or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History" - Page 5

post #161 of 683
Has this been mentioned yet?

Laffer curve

It's one of those things called a "theory" but is really a fact. Kinda like Einstein and Darwin.
post #162 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Keeping money? Are you crazy, you can never make money if you keep it....????

I mean keeping it from the government. I think you know that's what I meant.

I didn't interpret it that way.

1. keep it
2. trade it
3. give it away

Only one of the above makes money.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #163 of 683
Whether our tax rates are 1% or 99% doesn't matter... politicians will continue to spend more than they have available to them.
Even if they had several hundred TRILLIONS in tax receipts available to spend, they would then tell us how they need to spend a quadrillion to keep our economy afloat.

That problem needs to be fixed before you start raising taxes. And yes, letting a "tax cut" expire is the SAME THING as raising taxes.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #164 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Whether our tax rates are 1% or 99% doesn't matter... politicians will continue to spend more than they have available to them.
Even if they had several hundred TRILLIONS in tax receipts available to spend, they would then tell us how they need to spend a quadrillion to keep our economy afloat.

That problem needs to be fixed before you start raising taxes. And yes, letting a "tax cut" expire is the SAME THING as raising taxes.

While the following constitutional amendment ideas will never get passed they would go a very long way in eliminating these problems:

1. Disallow the federal government from borrowing money.

2. Disallow any kind of discriminatory taxation (e.g. the progressive income tax system.) Also eliminate all deductions (to avoid a back door way to game this rule). Everyone is taxed at the same rate. Period.

3. Force the federal government to end the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money and its banking cartel, reclaiming the responsibility it has to coin money itself

I actually also disagree with term limits but think some other reforms could help in this area:

1. Increase representation by increasing the number of representatives. Say double, triple or quadruple them so that one representative isn't representing a half million* people, but closer to 100k.

2. Eliminate direct election of senators. That's what the house of representatives is for. Senators should be selected by the states themselves.

3. Maybe some kind of rule that forces a senator or representative to recuse themselves from an appropriations vote that appropriates money to their state or district. Not sure what the unintended consequences might be here, but it's worth thinking about.

4. Force every senator and representative to read the entire bill before voting on it.

5. Make complete text of bill publicly available (online too) for a full 30-90 days before an official vote. None of the 3 days bullshit for a 2,000 page bill.

6. I heard another idea I like which disallows any senator or representative from referring to a bill by anything other than its numerical designation to avoid them from using these Orwellian propaganda tricks that make us think that things like the "PATRIOT ACT" have anything to do with patriotism or that the "Healthcare Reform: The Affordable Care Act" has anything to with actually reforming healthcare or making it more affordable.

7. Perhaps complete transparency and disclosure of campaign money donations and sources.

All in all it would be interesting to see what writing a new constitution would like knowing the things we know now.

*It's actually closer to 700,000 people per representative. I say triple the number and bring the ratio down to 250,000 (or fewer). This would reduce the power that any one representative has.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #165 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Whether our tax rates are 1% or 99% doesn't matter... politicians will continue to spend more than they have available to them. ...

Now you're tracking.

I think the problem runs even deeper than that. From their recent actions, it appear no one in DC understands the true nature of wealth or how it's created. If they do understand, it appears they simply don't care. I don't know which is more frightening.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #166 of 683
Good, common sense ideas all MJ.

The expected refrain is to say these ideas will never see the light of day, but eventually such cynicism must yield to discussion of real solutions to these problems.

One first step is to elect representatives who are possess more qualifications than a nice smile and a pretty face. The atavistic human attraction to those attributes may have helped us evolve as a species, but it interferes with one's ability to assess an elected representative's qualifications. Lots of brilliant men and women are ugly or bald. If we were to judge a candidate's merit on the basis of his writing rather than a picture and a sound bite, Congress and the White House would look very different today.

