Comments about ‘Tax cuts for what?’

The wrong question was asked.

Instead of asking what would be cut if taxes were reduced, why not ask how many more jobs could be funded if government did not take those tax dollars away from productive people who know how to run businesses and provide jobs.

Some of the greatest expenses we have on both the State and the Federal level is for welfare services. If the welfare roles were reduced, how much could government be cut?

It is obvious that increased spending on social programs has not had the desired result. What is not obvious is the good that would be done if people were required to work instead of keeping them on welfare. Of course government workers would oppose that approach. They have a job. They want to keep their government job. If people didn't need them, they might have to get a job in the private sector where there would be competition. Competition means that they might not be good enough. So, the easy way to keep their jobs is to ensure that people stay on welfare.

Republicans always say they're going to cut taxes. But don't worry, they won't cut any programs that you like. They'll only cut programs for those other people, you know, the people no one cares about.

If we are going to lower taxes, shouldn't food taxes be the taxes we lower?. Each dolloar lost through elimination of this tax helps the poor more.

We all agree that govt needs to be cut.

We also agree that we dont want govt to be cut in areas that affect me.

Cut Govt, but keep Hill AFB

Cut Govt, but keep them in the Liquor Business.

Cut Govt, but keep my Medicare.

Cut Govt, but keep my Social Security.

Cut Govt, but not military funding.

Generally, we want to

Cut Govt and cut Taxes, but Not the services it provides.

The bottom line is that Republicans want to satisfy short-term greed and narcissism and sacrifice long-term investment in the future of our state and nation. It's really quite simple.

" how many more jobs could be funded if government did not take those tax dollars away from productive people who know how to run businesses and provide jobs."..answer..probably zero. For your premise to be correct job creation would have to have been lower during times when taxes were higher, and higher when taxes were lower. Just the opposite is true for at least the past twenty years.

First of all there is no one to one realtionship between jobs and taxes..never was, never will be. Jobs are a product of the economy as a whole and are the product of far more complicated relationships. Secondly if there is anything close to a one to one relationship with jobs it's demand not supply.

Mike R: "Some of the greatest expenses we have on both the State and the Federal level is for welfare services. If the welfare roles were reduced, how much could government be cut?"

-----------

Oh Mike, you know that ALL income taxes go toward education. It is in our state constitution. Why do you try and obscure it with welfare babble?

This is purely about education funding.

If you didn't know this, you need to read more before you speak.

Taxes are at the lowest point in 50 years. Thats why we are bankrupt. When is the GOP going to wake up and realize that tax cuts sound nice, but they produce defecits. We need to go back to the tax rates of Bill Clinton. You remember, when we had a balanced budget and surpluss. Its so simple, just hard for republicans to understand.

Explanations just confuse conservatives. They are capable of digesting nothing more than a 15-second sound bite.

The purpose of Dougall's income tax cut proposal is to further weaken our public school system. There's a cadre of rightwingers in the legislature who are determined to destroy the neighborhood school because they can make $$$ by getting into the private school biz (e.g. Stephenson). They also believe the whole system is run by commies, which is a paranoid delusion.

' But don't worry, they won't cut any programs that you like. They'll only cut programs for those other people, you know, the people no one cares about.' - cjb | 6:48 a.m. Jan. 31, 2012

You are correct.

I wish you were NOT correct, that people are not so cold but..

you are correct.

My example to support this is:

**'In U.S. cities, HIV linked more to poverty than race' - by MIKE STOBBE - AP - 07/19/10

**'Insurer revoked HIV Patients coverage' - Reuters - 03/17/10

'...a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. (sic) Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy.' - article

**'Utahns with HIV, AIDS upset with Legislative committee's indecision on federal grant program' - By James Thalman - Deseret News - 04/14/10

'Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, along with Republican members of the state Executive Appropriations Committee, voted to approve state participation in dozens of other grants at an April 6 meeting. But they unexpectedly held up the AIDS grant application...' - article


When I emailed Michael Waddups about this...

he sent me a link, that did not answer my question.

The GOP is simply trying to build a strawman argument.

"Do you want lower taxes?"

What a stupid question.
Of course people are going to answer "Yes".

But the Devil is in the Details.

What is going to get cut?
How are you planning on doing it?
What changes are you proposing?

A blanket statement saying "The People want lower taxes!" is election cycle rhetoric.

What do they take us for? Idiots??

To "homebrew" you are wrong. The tax rates have little to do with bankrupting the nation. It all goes back to the government borrowing money rather than living within the amount of taxes collected. The government was running deficits in the 1970's when tax rates were much higher.

If you don't control spending, things will continue to get worse.

To "LDS Liberal" you should realize that it isn't just the GOP that is calling for lower taxes. If you bother to read Obama's latest State of the Union address, he is advocating for lower taxes on small businesses and other businesses.

The best thing the nation could do would be to make change the US tax codes so that it has the lowest corporate tax rate in the world. Think of it this way, if you get 1 multi-billion dollar corporation to relocate its money here, you more than make up for companies like GE to get away with paying nothing.

