I agree with Anita. Reagan raised taxes (after lowering them his first year). Reagan signed arms control treaties that were opposed by most conservatives at the time. Reagan reformed immigration, including an amnesty. Reagan signed the ban on ozone-destroying chemicals. The real Reagan (not the mythical one) would be too liberal by today's GOP standards.
So libs are now trying to take credit for Reagan?
Just dumb. Dumb.
Gonna be funny in 20yrs when you extol how great Bush was. Hell, despite still blaming him now Obama has adopted and expanded on the majority of W's policies.
...and Gary you arent allowed to classify your amongst the poor. You obviously own a computer that spend egregious amounts of time blogging about non-sensical conspiracy theories and debating politics. You arent poor, you are lazy. Theres a difference.
Whenever we get to the insults I know I've won.
Post a Comment