Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1  
    Hello Everyone,

    The following is an interesting article that addresses various anti-factual claims that have been thrown around in various propaganda efforts, here and elsewhere as well--specifically in our current administration that relies so heavily on the "we inherited it" mantra.

    Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com

    The basic claim that tax cuts cause deficits is horribly misleading for the following reason. Spending is outgoing, and taxing is incoming. While an imbalance will cause a deficit, a deficit cannot exist without spending, whereas an income stream can NEVER on its own (without spending) cause a deficit.

    So, please remember this whenever anyone talks about how tax cuts "Cost" the government money, or how tax cuts CAUSE a deficit. Both are based on an inherent distortion, ignoring the fact that spending cannot be separated from deficits/debt.

    Enjoy learning! Or reinforcing what you already know...or I am sure in some cases, continued denial of fact.

    KAM
  2. #2  
    Yeah, those nice unbiased Heritage Foundation guys have all the answers. What a bunch of meaningless palaver. The easy answer is there are only two possible causes for a deficit. Less money coming in, more money going out. As was pointed out by Simpson and Bowles yesterday, changes need to made on both sides. While both parties insist on making things as complicated as possible, that's all a diversion. Both sides of the equation need to be improved. And that includes, guess what? Cutting spending and raising taxes. Duh.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    The following is an interesting article that addresses various anti-factual claims that have been thrown around in various propaganda efforts, here and elsewhere as well--specifically in our current administration that relies so heavily on the "we inherited it" mantra.

    Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com

    The basic claim that tax cuts cause deficits is horribly misleading for the following reason. Spending is outgoing, and taxing is incoming. While an imbalance will cause a deficit, a deficit cannot exist without spending, whereas an income stream can NEVER on its own (without spending) cause a deficit.

    So, please remember this whenever anyone talks about how tax cuts "Cost" the government money, or how tax cuts CAUSE a deficit. Both are based on an inherent distortion, ignoring the fact that spending cannot be separated from deficits/debt.

    Enjoy learning! Or reinforcing what you already know...or I am sure in some cases, continued denial of fact.

    KAM
    hmm ok,, but assume that the wars did not happen, assume that the bubble had not burst, now, if it costs lets say,, 2 dollars to run the govt annually, and you cut the amount your taxing down by say ohh 50 percent, now your only collecting 1 dollar, you still have a deficit. So yes, cutting taxes can cause a deficit.
    All i have to ask, and i do hope that this time you answer one of my questions Kam, what happened to all that money those rich people, who you claim pay the majority of the taxes, saved in tax money. Where did it go? It is one heck of a large chunk of change. I wonder if those people who are up on charges of tax evasion, by hiding that money in Swiss banks are the same people.. just wondering..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  4. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    hmm ok,, but assume that the wars did not happen, assume that the bubble had not burst, now, if it costs lets say,, 2 dollars to run the govt annually, and you cut the amount your taxing down by say ohh 50 percent, now your only collecting 1 dollar, you still have a deficit. So yes, cutting taxes can cause a deficit.
    Actually its established economic fact that lowering tax rates actually raises tax income for the government. The reasoning is that lower taxes (to a point) frees up capital for investing by the population leading to growth and jobs, both of which expand the tax base for the government to collect revenues. And remember a good deal of the "rich" as you put it are actually small business owners who are responsible for a majority of the economic growth in this country. The less capital they pay to Uncle Sam, the more capital they have to invest in their businesses and hire workers. However, its not all Heritage Foundation pie in the sky "theory as fact" - the trick is finding the balance between tax income/rates and economic growth.

    Now, a lot of my conservative colleagues will point to the Reagan tax cuts as evidence of what lowering taxes can do and they are not wrong. However, they always forget that lowering the top tax bracket from 70% to 50% and finally to 28% obviously has a much bigger impact on economic growth than lowering the top rate from 39.6% to 35% as GWB did. Obviously the 1990's proved that the economy could grow quite well with a top income tax rate of 39.6% (the 90's) and as far as I am concerned that alone tell us something about balancing income tax rates with economic growth. The discussion on tax policy needs to be changed from the usual argument of lowering vs increasing to one that is more fundamental - who is contributing and who is not.