I think the advent of television and the decline in the overall intelligence and leadership ability in Washington bears a distinct correlation. So I would add to your list: junk your TV.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #167 of 683
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I guess you didn't bother to read the transcript. Oh! And by the way about blaming Bush it's only been a little over a year and a half since the end of his term. We're clearly still feeling the effects ( and Obama is still having to deal with them ). Also if Republicans just want to go back ( which seems to be the case ) the same policies I think bringing up Bush is quite relevent.



Never mind the fact that at the end of all of his policy making it took a major dump!

Yeah! Let's not even bother to look at that.

The effects of what? This is the question you refuse to answer.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #168 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Has this been mentioned yet?

Laffer curve

It's one of those things called a "theory" but is really a fact. Kinda like Einstein and Darwin.

It is quite like Darwin and Einstein - 'facts' which are not facts at all but need to be seen as such even thought they aren't.

The Laffer Curve is inherently flawed: 100% taxation would not generate 0 income. People would tax dodge, file fraudulent returns, supplement income by robbery..... others would still work because they wanted to work rather than do nothing.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #169 of 683
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It is quite like Darwin and Einstein - 'facts' which are not facts at all but need to be seen as such even thought they aren't.

The Laffer Curve is inherently flawed: 100% taxation would not generate 0 income. People would tax dodge, file fraudulent returns, supplement income by robbery..... others would still work because they wanted to work rather than do nothing.

Yes, but what would zero taxation result in, economic-growth wise?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #170 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The effects of what? This is the question you refuse to answer.

The conversation would go like this : " He believed in deregulation didn't he? Well lack of controls resulted in the wildwest behavior describing the lending institutions of that time ".

SDW : " But deregulation isn't bad! " And there we would be. The truth is many presidents could have put a stop to this from happening over the last 30 years ( because I think the problem goes back that far ). But that doesn't remove the responsibility of each president who's presided over the problem.


Also there's no way you can deny that the budget problems got much worse than they were under Bush. That he fought two wars resulting in hanging Saddam but letting OSBL get away Scott free. Those two wars cost plenty. In many people's minds were not worth it in the long run.

For the record I don't agree with us still being there now ( so there you go one of my disagreements with Obama however I know full well that if we had just pulled out the right would be harping on that ). We can't solve other people's problems if we are having deep troubles with our own. And they are still expensive.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #171 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The truth is many presidents could have put a stop to this from happening over the last 30 years ( because I think the problem goes back that far ).

I have to give you (some) credit. You are growing (a bit). It used to be that you were only focused on the last decade (for purely objective and non-partisan reasons of course). Now you've expanded further backwards (which is good). Naturally, in your objective and non-partisan way you've chosen to go back 30 years to include the terms of another Republican president.

In any case, zooming out to see the forest rather than just a few trees, and thinking about the issue this country country faces (and their causes) in the longer term historical context is admirable. However, I'd suggest a much wider and longer term scope: I'd look at the last 100 years. Looking at things over that period of time can be incredibly enlightening.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #172 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

What will result in increased tax revenue? It's been done before. It can again. It's the only solution proven to work. Read my original post.

Here's a link to a recent WSJ story that illustrates this (no, I didn't write it):

Beware the Balanced Budget Deal

The "takeaway" as B-school grads like to say: Reduced taxes increased GDP. Increased tax revenue resulting from increasing GDP not only reduced government debt, it resulted in budget surpluses by 1998.

Who said that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

- lowered marginal tax rates always result in increased economic activity, greater employment, increased investment, and more tax revenue. ... I trust I have now provided you enough information to reconsider your willingness to accept any tax rate increase.

It doesn't work. Never has.

... and never will. Not six months from now, not ever.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #173 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Whether our tax rates are 1% or 99% doesn't matter... politicians will continue to spend more than they have available to them.
Even if they had several hundred TRILLIONS in tax receipts available to spend, they would then tell us how they need to spend a quadrillion to keep our economy afloat.

That problem needs to be fixed before you start raising taxes. And yes, letting a "tax cut" expire is the SAME THING as raising taxes.

