{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Dustin:
7/2/2013 12:18:19 AM
65
Bush's rich tax cuts cost the country 12,000,000,000,000 dollars
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/cbo-tax-breaks-wealthy_n_3355836.html[/url]
12 trillion dollars. I can understand corporate tax cuts, but the income tax on the rich is ridiculously low. There was a point in history where it exceeded 90%, and now it's at 15%. I'd say at least make the rate the same as the middle class.
And now we're 16 trillion in debt. Hey I've got an idea, let's still blame Obama for this!
-
Wait. You mean a politician did something unethical with taxpayers money? ...This is worthy of a thread. T_T
-
4 RepliesIt says over the next decade. It doesn't mention bush. Which means it is Obama fault. Bush may have sucked. But Obama is [i]waaaaaay[/i] worse
-
3 RepliesDid anyone actually read the article? It doesn't mention Bush anywhere. In fact, it says over the NEXT decade, it will cost $12 trillion. Which means it is Obama's fault.
-
In other news, water is wet.
-
Edited by Quantum: 7/9/2013 7:14:34 AMOf course, if you have any chance to pay back the debt, you would do it exactly the way a GOP president or a Democrat president would do it, gradual decreases in spending along with consolidation of existing revenue streams. The most basic equation of the government is operating balance is revenue-expenses=Surplus/Deficit. If you reduce spending, you can potentially impact economic growth, which thus reduces your tax revenue. If you reduce your revenue income by cutting taxes, you compromise the government's ability to pay for debt related interest and spending. Either policy can not only damage economic growth but not solve the debt problem at all. The best example of this austerity spending is Europe, which as lower economic growth than the US along with a greater debt to GDP percentage (ratio). Many European countries have gone for austerity policies to curb the recession, and frankly they are doing pretty shit right now. Japan has similar GDP troubles but unlike Europe it has not tied itself around its legs when it comes to austerity (the currency markets are a much bigger problem for them right now). TLDR: If you want to reduce the debt you must take a combination of policies to do so, simply reducing revenue and spending has consequences beyond simple numbers and needs to be taken into account. Unless you want to be like Britain. I suggest a higher tax on rich people, because that increases government revenue without severely impacting growth.
-
2 RepliesEdited by nightspark: 7/7/2013 4:50:54 PMNothing will come of this because Obama doesn't have the balls to cut entitlement programs and raise taxes on the wealthy. You also really don't know what you're talking about. These are projections for the next ten years. Not the last ten. President Bush wasn't even mentioned in the post.
-
Federal income taxes has existed -- and been ruled CONSTITUTIONAL by the courts -- since the Civil War. Not sure why everyone is so butthurt over income tax; I for one like having public roads, bridges, etc. What I have a problem with is how alot of our money is spent; occupation, corporate handouts, things of that nature.
-
Income taxes are unconstitutional.
-
1 ReplyBetter than having that commie Barack HUSSEIN OBOMBER taking our freedoms.
-
Stupid commie liberal
-
64 RepliesWe didn't steal enough money dang it! Apple only paid $6 billion in taxes?! Can you believe those MONSTERS?!
-
1 ReplyImagine how much money we're losing for not killing all the rich people and taking their money! /s
-
1 ReplyEdited by l7SE7EN7l: 7/8/2013 6:32:40 PMFirst off, Huffington Post just recycles liberal garbage from where ever they can find it. Second, the government would have just spent it. Third, you seem butthurt and just want to take from those more fortunate than yourself. Oh, Obama & Bush sucked.
-
19 RepliesOnce again, I would like to reiterate. The tax cuts did not COST us 12 trillion dollars, it just didn't GIVE the US 12 trillion dollars. It's not a cost because the government didn't pay that 12 trillion to anyone.
-
1 ReplyMeh. Lets face it, this country is going under. Well, its been under. In other news Obama is not helping that fact. Or Congress. Or the NRA, or any member of government.
-
*Slow clap*
-
All i know, is that moving to Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, or Australia is something i'm strongly considering.
-
1 ReplyI can't even count to 12 trillion...
-
1 ReplyI have never seen so many zero's.
-
7 RepliesYeah dude taxing the rich more will solve all our problems. lel
-
1 ReplyChill bro, virtually all of that 12 trillion never even existed
-
19 RepliesAlso, Bush and Obama are just single individuals who cannot have their fingers dipped in every single damn thing the government does. It is too big for them to rein in.
-
8 RepliesEdited by HM Rob: 7/3/2013 8:29:24 PM[quote]Huffington Post[/quote] lel On a less serious note, I'd just like to say that these tax breaks wouldn't have wounded up as revenue. The end result would likely be more spending, as per usual.
-
2 RepliesIf we want to say a lack of revenue is a cost . . . Why not actually look at real expenses, too?
-
4 RepliesIf I'm American and live move to another country, how hard would it be to start a new life there? Preferably Sweden or Switzerland?
-
[i] [/i]