    I agree with you somewhat on the current need for a tax increase as long as they are across the board - everyone gets an increase - not just the "wealthy". The one thing I have to give GWB credit for is that, contrary to the Democratic party line, he provided tax cuts to everyone. Whether or not the tax cuts were economically sound is up for debate - I think we will probably agree here as I don't think they were a smart idea and he should have left the tax brackets and estate tax as they were. But at least everyone got a cut.

    Now with all that been said, I have a major problem with President Obama's tax policy - simply because instead of asking the entire tax base to contribute more he wants only the top earners to pay more into the system. If a tax increase is needed (probably is - but so is a HUGE amount of spending cuts) at the very least all the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire, not just the one's that target one specific group. And before you ask - no I am not wealthy - my top tax bracket is 25%.
    Last edited by solarus; 07/13/2010 at 10:48 AM.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Actually its established economic fact that lowering tax rates actually raises tax income for the government. The reasoning is that lower taxes (to a point) frees up capital for investing by the population leading to growth and jobs, both of which expand the tax base for the government to collect revenues. And remember a good deal of the "rich" as you put it are actually small business owners who are responsible for a majority of the economic growth in this country. The less capital they pay to Uncle Sam, the more capital they have to invest in their businesses and hire workers. However, its not all Heritage Foundation pie in the sky "theory as fact" - the trick is finding the balance between tax income/rates and economic growth.

    Now, a lot of my conservative colleagues will point to the Reagan tax cuts as evidence of what lowering taxes can do and they are not wrong. However, they always forget that lowering the top tax bracket from 70% to 50% and finally to 28% obviously has a much bigger impact on economic growth than lowering the top rate from 39.6% to 35% as GWB did. Obviously the 1990's proved that the economy could grow quite well with a top income tax rate of 39.6% (the 90's) and as far as I am concerned that alone tell us something about balancing income tax rates with economic growth. The discussion on tax policy needs to be changed from the usual argument of lowering vs increasing to one that is more fundamental - who is contributing and who is not.

    I agree with you somewhat on the current need for a tax increase as long as they are across the board - everyone gets an increase - not just the "wealthy". The one thing I have to give GWB credit for is that, contrary to the Democratic party line, he provided tax cuts to everyone. Whether or not the tax cuts were economically sound is up for debate - I think we will probably agree here as I don't think they were a smart idea and he should have left the tax brackets and estate tax as they were. But at least everyone got a cut.

    Now with all that been said, I have a major problem with President Obama's tax policy - simply because instead of asking the entire tax base to contribute more he wants only the top earners to pay more into the system. If a tax increase is needed (probably is - but so is a HUGE amount of spending cuts) at the very least all the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire, not just the one's that target one specific group. And before you ask - no I am not wealthy - my top tax bracket is 25%.
    frankly if its a percentage increase.. im fine with it.. omg.. im agreeing againnnnnnnnnn gesshhh micael the dark side is soooo warm... no seriously, if its that much of a problem, and from everything i have read, heard, watched, it is, then perhaps all should pay a little more.. lets face it, 5 percent of 50 k is not chump change for that earner but 5 percent of 500 + K is also a chunk. I have always agreed to a flat tax.. not dollars, percentage, in effect, the rich do end up paying more, however, its all realative, 5 percent of any amount is still a chunk. k my head is spinning and I am gonna have to go buy something to protect me when my dog tries to rip my face off when i get home tonite, he wont recognize me again. lolol
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yeah, those nice unbiased Heritage Foundation guys have all the answers. What a bunch of meaningless palaver. The easy answer is there are only two possible causes for a deficit. Less money coming in, more money going out. As was pointed out by Simpson and Bowles yesterday, changes need to made on both sides. While both parties insist on making things as complicated as possible, that's all a diversion. Both sides of the equation need to be improved. And that includes, guess what? Cutting spending and raising taxes. Duh.
    Please feel free to identify any factual portion of that article that is incorrect or untrue. You can whine all you want about the Heritage Foundation, and certainly they have a political stance, as do other organizations (which you mysteriously have no problem with). But you, who have claimed to be a paragon of Data have said NOTHING here to refute any of the information in that article--no surprise.

