if used, should be used very sparingly.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
if used, should be used very sparingly.
...which is anathema to your side of the aisle. At least the Dems come right out and tell you they may be necessary -- they don't invite people to "read their lips" and then raise taxes anyway.
The surest way to know a politician is likely to raise your taxes is when he promises he won't.
If he thinks there necessary, why all the emphasis on reducing spending rather than raising taxes? He saying exactly what President Bush is saying, the tax cuts were and are necessary to stimulate economy.
You guys on your side of the aisle are pros at straining a gnat out of a hurricane, and then using the gnat to justify your position. Sorry, you can't get 'you should raise taxes' from Greenspan.
It can't be much clearer unless you're determined not to see it.
While that would erect a high hurdle to Bush?s call for making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, estimated to cost at least $1 trillion over a decade, Greenspan again repeated his belief that spending cuts rather than tax increases were the best way to deal with the exploding deficit.
While not ruling out totally the use of tax increases to deal with at least part of the looming surge in spending on Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, Greenspan urged caution in increasing taxes.
?Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base,? Greenspan said. ?The exact magnitude of such risks is very difficult to estimate, but they are of enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side.?
....my town just announced that due to reduced federal funding brought about by the aforementioned tax cuts, our property taxes are being raised 9%. For us, that's a $700 per year increase. So let's see.....I got $600 from the tax cut, and I'm going to be paying $700 more in local taxes.....yup, great idea, George!
If your town is like most towns, they have been waiting to find a 'mask' to use when they raised taxes, and the tax cut came along just in time. Don't forget, they're all politicians.
I don't doubt that there are some shenanigans going on. When you look at the money the town takes in vs. the condition of the schools and such, something just doesn't add up.
Meanwhile I just learned that Forbes Magazine has rated the Wake County, NC school system #3 in the country (they were #1 last year so I guess this means they've deteriorated, LOL), which increases the likelihood that we're blowin' this pop stand and headin' south.
We're thinking about moving to the Raleigh/Durham area. We went down about a month ago and we're going back next week for a second look.
Actually I think maybe the cuts did help, and were good at the time, but not sure they should be pernament honestly.
But if going to 'expire' I'd rather see it done over more than one year peroid.
They don't give my town that kind of money, and I don't expect them to. That's not the role of the federal government. So we agree! Great idea George! You should be happy! You didn't want the money anyway.
...is that for a lot of working people, the tax cut was not the windfall Bush was touting it as. My overall tax burden went up as a result. So did lots of other people's.
...it was money that got spent closer at home, thereby improving your local economy, and hopefully contributing to local government upgrading the infrastructure in your area.
Then Bush should have described it as a redistribution of my tax burden, and not "tax relief" which it is not.
They did the same crap over here in Maryland, trying to grab as much of what Bush wanted consumers to recieve. It's no mistake that during that time in Maryland we had a Democratic governor and assembly. Robbing us of what was supposed to be a tax return to us is one reason Ehrlich, a Republican recently was elected our new governor.
Bush and his economic advisors (presumably) knew what the likely effects of the cuts would be.
Did your new Republican governor roll back those increases?
He's not going to do that without finding another source of added revenue to compensate since he has to get it past a Democratic assembly. He's been proposing a casino law, which I personally think is wrong. He needs to face up to the Democrats, even if it means a single term, and try to embarass them into cutting out some pet projects and do other cutbacks on spending too. Meanwhile the teacher's union in Baltimore is making waves and the city of Baltimore is yelling for more money.
have been paying more all along. Why should I subsidize your local taxes?
Josh, federal taxes for working people went DOWN! That's a fact. President Bush does not, and should not, have anything to do with your local taxes. No wonder there's a deficit with everybody hanging on the gravy train.
.....Bush and his economic advisors had to have known things like this would happen, which makes their description of the cuts as "tax relief" misleading, at least to people in my area.
Did they expect the locals to blaim the feds for local tax increases? At any rate, I've got a better idea of where you're coming from. You're against the guy who raises YOUR taxes. I can't blame you for that. That sounds like a Republican position. Welcome to the party.
Actually what I'm against is a guy who tells me something he knows isn't true and tries to make it sound like he's helping me when he knows he isn't. Reminds me of that great scene in Dog Day Afternoon when the police detective is trying to talk Al Pacino into doing something stupid:
PACINO: Kiss me.
DETECTIVE: What?
PACINO: Kiss me. When I'm being f****d, I like to get kissed a lot.
I find it hard to beleive that the 'real' reason for local tax hikes is cuts in federal funding due explicitly to Bush's tax cuts.
The fact that there was at least some urging towards giving money to states and cities rather than cut federal taxes (DK harped on this ad nauseum) and the well known, growing, budget crunch for their budgets tells me that those taxing authorities were going to raise local taxes anyway unless they received MORE federal money. That they didn't, is no reason to 'blame' the tax hike on the feds.
Find one significant program where the federal dole to those entities has dried up. I am afraid that this is another case of heaping blame on the President rather than admitting the true facts.
Bo
Hi Bo,
Local taxing authorities have never needed a President to blame, as long as they (Dem or Repub) had the Federal Government in line to which they could pass the buck.
Where were there cuts in Federal funding of programs? All I see are increases all around.
Evie ![]()
Hi Josh,
What Federal funding cuts? Education spending increased, and I can't recall any significant program that was cut.
Also, care to address your Governer's new proposed budget? Increased 9%!!!!!!!!! Free Community College for all graduating in the top 20% of the class and the first state to fund stem cell research? DYFUS gets 125 million more -- probably needed IF it there really is a need for more caseworkers and the funding is spent for same that are held accountable, but surely there is something that he could cut.
Bush is now talking spending cuts. I hope Congress is listening and they happen. Of course there is no such thing as a cut, just a reduced increase, but it would be a start.
You do realize the slight irony in your complaints re: tax policy and a desire to move South, no?
Evie ![]()
Tax money spent in a local economy benefits you more than tax money spent elsewhere by Washington.