'If you don't control spending, things will continue to get worse.' - RedShirt | 1:24 p.m. Jan. 31, 2012

**"According to the Pew Economic Policy Group, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts will cost $3.1 trillion over ten years, once the costs of servicing the debt are factored in."

**'CBO: Health care repeal would increase deficit' - By Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press - 01/06/11

**'Bailout is law' - By Jeanne Sahadi - CNN Money - 10/04/08

'NEW YORK -- After two weeks of contentious and often emotional debate, the federal government's far-reaching and historic plan to bail out the nation's financial system was signed into law by President Bush on Friday afternoon.'

**'Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill' - AP - Published by Denver Post - By Tom Raum - 10/03/08

**Utah to receive $60M in USDA disaster aid to states By Bill Draper AP Published by Dsnews 01/18/12

Me:

Don't like goverment spending....

don't vote Republican.

Fred Ash you are correct that they are obscuring the discussion. Why should I pay for you or your kids to be educated? Because it is the best long range investment we can make to the economic health of our nation. Why should I pay for you or your kids to eat, be healthy or secure? Because a healthy, educated, and secure populace is more likey to be produce assets and less likely to create criminals. This is what the discussion should be about.

@RedShirt | 1:24 p.m. Jan. 31, 2012
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" you should realize that it isn't just the GOP that is calling for lower taxes. If you bother to read Obama's latest State of the Union address, he is advocating for lower taxes on small businesses and other businesses.

==================

And if YOU had bothered to read THIS article (and stayed ON topic RedShirt) you would have discovered WE are talking about the "Utah State Republican GOP website".

Nothing to do with the Feds
Nothing to do with Obama

Completely 100% OFF topic just to Spin, Twist, Confuse, and divert to your own One way, one path agenda.

Like a mad dog attacking without ever once thinking for itself or knowing the reason why...

Why the DN monitor never stops you, but stops other commentors commments as part their own criteria being monitored is beyond me quite frankly....

To "Pagan" so then you agree with me that spending must be equal to or less than the tax revenues that the government collects.

Lets take a look at what your dear leader has done for us.

From October 18, 2010 at CBS News âNational Debt Up $3 Trillion on Obama's Watchâ. That was less than 2 years after he took office, and he allowed nearly as much debt as Bush did in 8 years. That doesn't look good for Obama.

Lets see what Obama was saying during Bush's term in office about raising the debt ceiling. From USA Today, January 6, 2011 in a story titled "Obama once opposed lifting debt ceiling." we read a nice quote from 2006 Senator Obama. He said "I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." So, which Obama do we listen to?

From the AP we read "Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor". "The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors â including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama â moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show."

From Openmarket we read "Obama-Dodd financial bill would further enrich Goldman Sachs". That one is great because we find out that "President Obama and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) are pushing a bill would reward the firm with potentially billions of dollars by instituting a so-called âresolution authorityâ that would, in practice, be a permanent bailout fund."

The idea that the healthcare bill will save money is a farce. The CBO has a horrible track record for predicting healthcare costs. For example the Medicare Drug program was supposed to save the government $8.2 billion per year. According to various sources it will cost the US an extra $400 billion over the next 10 year or it will cost $40 billion per year. Would you trust somebody to build your home if they were off by $50 billion? So why do we keep trusting the bad CBO estimates on savings on healthcare programs?

Try and find any significant CBO report on healthcare savings that has actually been correct, or even close.

The question made by the GOP is idiotic. It's like asking a group of 10 year olds if they want candy for free.

Of course they'll say yes!

So when you ask adults if they want tax cuts, the easy answer is "yes, of course!"

However, choices have consequences.

Are we to the point of being over-taxed in Utah to where tax cuts would actually bolster revenue, improve investing, while proving detrimental to government services?

If revenue is actually lost, what's their plan? What services will be cut? What taxes will be raised? Will the rainy day fund be used?

These are vital questions that we need to know in order to make informed decisions.

Asking stupid and obvious questions without providing any additional information, which is exactly what Utah's GOP is doing, is like asking a bunch of 10 year olds if they want candy for free.

Most people can't see beyond starving their own society as long as they get a tax cut.

'To "Pagan" so then you agree with me that spending must be equal to or less than the tax revenues that the government collects.' - RedShirt | 4:05 p.m. Jan. 31, 2012

So why then, does the Republican party favor...

cutting taxes?

**'Emboldened GOP wants to abolish state income taxes' - By Sean Murphy - AP - Published by DSnews - 01/30/12

Taxes.

You know, INCOME.

That the States use...

**Utah to receive $60M in USDA disaster aid to states By Bill Draper AP Published by Dsnews 01/18/12

while rallying against...

federal goverment.

If we both agree that America has too much debt (I said 'if', not an assumption of your compliance)...

then what justification is there, to cut revenue for the federal goverment?

Less spending?

You can't even say that for the Republican party.

**'Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill' - AP - Published by Denver Post - By Tom Raum - 10/03/08

And please.

'We' have not done anything.

YOU, have read these titles.

But present no author, date, or cite anything FROM those stories...

to support your points.

Good day, Redshirt.