    Unfortunately, and I know leftists tend to deny this--raising taxes tends to have depressive effects on the economy, and many times cutting taxes has a stimulative effect. Cutting spending is beneficial for debt, period. Tax rate increases MAY be beneficial, but only if your economy can tolerate the depressive effects. I suggest this is not at all the situation we are in now.

    The myth, or let's be clear--lie that this sort of analysis addresses is one that leftists commonly cling to as part of their "inheritance" mantra. That is to blame the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" for all our economic woes, which is very far from accurate. That abdication of leadership is another issue.

    In any case--the larger point (again, which as predicted is denied by some) is that we cannot tax ourselves into prosperity, or into elimination of debt which is CREATED by spending. This very simple point continues to be muddled. SPENDING creates Deficits, taxation MITIGATES those deficits.

    Of course, those who advocate some of the largest increases in government spending (this administration, supporters of healthcare "reform", etc) aren't for cutting spending, and as such are greatly amplifying an already problematic debt issue.

    KAM
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Please feel free to identify any factual portion of that article that is incorrect or untrue. You can whine all you want about the Heritage Foundation, and certainly they have a political stance, as do other organizations (which you mysteriously have no problem with). But you, who have claimed to be a paragon of Data have said NOTHING here to refute any of the information in that article--no surprise.

    Unfortunately, and I know leftists tend to deny this--raising taxes tends to have depressive effects on the economy, and many times cutting taxes has a stimulative effect. Cutting spending is beneficial for debt, period. Tax rate increases MAY be beneficial, but only if your economy can tolerate the depressive effects. I suggest this is not at all the situation we are in now.

    The myth, or let's be clear--lie that this sort of analysis addresses is one that leftists commonly cling to as part of their "inheritance" mantra. That is to blame the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" for all our economic woes, which is very far from accurate. That abdication of leadership is another issue.

    In any case--the larger point (again, which as predicted is denied by some) is that we cannot tax ourselves into prosperity, or into elimination of debt which is CREATED by spending. This very simple point continues to be muddled. SPENDING creates Deficits, taxation MITIGATES those deficits.

    Of course, those who advocate some of the largest increases in government spending (this administration, supporters of healthcare "reform", etc) aren't for cutting spending, and as such are greatly amplifying an already problematic debt issue.

    KAM
    That's because there are no data in that article. There are projections, assumptions, and interpretations. Seeing as you consider yourself to be knowledgable about everything, certainly you understand that other economists think this method of "analysis" is a load of manure? Just because you see something written that you agree with doesn't make it fact. And in this case, it appears to be nothing but biased interpretations. Because you write your opinions down doesn't make them true either; for example, "abdication of leadership", or "mantra" or generalizations about who is or isn't in favor of cutting spending. I'm in favor of cutting spending...corporate welfare, military budgets, farm subsidies....you just might not approve of what I want to cut. As usual, you assume more than you provide.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Actually its established economic fact that lowering tax rates actually raises tax income for the government. The reasoning is that lower taxes (to a point) frees up capital for investing by the population leading to growth and jobs, both of which expand the tax base for the government to collect revenues. And remember a good deal of the "rich" as you put it are actually small business owners who are responsible for a majority of the economic growth in this country. The less capital they pay to Uncle Sam, the more capital they have to invest in their businesses and hire workers. However, its not all Heritage Foundation pie in the sky "theory as fact" - the trick is finding the balance between tax income/rates and economic growth.

    Now, a lot of my conservative colleagues will point to the Reagan tax cuts as evidence of what lowering taxes can do and they are not wrong. However, they always forget that lowering the top tax bracket from 70% to 50% and finally to 28% obviously has a much bigger impact on economic growth than lowering the top rate from 39.6% to 35% as GWB did.
    That's correct--those tax cuts were not really big enough to fuel a major boom.