So we should get Bill Clinton back in there to lead the push, I guess, because he's the only one who has successfully balanced the budget with projected income.
post #174 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Now you're tracking.

I think the problem runs even deeper than that. From their recent actions, it appear no one in DC understands the true nature of wealth or how it's created. If they do understand, it appears they simply don't care. I don't know which is more frightening.

Wealth doesn't drive the economy. The middle classes living their lives drives the economy. Unless you're making the middle class wealthy. Which the Bush Tax Cuts definitely are NOT.
post #175 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Wealth doesn't drive the economy.

But wealth drives private sector employment! And when those tax cuts are eliminated, all that private sector wealth will dry up along with all that capital investment! And Obama's 10% unemployment willl rise to 15% or more... The wealthy in this nation pay a high proportion of this nation's taxes; making them pay even more will eliminate all investment, cratering the weak job market. If the intention of Democrats is to make the recession worse, then by all means discontinue the Bush tax cuts! Just take ownership of the problems you cause by doing so! Oh joy... look ... here's Geithner confirming just that same prospect=>

Geithner: Unemployment Could Go Up Before It Comes Down
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/treasury-s...ry?id=11308157
post #176 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Wealth doesn't drive the economy. The middle classes living their lives drives the economy. Unless you're making the middle class wealthy. Which the Bush Tax Cuts definitely are NOT.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

What "drives the economy" is everyone (not just one particular economic class) living their lives and producing things (that are wanted by others) and (freely) trading things with others. This causes wealth creation, in its essence...for everyone.

The goal is for more people to have more things that they need or want to make their lives better as they see it. That is wealth. That comes from production and from productivity. Production and productivity come from capital. Capital comes from savings (deferred consumption) and, generally, what makes "the wealthy" wealthy is their much higher propensity to save and invest. This savings and investment (coming out of wealth) leads to more production and productivity, which leads to higher wages. When you tax the wealthy (specifically) or put other barriers in places to these activities you reduce wealth production and accumulation in the overall economy and even begin the process of wealth destruction. Wealth can (and does) begat more wealth when properly deployed (typically with in appropriate level of saving some of it rather than consuming all of it in the present time.)

I have a question for you. It's a simple economics test. Is the goal of an economy to create jobs?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #177 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

If there had been any doubt, the following quote eliminated all traces of it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So we should get Bill Clinton back in there to lead the push, I guess, because he's the only one who has successfully balanced the budget with projected income.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #178 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

If there had been any doubt, the following quote eliminated all traces of it:

"So we should get Bill Clinton back in there to lead the push, I guess, because he's the only one who has successfully balanced the budget with projected income."

Please explain how any single part of my quote is incorrect. I dare you.

Did Reagan balance the budget?
Did GHWB?
Did GWB?

Now...

Did Bill Clinton actually have a projected surplus?

How on earth was anything I said not 100% true?
post #179 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

What "drives the economy" is everyone (not just one particular economic class) living their lives and producing things (that are wanted by others) and (freely) trading things with others. This causes wealth creation, in its essence...for everyone.

Don't be daft. You were well aware that I was simplifying.

Quote:
I have a question for you. It's a simple economics test. Is the goal of an economy to create jobs?

Of course not.

The goal of an economy is to create a sustainable situation where everyone has everything they need when they need it, and where those who want more than what they need have the opportunity to earn it. Whether everyone has jobs or not is irrelevant.

Those people who want to "earn" more than what they need can do so with a combination of hard work, talent, learned skills, inheritance, and to a lesser extent, luck. It should be balanced evenly and fairly between those who earn it based on these qualities. A vice chairman who works 60 hours a week and earns $1,260,000 a year is not 126 times as valuable as a cleaner who works 40 hours a week and earns $10,000 a year. When situations such as this arise, the economy has failed.
post #180 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Don't be daft.

I won't be if you won't be.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You were well aware that I was simplifying.

Let's make a deal: You don't tell me what I'm thinking and I won't tell you what you're thinking. I was not "well aware" that you were simplifying. And if you were "simplifying," then you were doing so in such a way as to lead readers to the wrong conclusion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course not.

