Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Debt ceiling politics

Debt ceiling politics (Page 6)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2011, 01:36 PM
 
I posted this in the other thread ....

Originally Posted by OAW
It's advantageous not to go run up the credit card and then all of a sudden decide that you want to go from a full time job that was more than covering your bills to a part time job that doesn't. And then go run up the card even more after that. So if you need to borrow some money from your brother in law to protect your credit score until such time as you can get your fiscal house in order then that's what hell you do.

Alternatively, you can just blow off some of the financial obligations you made because you are too freaking lazy to work a full time job.
An analogy to demonstrate that this is just as much a revenue problem as it is a spending problem. I know the GOP is loathe to acknowledge that these days ... and I suppose from a purely political standpoint you gotta admire them for their ability to stay on message. Unfortunately, the facts just don't support their "Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem." mantra.





With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.

The first graph shows the difference between budget projections and budget reality. In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit. In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush’s policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama’s policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary.

The second graph shows that under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009. Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much.

A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.

In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.
How the Deficit Got This Big - NY Times

The bottom line here? You can be anti-deficit. You can be anti-tax increase. You simply can NOT be both. Or to put it more bluntly .... it is logically and arithmetically impossible to on the one hand be for "fiscal responsibility" but on the other hand refuse to stop sucking on Grover Norquist's d*ck. Politically speaking that is. I'm just saying ... the numbers speak for themselves.*

OAW

* - Even Mr. Norquist recognizes this which is why he's recently said that allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire won't violate his anti-tax increase pledge.
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 27, 2011 at 04:21 PM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2011, 03:55 PM
 

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2011, 04:19 PM
 
Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC. Good choice for an unbiased look.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2011, 04:20 PM
 
^^^

I can agree with that assessment as well. But when you think about it ... Joe Scarborough's opinion piece (and let's face it that's exactly what it was) didn't contradict any of the graphs and analysis I posted above. The bottom line is that the deficit needs to be tackled on BOTH the spending and the revenue side of the equation.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2011, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC. Good choice for an unbiased look.
You do realize that he's the resident conservative voice on that channel right?

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2011, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Are you talking about the same debt commission plan that recommended raising taxes? If so, I'm afraid that won't pass the House, either. (I guess Harry and I just have to quit concerning ourselves with why that is. )
No, I'll tell you why Obama ignored his Commission's report:
  • It was tax reform in the simplification of the code. While eliminating tax breaks such as mortgage interest payment deductions, these are crafted for overall reductions to produce jobs and stimulate the economy such as reductions in individual income tax rates to as low as 8 percent on the lowest income bracket (now 10 percent) and to 23 percent on the highest bracket (now 35 percent). The corporate tax rate, now 35 percent, would also be reduced, to as low as 26 percent. You're worried about the House?
  • It was $2 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. Something we've not talked about in some time.
  • "Holding spending in 2012 equal to or lower than spending in 2011, and returning spending to pre- crisis 2008 levels in real terms in 2013." Then "limiting future spending growth to half the projected inflation rate through 2020."
  • Cap revenue at 21% of GDP and get spending below 22% and eventually to 21%.
  • Cuts in Medicare and agricultural subsidies to name a few, comprising the cut and cap portion of Boehner's plan
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2011, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The bottom line here? You can be anti-deficit. You can be anti-tax increase. You simply can NOT be both. Or to put it more bluntly .... it is logically and arithmetically impossible to on the one hand be for "fiscal responsibility" but on the other hand refuse to stop sucking on Grover Norquist's d*ck. Politically speaking that is. I'm just saying ... the numbers speak for themselves.*
So you're saying the tax increases are going toward the debt? You ignored me the last time I brought this up. If the tax increases are about fiscal responsibility, are the increases in revenue generated from the tax increases going to go toward the debt?
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2011, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
  • It was $2 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. Something we've not talked about in some time.
That would kill it in the House right now. Actually, just the word "revenue" would kill it.

