Poll:Tax cut: would you give it up so the federal deficit would drop?

[Scrooge2]

Personally I think at this point, the tax cut promised by Bush during the election is just basically a ploy at the next election. With the federal deficit expected to be $455 billion dollars this year, would you as Americans consider scraping the tax cut to help out our economy?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Scrooge2
Personally I think at this point, the tax cut promised by Bush during the election is just basically a ploy at the next election. With the federal deficit expected to be $455 billion dollars this year, would you as Americans consider scraping the tax cut to help out our economy?

If i knew that we had responsable people in DC, I would give up my tax cut and pay a bit more. But seeing how our elected officials(democrats and republican alike) squadered the previous surpluses, I am keeping my tax cut and will be demanding a larger one.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Scrooge2
Personally I think at this point, the tax cut promised by Bush during the election is just basically a ploy at the next election. With the federal deficit expected to be $455 billion dollars this year, would you as Americans consider scraping the tax cut to help out our economy?

If i knew that we had responsable people in DC, I would give up my tax cut and pay a bit more. But seeing how our elected officials(democrats and republican alike) squadered the previous surpluses, I am keeping my tax cut and will be demanding a larger one.

ditto

CkG

 

[Dudd]

Well, it doesn't really affect me because I'm a full time student and will get all my income tax back, but I voted no. I'd much rather cut out all the BS (War on Drugs first of all, then all our rediculous welfare, both Corporate and regular, insane farm subsidies), saving money there. That's just off the top of my head, there would have to be even more waste going on if someone really took a close look.

 

[Scrooge2]

This is great, the first 3 responses are all from guys with american flags as icons (insinuating that they posses a sense for patriotism) and voted no for reasons of having little faith in Washington

 

[SuperTool]

So is it the republican position that the only way to "fix" the government is to bankrupt it? I wonder if the cure will be worse than the disease.

 

[Michael]

I trust neither party to cut spending, so anything I give back to them will just be spent. I'd rather have the money than them.

I think they need to take a good look at where the money is going. The problem is that "entitlements" makes up so much of the spending that the % that can be cut is small unless they want to go after Social Security and other ptograms (never will happen).

Michael

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Scrooge2
this is great, the first 3 responses are all from guys with american flags as icons (insinuating that they posses a sense for patriotism) and voted no for reasons of having little faith in Washington

Love of our country is not the same as love of our goverment.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Scrooge2
this is great, the first 3 responses are all from guys with american flags as icons (insinuating that they posses a sense for patriotism) and voted no for reasons of having little faith in Washington

Love of our country is not the same as love of our goverment.

So which form of government would you preffer?

 

[Scrooge2]

Love of our country is not the same as love of our goverment.

I completely understand, and I'm not trying to be critical either. If you took it that way, I'm sorry. I just found it to be very interesting if not humorous.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So is it the republican position that the only way to "fix" the government is to bankrupt it? I wonder if the cure will be worse than the disease.

Yes, I expect the cure to hurt worse in the short term, but just becuase the Chemo hurts and sucks doesn't mean that we shouldn't remove the cancer(over spending).

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So is it the republican position that the only way to "fix" the government is to bankrupt it? I wonder if the cure will be worse than the disease.

Yes, I expect the cure to hurt worse in the short term, but just becuase the Chemo hurts and sucks doesn't mean that we shouldn't remove the cancer(over spending).

CkG

Or you could just vote for politicians who don't overspend.

 

[LunarRay]

I'll take all the tax cuts I can get ... I'll spend them and stimulate the economy.... I'd advocate larger cuts and rebates to get it going and let the deficit grow.. the risk of disinflation is much worse... and uncontrollable... you want to do anything to avoid this condition... even 15 percent or more inflation is preferable to disinflation...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So is it the republican position that the only way to "fix" the government is to bankrupt it? I wonder if the cure will be worse than the disease.

Yes, I expect the cure to hurt worse in the short term, but just becuase the Chemo hurts and sucks doesn't mean that we shouldn't remove the cancer(over spending).

CkG

Or you could just vote for politicians who don't overspend.

Who be they?

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So is it the republican position that the only way to "fix" the government is to bankrupt it? I wonder if the cure will be worse than the disease.

Yes, I expect the cure to hurt worse in the short term, but just becuase the Chemo hurts and sucks doesn't mean that we shouldn't remove the cancer(over spending).

CkG

Or you could just vote for politicians who don't overspend.

Who be they?

CkG

If there is a demand for politicians who don't overspend, there will be a supply. If you keep electing politicians who overspend, there is no incentive for them to not overspend.

 

[JellyBaby]

The feds wouldn't use the "savings" to reduce the deficit, they would generate new spending and make matters worse. They'll like crack addicts, the whole pork barreling lot of them.

