Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

... if Congress allows the Bush tax cuts to expire.

This is gonna hurt.

My Tax Burden (http://mytaxburden.org/)

So much for those campaign promises about "the little guy".:nono:

Mine go up close to $3k if my guesstimates are correct.:nonod:

C'mon....this is all hearsay! I know that system states my wife and I will owe $6,507 more this year. But President Obama PROMISED anyone making less than $250K they would have no tax increases. How could you not believe him? I know he has lied before, such as transparency, his religion, where he was born, his past work history, political positions, relationships with others, unemployment rates, the stimulus, etc.... But I am sure he is telling the truth on this. How coudl anyone not believe him?

Yeah, if that is correct, my taxes would go up a ridiculous amount too.

The problem is, boys and girls, the government, Democrats and Republicans have been running up the debt for decades, especially the last one. It's a huge credit card bill that will never be paid off, but needs to be paid down to reduce the interest cost. And that's can't be done JUST by reducing spending. Bush fought a couple of wars on credit and now Obama has been making it worse.

All these middle class tax cuts are great for getting votes, but are part of the problem. You can't cut taxes and continue to spend like drunken sailors (no offense to drunken sailors) without consequences. At some point, the American people are going to have to suffer the consequences of the people we've elected over the last 20+ years.

RDS: "drunken sailors" ?? Some blotted out memories revived with those two words. (lol)

Anyone notice the change in voice & inflection the "O" has when he tells a lie? He 'pushes' the words out with his change in voice. Just having a Reid School flashback.....but suspects back then didn't have teleprompters to keep the alibi on track.

The obvious solution is to cut spending as well as taxes.

Thats how Reagan pulled us out after Carter, and ... was it Coolidge(?) did the same thing. Coolidge ran surpluses for most of his years.

When you reduce taxes, spending increases. Reduce the tax burden on those who actually provide the jobs, the jobs will come back. Reduce Corporate taxes and they will return from overseas.

Nothing works if you only do one or the other.

The obvious solution is to cut spending as well as taxes.

Thats how Reagan pulled us out after Carter, and ... was it Coolidge(?) did the same thing. Coolidge ran surpluses for most of his years.

When you reduce taxes, spending increases. Reduce the tax burden on those who actually provide the jobs, the jobs will come back. Reduce Corporate taxes and they will return from overseas.

Nothing works if you only do one or the other.

That's pretty much what I said, you have to do both. And I also agree that they need to ease up on the higher tax brackets, but that will still shift the burden down to us. It's something we're going to have to face at some point or we are going to go under.

Actually Reagan more than doubled the debt quite a bit during his tenure. He didn't cut spending, he raised it. One of the many reasons I voted for Reagan was because he said he would reduce the debt. He lied.

09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm)

He did that to bankrupt the USSR and it worked, but we still have the debt to pay.

We did have a short period of time where we weren't adding much to it, but we've never done hardly a thing to pay it down during my lifetime, at least.

The problem is, boys and girls, the government, Democrats and Republicans have been running up the debt for decades, especially the last one.
I agree 100%.

I wonder though from a sociological perspective why two classes of people as a whole seem to understand this: the wealthy and middle class, yet two other classes seem to not understand and typically spend like crazy despite income: low income brackets and politicians.

I wonder though from a sociological perspective why two classes of people as a whole seem to understand this: the wealthy and middle class, yet two other classes seem to not understand and typically spend like crazy despite income: low income brackets and politicians.

The answer is the George Bernard Shaw quote on my signature.

And even the middle class, through constant tax cuts have been sucked into believing they can get something for nothing. My wife's siblings, who are all pretty well to do believe the government should furnish them about everything.

BTW, the debt in 2009 was 11,909,829,003,511.75. It's over 13,000,000,000,000 now.

Actually Reagan more than doubled the debt quite a bit during his tenure. He didn't cut spending, he raised it. One of the many reasons I voted for Reagan was because he said he would reduce the debt. He lied.



RDS, since your economic analysis is generally so brilliant, let me add a little reminder to help it be a little more brilliant. Reagan is not the one that doubled the debt, the Democratic Congress across the street from him did. Clinton is not the one who imposed spending discipline that led to budget surpluses, the Republican Congress led by the despised Newt Gingrich did. And Bush is not the one who who pursued two wars on credit, the Republican Congress and moreso the Democratic Congress after them did. Only the legislative branch has the power of the purse. Not the executive branch. Right now it's the Democratic Congress along with no restraint by Obama that's driven up the debt more than all the other presidents combined. You're a thousand times more informed than the average citizen, but just wanted to add that little civics lesson reminder :)

Oh, and as I explained in one or two other threads, try being a small business owner like I've been, an economist who has studied the big picture for over 25 years, and a director on the board of numerous businesses.... and someone with that micro AND macro background would tell you raising taxes in this pathetic economic environment is stupid beyond belief. Other than that you're a genius :) :)

Let me try to explain it this way:

Option 1. ) Entitlements Up + Taxes Up = Disaster -- This is the Obama/Democrat answer

Option 2. ) Entitlements Up + Taxes Down = Not the greatest but far better than option 1

Option 3. ) Entitlements Chopped + Taxes Down = Lots of economic growth

RDS, you're right to be concerned about option 2 as it's not as good as option 3, and will not solve the problem, but it's better than option 1. The only way to get option 3 is to elect people who understand fiscal austerity and what generates jobs and revenues.