Your other points are good ones. Although I think that if the Congress had passed a budget based on the Debt Commission's principles, Obama would have signed it.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2011, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You do realize that he's the resident conservative voice on that channel right?

OAW
You JUST MADE MY POINT. Since they don't know any real conservatives they put Joe there. He really is a moderate liberal if you listen to him.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2011, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So you're saying the tax increases are going toward the debt? You ignored me the last time I brought this up. If the tax increases are about fiscal responsibility, are the increases in revenue generated from the tax increases going to go toward the debt?
I'm sorry my friend. I don't recall seeing that post of yours. I haven't seen the details of the plan so I can't speak to what it says. I will say this though ....

Personally I believe there should be separate "categories" of taxes. Something along the line of this ...

1. General Revenue (Discretionary Spending)
2. National Defense/Homeland Security (Discretionary Spending)
3. National Infrastructure (Discretionary Spending)
4. Medicare/Medicaid (Entitlement Spending)
5. Social Security (Entitlement Spending)
6. Deficit/Debt Reduction

Each category would have its own tax rate ... and the expenditures out of each could not be mixed. This is what I was getting at earlier when I said that it's better for polls and what not to be presented as choices as opposed to a singular question in the abstract. You ask someone if the government should cut spending ... well most will say yes. You ask them if they should cut Medicare ... well that's a different ball of wax. You ask people if we should lower taxes ... well who isn't for that? But if you ask them if we should increase taxes to fund Medicare or Social Security ... well they may be all for that.

The point here is that with a structure like this we could more easily lower taxes and cut spending in the General Revenue category for all the random things that the federal government does ... which a lot of people would prefer to minimize. But perhaps increase spending and taxes for National Infrastructure development to spur job creation or increase taxes for Deficit/Debt Reduction. Because a lot of people feel that's important as well. It's a more granular way of looking at how we finance public expenditures at a national level. And how we go about that can more accurately reflect the values and priorities of the American people as a whole ... as opposed to getting caught up in all this ideological BS because we are trying to tackle the issue as single category of "Federal Government".

Each category would need to be budgeted by Congressional vote and signed by the President independently. Long-term each category would need to be balanced with an exception made for severe economic downturns or national emergencies. Of course, something like this would need to be put in place as part of a broader tax reform package. And raising the debt ceiling certainly shouldn't be held hostage to its passage. But something tells me that a lot of the knee-jerk opposition to raising taxes may be reduced if people knew that the increases were going specifically to Deficit/Debt Reduction or to shoring up Medicare ... as opposed to going into the generic "Federal Government" black hole where it might very well be squandered.

Thoughts?

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2011, 07:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
That would kill it in the House right now. Actually, just the word "revenue" would kill it.
I appreciate what you're saying Dork, but I think revenue needs clarification. While there is all this focus on House Republicans, a predominantly Democratic Congress has gotten away with producing no budget at all and nothing of more value than the Republican's third proposal of this debate. Reid has one for example, but it won't pass the Senate. They're going to work on Boehner's plan in the House again today and I expect it to pass... eventually. Democrats would look like the party of "no" if Republicans had any panache at all. We may end up with the McConnell escape hatch. Truth be told, even if they passed some compromise between the House and Senate, we'll likely get downgraded.

Your other points are good ones. Although I think that if the Congress had passed a budget based on the Debt Commission's principles, Obama would have signed it.
He wouldn't even speak to it and to my knowledge, no one from his Administration has mentioned it as a plausible solution either.

Republicans have raised taxes plenty of times. If the increased tax revenues being discussed here were actually going toward paying down the debt, the arguments for it would be more compelling. In this I agree with OAW.

