Forum Post: A ticker on what's lost
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 10:55 p.m. EST by shoozTroll
(17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Everybody loves tickers.
Here's what the Bush tax cuts are costing.
Watch 'em roll.
Watch what we lose. Ooops there went another school.
This is pretty cool, I wonder if they add in the extra interest we have to pay everyday on the money they borrow.
Excellent points!!
Thanks for finding this again.....:)
I thought it fell a bit too quickly.
Kinda mesmerizing sitting here watching those number climb.
Bumpity Bump.
You need to see this.
It makes that deficit clock tick faster.
And who's entitled?
Why WallStreet of course, but hush now, we're not supposed to notice. They do give some kick back to the IRAs.
Blast from the past.
So if the 2.5% difference equals billions, then by that math, we would only have to increase the top tax bracket by what percentage to balance the budget this upcoming year?
What's lost, is lost, is it not?
Everything that didn't get done will now cost more. Will it not?
There's been enough lost to rebuild an inner city in, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St Louis.
Enough lost to rebuild how many schools?
Im asking for specifics. If you are going to endorse something, then you should realize what it will/wont do.
I'm asking YOU for specifics.
Since you can't comprehend what was lost, perhaps you should explain what you thought was gained.
More money to spend on ALEC?
I comprehend what was lost. Its right there in the link you posted. So they have cost us almost 200b a year in lost revenues.
So the difference between 39% and 35% costs 200b. So I am going to guess that for every percentage point increase, you get about 50b in revenues. In order to close the 1.4T budget gap, you would need to increase the tax rate then by 28%. So if we taxed top income earners @ 63% next year, we would have a balanced budget?
Then demonstrate that comprehension, instead of deferring it to (R)epelican't talking points.
If you can.
"Then demonstrate that comprehension, instead of deferring it to (R)epelican't talking points."
I am trying to have a conversation with you on the link you posted. Stop being so defensive. I just asked you something. You attacked. I then went ahead and tried to put together a logical arguement based off of the link. You attack.....
So.... What do you think? If we raised the tax to 63% would that then balance the budget?
There is no need to balance the federal budget. That's a (R)epelican't talking point.
Now, please demonstrate your comprehension of what was lost, instead of avoiding it, in post after post.
1T over the course of 10 years, right? I mean, your the one that posted the fuckin link? Its right there when you click on it, kind of hard to miss.
How about instead of looking back, we start looking forward and discuss where the hell to go?!@!! Damn!!
"There is no need to balance the federal budget. That's a (R)epelican't talking point." You are right. Going from the largest creditor to the largest debtor over the course of those 12 years has done fuckin wonders for the country.
This is very dissapointing, shooz.
You still didn't answer the question.
You still deferred to the very same (R)eplican't talking point.
How is the link fucking?
I've already told you about MMT.
All your doing is avoiding the facts and trying to restart tired old arguments.
So yes, why don't we look forward.
Ok, good then. If the cuts have cost us 1T over the last 10 years (this answers your question for the third time now), then what amount do we need to raise them in order to get teh budget back under control.
If balanced budgets dont matter, then why did you post the link to begin with? You cant say budgets done matter, and then say that its messed up that the fuckin loser Bush passed tax cuts that increased the deficit.
I give.
It's obvious you won't answer the original question, let alone the plethora of others that arise from your refusal.
"Now, please demonstrate your comprehension of what was lost, instead of avoiding it, in post after post."
I guess it depends on what the Trillion dollars would have been spent on. Im not sure where they took it out of specifically, or what the proportions are. Do you want me to start naming things I would like to put that trillion into?
I would dump as much as I could into schools, thats for sure. Infrastructure could certainly be better.
If you have a specific answer you are looking for and Im not aware of it, then why dont you try to teach me something for once instead of getting pissed off and doubling down each time?
You're right,it's so sad how most people in this country believe the money they earn belongs to them to be wasted and mismanaged. If only these poor fools would realize how much more efficient the Government is at spending money.
Thanks for such an illuminating post.
How many schools were created or improved by those that received this entitlement?
How many harbors were dredged?
How many roads paved?
How many tanks did it build to support the oil wars, that they profit from?
[Removed]
[Removed]