We Should let the Bush Tax cuts Expire

[whateverdude]

Who said that?

well, you know I'm making a comparison right? The congress is not responsible enough to get more of our money through lapse tax cuts.

[Magox]

well, you know I'm making a comparison right? The congress is not responsible enough to get more of our money through lapse tax cuts.

Generally I agree with you. So we have a few choices,

 

1) Don't let the tax cuts expire, and add another couple trillion dollars more to the National Debt.

 

2) Let the tax cuts expire, and have Congress spend much of the savings.

 

3) Let the tax cuts expire, and hope that Congress uses much of it to reduce the debt.

 

No matter how you slice it and dice it, if we want to avoid a Debt Crisis (which to tell you the truth I'm not too optimistic about), then option one is our best hope.

[Rob's House]

That would be your definition of "criminal".

 

We lived without those cuts for many years, and what most people don't realize is that

 

 

WE ARE ABOUT TO HAVE A !@#$ING DEBT CRISIS

 

 

It will require a combination of tax increases and massive cuts in spending in order for us to have any chance at avoiding this.

 

 

It's time to put aside the partisan talking points and solve this problem. I honestly don't believe that our elected leaders will be able to do this. GOP will say no to any sort of meaningful tax hikes, Democrats won't want to any sort of meaningful cuts in spending.

 

Gridlock.

 

Unfortunately, we will wait until the bond vigilantes hold us accountable, and by that time, economic carnage will have transpired.

 

We lived for many years without the repeal of prohibition. We lived for many years through the Great Depression with a fascist President (FDR) sending out his thugs to shut down any publication critical of him. We more recently lived with a "fairness doctrine" that gave unaccountable politically motivated federal agencies the power to police political speech on the radio to make sure it was "balanced" in their opinion. These are not good reasons to do them again.

 

We do have a huge debt crisis coming, but there's only so much more you can get out of raising taxes. The Feds take in over $3 trillion/year. The Fed's income is fine, it's the budget that's bloated. It needs to be trimmed not with a scalpel as President Dipsht suggested but rather with a chainsaw.

 

It's popular for the faint of thought to point to things like schools and roads when justifying a $4+trillion budget. That's equivalent to telling your wife you'll have to cut back on shoes and food for the kids as though your weekend coke binges and trips to Vegas aren't part of the equation.

[Alaska Darin]

WE ARE ABOUT TO HAVE A !@#$ING DEBT CRISIS

We've been having a debt crisis. I'll believe the government deserves more money when they start making tough choices on paring down the amount of money they spend. Until then, they get not another dime.

[Magox]

We lived for many years without the repeal of prohibition. We lived for many years through the Great Depression with a fascist President (FDR) sending out his thugs to shut down any publication critical of him. We more recently lived with a "fairness doctrine" that gave unaccountable politically motivated federal agencies the power to police political speech on the radio to make sure it was "balanced" in their opinion. These are not good reasons to do them again.

 

We do have a huge debt crisis coming, but there's only so much more you can get out of raising taxes. The Feds take in over $3 trillion/year. The Fed's income is fine, it's the budget that's bloated. It needs to be trimmed not with the scalpel as President Dipsht suggested but rather with a chainsaw.

 

It's popular for the faint of thought to point to things like schools and roads when justifying a $4+trillion budget. That's equivalent to telling your wife you'll have to cut back on shoes and food for the kids as though your weekend coke binges and trips to Vegas aren't part of the equation.

You missed the entire point. The point was that it won't break our backs to let the cuts expire and that we need to reduce the deficit using all sensible means possible. I don't care what world you live in, $2 Trillion over the next decade is alot of money. You make it seem as if I am advocating tax increases as opposed to budget cuts.

 

I just hope that the GOP leaders aren't as stubborn and bullheaded as some of you on this board.

[Magox]

We've been having a debt crisis. I'll believe the government deserves more money when they start making tough choices on paring down the amount of money they spend. Until then, they get not another dime.

Not to this extent. And I guarantee you, if the GOP goes in with this mentality, then we are !@#$ed. It will take compromise, not this sort of bullheaded mentality.

[Alaska Darin]

Not to this extent.

Bull. The deficit and the "ramp up" to this point are at the very heart of everything that's been coming to a head for decades.

And I guarantee you, if the GOP goes in with this mentality, then we are !@#$ed. It will take compromise, not this sort of bullheaded mentality.

Guess which outcome is more likely?

[Magox]

Bull. The deficit and the "ramp up" to this point are at the very heart of everything that's been coming to a head for decades.

 

Guess which outcome is more likely?

Bull.

 

We didn't have this Health Care Bill that we have now, we didn't have the significant permanent loss of tax revenues that this crisis has brought us, the Bush Tax cuts added to our debt problems, The Bush Medicare prescription drug giveaway that has added hundreds of billions to our debt, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that has cost the taxpayers $1 Trillion. These are all developments that occured over the last 10 years.

 

No one here is arguing that Entitlments are the main fiscal drains of this economy, but to argue that our debt crisis isn't considerably closer due to the reasons I just mentioned is absurd.

 

In regards to the outcome? My guess is that our elected leaders will !@#$ up and we will go through a debt crisis. Why? Because Liberals won't want to cut spending without compromise. And the GOP won't want to cut taxes. GRIDLOCK.

[Hossage]

Know how you can tell you're an idiot? You don't even know why I called you an idiot.