You know what? I'd like to see our President reach out to the business community and at least ask for their help. Make his case to them and urge them to contribute more. To be clear, paying taxes is not the only philanthropy most wealthy people are involved in and they have a much stronger, more transparent accounting of the funds. Instead, Obama derides them for the fruits of their labor and pushes for an increase in the share of taxes they pay. Some may not appreciate the actual rate they're paying, but they are certainly paying the lion's share of them. With all these folks "lookin' out for the little guy", it seems no one is talking about the missing tax base and the policies that grow it. How to govern them has always been the point of contention, the 800 lb gorilla. Expect another grim outlook on jobs numbers today.

We need a stable market and none of this is helping, that's for sure.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2011, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Personally I believe there should be separate "categories" of taxes. Something along the line of this ...

1. General Revenue (Discretionary Spending)
2. National Defense/Homeland Security (Discretionary Spending)
3. National Infrastructure (Discretionary Spending)
4. Medicare/Medicaid (Entitlement Spending)
5. Social Security (Entitlement Spending)
6. Deficit/Debt Reduction
Makes sense. Therefore, it's not gonna happen. Liberals are going to like it because it'll make it more difficult to hide increased spending. Conservatives are going to like it because it'll make it more difficult to point a finger at EVIL taxes and it'll highlight how much of your taxes REALLY goes to Defense spending.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2011, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Personally I believe there should be separate "categories" of taxes. Something along the line of this ...

1. General Revenue (Discretionary Spending)
2. National Defense/Homeland Security (Discretionary Spending)
3. National Infrastructure (Discretionary Spending)
4. Medicare/Medicaid (Entitlement Spending)
5. Social Security (Entitlement Spending)
6. Deficit/Debt Reduction

Thoughts?

OAW
Thanks for your reply OAW. I had originally taken issue with what IMO, was a false dichotomy you had set up in your previous statement; that one can be anti-deficit or anti-tax increase, but they cannot be both. If the tax increase is not going to be applied to the deficit, one can easily oppose the tax increase and remain anti-deficit. I'm reasonable enough that a short-term (sunset-style) tax increase with a "sign-your-name-here" commitment that ALL of the increased revenue generated would go towards the debt, I'd be open-minded to hearing it. The problem is, that's not what I'm hearing at all. I'm hearing why it is the upper quintile earners owe it to the country and I'm hearing them derided for the fruits of their labor, but I'm not hearing a thing on a real commitment to decrease the debt by any appreciable margin. Because we're talking about the need to cut several trillion at this point, the only meritorious proposals are the ones that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting any Democratic consideration. This is not a Republican-fabricated problem. Anyone of anyone in the know on such matters is reporting serious consequences, not contingent upon whether or not we merely increase the debt limit again, but our inability to commit to appreciable cuts in the debt itself.

RE: your ideals above. They are solid in principle, but they become essentially lock-boxes that get raided for insert crisis here. Transparent accounting of where the tax revenue is being spent is certainly worthy of merit, but we also need to address the burgeoning impact of the spending itself. Washington speak for "cuts" is "decreases in the rate of increases" which just isn't going to cut it any longer.

We've compromised our way into this hole and at this point I'm beginning to believe the TeaPartiers may be the only ones who actually get it. Notice what's missing in the House that's causing all this discord between them? Kickbacks, giveaways, back-door deals for individual states, etc... this is why people are relying on their principles and coming to odds. This is ultimately, a good thing and the way things ought to be in Washington.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2011, 11:53 PM
 
Here are some more lies about the U. S debt, for the gullible ones.

The 6 Biggest Lies About the U.S. Debt | | AlterNet
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2011, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Maybe we could work out a trade? I've been trying to get Railroader to ignore me for probably years now, but he refuses to. So, how about we see if a mod will transfer your Railroader ignoring you to me in exchange for my Turtle not ignoring me? I don't really want to ignore Turtle, but since I'm such a swell guy and you seem bothered by being ignored... Baby Jesus would be proud of me!
Oh, boo hoo
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2011, 05:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Oh, boo hoo
Very adult.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2011, 02:39 PM
 
I've got you on ignore if that helps you out Bess.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2011, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I've got you on ignore if that helps you out Bess.

