UI benefits are bad because they aren't "paid for". Tax cuts for the rich are good even though they aren't "paid for".

[^_^ 5,021]

Video- http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/12/4664726-gop-economics-as-a-gin-and-tonic

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Another lesbian rant?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/05/Correct-Way-to-Measure-the-Revenue-Impact-of-Changes-in-Tax-Rates

[^_^ 5,021]

Another lesbian rant?

Her sexual orientation is only relevant in the minds of bigots like yourself.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Her sexual orientation is only relevant in the minds of bigots like yourself.

Who are you, to question my erotic fantasies?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Video- http://maddowblog.ms...a-gin-and-tonic

Edit:

The current Republican leadership can't argue its way out of paper bag when it comes to economic policy....or domestic policy...or foreign policy.

Edited July 13, 2010 by El Buscador

[Heracles 417]

Edit:

The current Republican leadership can't argue its way out of paper bag when it comes to economic policy....or domestic policy...or foreign policy.

The wealthy have a raw deal here. After all, the FDIC limit is what $250K.. oh the shaaaaaame.....

Plus don't forget the whopping 35% tax on anything over $350K. How do they live?

15% on long tern capital gains, which is where many derive their wealth, is just wrong wrong wrong.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

The wealthy have a raw deal here. After all, the FDIC limit is what $250K.. oh the shaaaaaame.....

Plus don't forget the whopping 35% tax on anything over $350K. How do they live?

15% on long tern capital gains, which is where many derive their wealth, is just wrong wrong wrong.

At least you don't have to worry since your wife supports your lazy a$$.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Listening to Rachel Maddow is like listening to Hannity.....

Those two should hook up and get it over with already actually...

[GabiandVi 34]

I find it interesting that we have come to the point in our understanding where we think that a tax cut is something we have to "pay for", where we equate paying the government less of the money we've earned with the government paying us money we haven't earned, and where "fair share" means somebody pays more than somebody else. Just saying.

Edited July 13, 2010 by GabiandVi

[Dan J 277]

I find it interesting that we have come to the point in our understanding where we think that a tax cut is something we have to "pay for", where we equate paying the government less of the money we've earned with the government paying us money we haven't earned, and where "fair share" means somebody pays more than somebody else. Just saying.

We do have to "pay for it", by cutting spending, or replace it with revenue from other sources.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

We do have to "pay for it", by cutting spending, or replace it with revenue from other sources.

Not really. If the economy is growing as it was in the mid-2000's, then the Government actually makes money when taxes are cut. They made a ####### ton of money actually during Bush's presidency. That's where Maddow and all other libtards get it wrong. The PROBLEM being, is spending increased out the #### too... Had spending not gone up, and had we kept the budget at the 2000 levels, we would of actually started paying off the debt quite nicely....

Sad when you really think about it..

[Craneman 2]

We do have to "pay for it", by cutting spending, or replace it with revenue from other sources.

"Pay for it" "by cutting spending" ??????????????????????????????????????

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I find it interesting that we have come to the point in our understanding where we think that a tax cut is something we have to "pay for", where we equate paying the government less of the money we've earned with the government paying us money we haven't earned, and where "fair share" means somebody pays more than somebody else. Just saying.

Tax revenue is used to pay for the services and operational costs of government, when you decrease that revenue, that lost revenue must be be balanced by cutting spending or you create a deficit. The huge tax cuts that the Bush Administration gave to the wealthy, along with starting two wars and an increase in Medicare prescription benefits, all done without any budget cuts in government spending caused us to go from have a budget surplus to the largest deficit of any administration.

The modern Republican Party's only answer for economic policy is cutting taxes. Simply cutting taxes isn't being fiscally responsible. The question then becomes - what government services do we want to scale back on to compensate for lost revenue. Some want to cut defense spending, others want to cut Social Security. The Keynesian economic theory is that during an economic recession, government spending should increase. Unemployment benefits, according to many economists are one of the most surest ways of stimulating the economic, while tax cuts, particularly for the wealthiest in this country, do little to boost the economy.

The GOP has put itself in the precarious, and extreme position that government can do no good ("The government isn't the answer, it's the problem." ~ Reagan). Even though Reagan said that, he was quite pragmatic when it came to economic policy. He supported the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) for families with dependent children whose income was near poverty level. The EITC essentially gives money to families. It is one of the purest forms of redistribution of wealth and Reagan touted the EITC as one of the best programs to combat poverty. Was he smoking crack or being pragmatic in finding solutions to helping Americans who are struggling? I seriously doubt Reagan would be holding back on unemployment benefits if he were president with the unemployment hovering near 10 percent. That's the difference between Reagan's Republican Party and Boehner's/McConnell's Republican Party. Reagan looked past ideology for solutions while the modern GOP simply says 'no,'

[Dan J 277]

Not really. If the economy is growing as it was in the mid-2000's, then the Government actually makes money when taxes are cut. They made a ####### ton of money actually during Bush's presidency. That's where Maddow and all other libtards get it wrong. The PROBLEM being, is spending increased out the #### too... Had spending not gone up, and had we kept the budget at the 2000 levels, we would of actually started paying off the debt quite nicely....

Sad when you really think about it..

To a point.

As Bush came into office, he did have quite a budget surplus, but instead of paying off the existing debt before cutting taxes, he cut taxes with the vauge promise that it would even out in the future because the growth would generate more taxes.

Fast forward to today, it turns out most of the extra growth was just one big bubble, and we have to spend a lot more to get out of it.

[GabiandVi 34]

We do have to "pay for it", by cutting spending, or replace it with revenue from other sources.

Again, though, "paying for" tax cuts by cutting spending and "paying for" spending through taxes are opposites, not the same. Just saying.