let all of the tax cuts excpire

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Well, I'm not a CPA or actuary, but from what I've read, there are an equal number of arguments that go against this statement.

it is a tough call. we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper...

the compromise will be to kick this can down the road for another year or so and then deal with it, which will spawn this argument all over.

I'm no economics expert, either...

"we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper... "

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed. It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected. The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed. It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected. The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.

I'm not too sure on the exact numbers, but I wonder if fighting two wars had anything to do with it. As the principle driving force to go to war, those costs are on him.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'm not too sure on the exact numbers, but I wonder if fighting two wars had anything to do with it. As the principle driving force to go to war, those costs are on him.

Are you saying that if we had not spent the money on the wars, the banking meltdown would not have been a spending problem? I suppose, then, you could say that if it had not been for the TARP the wars would not have been a spending problem. The wars did come first, and the economy was booming while the war expenditures were in place. Wars happen and they have to be payed for. Argument on whether the wars are "legitimate" is another matter, and one that you won't find agreement on. Now, under this new administration, we not only have the two wars, we have massive stimulus much greater than the TARP (which is supposedly being paid back and not as expensive as initially).

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper... "

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed.

I'm not sure I see the connection...

It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected.

Hmmm, see attached chart.

The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.

Wow, you were a hair away from blaming George Bush until you snapped back to your senses. I'd bring up that whole notion of the "ownership society" but I promised myself I wouldn't go there.

-spence