Good answer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The goal of an economy is to create a sustainable situation where everyone has everything they need when they need it, and where those who want more than what they need have the opportunity to earn it. Whether everyone has jobs or not is irrelevant.

Not bad, but a bit wordy.

The purpose and goal of an economy is to produce things for consumption.

NOTE: Trade isn't a requirement* but it does facilitate much greater division of labor and specialization which leads to wider and more comprehensive production which ultimately leads to greater consumption opportunities (greater wealth.)

The ultimate goal is consumption but this (unlike what the MSM often parrots among their many other economic fallacies) is not what "drives" the economy per se. Production comes first. Always has, always will. This is a critical understanding when formulating government fiscal, regulatory and monetary policies. Especially those policies which have the effect (whether intended or not) of inhibiting production.

*I could produce everything I need to consume by myself, but I would be quite poor if I did so. Instead I chose to trade my production with other people's production to get the things I ultimately need and want. The more trade I have and the more I take advantage of these opportunities, the better off I am. This is true for individuals and large geographical groupings of people (e.g., nations).


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Those people who want to "earn" more than what they need can do so with a combination of hard work, talent, learned skills, inheritance, and to a lesser extent, luck. It should be balanced evenly and fairly between those who earn it based on these qualities.

What exactly "should be balanced evenly and fairly between those who earn it based on these qualities?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

A vice chairman who works 60 hours a week and earns $1,260,000 a year is not 126 times as valuable as a cleaner who works 40 hours a week and earns $10,000 a year. When situations such as this arise, the economy has failed.

In your opinion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #181 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"So we should get Bill Clinton back in there to lead the push, I guess, because he's the only one who has successfully balanced the budget with projected income."

Please explain how any single part of my quote is incorrect. I dare you.

Did Reagan balance the budget?
Did GHWB?
Did GWB?

Now...

Did Bill Clinton actually have a projected surplus?

How on earth was anything I said not 100% true?

There are 2 things that the right would like to revise history on 1. Bill Clinton did balance the budget during his term in office ( something no other president has done but many have promised in recent times ). 2. He did leave office with a surplus.

They'll say " But, but, but! " or " It was really because....... ".

But it really happened. They can't change that anymore than they can change the fact that there were no WMD to be found in Iraq.

And I don't know about you but I'm really getting tired of their attempted revisions.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #182 of 683
Which branch of government is responsible for the federal budget?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #183 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Which branch of government is responsible for the federal budget?

If you're asking a right-winger, then It very much depends on who is in power, and what kind of shape the budget is in.

If the budget is in good shape, and there is a Democratic President, then the Congress is responsible.

If the budget is in good shape, and there is a Republican President, then the President is responsible.

If the budget is in bad shape, and there is a Democratic President, then the President is responsible.

If the budget is in bad shape, and there is a Republican President, then the Congress is responsible.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #184 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

If you're asking a right-winger, then It very much depends on who is in power, and what kind of shape the budget is in.

I am asking for the correct answer. And what you claim is equally true for left-wingers, so let's get past that. Which branch of government is responsible for the federal budget?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #185 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Which branch of government is responsible for the federal budget?

It can't be the Congressional or Executive Branch, since we have no budget now under a Democrat Congress... must be the Judicial Branch!!!

post #186 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I am asking for the correct answer. And what claim is equally true for left-wingers, so less get past that. Which branch of government is responsible for the federal budget?

Congress must pass the budget, but the President takes the leadership role and proposes the national budget for Congress to pass. Bill Clinton proposed the budgets that led to a surplus. How many other Presidents can lay that claim?

So in that regard it's fair to say Clinton balanced the budget where all the other recent Presidents have failed, is it not?
post #187 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Congress must pass the budget,

Thank you. That's correct. Congress is responsible for the federal budget.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #188 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Thank you. That's correct. Congress is responsible for the federal budget.

As expected, you miss the point, and even edit what I said, out of context.