Thanks peck!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2011, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Here are some more lies about the U. S debt, for the gullible ones.

The 6 Biggest Lies About the U.S. Debt | | AlterNet
While there is much of the article I agree with including the "default" word being used by folks like those at NPR for the FUD of it, there are a couple of problems IMO.

They site an overseas source who doesn't want to see the US government stop spending because of the globe's dependance on our spending/economy. I think it's okay if the US concerns itself with the US right now.

Then, the article quotes the source; “The world depends on the U.S. economy running smoothly. A default would lead governments and companies to rethink their relation to the United States, and this has already happened.” There's that default word again no thanks to AlterNet.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2011, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You do realize that he's the resident conservative voice on that channel right?

OAW
Actually, everyone else on MSNBC is so far Left that his typically moderate views appear striking in comparison.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 02:33 AM
 
Well, those scumbags in DC managed to raise the debt ceiling with no concrete commitment of spending cuts.

I bet you in tow years, we'll have the same charade again, while the debt hits $19T.
And you'll see NO freaking spending cuts at all.

People of the US, you have been f*cked by your elected officials once again. Will you ever learn ?

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 02:46 AM
 
The use of tow years as a measurement of time is being disscussed in the other thread.

bpr: 2 -t:0
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 03:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Will you ever learn ?

-t
Learn to do what, exactly?
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
Learn to do what, exactly?
I dare you to try and figure that out on your own. Just give it a few minutes. Seems pretty obvious to me. But the way you take his question out of context leads me to believe you don't want to see the obvious.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 03:53 PM
 
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
I dare you to try and figure that out on your own. Just give it a few minutes. Seems pretty obvious to me. But the way you take his question out of context leads me to believe you don't want to see the obvious.
This is a bit to snarky for my liking. We all know Turtle would have rather seen McCain in office, but we also all know the two parties are near identical in their inability to enact any change in the system, so I believe Lateralus' question is perfectly valid.

What exactly are we supposed to do when our only choices are morally bankrupt elitists who have their noses up the collective asses of corporate america? Are we supposed to back fringe whakos like the Tea Party and hope they focus on our countries actual problems instead of rallying around tired conservative hot button issues?

Besides razing the entire institution to the ground I don't see what we are supposed to 'learn' apart from the fact all of our elected officials are corrupt scumbags that are ruining our country. Turtle might have you believe electing Obama was the crux of all our problems, but we all know that;s bullsh!t, the system is broken, but those who play it hold to much power so nothing will ever change.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Well, those scumbags in DC managed to raise the debt ceiling with no concrete commitment of spending cuts.

I bet you in tow years, we'll have the same charade again, while the debt hits $19T.
And you'll see NO freaking spending cuts at all.

People of the US, you have been f*cked by your elected officials once again. Will you ever learn ?

-t
I learn that the national debt was under $1 trillion when Reagan took office. Reagan's massive increase in defense spending and a major tax cut for the top 1% lead to our debt nearly tripling the amount at the end of his presidency. The continuation of the massive defense spending and more tax cuts to the top 1% under Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama accelerated the national debt to over $14 trillion today.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
This is a bit to snarky for my liking. We all know Turtle would have rather seen McCain in office, but we also all know the two parties are near identical in their inability to enact any change in the system, so I believe Lateralus' question is perfectly valid.

What exactly are we supposed to do when our only choices are morally bankrupt elitists who have their noses up the collective asses of corporate america? Are we supposed to back fringe whakos like the Tea Party and hope they focus on our countries actual problems instead of rallying around tired conservative hot button issues?

Besides razing the entire institution to the ground I don't see what we are supposed to 'learn' apart from the fact all of our elected officials are corrupt scumbags that are ruining our country. Turtle might have you believe electing Obama was the crux of all our problems, but we all know that;s bullsh!t, the system is broken, but those who play it hold to much power so nothing will ever change.
I am being brutally honest. Perhaps a bit verbose. I guess I could have just stuck with "You don't know?"

