UI benefits are bad because they aren't "paid for". Tax cuts for the rich are good even though they aren't "paid for".

[GabiandVi 34]

Tax revenue is used to pay for the services and operational costs of government, when you decrease that revenue, that lost revenue must be be balanced by cutting spending or you create a deficit. The huge tax cuts that the Bush Administration gave to the wealthy, along with starting two wars and an increase in Medicare prescription benefits, all done without any budget cuts in government spending caused us to go from have a budget surplus to the largest deficit of any administration.

The modern Republican Party's only answer for economic policy is cutting taxes. Simply cutting taxes isn't being fiscally responsible. The question then becomes - what government services do we want to scale back on to compensate for lost revenue. Some want to cut defense spending, others want to cut Social Security. The Keynesian economic theory is that during an economic recession, government spending should increase. Unemployment benefits, according to many economists are one of the most surest ways of stimulating the economic, while tax cuts, particularly for the wealthiest in this country, do little to boost the economy.

The GOP has put itself in the precarious, and extreme position that government can do no good ("The government isn't the answer, it's the problem." ~ Reagan). Even though Reagan said that, he was quite pragmatic when it came to economic policy. He supported the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) for families with dependent children whose income was near poverty level. The EITC essentially gives money to families. It is one of the purest forms of redistribution of wealth and Reagan touted the EITC as one of the best programs to combat poverty. Was he smoking crack or being pragmatic in finding solutions to helping Americans who are struggling? I seriously doubt Reagan would be holding back on unemployment benefits if he were president with the unemployment hovering near 10 percent. That's the difference between Reagan's Republican Party and Boehner's/McConnell's Republican Party. Reagan looked past ideology for solutions while the modern GOP simply says 'no,'

I'm not getting in to all of that. Whether or not you believe cutting taxes is a good thing, taxes and spending are two totally different things, and I find it interesting that we have come full circle and consider people paying less of the money they've earned (tax cuts) to the government is the same thing as the government paying people money they haven't earned (ui and other entitlements). If you can't see the irony in that then let's just let it drop.

[Craneman 2]

To a point.

As Bush came into office, he did have quite a budget surplus, but instead of paying off the existing debt before cutting taxes, he cut taxes with the vauge promise that it would even out in the future because the growth would generate more taxes.

Fast forward to today, it turns out most of the extra growth was just one big bubble, and we have to spend a lot more to get out of it.

We have to spend more to get out of debt ???

Are you related to my x-wife ??

If we can't afford the house payment, trade up, at least then we get more for what we can not afford to pay for.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not getting in to all of that. Whether or not you believe cutting taxes is a good thing, taxes and spending are two totally different things, and I find it interesting that we have come full circle and consider people paying less of the money they've earned (tax cuts) to the government is the same thing as the government paying people money they haven't earned (ui and other entitlements). If you can't see the irony in that then let's just let it drop.

I think you are creating a false argument. UI benefits and tax cuts for the rich both impact the budget in much the same way. If your employer gives you $100 a week raise but relocates you to a farther location and you now spend $100 a week more on gas, how are those two forces different from each other in terms of your personal budget?

[GabiandVi 34]

I think you are creating a false argument. UI benefits and tax cuts for the rich both impact the budget in much the same way. If your employer gives you $100 a week raise but relocates you to a farther location and you now spend $100 a week more on gas, how are those two forces different from each other in terms of your personal budget?

I'm not creating an argument. I'm making an observation. I'm not talking about the economy, or forces, or personal budgets. I'm more interested in the 1984-like wording we have bought hook, line, and sinker. But, again, if you don't see that, then let's just let it drop.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Tax revenue is used to pay for the services and operational costs of government, when you decrease that revenue, that lost revenue must be be balanced by cutting spending or you create a deficit. The huge tax cuts that the Bush Administration gave to the wealthy, along with starting two wars and an increase in Medicare prescription benefits, all done without any budget cuts in government spending caused us to go from have a budget surplus to the largest deficit of any administration.

STOP. The Tax cuts were for EVERYONE. Stop the damn political hack BS. If you want people to take you seriously, then be honest. Stop with the rhetoric. Otherwise you end up sounding like that dumb winch in the article Maddow.

There is no denying that under Bush the government made more money after the tax cuts than it has ever made in history.

Yes, two wars were started, yes there were prescription drug benefits, yes there were new organizations created, huge violations of freedom with the Patriot Act and the groups it created and expanded, etc. All of that negated the money made and also caused a larger defecit, especially when the economy tanked due to policies enacted while HW Bush was President and the playboy President Bill Clinton as well.

There's plenty of blame game to go around, but cutting taxes is not the problem.

