Bush Era Tax Cuts Increase the Deficit/GOP Big Government

[JMU DJ]

Better start printing more money to continue devaluing our currency....

(Reuters) - The U.S. budget deficit this year will jump nearly 40 percent over prior forecasts, mostly due to the mammoth tax-cut package brokered by President Barack Obama and lawmakers last month, the Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday.

The CBO said the fiscal 2011 deficit will hit $1.48 trillion, up from last August's $1.07 trillion estimate, which was crafted before Bush-era tax rates were extended at a cost of $858 billion over 10 years.

The CBO "estimates that the act (renewing tax cuts) will increase the deficit by $390 billion in 2011, by $407 billion in 2012 and by $120 billion in 2013," according to the report.

.......


Some Republicans looked at the CBO report as further evidence of the need to cut federal spending, ignoring the impact of the tax-cut extension.

"Today's CBO projections underscore what Republicans have been telling the Obama administration and its allies in Congress: The pursuit of a big government agenda is reckless, irresponsible and unsustainable," said Representative Tom Price.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... U220110126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the Big Government angle, the GOP and the Obama DOJ are making another push to increase the powers of government and further invade your privacy.

The House Republicans' first major technology initiative is about to be unveiled: a push to force Internet companies to keep track of what their users are doing.

A House panel chaired by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users' activities for later review by police.

One focus will be on reviving a dormant proposal for data retention that would require companies to store Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for two years, CNET has learned.

Tomorrow's data retention hearing is juxtaposed against the recent trend to protect Internet users' privacy by storing less data. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission called for "limited retention" of user data on privacy grounds, and in the last 24 hours, both Mozilla and Google have announced do-not-track technology.

A Judiciary committee aide provided a statement this afternoon saying "the purpose of this hearing is to examine the need for retention of certain data by Internet service providers to facilitate law enforcement investigations of Internet child pornography and other Internet crimes," but declined to elaborate.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20029 ... z1CiDqetlR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess increasing the size of government is fine as long as it involves protecting our citizens, even if it takes away our freedom and privacy.


Translation for those who speak TeaPartiese:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Ben Franklin

[Ibanez]

Giving up liberties under the pretense of safety is a very touchy subject. It has worked in the past, on a small scale, but many countries have used the same arguement and committed horrible atrocities (Nazi Germany, USSR). If an IP address is to be under review, then the appropriate law enforcement authority should obtain a "wire tapping" warrant. Obviously, there is no need for Pro Flowers, McDonalds and ChampionshipSubdivision.com to keep all that information. In my opinion, an acceptable comprimise would be pornographic sites, sites that sell munitions and hate groups.

On another note, now that Obama has continued Bush's tax cuts, does this mean he no longer can recieve any criticism from the left for the cuts?

[blueballs]

Don't you just love how liberals frame it as "lower taxes cost..." but never that "runaway spending, bureaucracy, and waste cost..."

[JMU DJ]

In my opinion, an acceptable comprimise would be pornographic sites, sites that sell munitions and hate groups.

Slippery slope dude.

On another note, now that Obama has continued Bush's tax cuts, does this mean he no longer can recieve any criticism from the left for the cuts?

Nope, the left criticized him for extending the cuts.

Liberals Livid As Obama 'Surrenders' On Tax Cuts

NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... obama-cave" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Liberals' frustrations with Obama boil over after deal

USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... 8_ST_N.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If they criticize Obama for extending the cuts, likely they will still criticize Bush for initiating the cuts too. I assume that's what you're getting at?

[JMU DJ]

Don't you just love how liberals frame it as "lower taxes cost..." but never that "runaway spending, bureaucracy, and waste cost..."

They both "cost", people/politicians need to quit putting partisan BS behind it and actually do something about it.

[blueballs]

Don't you just love how liberals frame it as "lower taxes cost..." but never that "runaway spending, bureaucracy, and waste cost..."

They both "cost", people/politicians need to quit putting partisan BS behind it and actually do something about it.

Wrong. The income earners of this country are not undertaxed. The problem lies entirely with the politicians' thirst for power and control and our collective tax dollars are the capital they use to obtain, expand, and retain that power and control.

The politicians need to quit spending so wildly and shrink the size, scope, and cost of government. Period. That would be "doing something about it."

[kalm]

They both "cost", people/politicians need to quit putting partisan BS behind it and actually do something about it.

Wrong. The income earners of this country are not undertaxed. The problem lies entirely with the politicians' thirst for power and control and our collective tax dollars are the capital they use to obtain, expand, and retain that power and control.

The politicians need to quit spending so wildly and shrink the size, scope, and cost of government. Period. That would be "doing something about it."

The income earners of this country have never had it so good.

[blueballs]

Wrong. The income earners of this country are not undertaxed. The problem lies entirely with the politicians' thirst for power and control and our collective tax dollars are the capital they use to obtain, expand, and retain that power and control.

The politicians need to quit spending so wildly and shrink the size, scope, and cost of government. Period. That would be "doing something about it."

The income earners of this country have never had it so good.

... as it should be. Actually, it should be better. If government would coagulate their feces we could cut taxes on the achievers even further.

[kalm]

The income earners of this country have never had it so good.

... as it should be. Actually, it should be better. If government would coagulate their feces we could cut taxes on the achievers even further.

And it's putting us further in debt and diminishing the middle class. We have different ideas of what's good for the country I guess.