    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Obviously the 1990's proved that the economy could grow quite well with a top income tax rate of 39.6% (the 90's) and as far as I am concerned that alone tell us something about balancing income tax rates with economic growth. The discussion on tax policy needs to be changed from the usual argument of lowering vs increasing to one that is more fundamental - who is contributing and who is not.
    Actually, the 90's was somewhat of a unique situation. We rode the internet boom into supposed "surpluses", but much of that was an illusion, and we saw that bust, which led in part to the minor recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency. It is true however, that the booming nature of the economy in the 90s was able to withstand a tax increase that otherwise would been much more likely to have a depressive effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    I agree with you somewhat on the current need for a tax increase as long as they are across the board - everyone gets an increase - not just the "wealthy". The one thing I have to give GWB credit for is that, contrary to the Democratic party line, he provided tax cuts to everyone. Whether or not the tax cuts were economically sound is up for debate - I think we will probably agree here as I don't think they were a smart idea and he should have left the tax brackets and estate tax as they were. But at least everyone got a cut.
    Oh no--it was just tax cuts for the wealthy--haven't you heard? But don't worry--all those tax cuts are set to expire. In other words, we are set for tax increases--and at the worst possible time, when we are teetering on at least another dedicated Recession (really I'd say we are still in the midst of a sustained recession/stagnation period.

    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Now with all that been said, I have a major problem with President Obama's tax policy - simply because instead of asking the entire tax base to contribute more he wants only the top earners to pay more into the system. If a tax increase is needed (probably is - but so is a HUGE amount of spending cuts) at the very least all the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire, not just the one's that target one specific group. And before you ask - no I am not wealthy - my top tax bracket is 25%.
    As I stated above--I think it is HIGHLY irresponsible to have an effective tax increase (although in this case by default) with the economy in the state it is. In my view, our only viable alternative is to cut spending...massively, across the board. Of course, the exact opposite is happening, and will continue to, as long as the current Administration and Congressional leadership are in control.

    The fact is--we can raise the top marginal rate to 50%, 60%, 80%, and it will not solve the problem. We are sold the lie that we can "tax the rich" and we will all become prosperous, but it simply will not happen. It CANNOT happen. Spending cuts are required--and wow people won't like them, which means they are unlikely to occur, which means we are headed nowhere good.

    Again--near total abdication of leadership...throughout government...for a long time.

    KAM
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    That's because there are no data in that article. There are projections, assumptions, and interpretations. Seeing as you consider yourself to be knowledgable about everything, certainly you understand that other economists think this method of "analysis" is a load of manure? Just because you see something written that you agree with doesn't make it fact. And in this case, it appears to be nothing but biased interpretations. Because you write your opinions down doesn't make them true either; for example, "abdication of leadership", or "mantra" or generalizations about who is or isn't in favor of cutting spending. I'm in favor of cutting spending...corporate welfare, military budgets, farm subsidies....you just might not approve of what I want to cut. As usual, you assume more than you provide.
    Actually, there is a variety of Data, and facts but also as usual--you deny the existence of things you'd rather not (or cannot) deal with.

    Please point out where I've ever stated that I'm "knowledgeable about everything." Oh right--I never have, that's just you running your mouth.

    "Appears to be nothing but biased interpretations." Oh, sure...where's your Data? Oh, that's right--that's just you running your mouth again. It seems you don't understand that whining about a story that actually does contain data isn't addressing facts. In short--you are hypocritically attempting to dismiss something you don't like, by claiming it doesn't include data (it does), while providing none of your own.

    As far as your spending cuts--let me address those specifically:
    Corporate Welfare: A leftist distraction in many cases, given that the government RECEIVES money from Corporations to the tune of billions of dollars, but I would eliminate any special gifts--such as are given to Pet corporations. Ending Crony Capitalism, that this administration (but others as well) is particular keen on is a good idea. Be sure you cut the money channels between Unions and the Obama administration as well.

