posted on January 28, 2001 07:38:50 PM new
krs - I think the two URLs you posted substantiate what I was saying. Greenspan has certainly changed his recommendation from what it was, just a short time ago. He previously said he felt there should be *no* tax cuts, the surplus should be used to pay down the national debt. Now he agrees a tax cut should be put into effect.
Quote from the website you provided us: "Greenspan, in Change of Policy, Supports a Substantial Tax Cut." Are you reading those two sites differently than I?
I think the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans now, on this issue, will be the amount of the cuts. And probably whether or not they are implemented more quickly or over a longer period of time.
Greenspan's calls have pretty much been right on target, and benefited the Clinton administration. I am hopeful that he does as well for the Bush administration.
posted on January 28, 2001 08:21:13 PM new
You missed the cautionary statements by Greenspan in which he counsels that as long as a tax cut doesn't bring a return of deficit spending, it would be ok, but your little boy wants to spend all of the money in the surplus immediately on the idiotic star wars missile defense system and on funding religion based beaurocracies to administer social programs.
Even though the URL are all I can give you here to consider, it would be beneficial if you could spend a night or two with Alan on c-span so that you could see exactly what he said, and his responses when questioned about his meaning. In every instance he said that no, he is not issueing a blanket approval of the proposed tax cut at all in spite of the positive spin presented by bush and his cronies in the right wing press.
posted on January 28, 2001 08:43:37 PM new
Now, Now, The Star Wars lunacy is not big enough to eat all the projected surplus. No need for such exageration, the truths are bad enough.
Official projections by the Joint Tax Committee show that more than half the tax cuts in the year 2005 would go to taxpayers with six-figure incomes. The Joint Tax Committee didn't release any breakdown beyond 2005. But the share of tax cuts going to the highest-income groups would grow even larger in subsequent years when the provisions that benefit the affluent become fully effective.
When the provisions are in full effect, nearly 60 percent of the tax cuts would go to the top 10 percent of taxpayers, for an average cut of $6,410 a year, according to projections by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research group whose revenue estimates are widely respected. By contrast, the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers would receive less than 13 percent of the tax cuts, averaging $227.
Brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it, to see just how much the new president wants to do for the "average taxpayer"?
posted on January 28, 2001 08:49:22 PM new
Greenspan's just trying to be reasonably civil with the new administration. Nothing is going to be quick enough to offset the considerable decrease in discretionary spending from the utility increases anyway.
posted on January 28, 2001 08:56:17 PM new
Not only that but Boy George hasn't shown any capacity for originality in his plan. This rings loudly of the Reagan tax bill that was supposed to cure all ills but instead spiraled the country into a lasting recession. Silly boy isn't working for you, hes' working for his personal benefactors.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:23:02 PM new
krs - I did watch Greenspan, Thursday, and did hear what he said. Guess you and I just walked away with two different versions of what we heard him saying. And, by the way, he's not MY "little boy". He's my President. I voted for Nader.
Antiquary - I believe Greenspan surprised many by changing his tune, but I don't think it was "to be civil". I think he is a man with a big ego and lots of power. He doesn't want to make another mistake like he admitted to recently. He'd like to have this tax cut as a 'back-up', just in case reducing the interest rates doesn't have the hoped for effect.
Bunnicula - You're figures are probably correct. But since people in those tax catagories pay almost 50% (40 % Federal alone) of their earnings in taxes, it sure seems fair to me that they would have the same % returned to them. Also, please keep in mind that Bush alone won't be making the final decision on how much, how quickly, etc this cut will be implemented. The House and the Senate will be voting on it.
CNN? Too much like reading these political threads. Pretty one sided IMO.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:31:10 PM new
Bush is, of course, in a much weaker position than Reagan and he may have to draw back quite a few cards. If nothing else, Reagan didn't have to sell his soul to both the big business interests and the far right. As Nancy was quoted as saying, "I don't give a damn about those right-to-lifers."
posted on January 28, 2001 09:33:42 PM new
What? Linda_K, you should know better than that.
Greenspan said that given the growth of the market in the last year a tax cut is feasable if that growth continues. He said in essence, OK, we don't want to big of a surplus, so spending some of it down by reducing tax income for it can work. His premise is that as the market grew so did the tax revenue, but if that growth slows or reverses then the tax cut could be disruptive.
So I don't see how even an desparate republican, dying for justification of the error of having voted for bozo the cowboy clown, could miss the dangers that Greenspan has poinred out so well. He didn't say 'Rah, Rah, sis boom bush'; he said IF you can stay in control we can afford to cut taxes some.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:35:49 PM new
Greenspan's civility was that he didn't say, "Look, you empty headed little wimp, the economy can only tolerate a modest tax cut." What he said is a moderate tax cut probably wouldn't hurt and might help. That's as definite as I heard.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:51:01 PM newLindaK: I have 1/3 of my income taken in income taxes...and as a single person with no children I do not get the tax credits given those that are & do. Only once in my life have I had enough medical bills that I was able to deduct those (although I pay a fortune [literally] for my pet's health every year ). Basically, there are not a whole lot of deductions for singleton's.... Then, to add insult to injury, whenever talk about "tax cuts" come around the cuts are for others & never for *us*. The rich people & businesses keep getting tax cuts...which, I suppose, compliment the loopholes that seem to exist in the tax laws for those with enough money.
posted on January 28, 2001 11:42:54 PM new
Well, all I can say is that we're not alone in each hearing something different from Greenspan. Seems both Democratic and Republican Senators weren't sure what he was saying, either, in his 20 minutes before them.
Bunnicula - I would like to see a flat tax rate. Probably won't happen in my life time, but I have long felt that would be more fair to most taxpayers. The poor don't pay much in taxes, and the wealthy have so many ways to avoid paying.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 28, 2001 11:48 PM ]
posted on January 29, 2001 12:49:31 AM new
Oftentimes when there is to be a decision based on the interpretations of the US Constitution, one considers "what was the framers intent?" Some believe the authors intended to have a seperation of church and state even though it is not written in black and white in the piece of paper.
Secondly, this so-called Christian country started with slaves, women with second-class citizenships, genocide of the Native Americans and executions of gay men.
It is my opinion that the true family values goal is white people, one man one woman marriage with 2.4 children getting the jobs and promotions over the *other* people regardless if the empowered is qualified or not. Back to the way it was when everyone was happy...er gay.
). Basically, there are not a whole lot of deductions for singleton's.... Then, to add insult to injury, whenever talk about "tax cuts" come around the cuts are for others & never for *us*. The rich people & businesses keep getting tax cuts...which, I suppose, compliment the loopholes that seem to exist in the tax laws for those with enough money.