Congress must pass the budget, but the President is responsible for proposing it.

Therefore, they are both responsible, every time.

It doesn't matter what Congress does, if the President doesn't propose a balanced budget, we don't get a balanced budget.

Now it's time for me to ask you a question, MJ...

How many Presidents in your lifetime have proposed a balanced budget? What were the names of every President in your lifetime who ever proposed a balanced budget?
post #189 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

As expected, you miss the point

No, I got your point, I just deemed it to be irrelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

and even edit what I said, out of context.

No. I edited out the hemming and hawing and tap-dancing you were doing to try and qualify the simple and clear answer: Congress is the branch responsible for the budget. Period.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Congress must pass the budget, but the President is responsible for proposing it.

And now you are missing the point. Congress passes it. Congress collects money, spends it and borrows it. What the President proposes is simply a suggestion , legally speaking. Congress is responsible for the budget. Let's see what the White House says about this:


Quote:
The Legislative Process
The first step in the legislative process is the introduction of a bill to Congress. Anyone can write it, but only members of Congress can introduce legislation. Some important bills are traditionally introduced at the request of the President, such as the annual federal budget. During the legislative process, however, the initial bill can undergo drastic changes.


Quote:
Powers of Congress

Part of Congress's exercise of legislative authority is the establishment of an annual budget for the government. To this end, Congress levies taxes and tariffs to provide funding for essential government services. If enough money cannot be raised to fund the government, then Congress may also authorize borrowing to make up the difference. Congress can also mandate spending on specific items: legislatively directed spending, commonly known as "earmarks," specifies funds for a particular project, rather than for a government agency.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It doesn't matter what Congress does, if the President doesn't propose a balanced budget, we don't get a balanced budget.

Untrue. Congress could balance the budget tomorrow if they wanted to.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #190 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

If you're asking a right-winger, then It very much depends on who is in power, and what kind of shape the budget is in.

If the budget is in good shape, and there is a Democratic President, then the Congress is responsible.

If the budget is in good shape, and there is a Republican President, then the President is responsible.

If the budget is in bad shape, and there is a Democratic President, then the President is responsible.

If the budget is in bad shape, and there is a Republican President, then the Congress is responsible.

This is an exactly correct statement.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #191 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

As expected, you miss the point, and even edit what I said, out of context.

Congress must pass the budget, but the President is responsible for proposing it.

Therefore, they are both responsible, every time.

It doesn't matter what Congress does, if the President doesn't propose a balanced budget, we don't get a balanced budget.

Now it's time for me to ask you a question, MJ...

How many Presidents in your lifetime have proposed a balanced budget? What were the names of every President in your lifetime who ever proposed a balanced budget?

Good question! And good answer!

This is exactly the case. A president's budget proposal isn't the POTUS just stopping by for coffee in the morning and saying " How about if we try this? "

It's a well researched and outlined proposal no matter who carries it out.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/RS20179.pdf

Quote:
The President’s role in budget development generally does not end with his budget
transmittal to Congress. The President may revise his budget recommendations at any
time during the year. Often, the President will flesh out his budget recommendations in
controversial areas as he works with Congress in developing substantive legislative
packages
.

The correct answer is it's both. However the difference here was the president at the time. And since the Clinton administration used this model the president must make a proposal and the congress carries it out. They don't propose it intially as some would have you believe. Also congress has never promised a balanced budget for a very good reason. They can't ( once again ) make the intial proposal. They carry out the mechanics but the president still oversees it as you can read above.

Also : http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html...202-14467.html

Quote:
President Clinton Submits First Balanced Budget in 30 Years

Quote:
This budget marks the end of an era, an end to decades of deficits that have shackled our economy, paralyzed our politics, and held our people back. It can mark the beginning of a new era of opportunity for a new American Century.