Personally, I found Lat's comment a bit trolling and snarky myself. It wasn't valid at all. And as a mod he should err on the side of caution.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
I am being brutally honest. Perhaps a bit verbose. I guess I could have just stuck with "You don't know?"

Personally, I found Lat's comment a bit trolling and snarky myself. It wasn't valid at all. And as a mod he should err on the side of caution.
Snarky? Yes.
Trolling? No.

Turtle is trolling. Lateralus just got a little snarky with the troll.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I learn that the national debt was under $1 trillion when Reagan took office. Reagan's massive increase in defense spending and a major tax cut for the top 1% lead to our debt nearly tripling the amount at the end of his presidency. The continuation of the massive defense spending and more tax cuts to the top 1% under Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama accelerated the national debt to over $14 trillion today.

Yeah, Turtle points out that the Obama stimulus package accelerated our debt accumulation and stuff, but I don't understand why he isn't more vehemently against the Bush tax cuts and military spending under multiple leaders which have certainly been a contributing factor as well. If you want to really take care of the problem you have to address the totality of the situation and address all significant factors. This includes the over-zealous spending that is the frequent subject of his ire, but also the Bush tax cuts and their lack of job creation, our military spending, the Bush prescription drug bill, the Obama stimulus, the tax loopholes for the rich, the fact that the tax brackets on the rich are at all time lows, the costs of entitlement programs, etc. All of it.

Otherwise, if you just cherry pick the stuff that bugs you the most while giving the other stuff a free pass or downplaying it, it just seems like you are just doing the political points thing (and this goes for anybody). Yes these factors can be prioritized and ranked and we can debate these things, but seeing as how we can't agree on anything we might as well take the "all of the above" approach with the factors that are somewhere on that list and advocate that they be addressed pronto.

It is also true that repealing the Bush tax cuts will help a great deal, philosophical stuff about what is fair to the rich and stuff aside.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 10:40 PM
 
Besson, maybe you need to bother reading what I post.

E.g. military spending - I said REPEATEDLY that I would want to see military spending cut by 50% and all overseas engagements ended ASAP.
It must be that those views get ignored around here because they don't fit the turtle = rightwing view.

Re: Bush - he's just Obama Sr.
He had NO budget discipline at all, and showed how to spend into oblivion. I don't recall ever saying that Bush was all that great.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Besson, maybe you need to bother reading what I post.

E.g. military spending - I said REPEATEDLY that I would want to see military spending cut by 50% and all overseas engagements ended ASAP.
It must be that those views get ignored around here because they don't fit the turtle = rightwing view.

Re: Bush - he's just Obama Sr.
He had NO budget discipline at all, and showed how to spend into oblivion. I don't recall ever saying that Bush was all that great.

-t

I know you've said this sort of thing about military spending and about Bush Jr.'s spending discipline, but you'll notice that I listed many other things as well: the tax cuts, tax loopholes for the rich, etc.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2011, 11:00 PM
 
I can't hear this "tax the rich" idiocy anymore.

Let's put aside that our tax code is generally broken and needs reform. The rich are ZnOT the solution to this country's financial woes.

Check this: "Eat the rich"
‪EAT THE RICH!‬‏ - YouTube

We need viable solutions, not demagoguery.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I can't hear this "tax the rich" idiocy anymore.

Let's put aside that our tax code is generally broken and needs reform. The rich are ZnOT the solution to this country's financial woes.

Check this: "Eat the rich"
‪EAT THE RICH!‬‏ - YouTube

We need viable solutions, not demagoguery.

-t

But this is a straw man argument.

I didn't say that we should beat the rich with a club, and I didn't say that it is the solution. There is no one solution. I said that it is a contributing factor that ought to be addressed, do you agree? If not, do you think that the rich were being treated unfairly prior to the Bush tax cuts?

