GOP Offers Budget

[LeBuick]

The GOP offered their version of a budget today which was a whopping 18 pages. It basically had no numbers except for the proposed cutting of the taxes for the rich from 36% to 25%. What a huge, unpredictable surprise, however, how can they think cutting taxes on the rich will do anything to help the economy. It's not like Bill Gates is waiting for a tax cut to buy that new car.

Way to go guys... :thumbsup:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032603694.html?hpid=topnews

Looking to rebut criticism from President Obama that the GOP is attacking him but not offering proposals of its own, Republican lawmakers released an 18-page outline of an alternative budget that proposes to cut overall government spending except for defense, ban additional spending for bailouts of financial companies, and cut the maximum income tax rate to 25 percent from the current rate of 36 percent.

 

[blackbird]

That percentage difference makes a difference in how much more money Bill can carry around

More "Doughnuts" for Bill = more cars for Bill

More cars for Bill= fewer auto workers being laid off

Fewer auto workers being laid off = more money THEY have

More money they have = more cars for them

It pays everyone to reduce from 36% to 25%

Its called "Reagonimcs"----I believe he called it "Trickle down" economics

More money in Bill Gates pocket = more in mine

 

[Revmitchell]

Looking to rebut criticism from President Obama that the GOP is attacking him but not offering proposals of its own, Republican lawmakers released an 18-page outline of an alternative budget that proposes to cut overall government spending except for defense, ban additional spending for bailouts of financial companies, and cut the maximum income tax rate to 25 percent from the current rate of 36 percent.

I missed the word rich in this article. Did anyone see that word "rich"?

"Our economic plan amounts to less government, lower taxes and economic prosperity,"

The American way!

 

[rbell]

The GOP offered their version of a budget today which was a whopping 18 pages. It basically had no numbers except for the proposed cutting of the taxes for the rich from 36% to 25%. What a huge, unpredictable surprise, however, how can they think cutting taxes on the rich will do anything to help the economy. It's not like Bill Gates is waiting for a tax cut to buy that new car.

Way to go guys... :thumbsup:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032603694.html?hpid=topnews

Oh, boy.

Look, everyone...LeBuick posted something about politics.

It contains wealth envy, refusal to criticize democrats for anything, demonization of Republicans, and a lack of understanding of basic economics.

In the words of Gilbert Gottfried, "I just might die from not surprise."

 

[Magnetic Poles]

A budget without numbers is not a budget. More nonsense, courtesy of The New GOP!

 

[LeBuick]

That percentage difference makes a difference in how much more money Bill can carry around

I can't imagine Bill carrying one less dollar in his wallet because of taxes.

More "Doughnuts" for Bill = more cars for Bill

I can't imagine Bill's chef making one less "Doughnut" because of taxes.

More cars for Bill= fewer auto workers being laid off

Perhaps, but Bill's collection of a few cars won't save any jobs and it doesn't appear he owns any American cars.

In later years, he bought a Porsche 930 Turbo he called the "rocket," then a Mercedes, a Jaguar XJ6, a $60,000 Carrera Cabriolet 964 and a Ferrari 348 that became known as the "dune buggy" after he spun it into the sand. Gates famously bought a US$300,000 Porsche 959 - the legendary king of late eighties supercars - only to have it impounded by US Customs when it arrived from Germany because the car failed to meet local regulations. Expensive crash testing would be required before they could be driven in the US - not something anyone was keen to perform, with just 230 cars ever made.

Fewer auto workers being laid off = more money THEY have

Wouldn't it be better for the auto industry if we gave the tax break to the middle class who could potentially consume exponentially more cars than what the few rich will buy? People who would actually buy a Ford or Chevy?

More money they have = more cars for them

It pays everyone to reduce from 36% to 25%

I strongly disagree but each to his own. Cutting their taxes has proven to only increase their bottom line and IF any job is created it is one overseas.

Its called "Reagonimcs"----I believe he called it "Trickle down" economics

More money in Bill Gates pocket = more in mine

This has been the failure of trickle down economics, it doesn't trickle down to the bottom of the economic ladder. It is horded and consumed at the top end and very little if any makes it to mainstreet. Reagan had a good theory and we all bought into it but it didn't work because of the inherit greed in man.

 

[JustChristian]

That percentage difference makes a difference in how much more money Bill can carry around

More "Doughnuts" for Bill = more cars for Bill

More cars for Bill= fewer auto workers being laid off

Fewer auto workers being laid off = more money THEY have

More money they have = more cars for them

It pays everyone to reduce from 36% to 25%

Its called "Reagonimcs"----I believe he called it "Trickle down" economics

More money in Bill Gates pocket = more in mine

Reaganomics was a failure. President George HW Bush called it voodoo economics and he was right.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

How can you say it was a failure ? Stats, please ?

 

[LeBuick]

I missed the word rich in this article. Did anyone see that word "rich"?

Come on Rev, you read the Republican code book didn't you? Who does the maximum income tax rate apply to? Who currently pays 36%? Whose taxes are always the first the Republican's want to cut? Certainly not me...

By the way, as a foot note to all the financially disadvantaged members of the Republican party, when will you realize that your capitol hill representation always cuts the taxes for themselves, their family, neighbors and friends who are in the top tax bracket but you on the other hand, are excluded by your leadership? If anyone needs to have more money and if a tax cut is to truly stimulate the economy it seems better to cut the taxes of those who will actually spend it.