Consider what has been achieved in so short a time. In the 12 years before I took office, trickle-down economics led to an explosion in the federal deficit which quadrupled our national debt in only 12 years. Government deficits soaked up trillions of dollars in capital that should have been used for productive investment. Massive deficits led to high interest rates that slowed growth. And massive deficits also paralyzed the Congress in their attempts to invest in our future, as we spent more and more and more of the taxpayers' dollars just to pay interest on the debt we had run up.

So if it's so easy for congress to do this alone how is it that they didn't just do it for 30 years?
No matter how you slice it.

I've often thought that under the current circumstances Hillary might have been a better choice this time.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #192 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Good question! And good answer!

This is exactly the case. A president's budget proposal isn't the POTUS just stopping by for coffee in the morning and saying " How about if we try this? "

It's a well researched and outlined proposal no matter who carries it out.

And you also are missing point. The level of work and research that went into it (or not) is irrelevant. Legally and constitutionally the federal budget is a piece of legislation which may be proposed by the President (it, like all legislation is actually introduced by a member of Congress)...it is voted on and approved by Congress. This is how it becomes law and comes into effect. This is clear and factual. That it might be an inconvenient fact for some is also irrelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No matter how you slice it.

Congress passes the budget. Congress is the legislative branch. The budget is simply a big piece of legislation that dictates revenue and spending. Congress is the one that gets the revenue, directs the spending and borrows the money. No matter how you slice it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #193 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"So we should get Bill Clinton back in there to lead the push, I guess, because he's the only one who has successfully balanced the budget with projected income."

Please explain how any single part of my quote is incorrect. I dare you.

Now...

Did Bill Clinton actually have a projected surplus?

How on earth was anything I said not 100% true?

Read the story. Bill Clinton's 1994 budget proposal to Congress forecast $200B deficits - in perpetuity. After the 1994 midterm elections the Republican controlled Congress passed tax cuts and spending restraint that resulted in the budget surpluses that appeared in 1998. Surpluses for which Bill Clinton, unsurprisingly, took credit.

If Clinton "led the push" for anything, it was national health care and budget deficits... does any of that sound familiar? No part of Clinton's budget was balanced with what you call "projected income". Furthermore, governments appropriate funds by taking it from those elements of society that produce income and pay taxes. Government does not produce "income". In fact, it does not produce anything at all.

So, what you said was 100% untrue.

Quote:
Did Reagan balance the budget?
Did GHWB?
Did GWB?

It's erroneous to assign blame, or credit, for a balanced Federal budget to any particular President. The President isn't responsible for, and is incapable of introducing legislation that raises taxes and tariffs. Congress is. Congress also authorizes borrowing against projected future revenue which may or may not arise, and which is a complete guess until it does.

Clinton did not "have" a projected surplus, it was delivered to him - as all budgets are - by Congress. Moreover, it was not predicated on "projected income" as you call it. It was an actual, real, tangible surplus.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #194 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Read the story. Bill Clinton's 1994 budget proposal to Congress forecast $200B deficits - in perpetuity. After the 1994 midterm elections the Republican controlled Congress passed tax cuts and spending restraint that resulted in the budget surpluses that appeared in 1998. Surpluses for which Bill Clinton, unsurprisingly, took credit.

If Clinton "led the push" for anything, it was national health care and budget deficits... does any of that sound familiar? No part of Clinton's budget was balanced with what you call "projected income". Furthermore, governments appropriate funds by taking it from those elements of society that produce income and pay taxes. Government does not produce "income". In fact, it does not produce anything at all.

So, what you said was 100% untrue.



It's erroneous to assign blame, or credit, for a balanced Federal budget to any particular President. The President isn't responsible for, and is incapable of introducing legislation that raises taxes and tariffs. Congress is. Congress also authorizes borrowing against projected future revenue which may or may not arise, and which is a complete guess until it does.

Clinton did not "have" a projected surplus, it was delivered to him - as all budgets are - by Congress. Moreover, it was not predicated on "projected income" as you call it. It was an actual, real, tangible surplus.

Then what happened under Bush? The repubs all of a sudden loved to borrow and spend?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #195 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Then what happened under Bush? ...