    Farm subsidies: I agree to a large extent, especially where they aren't tied to market conditions, paying where there is no need. To my recollection President Bush had his veto of a recent farm bill overridden.

    Military Budget: While the military is actually a vital, primary need for our Nation, there is no doubt that there is waste to cut.

    I'm not really assuming much however, because I know (and you confirm) that you aren't listing Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, which are in fact larger than the other things you listed (Military is the only one close at about 20% of the budget I think). And of course you advocate a massive expansion of government medical spending. So, while I would applaud your advocacy of cutting spending, I cannot when you ignore some of the biggest contributors. In short--your desired cuts will not be enough.

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    hmm ok,, but assume that the wars did not happen, assume that the bubble had not burst, now, if it costs lets say,, 2 dollars to run the govt annually, and you cut the amount your taxing down by say ohh 50 percent, now your only collecting 1 dollar, you still have a deficit. So yes, cutting taxes can cause a deficit.
    Spending creates deficits, which are mitigated by tax revenue. If you can't understand the order of how this happens, I cannot help you.

    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    All i have to ask, and i do hope that this time you answer one of my questions Kam, what happened to all that money those rich people,
    I have no idea what happened to a specific individuals money.

    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    who you claim pay the majority of the taxes, saved in tax money.
    Your answer as to why I don't bother answering you can be seen here. You seem to be wanting to deny a factual truth. The rich do in fact pay the vast majority of income taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Where did it go? It is one heck of a large chunk of change. I wonder if those people who are up on charges of tax evasion, by hiding that money in Swiss banks are the same people.. just wondering..
    We've got a Treasury secretary who is a tax cheat, and you're wasting my time with this?

    KAM
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post

    As far as your spending cuts--let me address those specifically:
    Corporate Welfare: A leftist distraction in many cases, given that the government RECEIVES money from Corporations to the tune of billions of dollars, but I would eliminate any special gifts--such as are given to Pet corporations. Ending Crony Capitalism, that this administration (but others as well) is particular keen on is a good idea. Be sure you cut the money channels between Unions and the Obama administration as well.

    Farm subsidies: I agree to a large extent, especially where they aren't tied to market conditions, paying where there is no need. To my recollection President Bush had his veto of a recent farm bill overridden.

    Military Budget: While the military is actually a vital, primary need for our Nation, there is no doubt that there is waste to cut.

    I'm not really assuming much however, because I know (and you confirm) that you aren't listing Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, which are in fact larger than the other things you listed (Military is the only one close at about 20% of the budget I think). And of course you advocate a massive expansion of government medical spending. So, while I would applaud your advocacy of cutting spending, I cannot when you ignore some of the biggest contributors. In short--your desired cuts will not be enough.

    KAM
    Actually, we agree on cuts that need to be made. And I agree with you that I advocate an expansion of government medical spending. I think it will save us money in the long run. The whining about how much Social Security and Medicare costs, and how it makes up 40% of the expenditures always seems to forget one major issue: both are funded by targeted payroll taxes and traditionally have collected more than they have paid out. It's not like we're taking income tax money and using it on Medicare. If the trust funds hadn't been tampered with, and an effort had been made to control health care costs in general, both programs would be just fine. The trust fund for Social Security is in the trillions as I recall. I also think these targeted funds are about equal to income taxes, from which they are separate. In other words, both programs should be pay as you go programs, except for the fact that there have not been significant efforts to control spending until recently, primarily because of insurance and doctor's lobbying; the population is aging dramatically which will by definition increase health care costs; and probably some minor amount relative to the other two due to fraud and waste. People have paid into these programs and they deserve to get the benefits. People haven't paid into targeted programs to fund the military, for example. You want to change things? Fine, convince people to put their money into Wall Street right now instead of Social Security. That'll go over well. And then talk them into giving up what they've already paid for, and add future risk based on the economy. There is no will to do away with Social Security, unless you're a Tbagger like that moron Angle, who is going to manage to do what was thought to be impossible....lose to Harry Reid. That's what happens when you try and do away with Social Security. Again, you can be as idealistic as you want. I choose reality. This is what we have, it's not going to go away, how can we make it better.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Oh, please! Just stop with the transparently Bagger-inspired partisan tripe. It's cheap. It's thin-skinned. And it's embarrassing. All your negativism, and that of your brethren, bred from the loss of power and control, will not create the political will within Republican leadership to adopt your magical formula for KAM-approved US policy. Not that is should.
    While your response is about what I'd expect (ignorant and not representative of my view), I actually have little faith that Republicans will do what needs to be done either. The only benefit that I can see with their victory (should it come) is to block the outrageous spending of the Obama administration and Democrat Congress.

