ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Unprecedented
Reagan's Budget Director Opposes Extending Bush Tax Cuts
- Thread starter spike
- Start date
Unprecedented
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
UnPresidented?
spike
New Member
spike
New Member
The person who writes the budget controls how money is spent. But it's good to hear you're not going to make one complaint about anything Obama decides to do with the budget.
OK... let me explain this scenario in as few and simple words as possible.
You have been given 50 cents by your mom to spend. You want to buy a candy bar (priced at 50 cents) at the corner store. You give your mom 25 cents. You now have 25 cents left to spend, but the candy bar is still 50 cents. You can purchase this 50 cent candy bar from the corner store by borrowing money from your brother, but you will have to submit to being his personal slave for a week, plus pay him back the 25 cents at the end of the week when your mom gives you another 50 cents to spend.
And before you jump up and yell "candy bars aren't good for you" or "you don't actually need the candy bar so don't buy it" the point I'm trying to make is:
1) you have been given money
2) you have something you want to buy
3) you give the money needed to buy the thing back
4) you don't have enough now to buy the thing and you must borrow under unpleasant circumstances
You have been given 50 cents by your mom to spend. You want to buy a candy bar (priced at 50 cents) at the corner store. You give your mom 25 cents. You now have 25 cents left to spend, but the candy bar is still 50 cents. You can purchase this 50 cent candy bar from the corner store by borrowing money from your brother, but you will have to submit to being his personal slave for a week, plus pay him back the 25 cents at the end of the week when your mom gives you another 50 cents to spend.
And before you jump up and yell "candy bars aren't good for you" or "you don't actually need the candy bar so don't buy it" the point I'm trying to make is:
1) you have been given money
2) you have something you want to buy
3) you give the money needed to buy the thing back
4) you don't have enough now to buy the thing and you must borrow under unpleasant circumstances
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
OK... let me explain this scenario in as few and simple words as possible.
You have been given 50 cents by your mom to spend. You want to buy a candy bar factory (priced at 5mil) so you can share candybars with everyone. You give your mom 25 cents. You now have 25 cents left to spend, but the candy bar factory is still 5mil. You can purchase this 5mil candy bar factory by printing money out on mom's computer and putting your brother and sisters grand children in debt and they will have to submit to being his personal slaves for a generation, plus pay back the 5mil as the one brother continues give the candy bars to others for free AND putting all the other local candy bar business out of business at the same time. End of the week comes when your mom gives you another 50 cents to spend and now you decide to buy a large dairy to give everyone free milk to go with the chocolate bars you give you them.
You have been given 50 cents by your mom to spend. You want to buy a candy bar factory (priced at 5mil) so you can share candybars with everyone. You give your mom 25 cents. You now have 25 cents left to spend, but the candy bar factory is still 5mil. You can purchase this 5mil candy bar factory by printing money out on mom's computer and putting your brother and sisters grand children in debt and they will have to submit to being his personal slaves for a generation, plus pay back the 5mil as the one brother continues give the candy bars to others for free AND putting all the other local candy bar business out of business at the same time. End of the week comes when your mom gives you another 50 cents to spend and now you decide to buy a large dairy to give everyone free milk to go with the chocolate bars you give you them.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
spike
New Member
Re: Reagan's Budget Director ran off at the mouth
You want to shoot Bush over the tax cut disaster?
You want to shoot Bush over the tax cut disaster?
spike
New Member
Re: massive tax increases during a depression
"We're not trying to antagonize Gov. Palin, but President Barack Obama has indeed published his proposals in some detail -- at least twice, in the annual budget documents that the White House releases.
The president's 2011 budget, for example, says on page 39, "Allow the Bush Tax Cuts for Households Earning More Than $250,000 to Expire."
"In the last Administration, those at the very top enjoyed large tax breaks and income gains while almost everyone else struggled and real income for the middle class declined. Our Nation cannot afford to continue these tax cuts, which is why the President supports allowing those tax cuts that affect families earning more than $250,000 a year to expire and committing these resources to reducing the deficit instead. This step will have no effect on the 98 percent of all households who make less than $250,000."
Lest you think that's too general and vague, there are detailed estimates in the budget summary tables, starting on page 164, for provisions such as, "Upper-income tax provisions devoted to deficit reduction: Expand the 28-percent rate and reinstate the 36-percent and 39.6-percent rates for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ... Reinstate the personal exemption phaseout and limitation on itemized deductions for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ... Impose 20-percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single)."
In Congress, key Democratic leaders have indicated they are using the plan outlined in the federal budget as the framework for their legislation. The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on dealing with the expiring tax cuts. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee's chair, said in a July 14, 2010, statement, "I support extending the middle-class tax cuts permanently, as soon as possible, so working families can keep more of their hard-earned money."
The committee released a budget analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation, "Estimated Effects on Economic Growth and Distribution." That document showed estimates for the cost to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for those who are now taxed at rates of 10 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, "and part of the 33%." That 33 percent tax bracket, by the way, includes taxpayers who make slightly below and slightly above the benchmarks Obama described.
And then there's also the U.S. Treasury Department's "General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2011 Revenue Proposals," known by policy wonks as "the green book." It outlines in even more detail how the Obama administration plans to increase taxes for high-earners and keep the current rates for everyone else."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...palin-said-democrats-have-no-plan-extend-som/
tastes great Less filing
"We're not trying to antagonize Gov. Palin, but President Barack Obama has indeed published his proposals in some detail -- at least twice, in the annual budget documents that the White House releases.
The president's 2011 budget, for example, says on page 39, "Allow the Bush Tax Cuts for Households Earning More Than $250,000 to Expire."
"In the last Administration, those at the very top enjoyed large tax breaks and income gains while almost everyone else struggled and real income for the middle class declined. Our Nation cannot afford to continue these tax cuts, which is why the President supports allowing those tax cuts that affect families earning more than $250,000 a year to expire and committing these resources to reducing the deficit instead. This step will have no effect on the 98 percent of all households who make less than $250,000."
Lest you think that's too general and vague, there are detailed estimates in the budget summary tables, starting on page 164, for provisions such as, "Upper-income tax provisions devoted to deficit reduction: Expand the 28-percent rate and reinstate the 36-percent and 39.6-percent rates for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ... Reinstate the personal exemption phaseout and limitation on itemized deductions for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ... Impose 20-percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends for those taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single)."
In Congress, key Democratic leaders have indicated they are using the plan outlined in the federal budget as the framework for their legislation. The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on dealing with the expiring tax cuts. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee's chair, said in a July 14, 2010, statement, "I support extending the middle-class tax cuts permanently, as soon as possible, so working families can keep more of their hard-earned money."
The committee released a budget analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation, "Estimated Effects on Economic Growth and Distribution." That document showed estimates for the cost to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for those who are now taxed at rates of 10 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, "and part of the 33%." That 33 percent tax bracket, by the way, includes taxpayers who make slightly below and slightly above the benchmarks Obama described.
And then there's also the U.S. Treasury Department's "General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2011 Revenue Proposals," known by policy wonks as "the green book." It outlines in even more detail how the Obama administration plans to increase taxes for high-earners and keep the current rates for everyone else."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...palin-said-democrats-have-no-plan-extend-som/
spike
New Member
Where did you pull that from?