I eloquently addressed that in my original response to this post. Go ahead and read it. I'll wait.

.
.
.
time passes...
.
.
.

Welcome back! That was fast. You didn't really read it, did you? Member of Congress, by any chance?

Here's the Cliff's Notes version: Bush campaigned and was elected on the very platform that delivered the revenue bonanza that preceded him: the direct result of limited government, spending restraint, and tax relief.

Congress delivered one out of three, all but guaranteeing their own demise. They deserved it. Congressional Republicans have a long history of being unable to lead... a Congressional majority is simply unfamiliar territory to them. This is why they're so quickly labeled as "the party of no". It's much easier to deny government its overarching, intrusive, private sector-killing reach than to propose realistic solutions to it. Historically, a Republican majority in Congress responds well to strong leader who exemplifies the conservative principles that the majority of Americans hold. Without this leadership, they cower and flail and shrink from unceasingly shrill attacks and shameless lies of a liberal minority. For a conservative, it's a distressing thing to watch.

It's far from the ideal but I'll take "the party of no" over the party of unlimited Federalism any day. Gladly.

Frankly, I don't care who's in the White House if conservatives hold Congress. At least Clinton was entertaining, personable, and appeared to be a least a little bit intelligent. I suspect he actually liked this country. He wasn't in love with himself, just cute underage White House interns from time to time. He cared about what Americans thought, or at least appeared concerned enough to elevate his standing in the polls. Contrast that with the current executive.

My defense of Bush goes only so far - he must answer to opening the doors on the government-is-the-answer bailout floodgate that characterizes the current administration. Bush, like his father, had his chance for a defining moment. He blew it. Read my lips

Limited government, spending restraint, and tax cuts - all or nothing. It worked before, it can again. In fact, it must. It's the only solution that works.

Enormous and intrusive government, wild spending, and the largest tax hike in history doesn't bode well for this Congress, or this President.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #196 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I eloquently addressed that in my original response to this post. Go ahead and read it. I'll wait.

.
.
.
time passes...
.
.
.

Welcome back! That was fast. You didn't really read it, did you? Member of Congress, by any chance?

Here's the Cliff's Notes version: Bush campaigned and was elected on the very platform that delivered the revenue bonanza that preceded him: the direct result of limited government, spending restraint, and tax relief.

Congress delivered one out of three, all but guaranteeing their own demise. They deserved it. Congressional Republicans have a long history of being unable to lead... a Congressional majority is simply unfamiliar territory to them. This is why they're so quickly labeled as "the party of no". It's much easier to deny government its overarching, intrusive, private sector-killing reach than to propose realistic solutions to it. Historically, a Republican majority in Congress responds well to strong leader who exemplifies the conservative principles that the majority of Americans hold. Without this leadership, they cower and flail and shrink from unceasingly shrill attacks and shameless lies of a liberal minority. For a conservative, it's a distressing thing to watch.

It's far from the ideal but I'll take "the party of no" over the party of unlimited Federalism any day. Gladly.

Frankly, I don't care who's in the White House if conservatives hold Congress. At least Clinton was entertaining, personable, and appeared to be a least a little bit intelligent. I suspect he actually liked this country. He wasn't in love with himself, just cute underage White House interns from time to time. He cared about what Americans thought, or at least appeared concerned enough to elevate his standing in the polls. Contrast that with the current executive.

My defense of Bush goes only so far - he must answer to opening the doors on the government-is-the-answer bailout floodgate that characterizes the current administration. Bush, like his father, had his chance for a defining moment. He blew it. Read my lips

Limited government, spending restraint, and tax cuts - all or nothing. It worked before, it can again. In fact, it must. It's the only solution that works.

Enormous and intrusive government, wild spending, and the largest tax hike in history doesn't bode well for this Congress, or this President.

So you admit this current debacle started while Bush was still in office? I wouldn't call it much of a bonaza even if you go back to the way things were in 2008.

I'd call it scary.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #197 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So you admit this current debacle started while Bush was still in office?