It is demagoguery to not recognize that the Bush tax cuts have been a part of the problem we find ourselves with today.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 12:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I was expecting Aerosmith....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 12:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I can't hear this "tax the rich" idiocy anymore.

Let's put aside that our tax code is generally broken and needs reform. The rich are ZnOT the solution to this country's financial woes.

Check this: "Eat the rich"
‪EAT THE RICH!‬‏ - YouTube

We need viable solutions, not demagoguery.
-t
Can he do one for "Eat the poor"? Cause I just wasted 9 minutes watching this absurd video making foolish arguments and offering no solutions.

I can do a 10 second video of "Eat the rich".

Budget: $3.7 trillion
Top 10% income: $3.8 trillion

Done!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 01:33 AM
 
Is not just the tax holes for the rich, its also the tax holes for business, both have to be fixed.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 02:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I can't hear this "tax the rich" idiocy anymore.
I'm not sure what they'll do when it becomes fiscally burdensome to live in the USA and "the rich" just leave, like they did in France. I guess the "poor" will just eat each other. Oh well.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 02:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm not sure what they'll do when it becomes fiscally burdensome to live in the USA and "the rich" just leave, like they did in France. I guess the "poor" will just eat each other. Oh well.

We are pretty darn far away from having to worry about that, don't you think?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 02:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Is not just the tax holes for the rich, its also the tax holes for business, both have to be fixed.
Record corporate profits in 2010. Still not hiring. Corporations hire because of demand, not because of profits. Corporations maximize profits by cutting cost. So if corporations can increase profits by cutting jobs, they will.

Corporate profits:

Q3 2010: $1.659 trillion
Q4 2010: $1.678 trillion
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 02:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
But this is a straw man argument.
No, it's EXPOSING the straw man argument that under-taxed rich are a big cause for the deficit problems, that could be easily fixed with higher taxation.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I didn't say that we should beat the rich with a club, and I didn't say that it is the solution. There is no one solution. I said that it is a contributing factor that ought to be addressed, do you agree? If not, do you think that the rich were being treated unfairly prior to the Bush tax cuts?
I maintain that 95% of the problem is a spending issue, and only 5% a tax issue.
Sure, I pulled those numbers out of thin air, but the point is that higher taxation of the rich will be a drop in the bucket when considering a $1.7T deficit that we are running each year.

Please, show me one country that was able to bring themselves back to a sustainable budget and fiscal responsibility by higher taxation. I'm waiting.

Meanwhile, you guys might wanna study what Canada did in the 90s when their shit hit the fan. They cut spending. Without tax increases. It worked.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 03:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We are pretty darn far away from having to worry about that, don't you think?
Touch the capital gains rate and see what happens. When it becomes substantially less expensive to live somewhere else, we'll just do it. Think the Swiss, or any other country with a lower tax rate, will turn away this country's wealthy? Not a chance.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 03:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Record corporate profits in 2010. Still not hiring. Corporations hire because of demand, not because of profits. Corporations maximize profits by cutting cost. So if corporations can increase profits by cutting jobs, they will.

Corporate profits:

Q3 2010: $1.659 trillion
Q4 2010: $1.678 trillion
I know that, its why im against the f*ing HST in my own province. See the thread I created about British Columbia. Economist work for Corp America not logic, government or the people.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post

Meanwhile, you guys might wanna study what Canada did in the 90s when their shit hit the fan. They cut spending. Without tax increases. It worked.

-t
Partially True

The Daily, Friday, April 22, 2005. Study: Federal Personal Income Tax: Slicing the Pie

The wealthy had the lowest tax rate reduction while the middle class and poor had the highest rate of reduction with the spending cuts. Overall general income for all levels grew during this period helping increase the amount of taxes collected which helped reduce the debt. As I pointed out many threads ago, as more good paying jobs are lost to automation and over seas production and as companies get more greedy by paying less and less, it effectively reduces overall taxable income and tax revenues....