You want to see an economy shrink, just wait until investments dry up this next week when the Cap Gains taxes go through the roof. Of course Obama was attacked on this by Charles Gibson of all people back in late 2007 during the primaries, but of course Obama doesn't care about facts, he cares about 'fairness' in his head and those who works for/with.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not creating an argument. I'm making an observation. I'm not talking about the economy, or forces, or personal budgets. I'm more interested in the 1984-like wording we have bought hook, line, and sinker. But, again, if you don't see that, then let's just let it drop.

Simple observations of complex issues doesn't equate to adequate analysis. Making the claim that taxes and spending are totally different without articulating how or why they are 'totally different' and assuming that it should be obvious to anyone else is meaningless.

[GabiandVi 34]

Simple observations of complex issues doesn't equate to adequate analysis. Making the claim that taxes and spending are totally different without articulating how or why they are 'totally different' and assuming that it should be obvious to anyone else is meaningless.

I'

[GabiandVi 34]

Simple observations of complex issues doesn't equate to adequate analysis. Making the claim that taxes and spending are totally different without articulating how or why they are 'totally different' and assuming that it should be obvious to anyone else is meaningless.

I'm not remotely trying to analyze anything with my comments. I'm not really interested in getting into that on a Tuesday morning before I take my daughter to the free family film festival. I'm making a general observation about how language becomes twisted over the years. I find that interesting. JUST SAYING.

But as for the basics, if it isn't obvious to anyone else:

taxing = revenues

UI and other benefits = spending

Revenues are the opposite of spending in personal budgets as well as in national budgets, wouldn't you agree? I think that pointing out that they are related and affect one another (or should) is stating the obvious as well as pointing out that they are on opposite columns in the ledger. You haven't stated anything at all complex, as far as I'm concerned.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not remotely trying to analyze anything with my comments. I'm not really interested in getting into that on a Tuesday morning before I take my daughter to the free family film festival. I'm making a general observation about how language becomes twisted over the years. I find that interesting. JUST SAYING.

But as for the basics, if it isn't obvious to anyone else:

taxing = revenues

UI and other benefits = spending

Revenues are the opposite of spending in personal budgets as well as in national budgets, wouldn't you agree? I think that pointing out that they are related and affect one another (or should) is stating the obvious as well as pointing out that they are on opposite columns in the ledger. You haven't stated anything at all complex, as far as I'm concerned.

Revenue and spending are different and the OP wasn't implying they are the same - hence why I stated you were making a false argument. However, stating that they are 'totally different' and incomparable as a simple observation believing that such an understanding is obvious and not needing of any explanation is meaningless. While revenue and spending are different they are comparable as they relate to the Federal Budget.

[Texanadian 10]

The wealthy have a raw deal here. After all, the FDIC limit is what $250K.. oh the shaaaaaame.....

Plus don't forget the whopping 35% tax on anything over $350K. How do they live?

15% on long tern capital gains, which is where many derive their wealth, is just wrong wrong wrong.

Not necessarily. For some people, it's 35% over $186K.

I don't mind the 15% long term capital gains. Let's not forget that for many, the long term capital gains rate is 0%.

STOP. The Tax cuts were for EVERYONE.

Agreed.

Before..........After

15%.............10%

15%.............15%

28%.............25%

31%.............28%

36%.............33%

39.6%..........35%

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Its important to note that government spending is associated with wealth and the economy in general. Without a stable government, its nearly impossible to acquire wealth. Therefore it is in the interest of the wealthy to provide tax revenue. Obviously, the arguments of today are tied to what degree the government involvement should be to create a stable society that promotes the development of wealth for all people.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But...but...I thought government's purpose was to redistribute wealth so that all may be saved collectively...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

But...but...I thought government's purpose was to redistribute wealth so that all may be saved collectively...

Everyone's view of the government is painted by their view of how they see the ideal society.

The only and white goal of any government is to maintain order and social cohesion.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Sousuke

[Heracles 417]

But...but...I thought government's purpose was to redistribute wealth so that all may be saved collectively...

I consider it a payment to allow the wealthy to continue building wealth.

Strange to me that no other first world country shares this backwards line of reasoning. In fact, you will only find it in second and particularly third world countries; where the select few that are wealthy feel they deserve it and have earned it legitimately.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I consider it a payment to allow the wealthy to continue building wealth.

Strange to me that no other first world country shares this backwards line of reasoning. In fact, you will only find it in second and particularly third world countries; where the select few that are wealthy feel they deserve it and have earned it legitimately.

Here in Amorica the relatively poor like to defend the wealth of the rich few in the hopes that one day they too might be fabulously wealthy. That is the Amorican dream!