What part of what I wrote, all of which you so thoughtfully quoted, don't you understand?

Do you believe the solution to "this current debacle" is more of the same? That is scary, and exactly the reason there can be no economic recovery until a complete and utter repudiation of the current administration's policies takes effect.

Certain Democrats fond of their cushy Washington jobs and guaranteed benefits are just now beginning to realize this, lest they be shown the door this November 2. Funny how they're so slow to understand what is so obvious to the rest of us.

The short term extension of the top Bush tax cuts is an idea first floated by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-ND, who suggested an 18-24 month time frame, "until we're more solidly out of the recession."
Conservatives must be howling with laughter. If tax cuts are appropriate to get us "out of the recession", just when are tax increases appropriate? Hmm?

I surmise the answer is, "not before an election".

Morons.

Speaking of morons, none other than Timmy "Clueless" Geitner favors letting 'em expire:

"Borrowing to finance tax cuts for the top two percent would be a $700 billion fiscal mistake," Geithner plans to say. "It's not the prescription the economy needs right now, and the country can't afford it."
Let's review, Mr. Clueless: An $867B "stimulus plan", $2,000 to $3,000B more for "health care", $$billions more for failed banks and pathetically mismanaged car companies. The country can afford all that... but it can't afford to let successful men and women invest more of their own earnings, and create opportunities for others to share. Right?

Did this idiot pass high school math?

Meanwhile, from the Executive Moron Office: Obama remains confident there will be no "double-dip" recession. This in spite of unexpectedly high unemployment claims. Again. How much more "unexpectedly" bad news is one supposed to expect, before it becomes expected? What's the definition of insanity again?

Back to your question, regarding did this all start while Bush was in office. Perfectly reasonable to ask. I have a question for you: What was the total cost of the Bush economic stimulus plan?

Answer: $145 billion. Bush was a piker.

With his throwing hundreds of billlions here, thousands of billions there, Obama and his complicit Congress is irresponsibility writ large. From their actions, both observed and anticipated, businesses and individuals have grown to expect nothing less from this administration than

Quote:
Enormous and intrusive government, wild spending, and the largest tax hike in history

This is not an economic recovery plan. It's suicide.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #198 of 683
Can we just sell conservatives a few states, wall them in (which they'd thank us for because they love walls to keep others out) and they can just have the biggest gay orgy on the planet now that no liberals are there looking and judging them for the hypocrites that they are? Let them have their wild west where everyone has twelve automatic rifles and there's no government services for the less fortunate. Let them enjoy their nostalgia for a time long gone and thankfully over. Maybe with them out of the way, the rest of us can move forward into the 21st century and beyond. FFS.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #199 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Can we just sell conservatives a few states, wall them in (which they'd thank us for because they love walls to keep others out) and they can just have the biggest gay orgy on the planet now that no liberals are there looking and judging them for the hypocrites that they are? Let them have their wild west where everyone has twelve automatic rifles and there's no government services for the less fortunate. Let them enjoy their nostalgia for a time long gone and thankfully over. Maybe with them out of the way, the rest of us can move forward into the 21st century and beyond. FFS.

But who'd protect them from Mexico?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #200 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

because they love walls to keep others out

I suppose that's better than needing walls to keep people in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

and they can just have the biggest gay orgy on the planet now that no liberals are there looking and judging them for the hypocrites that they are? Let them have their wild west where everyone has twelve automatic rifles

You truly do revel in your caricatures don't you? \


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Maybe with them out of the way, the rest of us can move forward into the 21st century and beyond. FFS.

Yes, you can construct your Liberal Utopia and all will be well. What's interesting is that's not what liberals want. They don't want to let others be and do their own thing. They're not content unless everyone is living like you think they should live. Those of us who are advocates of freedom like to try and remind the "liberals" (or "progressives" as you sometimes laughingly like to call yourselves) that you can have an island of socialism and "Liberal Utopia" in a sea of liberty and freedom, but you cannot have an island of liberty and freedom in a sea of socialism. But whatever.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"