Additional, many tax loopholes have been closed over the years as well allowing for more taxes to be collected with out raising taxes.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 04:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Record corporate profits in 2010. Still not hiring. Corporations hire because of demand, not because of profits. Corporations maximize profits by cutting cost. So if corporations can increase profits by cutting jobs, they will.

Corporate profits:

Q3 2010: $1.659 trillion
Q4 2010: $1.678 trillion

I wonder if these sort of arguments come from an industrial era sort of way of thinking where the way to increase production in factories required more people prior to automation and stuff?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 04:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
No, it's EXPOSING the straw man argument that under-taxed rich are a big cause for the deficit problems, that could be easily fixed with higher taxation.
Nobody made that argument, so therefore your argument was a straw man.


I maintain that 95% of the problem is a spending issue, and only 5% a tax issue.
Sure, I pulled those numbers out of thin air, but the point is that higher taxation of the rich will be a drop in the bucket when considering a $1.7T deficit that we are running each year.

Please, show me one country that was able to bring themselves back to a sustainable budget and fiscal responsibility by higher taxation. I'm waiting.

Meanwhile, you guys might wanna study what Canada did in the 90s when their grease hit the fan. They cut spending. Without tax increases. It worked.

-t

As long as you feel that the Bush tax cuts are not helping and a contributing factor to where we are at, why are you against them being repealed (which I'm assuming is the case)? Why not be for anything that will help us, regardless of how much?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 04:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Touch the capital gains rate and see what happens. When it becomes substantially less expensive to live somewhere else, we'll just do it. Think the Swiss, or any other country with a lower tax rate, will turn away this country's wealthy? Not a chance.
I don't see people relocating (assuming they have a legal means to do so) in significant numbers to save some money in an economy that is a fraction of what the American economy is, and a culture and a language that is presumably unfamiliar where applicable. For starters, this would only be possible where a business can operate remotely. If they can't, this argument is about as valid as saying that American doctors move to Canada where their operating expenses are lower.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 04:38 AM
 
Shaddim was talking about spiking the capital gains tax. Capital is very liquid. Yes, those with advanced professional degrees like lawyers, doctors and accountants usually stay fixed to their native country, but big time investors aren't so bound. They can manage their funds from any technologically developed place on earth.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 05:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Shaddim was talking about spiking the capital gains tax. Capital is very liquid. Yes, those with advanced professional degrees like lawyers, doctors and accountants usually stay fixed to their native country, but big time investors aren't so bound. They can manage their funds from any technologically developed place on earth.
If you really think that these rich dudes are going to want to find a legal way to relocate to a totally different culture where in some cases a whole other language is spoken and in others they would be away from other family members so that they can save some money, feel free, I have no way of proving anything, but I think these numbers would be absolutely negligible, and I don't think there is a particularly logical reason to think otherwise.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2011, 06:32 AM
 
How much do you want to raise their taxes, besson? Part of the reason why capital gains taxes have to be low is to spur investment. Essentially, a high capital gains tax rate discourages people from taking gainful risks with their capital. If the potential gains are going to be eaten up by high taxes, they won't invest nearly as much. If you want to devastate the stock market, hiking the capital gains tax will help you accomplish that goal. But if you agree that capital gains have to be taxed at low levels to encourage investment, then the people who have a lot of capital are going to get taxed at low rates on their gains. You could then think about a multi-millionaire capital gains tax rate at a higher level, and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, but I've never seen that seriously proposed in legislation.

I also think that part of your problem is that you probably think the rich don't "pay their fair share" like our Socialist In Chief often remarks. But the top earners pay nearly all of the federal income tax burden. Lower-level earners do get screwed by FICA (which is really just a disguised federal Socialist tax), but after the Bush-Obama tax cuts for the middle class they pay very little federal income tax. I do agree that the very wealthy whose only monetary gains are from capital gains are getting disproportionate advantage over those who fork over large amounts in salaried income, but in general those who are very successful earners are paying a lot to Uncle Sam.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Aug 4, 2011 at 06:48 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:52 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2