Why do people think the 1.2 trillion in cuts is a all at once?

[DCal430]

I talked to many people, and most seem to think that next year 1.2 trillion will be cut from the budget immediately for next year. The 1.2 trillion in cuts is IN FACT over TEN YEARS, and next year cuts will be under 100 billion. The cuts to the budget represent around only 2.5% of the overall federal budget and not some huge amount, in fact most will come from the over bloated defense budget.

So again people it isn't a 1.2 trillion dollar cut next year and every year forward, it is 1.2 trillion OVER 10 years, or a 100 to 150 billion each year for 10 years.

 

[techs]

Why do people think the expiration of the Bush tax cuts affects the tax rate on the first 250 thousand dollars a millionaire makes?

 

[nehalem256]

Why do people think the expiration of the Bush tax cuts affects the tax rate on the first 250 thousand dollars a millionaire makes?

Because 80% of the Bush tax cuts are on people making less than 250,000

 

[DCal430]

Why do people think the expiration of the Bush tax cuts affects the tax rate on the first 250 thousand dollars a millionaire makes?

If it expired for those under 250,000 it would. But I do not see the big deal in letting the cuts expire for everyone. It would be nice if we could get the cuts to expire for only the rich, but if not, then I would rather it expire for everyone then let the rich keep it.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's a lot more going on than that. Read up-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/11/10/the-fiscal-cliff-explained/

I wouldn't underestimate Repub spite & recalcitrance...

 

[blankslate]

Because someone coined the phrase "Fiscal Cliff" and others thought it sounded cool.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

i don't know why we talk about cuts being a 10 year deal. Mitt Romney's tax cut is $5 trillion. Simpson-Bowles wants to raise 1 trillion and cut 3 trillion. Why can't we talk about 5 years? 1 year? Why 10 years? And yes it causes confusion because people think next year we lose $1 trillion in government spending.

I suppose it's a way to play with stupid people's heads.

 

[michal1980]

i don't know why we talk about cuts being a 10 year deal. Mitt Romney's tax cut is $5 trillion. Simpson-Bowles wants to raise 1 trillion and cut 3 trillion. Why can't we talk about 5 years? 1 year? Why 10 years? And yes it causes confusion because people think next year we lose $1 trillion in government spending.

I suppose it's a way to play with stupid people's heads.

because it makes lawmakers look like they made some real cuts.

When in reality they made hardly any.

 

[techs]

If it expired for those under 250,000 it would. But I do not see the big deal in letting the cuts expire for everyone. It would be nice if we could get the cuts to expire for only the rich, but if not, then I would rather it expire for everyone then let the rich keep it.

Actually the tax on the first 250k remains unchanged and the only additional tax would apply to the amount over 250k.
See, I told you most people don't understand it.

 

[Anarchist420]

Because 80% of the Bush tax cuts are on people making less than 250,000

Thanks for pointing that out Sucks ass that too many never realized that, doesn't it?

i don't know why we talk about cuts being a 10 year deal. Mitt Romney's tax cut is $5 trillion. Simpson-Bowles wants to raise 1 trillion and cut 3 trillion. Why can't we talk about 5 years? 1 year? Why 10 years? And yes it causes confusion because people think next year we lose $1 trillion in government spending. I suppose it's a way to play with stupid people's heads.

+.9
1 year and one year only.

because it makes lawmakers look like they made some real cuts. When in reality they made hardly any.

+1.

 

[Ausm]

Why do people think the expiration of the Bush tax cuts affects the tax rate on the first 250 thousand dollars a millionaire makes?

Republicon echo chamber!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Force a public cut of 2.5% and behind the scenes grow the budget by 3%.

Will work perfectly.

In Manpower alone; one can find 3 empty slots within a department of 100 that have not been filled.

 

[sm625]

What I want to know is why would people think 1.2 trillion in cuts over many years is anywhere even close to a solution. Amidst all this armwaving and banter, wall street and the top 1% are still going to receive hundreds of billions a year in free handouts paid for with borrowed money that goes onto the backs of the public. Yes, even if the absolutely most draconian cuts are made (out of all the major plans), they will still be borrowing massive amounts of money and giving it to the rich. (And giving a smaller amount to the poor to buy votes.)

 

[Ausm]

What I want to know is why would people think 1.2 trillion in cuts over many years is anywhere even close to a solution. Amidst all this armwaving and banter, wall street and the top 1% are still going to receive hundreds of billions a year in free handouts paid for with borrowed money that goes onto the backs of the public. Yes, even if the absolutely most draconian cuts are made (out of all the major plans), they will still be borrowing massive amounts of money and giving it to the rich. (And giving a smaller amount to the poor to buy votes.)

Is that the "freebies" and "goodies" that the Rightists keep ranting about?

 

[tydas]

I don't think people realize how much our economy relies on goverment spending...heck, even if your against the high military budget that has to be ramped down slowly to avoid a possible recession..

 

[werepossum]

because it makes lawmakers look like they made some real cuts.

When in reality they made hardly any.

This.

Let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire. In fact, double taxes on the wealthy. Punish everyone who isn't me. It's the new American way.

 

[DCal430]

Actually the tax on the first 250k remains unchanged and the only additional tax would apply to the amount over 250k.
See, I told you most people don't understand it.

You are the one who doesn't understand, if it if expires for those under 250K then it would apply to the amounts under 250K for the rich too. Sad that you don't understand simple math.

 

[DCal430]

This makes me think, why do we speak of taxes and cuts over 10 years, when congress could change it at any year.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

why do we allow a goverment that cant balance a budget

 

[schneiderguy]

This makes me think, why do we speak of taxes and cuts over 10 years, when congress could change it at any year.

I think we should just change it to 100,000 years.

"Today, I am signing the United States Budget Reform act; an act that will cut 10 trillion dollars from government spending

Spoiler

over the next 100,000 years

"

Say it in your best Obama voice, it sounds wonderful.

 

[Ausm]

This.

Let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire. In fact, double taxes on the wealthy. Punish everyone who isn't me. It's the new American way.

Just like the wealthy have been "punished" for the last 30+ years having their net wealth grow by 238% while the peons wages have been stagnant for the same amount of time?

 

[EagleKeeper]

And what is preventing the masses from growing?
Are they being held down?

 

[Ausm]

And what is preventing the masses from growing?
Are they being held down?

For your reading pleasure....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

[EagleKeeper]

And what is preventing the masses from growing?
Are they being held down?

For your reading pleasure....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Nothing in there states that they are being prevented from improving.

That is my question?

Is there a tag on their SS# that say they are only allowed to make a certain income or live in certain neighborhoods?

 

[ElFenix]

Just like the wealthy have been "punished" for the last 30+ years having their net wealth grow by 238% while the peons wages have been stagnant for the same amount of time?

anyone know how much churn is in that group?