Reagan intentionally spent tons of money on defense. That can't be blamed on the Democratic Congress. There was a Democratic Congress during Carter too and you notice the debt went up very little during his years. Look at the site I posted and notice when money was spent. Almost all those years were under a Democratic Congress. But Reagan set out to build a huge defense mechanism and he did it by raising the debt. That's a fact.

Bush was the one who decided to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, not Congress. I'm not saying he shouldn't have, but he did without the money in the bank to do it. Bush was no victim when it came to the debt going up. He had a Republican Congress most of that time, if you recall.

Yeah, Congress passes the budget, but the President submits it to them for approval. And it pretty much comes out the way it was submitted. He has a veto. Clinton used it with Gingrich. I took civics in high school too, but I've also seen the practicality of how the budget gets passed. The President pretty much gets what he wants. Gingrich/Clinton was an anomaly.

You can't just demonize Democrats, there is plenty of blame to be spread around on this.

Option 2. ) Entitlements Up + Taxes Down = Not the greatest but far better than option 1


Not that much better. There is a point where the debt gets so high that the interest payment alone eats up much of the revenue and then we are in big trouble.

Greece is a good example. Although they were a lot more socialist, they kept giving entitlements and when their economy got so bad they couldn't collect the taxes to maintain it, their debt finally overwhelmed them. That can well be in our future. If your going to give entitlements, you have to be able to pay for them.

Geez, it's that mentality on a local level that's created problems. People have been copying the government by running up credit card bills to pay for what they wanted and making minimum payments. Soon the interest is eating up those payments and they are over their head. Trouble is, the government is making no payments while running up the debt and interest.

What I'm saying RDS is that Reagan and Bush and any Republican president submits tons of cuts in other areas to offset the spending that Democrats just will not agree to. :) The things they won't agree to is called entitlements and it's called the Washington bureaucracy. Republican presidents have all come to this town vowing to cut the number of bureaucrats and Deparments in DC, but could never do it. No one could do it. It couldn't be done by any American president while voters were asleep at the wheel about debt. And not with the tremendous power entrenched bureaucrats have here in Washington. The federal government is way too big and powerful. That's connected to the entitlement issue. Expecting ANY president to have done that was never realistic when the electorate kept demanding their entitlement handouts and kept thinking government money grew on someone else's tree.

But just because Dem's and some Rep's would not cut entitements doesn't mean the president doing the heavy lifting on national defense has to give up on our defense, be it against the Soviets during the Cold War, the axis powers during the Pearl Harbor attack, or wars in the Middle East after 9/11, and therefore had to succumb to the entitlement lovers to get the support they needed for national defense. Yes, they could've chosen to not fight the enemy in deference to keeping the debt lower, but there is nothing more important than our defense - otherwise the rest doesn't matter. Let me make it relevant to law enforcement. That would be like saying our debt is so out of hand, we'll just wish the bad guys away and cut all police in this country to pare down the debt. You can't wish away criminals and you can't wish away foreign enemies. Those are facts of life that are NEVER going to change in this century. NEVER. No matter how war weary this country becomes and no matter how isolationist some become.

But seeing the lemonade in all lemons, this downturn is good. Finally the average voter now understands the handouts have got to cease. They now understand that the debt is unsustainable. This is a first in our history. The environment is finally ripe for the right leader to enable this correction in our system.

Should I tell ya what I really think, LOL? :)

Not that much better. There is a point where the debt gets so high that the interest payment alone eats up much of the revenue and then we are in big trouble.

Greece is a good example. Although they were a lot more socialist, they kept giving entitlements and when their economy got so bad they couldn't collect the taxes to maintain it, their debt finally overwhelmed them. That can well be in our future. If your going to give entitlements, you have to be able to pay for them.

Geez, it's that mentality on a local level that's created problems. People have been copying the government by running up credit card bills to pay for what they wanted and making minimum payments. Soon the interest is eating up those payments and they are over their head. Trouble is, the government is making no payments while running up the debt and interest.

Right, my apologies, I didn't explain the left part in that post. I want to cut entitlements. So do a lot of Republicans. The assumption in that post is that since the White House and the Congress are now run by entitlement lovers, that was not something we could control right now. Option 2 only reflects the discussion going on TODAY. Republicans would like to discuss option 3 but would not get elected in November if they dared do that yet. The timing's not right yet. They have to wait till they get in and then discuss option 3.

