This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Question for those who think tax increases are the answer

#1Conservative16Posted 7/6/2011 10:45:27 PM
Does anyone really think for a moment that, were Congress to repeal the Bush tax cuts today, that the resulting revenue would go to paying down the deficit? Or do you think a more likely scenario would be that our elected officials would act like they won the lottery and spend it all on a bunch of new government programs we don't need?
---
WAAHHH!!! GOVERNMENT, PLEASE SAVE ME!
Reid, Obama, Pelosi: BUDGET?!?!? WE DONT NEED NO STINKIN BUDGET!!! ... I am against gay marriage.
#2EsracPosted 7/6/2011 10:49:19 PM
Conservative16 posted...
Does anyone really think for a moment that, were Congress to repeal the Bush tax cuts today, that the resulting revenue would go to paying down the deficit? Or do you think a more likely scenario would be that our elected officials would act like they won the lottery and spend it all on a bunch of new government programs we don't need?

I think it would probably be mostly used to fund the programs already in place, while some would go toward additional projects. Either way, continuing the tax cuts is only hurting us.
#3goguesPosted 7/6/2011 10:58:20 PM
Given the size of the deficit, I think it would most likely be primarily used to pay for programs already in place instead of increasing our debt to pay for them. If we actually got to a surplus and were faced with the decision of of either paying down the debt or spending more, then I think that scenario would be more likely.
#4Conservative16(Topic Creator)Posted 7/6/2011 11:38:50 PM
So you two are basically saying that the debt will never be dealt with
---
WAAHHH!!! GOVERNMENT, PLEASE SAVE ME!
Reid, Obama, Pelosi: BUDGET?!?!? WE DONT NEED NO STINKIN BUDGET!!! ... I am against gay marriage.
#5sfcalimariPosted 7/6/2011 11:56:35 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
#6goguesPosted 7/6/2011 11:56:41 PM
It doesn't necessarily need to be dealt with (though I personally think that would be preferable). It just needs to stop increasing at anything close to the rate that it has been.
#7theSMITHSPosted 7/6/2011 11:59:31 PM
spend it all on a bunch of new government programs we don't need?

Lookee here, It's another right-winger defending the rich (and who knows why, he certainly cannot count himself among them).

Repairing infrastructure (you know, so bridges don't collapse and kill people)? R&D in medicine (another life saving effort, but what do you care?) Clean energy? Foolish, unnecessary wasteful programs like that?
---
http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/
#8EsracPosted 7/7/2011 1:06:47 AM(edited)
Conservative16 posted...
So you two are basically saying that the debt will never be dealt with

I'm saying that increased income from tax increases would probably at least mostly be used to pay for currently active programs. Another portion would probably go to improving funding to some programs. And another portion would probably go toward paying for new programs.

If by "Dealt with" you mean the debt would go away, then no, I doubt it'll ever be "Dealt with", but debt can be managed. But to manage debt, you need income, and continuously cutting taxes on the richest of the rich won't give us the income we need to manage our debt or the cost of government works.

I don't think raising taxes alone is the answer, but I do think it would be a significant improvement over the current situation. After that, it would be good to start cutting some spending. Aside from the argument about whether to raise or lower taxes, the controversy is deciding what spending to cut. For example, I'd like to see social programs and services (such as funding for Planned Parenthood) remain in place and I would like to see military spending decrease.
#9ncalvinPosted 7/7/2011 4:25:36 AM
Strawman in the topic title. GG, hack.
---
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1032102 -- Which one are you?
http://www.neilcalvin.com
#10Nirvna9Posted 7/7/2011 4:34:46 AM
Conservative, you need to get something that the rest of us so called liberals have long since come to grips with. Republican or Democrat they are GOING TO INCREASE SPENDING REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION. Part of our political process is built around the basic fact that it is really just a popularity contest, it is democracy after all. As well, politicians are making a career of their positions, jockeying for power as long as they are capable. You may try and remove some programs that are opposed to your certain political views, but you are going to try and put other ones in to replace them so that you at least have the appearance of having done something in office. Every politician does it, and will continue to do it. If they do not, they know full well they will not get their next election when another individual stands up saying he will push for bills that represent his constituents. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't really matter who it is, neither one really wants to balance diddly squat. They simply want to make cuts in the programs they are not politically aligned with. The biggest problem now is that the programs that could be reduced or removed and greatly help the deficit and get us on track to paying our debts are in both camps. They will never get a clear enough consensus to remove either of them and this is not helped by Republican filibustering. None of this is ever going to be fully fixed because it is the system itself that is broken, not any particular party or viewpoint.
---
We rode on the winds of the rising storm, We ran to the sounds of the thunder. We danced amongst the lightning bolts, and tore the world asunder.