TAX cuts > Logan Utah, Cache Valley, Bridgerland, Local Community Forums, News and Information > Bridgerland, Logan Utah, Cache Valley Utah

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search Members

Forums > Public Policy > Tax Policy

Subject: TAX cuts

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

Code101
Posts:67

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

01/31/2006 9:02 PM
The State of the Union was great! I hope congress will make President Bush's tax cuts permanent. It has greatly helped the economy since 9/11.

nonleft
Posts:112

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

02/21/2006 1:40 AM
Posted By Code101 on 01/31/2006 9:02 PM The State of the Union was great! I hope congress will make President Bush's tax cuts permanent. It has greatly helped the economy since 9/11. All I have to say is amen! Anyone who can't see that the Tax cuts pBEEPed several years ago worked is just dumb. In 2001 we started to see the beginnings of the Clinton recession, then came 9/11. The Tax cuts were pBEEPed right around then. Look at the economy now. I would have to say that we have done pretty dang good since then. The Democrats don't like people rich or poor to have their own money. They stay in power by redistributing wealth to the poor which keeps their base. These are Marxist principals by the way. Why do you think they are fighting to keep the tax cuts permanent? They don't like the success the President has made. Their only hope is for the President and America to fail. If you don't believe me, take a look at their harsh statements and 2 year old styles of opposing the President. This is a new level of "Low" for them.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/12/2006 8:35 PM
What about the exploding national debt?

Code101
Posts:67

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/13/2006 8:58 AM
Posted By mulhollandj on 04/12/2006 8:35 PM What about the exploding national debt? Good point! You start by cutting all of these domestic entitlement programs for only the very worst cases. We stop funding all of the Arts and let the private sector take over. We shave all the pork out of the system. All the above is not what the government should be spending on. The Military is really the only priority when it comes to spending. The Governments first priority is to "Protect us" not provide our food, health care, housing, transit, drugs, art, and so on...

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/20/2006 7:51 AM
I think that the biggest porker is the federal government. Through income tax they have usurped much of the states power. Perhaps phasing out the federal income tax would help reign in the federal government. Then the states would again have power to do things their own way.

jwforsyth
Posts:8

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/27/2006 2:57 PM
While I certainly wouldn't call what we have now a good economy, I wonder what will happen in a few years when all this debt that the Republicans have piled up comes due? Can you imagine the interest on the immense amount of debt and how it will snowball? But, why worry when we've got the coming generations to deal with that problem, right?

Code101
Posts:67

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/27/2006 3:32 PM
What would you call a good economy? I do like knowing that I can keep more of MY own money. The economy is as good now as it was at the peek of President Clinton's term. We had 9/11! The economy is not the best of the best but not too bad considering 9/11. I agree with you on the spending. We need to cut spending in half. Both the Democrats and Republicans are at fault for this. All of this spending on health care, public transportation, arts and on and on needs to stop!

jwforsyth
Posts:8

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/27/2006 4:53 PM
Would you consider yourself in good financial condition if you owed money on your credit cards and simply paid off what you owed with more borrowed money? I would hope not. The same goes for this country. We are currently treading water. We do not have as good an economy as during the Clinton Administration, you cannot forget the debt. Consider the amount of surplus to the amount of debt now. Why exactly is 9/11 used as an excuse for bad economics? What exactly did we lose then? I don't want to sound trite, but we lost 3000 people and a couple of office buildings. How would that affect our economy? Hurricane Katrina did far more damage to our economy due both the destruction of oil refineries and access to the Mississippi river for shipping. It seems that we've recovered fairly quickly from Katrina in less than a year, why would we still be suffering from 9/11 after four years? Yes, it is nice to keep more money from taxes, but, do you really think things are better if you keep your few dollars versus improved infrastructure? Do you favor the cuts in education and health care? Perhaps a 'pay-your-own' way is best? I was able to use federal grants to help pay for my college education, but there is less money for this now. There are many things that can be cut back, and that is a gray area that is very debatable. But, I believe that increasing or making the current tax cuts permanent is going to make this government less and less able to provide the services that you currently enjoy. I'll give one example: Bush's first tax rebate, which wasn't much of a refund, just a forward of money. It averaged $100 or so dollars per family, most did not get that much at all. Now, if that tax cut hadn't been issued, it would have helped Medicare, or other programs that are in need of funding. Was this 'refund' worth it?

