Cost of Extending Bush Tax Cuts and AMT Relief: $4.4 Trillion

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/LI...ml?eref=rss_topstories

Michael and Steven Roberts didn't have two quarters to rub together a couple of decades ago. Now, the two African-American business leaders estimate their holdings -- from hotels to TV stations -- are worth $1 billion. One St. Louis hotel they own once barred black people.

Their office is the culmination of hard work and a can-do American business attitude to strive for greatness.

They like to tell their story, encouraging people with new ideas to chase their dreams. If you don't have money, they say, don't let that stop you.

He says he likes to tell youths and college students: "What would your life be like if you could eliminate the fear of failure, and where would you be at this point in life?" There will be times, he says, when you will stumble, but don't let those hiccups get you down. "If you eliminate the fear of failure and if you use every moment to its fullest extent -- a very existential concept -- then you are able to take your ideas, your dreams, your aspirations, and you can pursue them with courage and confidence and bravado."

This article was too timely to ignore. However, I doubt it will have any impact on those who have been consumed with hatred and jealousy to the point of impotency.

Reminds me also of Chris Gardner's story.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: OCguy
I dont see letting people keep thier money as being a "cost."

It's only a cost when the keeping of that money causes a greater long term debt.

No, the debt is caused by the spending, not the lack of income.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/LI...ml?eref=rss_topstories

Michael and Steven Roberts didn't have two quarters to rub together a couple of decades ago. Now, the two African-American business leaders estimate their holdings -- from hotels to TV stations -- are worth $1 billion. One St. Louis hotel they own once barred black people.

Their office is the culmination of hard work and a can-do American business attitude to strive for greatness.

They like to tell their story, encouraging people with new ideas to chase their dreams. If you don't have money, they say, don't let that stop you.

He says he likes to tell youths and college students: "What would your life be like if you could eliminate the fear of failure, and where would you be at this point in life?" There will be times, he says, when you will stumble, but don't let those hiccups get you down. "If you eliminate the fear of failure and if you use every moment to its fullest extent -- a very existential concept -- then you are able to take your ideas, your dreams, your aspirations, and you can pursue them with courage and confidence and bravado."

This article was too timely to ignore. However, I doubt it will have any impact on those who have been consumed with hatred and jealousy to the point of impotency.

No one is saying that it is impossible for people to do this, just that it is extremely difficult. There's a reason why social mobility in the US is considerably lower than it is in Europe. If hard work and ability is all you need to succeed, is everyone in Africa just stupid and lazy? Your environment is indisputably an important part of your success, and substantial differences in environment exist in the US.

Everyone wants to think that their success came from their blood, sweat, and tears alone, but it's almost never that way. There's no shame in admitting that you've been helped along the way.

I actually agree with you. Timing has alot to do with it also. But I also think wealth shouldnt be easy, nor should it be the norm.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: OCguy
I dont see letting people keep thier money as being a "cost."

It's only a cost when the keeping of that money causes a greater long term debt.

No, the debt is caused by the spending, not the lack of income.

Youre absolutely right. I know families who live on <$30,000/year that have no debt, pout food on the table, etc. Sure they struggle a bit, but theyre doing OK. On the other side of the coin, when I was in finance I sat down with families with combined incomes of >$200,000 that literally were two checks away from being broke. Because of debt.

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: OCguy
I dont see letting people keep thier money as being a "cost."

It's only a cost when the keeping of that money causes a greater long term debt.

No, the debt is caused by the spending, not the lack of income.

I know that, but when taxes are lowered without spending(I.E. Bush) the cost is very real. Just because a reduction in taxes isn't a cost does not mean it can't be a cost.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/LI...ml?eref=rss_topstories

Michael and Steven Roberts didn't have two quarters to rub together a couple of decades ago. Now, the two African-American business leaders estimate their holdings -- from hotels to TV stations -- are worth $1 billion. One St. Louis hotel they own once barred black people.

Their office is the culmination of hard work and a can-do American business attitude to strive for greatness.

They like to tell their story, encouraging people with new ideas to chase their dreams. If you don't have money, they say, don't let that stop you.

He says he likes to tell youths and college students: "What would your life be like if you could eliminate the fear of failure, and where would you be at this point in life?" There will be times, he says, when you will stumble, but don't let those hiccups get you down. "If you eliminate the fear of failure and if you use every moment to its fullest extent -- a very existential concept -- then you are able to take your ideas, your dreams, your aspirations, and you can pursue them with courage and confidence and bravado."

This article was too timely to ignore. However, I doubt it will have any impact on those who have been consumed with hatred and jealousy to the point of impotency.