    I know YOUR partisan preconceptions might lead you to such ignorance of my actual views, but I don't worship at the altar of government like Obama supporters do. Most all politicians are a problem in my view--just some worse than others.

    "KAM-approved US policy" Yeah, like fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, opportunity...those sorts of CRAZY ideas.

    Next time you feel like responding, please reconsider, because I have little desire to address your ignorance regarding my views, and given even my (gratefully) limited interaction with you, I'm not going to waste time explaining them--to you at least.

    KAM
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually, we agree on cuts that need to be made. And I agree with you that I advocate an expansion of government medical spending. I think it will save us money in the long run.
    You'll be disappointed, but ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The whining about how much Social Security and Medicare costs, and how it makes up 40% of the expenditures always seems to forget one major issue: both are funded by targeted payroll taxes and traditionally have collected more than they have paid out. It's not like we're taking income tax money and using it on Medicare.
    Yeah, you might want to look at where that's going in pretty much every analysis. I seem to recall hearing that the Social Security shortfall is arriving early.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If the trust funds hadn't been tampered with, and an effort had been made to control health care costs in general, both programs would be just fine.
    Trust funds. Good one.

    Unfortunately, you fail to acknowledge that the existence of manipulated payment systems (indirect payment) contributed greatly to the EXPANSION of costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The trust fund for Social Security is in the trillions as I recall.
    Again--I recall some recent reports of it turning upside-down now or very soon, and going dry...I think it was 6 years earlier than other recent projections. Sorry I don't have the references handy. Suffice it to say, Social Security is headed directly for insolvency.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I also think these targeted funds are about equal to income taxes, from which they are separate.
    They really aren't separate. Government doesn't follow accounting rules that others have to.

    In other words, both programs should be pay as you go programs, except for the fact that there have not been significant efforts to control spending until recently, primarily because of insurance and doctor's lobbying;[/quote]

    Yes, government, doctors and insurance companies are all in collusion, which results in harming the citizenry.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    the population is aging dramatically which will by definition increase health care costs; and probably some minor amount relative to the other two due to fraud and waste.
    RELATIVE, but still large.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    People have paid into these programs and they deserve to get the benefits. People haven't paid into targeted programs to fund the military, for example.
    Unfortunately, the government has sold all of us a bill of goods.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You want to change things? Fine, convince people to put their money into Wall Street right now instead of Social Security. That'll go over well.
    Typical flawed thinking. Ask someone who has been paying 40 years into social security if they would have rather put it in the stock market.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And then talk them into giving up what they've already paid for, and add future risk based on the economy. There is no will to do away with Social Security, unless you're a Tbagger like that moron Angle, who is going to manage to do what was thought to be impossible....lose to Harry Reid.
    There is no will to deal with the reality of social security, period.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    That's what happens when you try and do away with Social Security. Again, you can be as idealistic as you want. I choose reality. This is what we have, it's not going to go away, how can we make it better.
    Pretending that Social security is going to happily keep continuing isn't dealing with reality.

    I actually have a variety of thoughts about how to address social security--far from idealistic. But again, you've demonstrated that while I MIGHT have a few exchanges with you that aren't a total waste, they always end up there.

    AND, of course, absolutely nothing I say (even if I had the best social security solution possible) would ever matter one bit--to our government I mean. That's the problem--our government is too cowardly to even honestly address the issue...with a few exceptions perhaps.