nonleft
Posts:112

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/27/2006 9:12 PM
Yes!!! It was worth it. And yes, 9-11-01 did mess with the Economy, big time. I personally know several people who had millions in the stock market and lost 3/4 of it in one month! Many companies went out of business. The DOW index hit around 5000 in late 2001 and early 2002. When you have that much fear and uncertainty with investors in the corporate world, it takes years to build it back up. In the mean time, jobs are cut, spending is less and so on. The DOW index is over 11,300 now! Am I missing something here or is Bush just to blame for everything regardless? You said that you received a grant for your schooling? That's great. It seems like the Liberal education you received worked (Pardon the joke) You do know that someone had to pay for that grant though. It was not free money. Bless the Government's heart for being so generous with someone else's money. I guess what it all comes down to is, can the Government do a better job at managing money or can the private citizen do a better job? You kind of answered that question already. It seems that the Government does a poor job at it. Look at the debt! When you look all the way back to the constitution and the founding fathers of our country, you will see that they did not intend for all these Government entitlement services we have today. Really, the only job of the Government is to protect and defend the constitution and to protect the people from crimes. Military, Law enforcement, and roads are at the top of the list when it comes to funding. All else is really not the job of Government. When you forceably take money from someone and redistribute it, this is called Socialism. Look at the mess over in Europe. Some people call this Social Equality. I call it an abomination. The poor don't even pay taxes anymore. What we have is a leech system. I do not feel that it is right to Tax the Rich at a higher percentage in order to fund the Arts and all of the other pork. I'm not even close to being rich but I will defend the rich. Why, because I believe in the American dream. I believe that as an American, I should have the freedom to succeed endlessly, or to fail. I hope to become rich some day and don't want to be punished if I make it to that status. Call me crazy but I thought that in America, we reward success. I'm part owner of a small business in Logan, I make the low end of what we would consider the middle class today. When President Bush eliminated the double tax on corporate dividends, I received about $8000 more of my own money per year. Guess what, I can afford to have my whole family fully ensured with health insurance because of this. We both know how hard it is for small businesses to afford health insurance as it is. So when you ask if the Tax cuts are worth it, I would say, YES!!! If they allow for the Tax cuts to go away, I may not be able to have insurance. The fact is, this is already my money, it's been taxed once already! Why should it be taxed again causing myself to not be able to afford Insurance and paying for someone else's instead? You would probably tell me to just get on Medicaid or vote for nationalized health care so really we are back to Socialism again. I don't mind helping those who need it. I feel that we should help when we can. I don't feel that we should be strong-armed into doing it. If you define "Charity" as having someone come at your money with an iron fist, then we should have Webster change the definition as we know it. The government should stay out of the welfare system and let Churches and private individual's perform this duty throughout our nation. They could perform it better if perhaps they had to pay less Taxes! It is simple, if we want to get rid of the debt fast, get rid of the Government pork. I'll give you one example, the government just spent millions of your money studying some kind of Fish that only lives in Utah Lake. Waste of money! Cut these forms of Government waste! By the way, why is our money paying for Public Radio and PBS? CUT! Good Debate

jwforsyth
Posts:8

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/28/2006 12:08 PM
My "Liberal" education? Wow, that gave me a good laugh and reflects badly on you. If there is one thing that my education has taught me is that labels aren't always true and there are those who would use them in a derogatory manner. I, however, like the term liberal. It's a good description of my religion and how I conduct my life. Liberal means such things as generous, tolerant, free from bigotry and open to new ideas for progress. As a Christian, I feel that the term liberal is a good synonym for what I believe in. I know that the money I received was not free and I am more than willing to continue paying taxes if it gives others the chance to get an education so that they too can get a good job and make a living wage. The countries that have the best quality of life are those who have a well educated population. I will grant you the damage to the stock market, however, I would say that what Bush has done is debatable whether or not it has helped the recovery. Our economy is such that it is able to recover by itself just due to its own intrinsic growth. From what I've seen and read, job growth and unemployment aren't any different than they normally would be, even with tax cuts. Yes, look at the debt. Look at the people who been voted into office. If you do not like what your representatives are doing, you vote them out. Since you would like politicians to cut back spending, and cut programs, vote for those people who advocate it. Be they Republican, Democrat or Green. If you vote down party lines, you are to blame for the current problems you complain about. Pure Socialism is not the answer, neither is pure Capitialism. The extreme of Socialism is distributing the produce of all evenly, so there are no poor, no wealthy. The extreme of Capitalism is the opposite: a few who have all the wealth and those who have nothing. Like most things in life, a middle ground is best. A government is quite capable of offering more than just the bare minimums. Look at the Great Depression. The stock market crashed, there was wide spread unemployment, people suffered. What did we get in response to this? Social Security, among other things. Why did we get this program? Because it was deemed that by taking a little from everyone, we could ensure that our fellow citizens and elders would have enough to live on and not become destitute. You were the exception, not the rule with the tax cuts. The average, non-business owner, received much less than you did. I shudder to think of what would happen if the government were to remove itself from welfare programs. It is a nice idea to have churches and indivduals take up the slack. The flaw in that is that depending on where you lived, you would recieve different (less) help. Perhaps that wouldn't happen, but with a government program, we know that it will be the same no matter where you go. Pork is a problem. I wonder if it was millions studying that fish, or are you just pulling out a number? Regardless, it is a large problem, from the bridge to nowhere in Alaska to other pet projects. We need to differentiate between Pork, which is money that politicians can use on whatever they want, to poor spending issues. Pork could be removed by reforming the rules and eliminating cash that can be used to bribe other politicians. We could also reform our laws to mandate a balanced budget. From there, we can look at other programs that are spending more or should be cut. Again, this will only happen if we elect those who run on the platform and say that they'll reform our laws. Public radio and PBS offer a valuable tool to inform the public. They are not a government controlled agency. Nor should they ever be. Some programs have been critical of Bush and his Administration, and as such, PSB has been called a Liberal bastion. Having listened and watched much of Public radio and PBS, my own take is that it offers the most facts and stories free from any bias. Especially when you consider other cable news stations and newspapers. Our taxes are spent on all of these programs because there are those in the past who saw that there was a need for them. If you believe that we should go back to the original document of the Constitution, why should we not get rid of the amendments as well? These amendments were made because of things that have happened after the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. I do not accept that the founding fathers thought of everything. There is need for continued changes in our laws. As there is need for programs that help our society as a whole reach a minimum level of quality of life. Now, how we go about that is debatable. Is the current method completely correct and efficient? No. Like I just said, we continue to refine our laws. This is no different.