[OL FU]

Calling tax cut costs are simply political speaks. Tax cuts aren't costs.

On the other hand, the middle class does get the worst of our tax code (depending on how many kids you have and how big your mortgage interest is). The 25% bracket starts at $34,000 for a single person without kids. So basically ever dollar about $40,000 in income is tax at damn near 50%. 25% fed, 15% SS and medicare and 6% (good average) for state taxes.

[BDKJMU]

Better start printing more money to continue devaluing our currency....

(Reuters) - The U.S. budget deficit this year will jump nearly 40 percent over prior forecasts, mostly due to the mammoth tax-cut package brokered by President Barack Obama and lawmakers last month, the Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday.

That 1st sentence right there tells me that article is baloney. There were NO income tax cuts passed in Dec. NO One is getting a fed income tax cut. What Obama and Congress were debating were to either:
-Keep taxes the same
-Have a massive tax increase.

Congress and Obama chose to keep income taxes the same. That doesn't cost the govt a dime.

The only tax cut that was passed was a temp reduction in the Payroll tax.

[kalm]

Better start printing more money to continue devaluing our currency....

That 1st sentence right there tells me that article is baloney. There were NO income tax cuts passed in Dec. NO One is getting a fed income tax cut. What Obama and Congress were debating were to either:
-Keep taxes the same
-Have a massive tax increase.

Congress and Obama chose to keep income taxes the same. That doesn't cost the govt a dime.

The only tax cut that was passed was a temp reduction in the Payroll tax.

Sweet! So Bush didn't really cut taxes, he just restored them to 1980's levels.

[BDKJMU]

Calling tax cut costs are simply political speaks. Tax cuts aren't costs.

On the other hand, the middle class does get the worst of our tax code (depending on how many kids you have and how big your mortgage interest is). The 25% bracket starts at $34,000 for a single person without kids. So basically ever dollar about $40,000 in income is tax at damn near 50%. 25% fed, 15% SS and medicare and 6% (good average) for state taxes.

And like I just pointed out, there were no income tax cuts enacted last month. Tax rates are staying the same.

With the 15.3% SS and medicare I believe thats what you pay if your self employed?

Not self employed 7.65% SS and medicare for employees half. 25% fed + 7.65% SS and medicare + 6% avg states= about 39%. Now you could also say that the 7.65% matching payroll taxes that your employer pays is $ that you would otherwise see in the form of higher wages. Add on that and all the other taxes (property, sales, utility, gas, local, etc) then yeah, could be over 50%

[BDKJMU]

That 1st sentence right there tells me that article is baloney. There were NO income tax cuts passed in Dec. NO One is getting a fed income tax cut. What Obama and Congress were debating were to either:
-Keep taxes the same
-Have a massive tax increase.

Congress and Obama chose to keep income taxes the same. That doesn't cost the govt a dime.

The only tax cut that was passed was a temp reduction in the Payroll tax.

Sweet! So Bush didn't really cut taxes, he just restored them to 1980's levels.

Uh, no, Bush cut taxes. Obama and Congress last month kept taxes the same.

[kalm]

Sweet! So Bush didn't really cut taxes, he just restored them to 1980's levels.

Uh, no, Bush cut taxes. Obama and Congress last month kept taxes the same.

Where's the "going right over your head" smiley?

Of course it's semantics. The point is that as long as both parties find new things to spend on we either raise taxes to pay for them or we continue to hold out hope that trickle down economics works.

[ming01]

the government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem

[OL FU]

Calling tax cut costs are simply political speaks. Tax cuts aren't costs.

On the other hand, the middle class does get the worst of our tax code (depending on how many kids you have and how big your mortgage interest is). The 25% bracket starts at $34,000 for a single person without kids. So basically ever dollar about $40,000 in income is tax at damn near 50%. 25% fed, 15% SS and medicare and 6% (good average) for state taxes.

And like I just pointed out, there were no income tax cuts enacted last month. Tax rates are staying the same.

With the 15.3% SS and medicare I believe thats what you pay if your self employed?

Not self employed 7.65% SS and medicare for employees half. 25% fed + 7.65% SS and medicare + 6% avg states= about 39%. Now you could also say that the 7.65% matching payroll taxes that your employer pays is $ that you would otherwise see in the form of higher wages. Add on that and all the other taxes (property, sales, utility, gas, local, etc) then yeah, could be over 50%

yes, income and payroll taxes have to be looked at as every amount paid on a dollar's worth of wages whether the employee or the employer pays it.

[Chizzang]

The problem lies entirely with the politicians' thirst for power and control and our collective tax dollars are the capital they use to obtain, expand, and retain that power and control.

The politicians need to quit spending so wildly and shrink the size, scope, and cost of government. Period. That would be "doing something about it."

This (above) statement I completely agree with... and I'm a Left Wing Moon Bat Tree Hugger
Unfortunately it seems impossible
It's not what politicians do - they don't decrease their influence and decrease their power and decrease their realm of influence and responsibility and decrease their cash flow - No matter what's "best for the country"

It just does not happen (ever)

[SeattleGriz]

... as it should be. Actually, it should be better. If government would coagulate their feces we could cut taxes on the achievers even further.

And it's putting us further in debt and diminishing the middle class. We have different ideas of what's good for the country I guess.

Well, obviously you are a commie bastard.

Not to sound like an overconfident dick, but you sound like someone who hasn't seen an adequate tax payer all year.



Commie.