I agree that the entitlements were already there under Reagan, but I saw no push from him to even try to eliminate them. And I was paying attention during that era. He piled on the defense that raised the debt after he promised to lower it. I'm not saying he was wrong, it worked out well to destroy the USSR, but you can't say he cut spending. He didn't and you can't blame it all on Congress. You can justify what he did, but that's not same as saying he wasn't responsible.

Again, Bush had a Republican Congress for several of his years in office. Did you see entitlements drop any? I didn't.

Middle class tax cuts are great political tools to get votes and used by both parties. I'm saying you can't have your cake and eat it too.

In 1932, Congress (Republican, I might add) raised the maximum income tax from 25% to 65%. Unemployment went from 15% to 24% within a few months. So you can't lay the taxes just on the upper earners and expect any recovery. But you can't stick your head in the sand and say no one should have to pay higher taxes at all when the debt is getting out of hand.

Obama is making all the mistakes that Congress made and FDR continued during the Depression. We will never recover under his policies. But you can't ignore the fact that debt is still looming out there and that Washington, not just the Democrats are responsible for it.

It's not that black and white with all Democrats devils and Republicans angels. Both sides have contributed to the mess we're in today. Republicans have gutted the Sherman Anti-Trust act and that has led to near monopolies in banking and oil. They pushed for deregulation of the loan industry as the Democrats were pushing the same to make risky loans. And ta-da, that gave us the mortgage crisis. The sad thing is, both sides point fingers instead trying to fix it.

I agree that the entitlements were already there under Reagan, but I saw no push from him to even try to eliminate them. And I was paying attention during that era. He piled on the defense that raised the debt after he promised to lower it. I'm not saying he was wrong, it worked out well to destroy the USSR, but you can't say he cut spending. He didn't and you can't blame it all on Congress. You can justify what he did, but that's not same as saying he wasn't responsible.



I disagree, mon ami, cause it's so fun to argue with such an informed person as you, lol. :) Don't wanna beat up my buddy here, but you were not paying attention nearly enough during the Reagan years. I was dating one of Reagan's most senior appointees in the Department of Education (don't know what I saw in him actually, lol) and they did all they could to almost disband the Department of Education. Yes, the Reagan plan was to actually DISBAND the whole f'ing DOE. That was happening in a lot of the Departments in Washington - Reagan's appointees trying to cut the fat -- but they could never take on the power of the entrenched executive branch (bureaucracts). Most of that never makes it into the paper. Therefore, how could you know? I knew because I got to hear the stories every night from him about how hard it was for the Reagan appointees to chop the budgets; the walls of steel they ran into. It was impossible. So yes, I am blaming Congress and I'm blaming the people who put the Congressmen there for their handouts. Now is that all Democrat? Absolutely not. Are there fiscally and defense conservative Dems? ABSOLUTELY. Thank God for them. And are there Republicans who are not fiscally conservative? Absolutely. But even a 12th grader knows that one party is more predominant in one approach and the other party in the other :) Ok, are we through fighting now that I've cleared everything up for you, LOL :) Oh, and that you were right,LOL?

Touche. Nobody important would ever date me.

But I do believe that the accusation that Republicans make against Democrats about "tax and spend" and Democrats make against Republicans about "borrow and spend" are pretty accurate.

One of the entitlements I'd love to see amended greatly, if not eliminated is the Earned Income Credit. That's underhanded welfare. And I think everyone that earns money should pay a minimum in taxes. As I've said before, when I was a PFC, I made $2400 that year, but I paid some income tax on it.

Nearly half of American households pay no income tax. We can't survive with that mentality and continue to spend. And Republicans are just as responsible for that.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

Touche. Nobody important would ever date me.

But I do believe that the accusation that Republicans make against Democrats about "tax and spend" and Democrats make against Republicans about "borrow and spend" are pretty accurate.

One of the entitlements I'd love to see amended greatly, if not eliminated is the Earned Income Credit. That's underhanded welfare. And I think everyone that earns money should pay a minimum in taxes. As I've said before, when I was a PFC, I made $2400 that year, but I paid some income tax on it.

Nearly half of American households pay no income tax. We can't survive with that mentality and continue to spend.
Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1)

Ahhh, peace has broken back out in RP forumland. At least one part of it :) RDS and Trip no longer arguing. I agree with every word of your post, LOL. Wait, except just a few days ago I noticed that stat had moved closer to 50%, like 46 or 47%. gott go do some work, see ya later, bud.... Oh, and wait, what's this about no one important?? You ARE the important one silly....

Eliminate the income tax entirely. It serves nothing other than interest payments to a crooked centralized banking system.

Really... what's the point of taxes anymore anyways? If the government can't operate within it's "budget" they just turn the printing presses on.

The dollar will crash and a whole lot of people will be pissed off. Maybe then a few eyes will open on Capitol Hill and we can remove this obviously corrupt, BS system.

Part 5 of this thread:
http://www.realpolice.net/forums/politics-religion-controversy-74/95312-judge-napolitanos-history-liberty.html

dovetails very nicely with this debate.