Lowest federal deficit in 4 years! - Page 5

barney-fife · #41 (**permalink**) 10-12-2006, 09:18 AM

Why are those complaining about the poor paying social security taxes the same ones who oppose granting the poor the option of opting out of the system and not paying social security taxes? A little inconsistent here, aren't we?

Zoe · #42 (**permalink**) 10-12-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silkheat";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

No, you obviously are not a very careful reader, because I said the poor pay no federal income taxes. And I support they not pay any social security, either. Of course, this means they also do not participate in any socuial security benefits. My statements are accurate.

Yes we understood your dishonest misdirection. Many people just like you support Bush's tax cuts, and when asked why only the rich recieve tax cuts you misdirect saying they are the only ones paying the federal income tax. While they do pay the majority of the federal income tax, most of the other taxes that are paid are paid by the poor and middle class. Even social security is robbed from to fund the GOP's pork fest.

So again please when you refer to taxes be honest. While I support tax cuts, we need to give the poor and middle classes more relief especially in the face of the rampant inflation due to poor fiscal management we have going on.

Increase in revenue came primarily from corporate taxes according to the Wall Street Journal :there is little to support the notion that cutting individual tax rates has made people "better off". Furthermore, the country should have a budget surplus and a rainy day fund to ease the pain of the looming retirement of baby boomers. If you predict your credit card debt will be $20,000 next year and it turns out to be $15,000, that it not a heck of a lot to celebrate. But of course we know that the administration will always see the glass as half full.

Mack · #43 (**permalink**) 10-12-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

Spin this--tax revenues are up substantially, 10% greater in 2006 than 2005, and 2005 tax revenues were substantially higher than 2004 tax revenues.

How can tax revenues be expanding when tax rates were reduced? The same way they do each and every time tax rates are reduced--the economy expands. JFK was a supply sider, as was Ronald Reagan and as is W.

Bush hasn't enacted a tax cut since 03.

Thats like saying tax revenues rose significantly even though tax rates were reduced under Reagan. Its pure nonsense to make this connection unless the tax cut occured during the year in which you are spouting your increased tax revenue rhetoric.

barney-fife · #44 (**permalink**) 10-12-2006, 10:20 AM

The tax cut of '03 is paying out substantial economic dividends, to bot private and public entities.

Silkheat · #45 (**permalink**) 10-12-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

Why are those complaining about the poor paying social security taxes the same ones who oppose granting the poor the option of opting out of the system and not paying social security taxes? A little inconsistent here, aren't we?

No, I think that anyone should have the option to opt out of social security. What will happen though when congress has to answer for stealing from the account and not being able to pay people back for the money they stole?

hobo · #46 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silkheat";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

Why are those complaining about the poor paying social security taxes the same ones who oppose granting the poor the option of opting out of the system and not paying social security taxes? A little inconsistent here, aren't we?

No, I think that anyone should have the option to opt out of social security. What will happen though when congress has to answer for stealing from the account and not being able to pay people back for the money they stole?

Don't forget, without Social Security the old poor people will be dying en mass in the streets. I don't think any politician can live with that. So opt in, or opt out, some social program will always be necessary to help the elderly poor. Don't like Social Security, it will come back under a different name, that is all.

Zoe · #47 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006, 05:44 AM

Right now, Social security receipts are running a surplus over what is paid out. The gov't is "borrowing" this money, now, and making the deficit look smaller than it actually is. Corporations could not get away with fixing the numbers in this way. I wonder who will be left holding the bag when retirees need that money?

glitch · #48 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoe";p=&quot

Right now, Social security receipts are running a surplus over what is paid out. The gov't is "borrowing" this money, now, and making the deficit look smaller than it actually is. Corporations could not get away with fixing the numbers in this way. I wonder who will be left holding the bag when retirees need that money?

I believe this is one of the issues Bush brought out when attempting to address the coming Social Security crisis. The Democrats screemed bloody murder saying Bush was trying to scare people and that we don't have a problem.