Bush Tax Cuts- Let them Expire or Renew?

[lacrew_2000]

I don't know how the graph has anything to do with my assertion that tax cuts and stimulus are essentially the same. I'm willing to be educated...but that graph is useless in the discussion, if it doesn't include ARRA.

[nsafun05]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

What do you think the economic impact of a truly uneducated workforce would then be with the elimination of the Department of Education? Very insightful thinking NSA.

Per the request of LACREW, I'll be nice in my response. The original intent of the department of energy was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Can you tell me kcbigpapa, where it has succeeded in that endeavor since it was created? Can you tell me where the department of education has succeeded in creating a highly educated workforce? You probably didn't read the link I posted for your convenience so that is no surprise. In fact, it is clear that what I posted didn't even cause you to think that perhaps there are some programs that the government has that may not be doing what they were intended to do and thus should be eliminated saving the taxpayers untold money. I'd even bet that what I suggested upset you so much that instead of offering an intelligent counter point that all you could do is insult my suggestions. Pity.

[kcbigpapa]

NSA, so you quoted me on education, but responded with energy. Is the Dept of Energy's only reason for existence to reduce dependency on oil?

[nsafun05]

I edited too much of your quote kcbigpapa and I don't really care to modify my post. The department of energy was created under the carter administration in response to the oil crisis of the 70's. As you well know it is also responsible for the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons, which IMHO could be turned over to the DoD. So the short answer to your question is no. But it hasn't exactly done what it was originally suppose to do either.

[kcbigpapa]

NSA, I didn't need a repeat from your previous post of why the DoE was created, but what it does today. So what you are proposing is not saving any money, but rather to fuse both departments together. This solves nothing. There are projects that do not make sense and are pure pork, as I mentioned before the bridge to nowhere in Alaska is a prime example. The DoE does make sense. They deal with the power grid, our nuclear weapons program, power generation including nuclear, oil, coal, gas, wind, hyrdroelectric, etc. Those would not fall under defense with the exception of nuclear weapons. ED makes sense, many are educated through our student loan process, high schools, junior high and elementary. My problem with your statement, which I still believe was stupid, is that you don't propose cuts, but just the total elimination...well until you just stated you are just moving the DoE to DoD oversight. What have you saved? The salary of the Secretary of Energy? Big deal. I want real insight, but I should have expected as much from you.

[jac01]

Anyone that wants to pay higher taxes can already do so. Send your check to the following address:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

If I'm feeling charitable with the money I have left after paying for my necessities, I will give to the Salvation Army or the local Rescue Mission. Those organizations are better able and more efficient in helping people compared to the federal government.

The top tax rate of 36% is high enough. Those people are already paying their "fair share." They earn 22% of the income, yet are paying 40% of the income taxes. Those in that bracket that feel that they should pay more can send a check to the address listed above.

[nsafun05]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

NSA, I didn't need a repeat from your previous post of why the DoE was created, but what it does today. So what you are proposing is not saving any money, but rather to fuse both departments together. This solves nothing. There are projects that do not make sense and are pure pork, as I mentioned before the bridge to nowhere in Alaska is a prime example. The DoE does make sense. They deal with the power grid, our nuclear weapons program, power generation including nuclear, oil, coal, gas, wind, hyrdroelectric, etc. Those would not fall under defense with the exception of nuclear weapons. ED makes sense, many are educated through our student loan process, high schools, junior high and elementary. My problem with your statement, which I still believe was stupid, is that you don't propose cuts, but just the total elimination...well until you just stated you are just moving the DoE to DoD oversight. What have you saved? The salary of the Secretary of Energy? Big deal. I want real insight, but I should have expected as much from you.

Many are educated through the department of education? Are you serious? All this time I've been paying local taxes for my local schools and its been the feds who have been paying for all this? Thanks for the info kcbigpapa. I'm going to contact my state representative and state senators and let them know that the $.64 of every dollar collected in taxes in the state of Kansas that goes towards education should be reallocated. Also, if the department of education is doing such a good job, then why is it that private schools continue to outperform public schools even though they don't receive government support?

Your statement for the department of energy being necessary because they deal with power generation...that's about as idiotic as anything I've ever heard. I bet we'd have as much power as we need and delivered much more efficiently if we didn't have a federal agency overlooking it for us. I bet the folks in California and in the North East really appreciate all the brown and black outs that they have because the dept. of energy is doing such a bang up job.

To get to the point, no one here can give a realistic response without seeing the true numbers in the budget for the federal government and seeing for themselves the areas that are best suited for reduction or elimination. To do so otherwise is foolhardy. But I don't expect much more than that from you.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by jac01

Anyone that wants to pay higher taxes can already do so. Send your check to the following address:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

If I'm feeling charitable with the money I have left after paying for my necessities, I will give to the Salvation Army or the local Rescue Mission. Those organizations are better able and more efficient in helping people compared to the federal government.

The top tax rate of 36% is high enough. Those people are already paying their "fair share." They earn 22% of the income, yet are paying 40% of the income taxes. Those in that bracket that feel that they should pay more can send a check to the address listed above.

Once again, that was not an answer to the question I proposed. I wrote it in English, so I don't see why it is so hard for people to understand the question. If you need help with it, just let me know what part of the question you do not understand.

[dirty dog]

NSA I hope your not saying that local taxes pay for your local schools by themselves, the Federal goverment through the department of education gives every school money based on attendance, thats why schools freak out when you kid does not go to school, its not like they are concerned that they are educated, rather for every day your kid and everyone elses misses school they lose money. Thats why they make up snow days.