 

You really dont matter to me, tom. Every time you have taken issue with something I say, you have been wrong. You have a secret reason why you disagree with me, and you think I care?

[GG]

If you're going to do it, you need to collapse the tax brackets more, not widen them. Raising marginal rates all the way at the top makes good headlines but is bad fiscal management.

[Magox]

If you're going to do it, you need to collapse the tax brackets more, not widen them. Raising marginal rates all the way at the top makes good headlines but is bad fiscal management.

I agree, and I'm all for reforming the tax codes. However, I don't believe Congress has the balls to do it.

[GG]

I agree, and I'm all for reforming the tax codes. However, I don't believe Congress has the balls to do it.

 

Then don't let the tax cuts expire because they won't help the "recovery"

 

If your goal is long term fiscal sustainability, then tax & entitlement reform absolutely has to be part of the total fix. If you just let the tax cuts expire, it takes the lazy arses in DC off the hook for the electoral cycle, and then they can continue punting the problem down the road until they hit a wall.

[Magox]

Then don't let the tax cuts expire because they won't help the "recovery"

 

If your goal is long term fiscal sustainability, then tax & entitlement reform absolutely has to be part of the total fix. If you just let the tax cuts expire, it takes the lazy arses in DC off the hook for the electoral cycle, and then they can continue punting the problem down the road until they hit a wall.

There is no doubt that allowing the tax cuts to expire would dampen economic growth, but as Greenspan noted, the debt risks outweigh the lagging growth prospects.

 

What I would suggest to offset the expiration of the tax cuts is to lower the corporate tax rates. This would provide more certainty to the one's who hire, and would most likely translate into more jobs, which in turn would help generate more revenues.

[GG]

There is no doubt that allowing the tax cuts to expire would dampen economic growth, but as Greenspan noted, the debt risks outweigh the lagging growth prospects.

 

What I would suggest to offset the expiration of the tax cuts is to lower the corporate tax rates. This would provide more certainty to the one's who hire, and would most likely translate into more jobs, which in turn would help generate more revenues.

 

That plan may be revnue neutral. It may spur more job creation, but you would not have addressed the main issue, which is reducing the cost trajectory. There's no way you will accomplish that if DC shows a temporary revenue gain from the higher tax rates.

 

You're advocating the kind of deal that usually happens between two trusting partners, who have a long history of meeting their promises.

 

Unfortunately that's not the case with the DC crowd.

[Peevo]

So where are we at?

 

Magox is doing a really good job of spelling out the situation. If neither side is willing to compromise, how bad could it really get?

 

Are we talking severe depression? Like, say 30% unemployment?

 

What comes next? Global warfare? Literally the end of the world?

 

I'm not trying to monger fear here, but how bad will/could it be?

[Magox]

So where are we at?

 

Magox is doing a really good job of spelling out the situation. If neither side is willing to compromise, how bad could it really get?

 

Are we talking severe depression? Like, say 30% unemployment?

 

What comes next? Global warfare? Literally the end of the world?

 

I'm not trying to monger fear here, but how bad will/could it be?

Where are we? At an inflection point. The Good news is that Steny Hoyer 2nd or 3rd ranking Democrat and Boehner top ranking GOP member are out there throwing trial balloons regarding containing S.S costs. The bad news is that rank and file members from both parties have to get reelected.

 

How bad could things get? Well, I don't believe default on our US bonds would ever happen, as Ben Bernanke said,

“But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.”

 

My realistic worst case fear would be that bond yields would soar, unemployment would rise by a few percentage points higher than where we are today, inflation would rise, yet growth would lag, creating a stagflationary environment, which would persist for a longer period of time than what we would like.

[Rob's House]

You missed the entire point. The point was that it won't break our backs to let the cuts expire and that we need to reduce the deficit using all sensible means possible. I don't care what world you live in, $2 Trillion over the next decade is alot of money. You make it seem as if I am advocating tax increases as opposed to budget cuts.

 

I just hope that the GOP leaders aren't as stubborn and bullheaded as some of you on this board.

 

No we all get the point, the problem is that repealing the tax cuts is going to have about as much impact on budget deficits as Cap & Trade will have on "climate change" - Not !@#$ing much.

 

$2 trillion over the next year translates to $200 billion a year and that estimate is backloaded, so it would be considerably less for the next few years. We're running around a $1.4 trillion deficit now which if unchecked will balloon. It's not inconceivable to see $15-$20 trillion added to the national debt over the next decade.

 

That being the case, I'm not willing to tighten my budget any further so the entitled statist class can have a few more dollars to play Monopoly with.

[Magox]

No we all get the point, the problem is that repealing the tax cuts is going to have about as much impact on budget deficits as Cap & Trade will have on "climate change" - Not !@#$ing much.

 

$2 trillion over the next year translates to $200 billion a year and that estimate is backloaded, so it would be considerably less for the next few years. We're running around a $1.4 trillion deficit now which if unchecked will balloon. It's not inconceivable to see $15-$20 trillion added to the national debt over the next decade.

 

That being the case, I'm not willing to tighten my budget any further so the entitled statist class can have a few more dollars to play Monopoly with.

Let's just pray that our elected leaders don't feel the same way you do.

[Rob's House]

Let's just pray that our elected leaders don't feel the same way you do.

 

I don't give a !@#$ how they feel. I would like them to think. God forbid they apply some basic math and reason to the situation.

[Magox]

I don't give a !@#$ how they feel. I would like them to think. God forbid they apply some basic math and reason to the situation.

Me too²