lenardburton
Posts:0

Online Status: User is Offline

04/28/2006 1:09 PM

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/28/2006 2:52 PM
Welcome jwforsyth. JW? Sounds a lot like GW. (J/K) I think nonleft was joking about the liberal education. But we do appreciate your alternative point of view. The problem with the Great Depression, 9/11 crash, and another crash which I think will happen in the next five years is that people overextended themselves. They were terribly in debt and the stock market turned into a gambling den. Of course it is bad idea to have most of you money in volatile stocks right before retiring. Better to move them to more stable bonds. I think that some people look at grants for college as an investment by the government hoping that it will be repaid in taxes. Does anybody know what the real return is the government gets for this money? Have you ever considered Social Security to be anti-family legislation? Traditionally parents were supported by their children when they were older or they actually saved money for retirement. Having children help protect your future. Now we just depend on everybody else paying our retirement. Now both the employer and employee are each expected to pay 7.65% of their income and self-employed have to pay both at 15.30%. Hardly just a little bit. And of course this is on top of all the other taxes we have to pay. I personally consider social security to be a bribe to older voters, who have fairly high turnout rates. As far as welfare goes, lets compare how the LDS church does it with the way the government does it. Lets say I am a college student and I am on my own. Whether I really need the money or not, I qualify and I can get 'free' money. Instead of working and supporting myself I can depend on the government. Does this help me be a better person or a more dependent person? This is the false principle of entitlement. Because I live in the US I deserve .... I have lived back east in mixed income housing. It was obvious who was on welfare and it appeared to be a government enforced class system. Why? People are generally lazy and want free stuff. If the government gives it to you then you don't have to work and earn it. Consequently you become lazier, more dependent, and you tend to enjoy things a lot less. If you only need a little bit of help then you will be encouraged to take all that you qualify for. Sound wasteful? But it is a great way for politicians to get voters by creating welfare addicts. On the other hand the LDS church has what is called a Needs and Resource Analysis Form. When somebody needs help they talk to their Bishop who fills out this form. The Bishop helps the person examine what their needs are vs their wants and what resources are available. Maybe they need to get a second job or sell a vehicle. Maybe there are family members which can help the person. If there are not enough resources then the church steps in. The church doesn't just give a handout. They give much more lasting help. They help teach the person how to manage their resources including getting a better job, spending less, and resolve the issues of why they are spending too much. This method betters the person instead of forcing him to be humiliated by getting something for nothing. Why don't you look at how the church has handled relief operations for major disasters? Now lets get to what the real purpose of government is. Is it to protect people's wealth or to redistribute it? If it is to protect wealth then why is it taking over 50% of some peoples money who work hard and giving it to many who are too lazy to get a real job?

lenardburton
Posts:0

Online Status: User is Offline

04/28/2006 3:06 PM

nonleft
Posts:112

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/02/2006 2:15 PM
Well to be fair, I have been labeled as a NeoCon before. I didn't intend on slandering you, just so you know. Call it satire. Liberal does seem to be your viewpoint though. That is the big problem I have with public education is that it turns many into the Liberal viewpoint. My kids will go to private schools as a result. That is also the problem I have with PBS and so on. I feel that any institution who receives public funding should not use it as a soapbox to slander the President. Fox News which is more right and CNN which is more left both have the right to say anything they want because they are private. As far as the term “Liberal” goes, I have a sour taste in my mouth because of all the ideas it represents. Abortion, free promiscuity, tax and spend, anti Capitalism, anti war even when needed, the UN having power over the US and so forth. I'm not saying that you believe in all of those ideas. Many Liberals in general do though. I too am Christian and don't feel that any of those “Liberal” values represent my beliefs. In fact, it really is the opposite of my religious beliefs. From a religious standpoint, I was taught the value of freedom and agency. That is the foundation that this County offers over all other Countries in the world put together. I like knowing that I have the freedom to have hand guns and other weapons. I like knowing that I can have as much wealth as I want. I like you believe in moderation when it comes to Socialism vs Capitalism. In general though, Capitalism is what this country was founded upon. This is a Capitalist Nation. High Taxes on individual's and Corporations do just the opposite of this. Any time you take the choice away from people you take power away. Forcing people to pay for other peoples education, health care, bike trails, and so on, is not freedom.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Public Policy > Tax Policy > TAX cuts

ActiveForums 3.7