No one is saying that it is impossible for people to do this, just that it is extremely difficult. There's a reason why social mobility in the US is considerably lower than it is in Europe. If hard work and ability is all you need to succeed, is everyone in Africa just stupid and lazy? Your environment is indisputably an important part of your success, and substantial differences in environment exist in the US.

Everyone wants to think that their success came from their blood, sweat, and tears alone, but it's almost never that way. There's no shame in admitting that you've been helped along the way.

America is not Africa. If you were to take an African and put him through American school and set him loose on the workplace he would have just as much opportunity as anyone to succeed. Hmm, why is that? Because in America we have opportunities that they don't in Africa, crazy huh?

 

[Specop 007]

I really dont understand how there can be 13 pages on such a childish thread. The OP is attempting to blame a previous administrations TAX CUTS on financial problems rather then looking at the current administrations SPENDING. Wow. So its bad bad bad to let people keep MORE of their OWN money, but its ok to spend?

Childish and silly logic.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: OCguy
I dont see letting people keep thier money as being a "cost."

It's only a cost when the keeping of that money causes a greater long term debt.

No, the debt is caused by the spending, not the lack of income.

I know that, but when taxes are lowered without spending(I.E. Bush) the cost is very real. Just because a reduction in taxes isn't a cost does not mean it can't be a cost.

No, it can never be a cost. Not taking something from someone else doesn't cost you anything, the SPENDING is the cost. Bush was a dumbass that reduced taxes without reducing SPENDING, and it's the samething going on now, even more so, spending to the tune of oh, more than anyone ever. At what point do people realize that there's no more blood in the stone? 100% of our income is directed towards government spending? 50%, what will it take for the lights to come on?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
I really dont understand how there can be 13 pages on such a childish thread. The OP is attempting to blame a previous administrations TAX CUTS on financial problems rather then looking at the current administrations SPENDING. Wow. So its bad bad bad to let people keep MORE of their OWN money, but its ok to spend?

Childish and silly logic.

Well, yea, if you're an apologist for the agenda, didn'tchaknow?

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: OCguy
I dont see letting people keep thier money as being a "cost."

It's only a cost when the keeping of that money causes a greater long term debt.

No, the debt is caused by the spending, not the lack of income.

I know that, but when taxes are lowered without spending(I.E. Bush) the cost is very real. Just because a reduction in taxes isn't a cost does not mean it can't be a cost.

No, it can never be a cost. Not taking something from someone else doesn't cost you anything, the SPENDING is the cost. Bush was a dumbass that reduced taxes without reducing SPENDING, and it's the samething going on now, even more so, spending to the tune of oh, more than anyone ever. At what point do people realize that there's no more blood in the stone? 100% of our income is directed towards government spending? 50%, what will it take for the lights to come on?

THat is an overly-simplistic view of what I'm saying. If someone tells you that you can have $5 today for the price of $7 tomorrow, how is it not a cost? A reduction in taxes and spending is not a cost, a reduction in taxes without the accompanying drop in spending is a cost.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Our fucking nation was founded upon over-taxation. Why the hell don't we get it. We need to force OUR government to become responsible with our money. This nation is capable of sooooo much, yet we are so corrupt and irresponsible with our leaders. We could have EVERYTHING we have and more right now if we have intelligent, respectable, responsible people in office. But instead we have these fucknuts, Dem's and Reps.

being responsible with our money would mean raising taxes.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447


A. Go ahead and put on your tinfoil hat. I'm pretty sure its commonly accepted that we left Britain due to over-taxation. Boston tea party, look it up.

boston tea party happened because the british got rid of the tax on tea, wiping out the smuggling trade that was based out of new england.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Our fucking nation was founded upon over-taxation. Why the hell don't we get it. We need to force OUR government to become responsible with our money. This nation is capable of sooooo much, yet we are so corrupt and irresponsible with our leaders. We could have EVERYTHING we have and more right now if we have intelligent, respectable, responsible people in office. But instead we have these fucknuts, Dem's and Reps.

being responsible with our money would mean raising taxes.

Or even better, how about cutting spending? Why does that concept seem so foreign to many politicians on both sides of the aisle?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
The looney left doesn't believe you are entitled to your money, you're supposed to make it so that the government can dole it out to those that are more "entitled" then you (voter base). They actually look at tax cuts as money the government lost, not money that you worked for and don't have to give to them.

Do you honestly think "working hard" will land you the $250,000 job that will actually put you in the democrat tax sites (i.e., bringing taxes almost back to REAGAN levels)

It did for me.

I like how the accountants call tax cuts a cost, as if they feel they're entitled to your money and they're doing you a favor by giving it back to you.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Cuda1447


A. Go ahead and put on your tinfoil hat. I'm pretty sure its commonly accepted that we left Britain due to over-taxation. Boston tea party, look it up.

boston tea party happened because the british got rid of the tax on tea, wiping out the smuggling trade that was based out of new england.