[catnipdipper]

NSA wasn't too long ago that a part of Enron was having fun buying and selling power to the highest bidder and causing the brownouts in California.

Who exposed and blew that up?

[jac01]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Once again, that was not an answer to the question I proposed. I wrote it in English, so I don't see why it is so hard for people to understand the question. If you need help with it, just let me know what part of the question you do not understand.

Wow, kcbigpapa, I wasn't even responding to you. My response was to the question posed in the title of this thread, should the tax cuts be allowed to expire or not. I gave my opinion as to that. You're the one that decided to assume that my reply was directed to you and then chose to insult me. Get over yourself.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by jac01

Wow, kcbigpapa, I wasn't even responding to you. My response was to the question posed in the title of this thread, should the tax cuts be allowed to expire or not. I gave my opinion as to that. You're the one that decided to assume that my reply was directed to you and then chose to insult me. Get over yourself.

Actually, I do believe you were responding to my question. Why else would you have given the address to send the government additional money and make your charitable comment? Sure isn't because of the expire or renew question, which you already responded to in a previous post on the first page.

[jac01]

To your question about the hypothetical tax that would be imposed strictly to pay down the national debt, I would be opposed. I just oppose giving the government the authority to confiscate even more money at the point of a gun from the citizens when government's incompetence and inability to say "NO!" are what caused the problem in the first place. What I would be in favor of is the govt setting up a new PO Box or something at the Gifts to the United States address where people could voluntarily send money that would be specifically designated for debt reduction. The government should also share in this effort. I would be in favor of closing all overseas military bases and bringing those troops home. This would save hundreds of billions easily. As a side benefit, by withdrawing from the Muslim lands, we can call their bluff as to whether they are truly only angry with us because of our military presence in their holy lands. I would also be in favor of severely cutting if not eliminating all foreign aid. We've got enough problems in our own country to deal with. The rest of the world can take care of themselves. It disgusts me that we have people in our own country (I'm talking about the truly helpless, not the clueless) that could use some federal assistance all the while we are sending billions of dollars to foreign governments. All sacred cows of both the left and the right need to be on the table for cuts in order for there to be any serious efforts at debt reduction.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by jac01

To your question about the hypothetical tax that would be imposed strictly to pay down the national debt, I would be opposed. I just oppose giving the government the authority to confiscate even more money at the point of a gun from the citizens when government's incompetence and inability to say "NO!" are what caused the problem in the first place. What I would be in favor of is the govt setting up a new PO Box or something at the Gifts to the United States address where people could voluntarily send money that would be specifically designated for debt reduction. The government should also share in this effort. I would be in favor of closing all overseas military bases and bringing those troops home. This would save hundreds of billions easily. As a side benefit, by withdrawing from the Muslim lands, we can call their bluff as to whether they are truly only angry with us because of our military presence in their holy lands. I would also be in favor of severely cutting if not eliminating all foreign aid. We've got enough problems in our own country to deal with. The rest of the world can take care of themselves. It disgusts me that we have people in our own country (I'm talking about the truly helpless, not the clueless) that could use some federal assistance all the while we are sending billions of dollars to foreign governments. All sacred cows of both the left and the right need to be on the table for cuts in order for there to be any serious efforts at debt reduction.

Jac, sorry to get on you earlier, but that is what I wanted...a good response to my question. I agree with you on some points, but I worry about the long term ramifications of some of the issues you have raised. First, I might add that the debt is the responsibility of the taxpayers, whether we like it or not. It doesn't matter if it was a Dem or Rep in Congress or the White House, the fact is the debt belongs to all of us. This is why I would like to see it paid down. But as far as just allowing some to pay through gifts to the government is not a good idea IMHO. I was not the only one that created this debt. You did too.

I don't know about closing all of the bases. I do feel as if the countries we protect should pay a large portion of the expenses we incur as a result of the bases. But the bases are also a strategic benefit for us as well, which is why I feel their closure is detrimental to our national defense. Of course, I am under the assumption the host countries do not pay, I could be wrong. LACrew would probably be able to offer more insight on this.

I hear many argue about the foreign policy which involves the giving of money to other countries. I have mixed feelings about it. I have no problem assisting Haiti (earthquake), Indonesia (tsunami), and other poor countries that truly need help as a result of natural disasters. Personally, I believe that is what the leader of the free world does when disaster strikes. Sometimes money given to foreign countries is in our best interest in a national security matter. I don't know how often we give money to foreign countries for no reason at all. I have the feeling we normally will benefit somehow when assisting other countries.

[friendlyflasher]

There alot of skewwed charts and graphs out explaining why we should and shouldnt tax the wealthy at a higher rate. And it is very close when one poster said the rich earn 23% of the "earned income" in America. But when you also look at unearned income that % jumps to closer to 72% of all wealth in America. At that point the 37% of the taxes that the wealthiest pay only barely covers half of there share.
I am not an expert so I will listen to the billionaire next door Warren Buffet. And these are all quotes of WB

" I do not understand why my secretary pays a higher actual tax than I do"

" It is class warfare, and my class is winning. I do not understand why?"

"Berkshire has made me a millionair many times over. The tax code has made me a billionair"

I have more thoughts on this issue but I will add them in another post. Otherwise it just becomes a ramble.
But let me leave you with this. Go out and rent the classic "Its a Wonderful Life" and while watching the movie decide who you can identify with Gearge Bailey or Mr. Potter? And George Bailey was what we would call a socialist today! Think about that one for awhile. A fictional hero from the time America was at her greatest. Would be considered a villian by many today.