President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.
How do "tax cuts" create debt?
Answer: they don't. Spending creates debt. And Obama is the biggest spender of them all. Trouble is, he spent it on his Wall Street buddies, his union buddeis, and his NGO buddies. THAT'S where the "waste" occurred.
Anyone wanna bet their "taxes" won't rise if the current Congress and Administration stay in power? Anyone wanna bet their State and Local taxes won't be rising? Anyone wanna bet levy rates will not be increasing?
And don't forget all those "fees" that get tacked on. Plus your "cadillac" health care plans will get taxed (assuming your employer doesn't get rid of them - thanks Mr. President!!). And your health care flexible spending account contribution limits (pre-tax dollars!!) are being capped under Obamacare at $2500, which is a decrease for a lot of folks.
But it's all good, right?
"How do "tax cuts" create debt?"
By decreasing revenue. Spending - revenue = deficits/debt. The tax cuts were unfunded, meaning there was nothing to match the loss of revenue created by the cuts.
And the CBO estimated that the health care bill will DECREASE the deficit.
Ok, I'm game and will listen with an open mind.
Just how will the health care bill decrease the deficit?
Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.
Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.
AH, here a letter from the CBO.
All of those estimates are for the unified budget, including both on-budget effects and off-budget effects. Changes related to Social Security and the U.S. Postal Service are classified as off-budget.
Note the close proximity between the word changes and the words social security. My thought is that if the government continues to collect for social security but fails to pay any claims, then we might see a decrease in the deficit.
Unless the excess funds get spent on the war effort - Afghanistan, Drugs, Poverty (did we ever win the war on poverty, or is that still going on?) - whatever it is, we've got to fight for or against it, and fighting means war. I think there's also a war on civil rights, isn't there? Has that been budgeted in?
Mad Jack's Shack
So, in your world, the government should spend as much as they want, then increase the taxes on people to cover that spending.
As opposed to the real world, where you figure out how much income you have, then cut your spending accordingly.
Yeah, it all makes sense now!!!
"As opposed to the real world, where you figure out how much income you have, then cut your spending accordingly."
Of course, that's not what happened under Reagan or Bush. They knew how much was being spent, and then they cut their income to create a huge debt. And the current GOP crop plans on doing the same thing.
Democrats held the House and Senate for much of the Reagan/Bush era.
I call BS. Claiming tax cuts create debt is basically saying that the government is entitled to all of the money a person earns, they just choose to let the poor peon keep some.
On second thought, no wonder you feel that way, that's how socialism works isn't it?
"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni
It still takes money to run wars and make sure you're pension fun is solvent JeepMaker.
If tax cuts are free then lets cut taxes to zero, the government will be fine right?
The Income Tax started wIth the establishment of the 16th Amendment on Feb 13th 1913. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Co...
How did Mommy Gubberment survive for 137 years BEFORE the 16th Amendment authorized taxing your earnings?
"In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945."
The answer, among other things, is that Congress WAS NOT A FULL TIME PAID JOB.
"From 1789 to 1815, members of Congress received only a daily payment of $6 while in session. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1815 of $1,500 per year. In 2006, congresspersons received a yearly salary of $165,200. Congressional leaders were paid $183,500 per year. The Speaker of the House of Representatives earns $212,100 annually. The salary of the President pro tempore for 2006 was $183,500, equal to that of the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate. Privileges include having an office and paid staff. In 2008, non-officer members of Congress earned $169,300 annually. "
BY THE WAY, for those of you who can't wait for this never-ending list of BS, you can look up all the lies here > http://www.truth-out.org/eight-false-things-public-knows-prior-election-day64486?print
It is being plagiarized by Pink Slit without credit being given to the original Liberal Blogger,
, from the Liberal Website http://www.truth-out.org/eight-false-things-public-knows-prior-election-...
Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a socialist.
Easy, it wasn't trying to be everyones mother back then, politicians stuck to there constitutional restraints.
The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.
That's right, Liberally Blowing Me--the posts are from a Dave Johnson article.
Wars used to be paid for by bonds and not taxes.
We just paid off the Spanish American war 2 years ago.
If you had the War on Terror paid for by bonds and the Federal Reserve invested in them instead of just printing more money we would not be faced with ballooning inflation during a time of mass joblessness.