    KAM
  14. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    As I stated above--I think it is HIGHLY irresponsible to have an effective tax increase (although in this case by default) with the economy in the state it is. In my view, our only viable alternative is to cut spending...massively, across the board. Of course, the exact opposite is happening, and will continue to, as long as the current Administration and Congressional leadership are in control.

    The fact is--we can raise the top marginal rate to 50%, 60%, 80%, and it will not solve the problem. We are sold the lie that we can "tax the rich" and we will all become prosperous, but it simply will not happen. It CANNOT happen. Spending cuts are required--and wow people won't like them, which means they are unlikely to occur, which means we are headed nowhere good.

    Again--near total abdication of leadership...throughout government...for a long time.

    KAM

    I would argue we can afford the income tax increases but only if it is accompanied with meaningful reductions in spending. By allowing the Bush income tax cuts to expire, but leaving the Capital Gains taxes where they are there would still be sufficient fluidity of capital to allow for economic growth. Keep in mind that if the tax cuts do expire they are only the "largest effective tax increases in history" because they effect just about everyone that pays income taxes. Also if the income tax cuts are allowed to expire I would be against any more taxes/fees etc passed through the system.

    The only difference in opinion we really have is that I believe we can absorb the tax increases along with reductions in spending. I want the spending cuts in place first mind you or part of a larger comprehensive plan than involves more than simply borrowing more money to "stimulate" the economy. That is where I see the failure of leadership - the current Administration hasn't put together a comprehensive plan for reducing the deficit and national debt, one that combines reasonable tax increases across the board along with significant cuts in government spending.
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    While the only benefit to your hypocritical expression of your outrage is an internet presence which is laughable. Thanks for that.
    Wow, given that this statement is entirely the product of your imagination, since you know nothing about me, kindly spare me your blathering.

    I know I probably hurt your little feelings a few threads back, so I'm sorry. There, now you can feel all good again.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Because there is no indication of what direction a Republican congress would take, your blind faith is quaintly humorous.
    Hmmm, I'm betting that they will tend to OPPOSE Obama's agenda. Of course, if you think otherwise, you're welcome to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    You leave no doubt of what your positions are. As funny as they are, funny enough that not even the most hardcore partisan leader on your side of the aisle has brought forward a competitive comprehensive plan to give even a glimpse of what a Republican congress would look like. Instead, you rely on hacks, both on the internet and off, to hurl stones at the sitting President of the United States without offering a researched, vetted plan. But, that's what we've come to expect from you. No surprises there and no changes indicated from the "leadership" Republicans have offered in the very recent past.
    You really do reside in your own special little place don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Like that which occurred in the 90's before militant irrationalism took over and which is being remedied with hard medicine currently? On that we can agree.
    Pssst...that 90's fiscal responsibility...resulted from a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT opposing each other--the OPPOSITE of what we have now (or had from 2001-2006). They limit the damage they can do to the American people when they can block each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Obviously, it is no concern of mine how you spend your time, nor should it be. Obviously, you believe you can change the world as such a true believer in -- well -- whatever it takes to regain power, lies included. Good luck!
    Given that the current administration came into office on a WAVE of lies--with things like promising transparency, fiscal responsibility, bipartisanship, etc, that is especially nonsensical, but then again, you aren't even able to process reality. In your little mind, I am apparently a "Partisan Republican" when of course reality isn't so. I just happen to see Democrats are more eager to harm me, my country, etc. Republicans will as well, but in different ways.

    Again, just because YOU can't separate your thoughts from the group-think of the left, doesn't mean others are the diametrical opposite. Not everyone is a player in the little distraction game that politicians have set up for us. I understand that's the level you want to inhabit, but I'm not interested.

    KAM
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    I would argue we can afford the income tax increases but only if it is accompanied with meaningful reductions in spending. By allowing the Bush income tax cuts to expire, but leaving the Capital Gains taxes where they are there would still be sufficient fluidity of capital to allow for economic growth. Keep in mind that if the tax cuts do expire they are only the "largest effective tax increases in history" because they effect just about everyone that pays income taxes. Also if the income tax cuts are allowed to expire I would be against any more taxes/fees etc passed through the system.
    I am very doubtful that our current economic position can tolerate any increase in taxes. In fact--we should probably be cutting taxes in a dedicated way--with permanent tax cuts that businesses can depend on. Right now, with taxes, regulation, etc, we are in a nightmare situation of uncertainty and business HATES that.

