Was extending the Bush Tax Cuts worth it?

"Actually it is revenue coming into the government, so you can say it is income that will not be there to pay down our debt." True, but we need to start spending money we have, and even if we end those tax cuts, and get the projected amount of revenue, it won't change the fact that we are spending far more than we are taking in. The most optimistic projections I've seen show that we would get an extra $250-$350 billion from letting those tax cuts expire for the rich. that still leaves us well over $1 trillion in the hole annually. I have yet to see ANYONE come up with a plan that would lead to a $1 trillion cut in the deficit. The best I've seen was Rand Paul's plan that would immediately cut $500 billion and nobody would give his idea the time of day. Really anything that saves money is going to cost someone jobs. If we get people off of welfare and into steady jobs, We'll spend less, but then people who work in the welfare offices, unemployment offices, and food stamp departments will lose jobs. The thing is that where one job is lost by saving money, another can be found. If I save money by taking the bus instead of driving to work (not really an option, but we'll pretend), it might cost the job of a car salesman, but it's creating jobs for the bus driver and all the people who maintain and schedule the buses.

Taskr, I agree that we need to cut spending, but we also need to increase revenue. The problem with your logic of losing jobs is that new jobs are not being created. If you were to lay off millions of government workers it would cut spending for their pay checks, but would move that spending to unemployment. The problem is that when the unemployment runs out then what? The private sector is not hiring, now what do you do? It is a catch 22 that no one has any idea how to fix.

Taskr, isn't it funny how republicans have always said that no spending bill is temporary. I guess you can add no tax cut is temporary either. I agree with you 100% on this, and there were republicans that said that same thing, but they were ignored. Actually it is revenue coming into the government, so you can say it is income that will not be there to pay down our debt. I agree with you that getting rid of all of these loopholes is the best thing to do. But, then that unemployment rate will go up because of all of the lobbyist out there pushing for these loopholes would be out of a job. Which I personally think would be a great thing. It is like the flat tax would put millions of people who are either accountants, or work for tax prepares out of a job. But, I guess you could have made argument about the car vs. the horse and buggy.

Have you checked the immigration policies of those countries? Do you think they let foreigners flood in? Norway AGGRESSIVELY keeps people from immigrating there to avoid the freeloaders that the US is infested with. They, along with the other Scandinavian countries, make people wait a long time to determine if they want them or not. What works in a small, controlled population is completely different than what works in a large country with wide open borders and a ridiculous number of freeloaders.

I am glad that we agree on some things. We could fix Social Security if they would follow the Wisconsin Employees Trust Fund (ETF) model. The program is employee owned and State run. there is an investment board that is elected by all members of program. The advise the investment people, who are state employees, the guidelines for investing and what the fund wants to acheive. The biggest thing is the politicians can not get their hands on the money, thay can not tell the fund to invest in state bonds and they can not borrow money from the fund. My employers and I have paid more into Social Security over my working years (not all of my work was covered by the state system) than was paid by my employers and I to the ETF. I have more payout options than SS and I received more pension at 57 that I get at 62 or even 66 with SS. Let the number crunchers figure out at what age a person could switch to this type of program to make it workable. It is sort of a Private fund overseen by the government with the biggest advantage the Politicians can not touch the fund and elected officals are covered by the same fund. This would give people a better retirement base than SS and save the government Billions a year down the road. As to Medicare and Medicaid the government should get out of the business but they can't so you need to change and give the states more control over how the money is spent. For example Rhode Island is trying something new and it seems to be working. Medicaid rules pay for Nursing Home care but not in home care or assisted living care, both of which are consumer preferred and cheaper. I beleive the plan also allows for the state to purchase health insurance for for the poor rather than the state having to follow the Federal guidelines. you hear stories of people who call the ambulance to take them to the emergency room for treatment because Medicare/Medicaid pays for that but not for cab fare. Private insurance have a better record on finding and eliminating fraud that medicare/ Medicaid does so ther would be savings there. In Rhode Island the people are getting as good if not better care than other states following the Federal Guidelines and they seem to be happier about the care too. The changes to these programs could go a long way to solving our budget problems but it would mean that the powers in Washington DC would have to give up some power and they don't want to do that. It would be giving people the power to decide their future and how they will live.

Bob, what makes me laugh is that republicans want people to live with the bare essentials, and work one, two, or even three jobs to get off welfare. Yet, when it comes to our current budget, they are saying that we should just cut spending (which won't balance our budget), but REFUSE to work another job. "The problem is IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY TO TAKE. IT IS MY MONEY AND YOUR MONEY THAT WE WORKED FOR AND THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING BY FORCE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH IT." I said the same thing when Bush wanted us to invade Iraq, which added HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to our deficit. I told people like you that if you wanted to fund it, than send money to the government to pay for your need to go to war. I am sure YOU didn't do that, did you Bob? You are correct about the corporate jet welfare, but NOW republicans are willing to shut down the government over it. I think that we should allow the Americans people to vote on tax increases in general elections. Along with raises for congress.

Bob, the problem with the ETF is that politicians can't raid it and use it for their own political interest. Remember where the original funding for the Bush tax cuts came from? Medicare and Medicaid is in trouble because we have the most expensive health care in the world. It is going to be a matter of national security that we fix the outrageous cost of health care. Personally, I think the government should create a program where they offer to pay for college for new doctors who will only work on Medicare and Medicaid patients for a certain amount of time. This way they can don't have huge debt leaving school, and already will have experience, and time to make all the money they want.

If you are willing to perpetuate a lie that even your own guy proves wrong, then yes, it is bigoted hate. Get over your class warfare stupidity finally! It's no different than any racism and has already lead to state sponsored lynchings. But since the lynching is against the target of your hate, you revel in it. Like all bigotry, growing out of it is up to you.