The only way to substantially reduce the debt (we'll always have some) is to stop the feds from taking away so much of the nation's weath (57%?) in the first place. They can't misspend/overspend what they don't have. And the only real way to do that is to restore constitutional government. Right now they think in terms of what new things they can spend our money on, rather than what they *can't*. More of the later, less of the former would be nice.

 

[LunarRay]

Folks... Cutting the deficit now is tantamount to economic suicide... but, oh well...

 

[JellyBaby]

If there is a demand for politicians who don't overspend, there will be a supply. If you keep electing politicians who overspend, there is no incentive for them to not overspend.

Once a politician gets to D.C. and is indoctrinated into how things work in Washington, their ethics tend to change. For freshman, you can't see their spending record until they've been in office for a while and then the damage is too late. I suppose you could always vote out encumbants and that might work.

Sadly, any proposed legislation to create frugality in D.C. is either made stillborn or quickly voted down. They're like addicts and don't take kindly to a restriction in drug supply.

 

[Scrooge2]

I think Lunar Ray has the right idea, The point of my thread is to ask people given the current circumstances would people rather keep their tax cut or fork it over for the sake of the economy?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We should have saved lots of money. In Iraq. Well, the tab is what 100 billion +? Looks like we will see more than half a trillion on this fiasco in direct costs before this is over. I think we ought to have a tax cut, except for those who wanted this war. They ought to be taxed double.

 

[glenn1]

The feds wouldn't use the "savings" to reduce the deficit, they would generate new spending and make matters worse. They'll like crack addicts, the whole pork barreling lot of them.

The only way to substantially reduce the debt (we'll always have some) is to stop the feds from taking away so much of the nation's weath (57%?) in the first place. They can't misspend/overspend what they don't have. And the only real way to do that is to restore constitutional government. Right now they think in terms of what new things they can spend our money on, rather than what they *can't*. More of the later, less of the former would be nice.

* Ding ding ding! * We have a winner!!!!

While it's doubtful that a balanced budget amendment will ever be passed in our lifetimes, i have a suggestion for an amendment which could. Although it's far from perfect and not a cure-all, IMHO, it's both something people of all political POV's could agree on and a step in the right direction....

My proposed constitutional amendment:

Congress shall pass no law which authorizes or directs any expenditures, without in the same bill citing the section, clause, and phrase of the Constitution granting Congress the specific authority to expend said funds.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: glenn1

The feds wouldn't use the "savings" to reduce the deficit, they would generate new spending and make matters worse. They'll like crack addicts, the whole pork barreling lot of them.

The only way to substantially reduce the debt (we'll always have some) is to stop the feds from taking away so much of the nation's weath (57%?) in the first place. They can't misspend/overspend what they don't have. And the only real way to do that is to restore constitutional government. Right now they think in terms of what new things they can spend our money on, rather than what they *can't*. More of the later, less of the former would be nice.

* Ding ding ding! * We have a winner!!!!

While it's doubtful that a balanced budget amendment will ever be passed in our lifetimes, i have a suggestion for an amendment which could. Although it's far from perfect and not a cure-all, IMHO, it's both something people of all political POV's could agree on and a step in the right direction....

My proposed constitutional amendment:

Congress shall pass no law which authorizes or directs any expenditures, without in the same bill citing the section, clause, and phrase of the Constitution granting Congress the specific authority to expend said funds.

In the 1930's, FDR saved this country (and capitalism) from itself by passing many laws which can be considered unconstitutional. However, they were the right thing to do and most rational people agree.

If this country was to follow a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, it would lead to tyranny by the wealthy class (even worse so than now) and directly increase pain and suffering of its citizens.

 

[zantac]

You mean the Bush "Tax Cut"? Of Course, seeing as how it is a loan and not a tax cut at all. To all the people that say they would rather have their money back, I bet you would be interested to see how much of "your money" came from a loan from communist China

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: zantac
You mean the Bush "Tax Cut"? Of Course, seeing as how it is a loan and not a tax cut at all. To all the people that say they would rather have their money back, I bet you would be interested to see how much of "your money" came from a loan from communist China

Most of our debt is held by the american public.

 

[glenn1]

In the 1930's, FDR saved this country (and capitalism) from itself by passing many laws which can be considered unconstitutional. However, they were the right thing to do and most rational people agree.

If this country was to follow a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, it would lead to tyranny by the wealthy class (even worse so than now) and directly increase pain and suffering of its citizens.

I'm not saying we should make it unconstitutional for the government to tax or spend money for purposes it deems useful. All I'm proposing is that when Congress does spend money, it take a few words to cite its reasons for doing so. I don't find it an undue burden for Congress to say in conjunction with passing a spending bill that "This bill passed under the authority of Article X, Section Y, Clause Z of the United States Constitution." That's eighteen additional words, i daresay hardly a hardship to add to a spending bill of a few hundred or thousand pages.

Also, nothing says that Congress couldn't simply cite the "general welfare" clause for many expenditures. But then the voters would be able to make the call on the value of the spending involved, and understand the motives of Congress in authorizing the spending.