...and cut the maximum income tax rate to 25 percent from the current rate of 36 percent

 

[LeBuick]

It contains wealth envy, refusal to criticize democrats for anything, demonization of Republicans, and a lack of understanding of basic economics.

The jury is still out on what the Democrats do with Obama's budget. I'm not as concerned as most about the actual deficit but do believe the spending must be targeted. We need to fix healthcare and now is the time since that alone will save the tax payers the most in the long run. We need to take care of the vets and we need to make sure our soldiers in combat are not deprived.

Obviously this means social programs will have to be reduced so I am wating to see how they work the scalpel...

 

[LeBuick]

How can you say it was a failure ? Stats, please ?

Looks like the numbers will be out Wednesday of next week. We'll see if it is viable to run and sustain the government and how much they can cut the deficit since that is their biggest disagreement to the Obama budget.

 

[rbell]

So, LeBuick: How much of Bill's money do you have a right to?

I eagerly await your (non-)answer.

 

[LeBuick]

So, LeBuick: How much of Bill's money do you have a right to?

I eagerly await your (non-)answer.

I personally will not be getting any of Bill's money. Nor do I want any. The Lord provides all my needs and then some.

Now if you are asking what is his contribution to the running of the nation, my answer is what ever our lawmakers decide. I can careless what Bill pays but back in the 40's and 50's his bracket paid 90% and our economy still flourished.

My questions have more to do with people appalled with passing a deficit to future generations then want to cut the taxes of the only ones who can currently afford to chip in. Then they try and justify that decision with the fallacy that cutting Bill's taxes will improve our present economy. I have never heard something so ridiculous or wrong in all my life.

If the right feels ok with raising the deficit by reducing Bill's contribution then I am ok with it also. I just don't want to hear them scream about the deficit or trying to pretend that cutting the taxes of a Hollywood movie star or professional athlete somehow creates jobs. I'm not buying what you're selling.

Not to dwell on this point, but when I learned only 2% of Small Businesses are in the over $250K bracket, it further highlighted how most of the blind followers on the right don't understand the false illusions their leadership is selling when they say things like "Obama is raising taxes on small businesses". Then they go around being offended and saying this like it's the truth.

No, the truth is Obama is raising taxes on 2% of small businesses and if the owner of this "small business" is profiting more than $250K/yr then perhaps he can afford to chip in a bit more. I don't know but I am a long, long way from offended...

 

[billwald]

>>Originally Posted by Revmitchell
I missed the word rich in this article. Did anyone see that word "rich"?


>Come on Rev, you read the Republican code book didn't you? Who does the maximum income tax rate apply to? Who currently pays 36%? Whose taxes are always the first the Republican's want to cut? Certainly not me...

The upper middle class - those working for wages pay a marginal 36%income tax. The rich pay 15% capital gains on their spending money.

 

[targus]

The jury is still out on what the Democrats do with Obama's budget. I'm not as concerned as most about the actual deficit but do believe the spending must be targeted. We need to fix healthcare and now is the time since that alone will save the tax payers the most in the long run. We need to take care of the vets and we need to make sure our soldiers in combat are not deprived.

Obviously this means social programs will have to be reduced so I am wating to see how they work the scalpel...

Don't be too surprised if the Democrats use the scalpel to cut away at your take home pay.

 

[LeBuick]

Don't be too surprised if the Democrats use the scalpel to cut away at your take home pay.

According to Donna, I'm about to get a $3 raise... :thumbsup:

 

[LeBuick]

The upper middle class - those working for wages pay a marginal 36%income tax. The rich pay 15% capital gains on their spending money.

Only if you call people making over $372,950 upper middle class. That is where the 35% bracket begins. And even if you call them upper middle class, they are still in the top 5% so I have no problem with it.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/151.html

 

[Crabtownboy]

Don't be too surprised if the Democrats use the scalpel to cut away at your take home pay.

WOW, you're worried about take home pay. I didn't realize you make over $250,000 a year. Well, if they raise you taxes be proud you are doing your patriotic duty. :laugh:

 

[billwald]

>Only if you call people making over $372,950 upper middle class.

Yes, I do. It is less than 10 times median pay. Some people could be 10 times more productive than the median worker. I doubt that anyone could be 1000 times more productive.

Median family income in Seattle is around $80,000 (two people making $20/hour gross $88,000, not unusual).

 

[Bob Alkire]

Now if you are asking what is his contribution to the running of the nation, my answer is what ever our lawmakers decide. I can careless what Bill pays but back in the 40's and 50's his bracket paid 90% and our economy still flourished.

Your memory isn't very good or mine has went through the bottom as I've grown older. The 40's WWll kept us going and then as thing were turning bad then the Korean war picked thing up again, but after the Korean war jobs were hard to find.

You are correct about the 90% tax, because many factories closed up for three to sometimes five months a year to keep profit down, so taxes wouldn't take the profit, it just wasn't worth it to keep 10% or less of each dollar of profit.

Keep in mind when JFK was elected things were not doing well so he cut taxes and got us into Vietnam to help out the economy.

No things were not great in the 40's and 50's, we have had the best times of my life from Reagan's 2nd. year till now. I don't even think it is as bad today as it was under Carter by a long shot. I'm not buying a house with 12 to 15 percent interest and a car or tractor for 15 to 18 percent interest.