...did you fail history class?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

You folks defending Bushes tax cuts are dispicable!

It would be one thing if he lowered taxes on the wealthy, then gutted federal spending to match. But NO he cut taxes then trippled the spending including a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afganistan, and added a totaly unfunded medicare part D.

Irresponsible tax cuts are no different than irresponsible spending and Bush did both.

And the wealthy appear to be too greedy or too stupid to realize that the next step down the road of status quo is revolution

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Cuda1447


A. Go ahead and put on your tinfoil hat. I'm pretty sure its commonly accepted that we left Britain due to over-taxation. Boston tea party, look it up.

boston tea party happened because the british got rid of the tax on tea, wiping out the smuggling trade that was based out of new england.

...did you fail history class?

rofl. Dude, Im going to have to look up that conspiracy theory. Sounds interesting.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Our fucking nation was founded upon over-taxation. Why the hell don't we get it. We need to force OUR government to become responsible with our money. This nation is capable of sooooo much, yet we are so corrupt and irresponsible with our leaders. We could have EVERYTHING we have and more right now if we have intelligent, respectable, responsible people in office. But instead we have these fucknuts, Dem's and Reps.

being responsible with our money would mean raising taxes.

Or even better, how about cutting spending? Why does that concept seem so foreign to many politicians on both sides of the aisle?

Because cutting spending puts people out of work and/or reduces corporate profits which has been seen as political suicide for decades and does bad things to politicans re-election chances. It's become politically correct to increase spending, cut taxes and watch the deficiets soar!

Several comments in this thread show that same mentality. "We will always run deficiets" , "Deficiets don't affect anyone"

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
You folks defending Bushes tax cuts are dispicable!

It would be one thing if he lowered taxes on the wealthy, then gutted federal spending to match. But NO he cut taxes then trippled the spending including a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afganistan, and added a totaly unfunded medicare part D.

Irresponsible tax cuts are no different than irresponsible spending and Bush did both.

And the wealthy appear to be too greedy or too stupid to realize that the next step down the road of status quo is revolution

Tax cuts are fine, but not without cutting spending, no one, that I have seen, has said it was smart, or that they agree with Bush tax cuts, AND his rampant spending. He's just your boogeyman because he's a republican and did it. Obama promised a tax cut for what? all Americans making under $250,000 (even though it's the wealthy that pay most of the taxes anyway), but then increased spending a hundred fold, same shit different figurehead.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
I really dont understand how there can be 13 pages on such a childish thread. The OP is attempting to blame a previous administrations TAX CUTS on financial problems rather then looking at the current administrations SPENDING. Wow. So its bad bad bad to let people keep MORE of their OWN money, but its ok to spend?

Childish and silly logic.

You have no logic

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Many of the poor have the same class envy and hatred for the middle class as middle class have of the rich. In fact, I have a good friend of 24 years. We both grew up on the very low end of middle class, and in terms of economics I have far, far surpassed him on the social ladder.

Every once in awhile his despisement of his own failure to navigate life correctly and envy of me comes shining through as hatred when he goes on his drunken speeches to me about how life isnt fair.

So class hatred and class envy definitely exists with the poor ---> middle class as well.

So is he a lazy drunk or has worked his ass off only to not have had the same luck as you?

Which is it?

Both actually. Mostly he's lazy.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Our fucking nation was founded upon over-taxation. Why the hell don't we get it. We need to force OUR government to become responsible with our money. This nation is capable of sooooo much, yet we are so corrupt and irresponsible with our leaders. We could have EVERYTHING we have and more right now if we have intelligent, respectable, responsible people in office. But instead we have these fucknuts, Dem's and Reps.

being responsible with our money would mean raising taxes.

Or even better, how about cutting spending? Why does that concept seem so foreign to many politicians on both sides of the aisle?

Because cutting spending puts people out of work and/or reduces corporate profits which has been seen as political suicide for decades and does bad things to politicans re-election chances. It's become politically correct to increase spending, cut taxes and watch the deficiets soar!

Several comments in this thread show that same mentality. "We will always run deficiets" , "Deficiets don't affect anyone"

that's what happens when being a politician becomes your life - and your job, success, and power take precedence over the health of the country that you're supposed to be serving.

it makes absolutely no sense. politicians are supposed to love this country so much that they want to serve it, and yet they continually hurt it by ever increasing amounts of debt.

 

[arkcom]

In other news: Not robbing banks has cost me $3.4 million this year.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: arkcom
In other news: Not robbing banks has cost me $3.4 million this year.

This.