Is your ignorance contagious? How many millionaires have been killed because of tax cuts? I can't even believe I am responding to your ignorant rants. Like I said before: Come back when you have something of substance to add!!!!!

"bigotedly hate." And you would know a lot about that Ted wouldn't you? I mean every time you open your mouth you hear prime examples of it!!! Come back when you have something to substance to add Ted.

Dark, I am torn when it comes to collectors, or professionals. What I personally would like to see is the NRA and law enforcement to actually work together to get rid of the people that we all know are either breaking the law, or bending it. I personally have no problem with people owning fire arms, the problem I have is people who stockpile them for the wrong purpose (killing innocent people for no reason at all). The problem is that the NRA won't work with law enforcement even though some are members of the NRA because they make to much money fighting them. If everyone just worked together than the country would we safer, and better. But, as always, things just don't work out that way when money is involved.

So we base the cuts we make on whether or not certain groups we may or may not agreee with over all like the cuts? If a group you don't agree with likes a cut we shouldn't make the cut? If that's the criteria we are going to use, nothing will ever be cut. That is some pretty entrenched left/right paradigm thinking debator.

Joev, Russia isn't just missing warheads, they are missing plutonium, and the scientist who know how to use it. The problem is that the constitution was meant to be a living document, yet people still look at it like the bible. The constitution has been amended many times, and it should be to keep up with times. I am not against people baring arms, my problem is the crazy people who stockpile weapons, or use them for the wrong purpose.

I see you are a "Voodoo Economics" supporter, which tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge (or lack there of) of economics. The problem with your logic is that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't run their household the way you want to run our economy. You would just cut spending that didn't effect the LEADERS of the household, while continuing to work the same amount of hours at the same job. Most Americans would cut spending till it hurt the WHOLE family, while either working more hours, or getting a second, or third job. I have NOT said that raising taxes is the only solution, and seeing how you know me so well, why don't you show me PROOF of where I said this!!! "One can only spend what one has to spend, that's a basic law of life." If George W. Bush would have lived by this rule, we wouldn't be in this mess that we are in today. No Billionaire left behind, and two unfunded wars sure didn't help matters did they? Team, please show me how many jobs have been created by extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealth? Cutting taxes net us 1 Million jobs under GWB, raising them and then lower them under Clinton netted us 22 Million. YOU DO THE MATH!!!!!

Ya I know the Math, Neither party knows what is good for this Country! I do not see them worried about what is going on in each house hold in America. Cut Spending ( they know where it needs to be cut) do they even care about how much spending us as WORKING people have had to Cut A LOT!! NOT to mention having to get a part time job just to buy food for your family, cause your full time job bstrly covering the gas & Bills and still barley making it. I see it all over, everyday, HARD working people who WE were thinking that the Government was for us, THE PEOPLE but bottom line Republicans are for the RICH, the Democratic are for the WELFARE, and the middle class they are on their own, So all we can do is suck it it, keep working!! And hope by the grace of God we can stand a float.

I hate to say it, but you are correct dtroas.

The revenue does go up but the politicians keep spending more than the government takes in. If you were the government and you got a $1,000 a year raise and went out and bought a new car with monthly payments of $500 then wonder where the money is going so you demand that your boss gives you another raise and he gives you another $1,000 a year raise. Now you figure that you can go out and buy a new larger flat scree TV for $4,000 because the monthly payments will only be $200 a month. Next month when you are facing trouble with bill you force your banker to loan you more money on your house, the value is projected to go up, and the banker loans you another $10,000 but your banker wants you to have a plan to pay it back. You explain that you will pay off your credit cards and then use the monthly payments from that to pay off the bank. You pay down but not off the credit cards and then go on a spending spree until you have maxed out your credit cards again. This is what the politicians are doing except they don't have to hope the boss will give them a raise they just increase taxes and take the money by force if necessary. This time is is different in that people want real spending cuts not promises that in 10 years we will be able to save enough money to off set the increases in spending. Some of the spending cuts would be like you assuming that the government will pay for 1/2 of the college cost of your children so that will save you $10,000 a year for 4 years 10 years from now. What we need is real spending cuts and no tax increases. It is your money that the government takes every pay check and you can't stop them.

Agreed, but the cut was also like an investment to boost the economy, increased GDP should have increased tax revenue in theory. Problem was GDP went up tax revenue didn't go up with or without the cuts. It's like saying okay we'll take a smaller percent and when you produce more we'll get a little more. Only it didn't work that way. Yeah, spending cuts need to be made, but ultimately there will come a time when even if we let the cuts expire and cut spending yet again we'll still be running a huge deficit because we'll have so much more in late fees and interest to pay off. What if your land lord gave you a break on rent because you lost your job, you find a new one but they still give you a break? Great for you, but eventually your landlord goes bankrupt because they let all the tenants slide on rent while still doing things like keeping a nice pool and workout room, you didn't want to let those perks go even though you yourself couldn't afford all your rent. Finally, it all catches up because now the landlord can't get a loan, the pool turns green and dirty, the equipment breaks, the grass doesn't get cut, your basic furnishings don't get fixed. It takes all the money coming in just to keep the whole complex from being bought out by a slumlord. Sure you can pay the the regular rate now, but they'd also need you start paying back the 10 years difference in reduced rent to do things like fix your sinks. Just replace landlord with government and things like pools and sinks with schools and roads. Replace slumlord with China and realize the future tenants are you children. That's what going to happen if things don't get fixed. We get perks for a while but in the end the next generation is going to pay off our debt with interest and no amenities. The quickest way out of debt is to suck it up and pay it off if you drag it on forever all your life's work will go to paying interest.