    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    The only difference in opinion we really have is that I believe we can absorb the tax increases along with reductions in spending. I want the spending cuts in place first mind you or part of a larger comprehensive plan than involves more than simply borrowing more money to "stimulate" the economy. That is where I see the failure of leadership - the current Administration hasn't put together a comprehensive plan for reducing the deficit and national debt, one that combines reasonable tax increases across the board along with significant cuts in government spending.
    To be fair--no administration/Congress REALLY has any time in recent history, but this administration is particularly bad I think.

    Assuming we could trust the government to keep their word (and that is a big stretch), I think it would theoretically be beneficial long term (likely harmful short term) if we could slash spending across the board, while adding some sort of temporary (really, locked in stone) tax to address our deficit issues. We've got a looming dollar crisis as well, given that we do not have enough riches to tax to support our spending, which means ultimately, the value of the dollar will fall. I'd love to avoid that.

    I'd much rather get out of this Recession/stagnation with some short-term tax cuts beyond lip-service, and establish a stable basis for businesses to plan. They sure as heck don't need a threat of Cap and Trade, increased taxes, uncertain regulation, unknown medical/insurance costs, etc paralyzing them, but that's exactly what they do have. It would be hard to create an environment more dampening to business growth.

    KAM
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    There is no will to deal with the reality of social security, period.

    AND, of course, absolutely nothing I say (even if I had the best social security solution possible) would ever matter one bit--to our government I mean. That's the problem--our government is too cowardly to even honestly address the issue...with a few exceptions perhaps.

    KAM
    And so what? You continue to tilt at windmills instead of attempting to do something with what we have and what we're going to have. It's that kind of absolutism that will end up getting us exactly nowhere. And that's the mantle of the republican party. And saying the republicans should be in power because they will oppose Obama is laughable. They did such a good job in controlling spending the past 8 years.
  18. #18  
    Are you stuck in 2006? The Democrats have been in charge of Congress since 2007.
  19. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    An honest assessment of why and how Republicans were voted out in Nov 2006 (as well as why and how Democrats were voted into power) is required to place your statement into proper, balanced perspective.

    Given the raw, irrational hatred shown by the partisans who start a thread like this, hatred which is based on their loss of power, holding my breath for that assessment probably isn't in the cards.
    Well I can say one thing - among others obviously (GWB and his policies being the easiest) - overspending was a big reason the Republicans were voted out (war, givaways to special interests etc...). Funny that that exact same reason (war besides obviously) will be why the Democrats lose control of the House this year, probably the Senate too.

    I also recall some pretty ugly partisanship being used by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed in the lead up to 2006. Politics is politics - please recognize that one party is, has, and will always be just as ugly and ^$&(*^&# as the other when necessary. How else can we have rational discussions like the one you and I had the other day.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Spending creates deficits, which are mitigated by tax revenue. If you can't understand the order of how this happens, I cannot help you.



    I have no idea what happened to a specific individuals money.



    Your answer as to why I don't bother answering you can be seen here. You seem to be wanting to deny a factual truth. The rich do in fact pay the vast majority of income taxes.



    We've got a Treasury secretary who is a tax cheat, and you're wasting my time with this?

    KAM
    yes, but cutting taxes and starting a couple of wars increasing spending on, what was it medicade or some such.. seems a little silly to me. where is the fiscal responsibility in that.
    I think that with the new agreement with the swiss govt and banks we all will find out just where all these dollars have gone,, I am betting it was not into the stock market.. just salted away for their retirement lolol in a swiss bank..

    rich paying the vast majority of the taxes.. hmmm ok ill give you that.. they make the vast majority of the money.. so it balances out.
    really has he been convicted of being a tax cheat? i really dont know.. not a flippant question at all..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions