or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have $1T deficits become the new norm?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have... - Page 5

post #161 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, that's mature.

Oh dear. Did someone have their sense of humor removed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What about the right wing bastion of the aerospace industry? I wonder what those billionaire executives have to say.

1confused.gif
Quote:
And on Monday, a gathering of the nation's top defense executives took a surprising turn when they endorsed tax rate increases on the wealthy and cuts of up to $150 billion to the Pentagon's budget. Top executives from Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, TASC and RTI International Metals appeared at the National Press Club at an event organized by the Aerospace Industries Association, the top defense contractor lobbyist.
post #162 of 238
Thread Starter 

And? So? I guess I am missing your point.

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 #163 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And? So? I guess I am missing your point.
I said, if you can find other billionaires besides trump and Romney who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2% then please share.

Obviously, the defense contractor chiefs are staunch republicans (or likely to be).

Why don't you point out some democrat billionaires who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2%
post #164 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I said, if you can find other billionaires besides trump and Romney who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2% then please share.
Obviously, the defense contractor chiefs are staunch republicans (or likely to be).
Why don't you point out some democrat billionaires who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2%

 

Democrat this. Republican that. Defense contractor the other. Billionaire supporter of such and such.

 

I'm trying to figure why any of that shit matters.

 

You seem to be operating under the delusion that because some certain people support X or others don't or someone can't find people who oppose X, that X is okay.

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 238

 

Oh gee...a Huffpo article that supports your position.  How surprising.  If you'd like, I can start posting Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity show segments to support mine.  No?  :) 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Then you did miss my point. I wasn't making a claim here at all. And if you can find others besides Trump who support your assertion then please share.

 

Yes, let's have a urination contest.  Meaningless.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I said, if you can find other billionaires besides trump and Romney who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2% then please share.
Obviously, the defense contractor chiefs are staunch republicans (or likely to be).
Why don't you point out some democrat billionaires who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2%

 

1. Romney is not a billionaire.  

 

2. Billionaires are not in the top 2%  They are in the top ,1%.   Don't lump people making $250,000 a year and small businesses in with millionaires and billionaires.  

 

 

Really, tonton..you're just playing games now.  You know the math doesn't work.  You cannot tax "rich" people enough to close our deficit.  You could take 100% of their wealth, and it would still leave us with a $500 billion deficit.  I also think you can read, so I'm sure you understand the impact that rate increases can have on small S-corp businesses.   You've still avoided the topic, of course.  The silence is quite telling.  

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 #166 of 238

The Fantasy of the 91% Tax Rate

 

 

 

 

Quote:

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)

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 #167 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Oh gee...a Huffpo article that supports your position.  How surprising.  If you'd like, I can start posting Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity show segments to support mine.  No?  :) 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Then you did miss my point. I wasn't making a claim here at all. And if you can find others besides Trump who support your assertion then please share.

 

Yes, let's have a urination contest.  Meaningless.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I said, if you can find other billionaires besides trump and Romney who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2% then please share.
Obviously, the defense contractor chiefs are staunch republicans (or likely to be).
Why don't you point out some democrat billionaires who oppose the tax reversion on the top 2%

 

1. Romney is not a billionaire.  

 

2. Billionaires are not in the top 2%  They are in the top ,1%.   Don't lump people making $250,000 a year and small businesses in with millionaires and billionaires.  

 

 

Really, tonton..you're just playing games now.  You know the math doesn't work.  You cannot tax "rich" people enough to close our deficit.  You could take 100% of their wealth, and it would still leave us with a $500 billion deficit.  I also think you can read, so I'm sure you understand the impact that rate increases can have on small S-corp businesses.   You've still avoided the topic, of course.  The silence is quite telling.  

 

"You cannot tax "rich" people enough to close our deficit."

 

You cannot reform Medicare and close our deficit.

 

You cannot cut taxes (magically increasing revenue?) and close our deficit.

 

You cannot privatize FEMA and close our deficit.

 

You cannot cut military funding and close our deficit.

 

You cannot cut welfare and close our deficit.

 

You cannot add the poorest people to the (income) tax rolls (they actually already are on the tax rolls if they're employed at all, since they're paying payroll tax) and close our deficit.

 

You cannot... and close our deficit.

 

 

 

See how easy that was?

 

According to your logic, since no single one of those things can close the deficit, we shouldn't do any one of them.

post #168 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

 

"You cannot tax "rich" people enough to close our deficit."

 

You cannot reform Medicare and close our deficit.

 

You cannot cut taxes (magically increasing revenue?) and close our deficit.

 

You cannot privatize FEMA and close our deficit.

 

You cannot cut military funding and close our deficit.

 

You cannot cut welfare and close our deficit.

 

You cannot add the poorest people to the (income) tax rolls (they actually already are on the tax rolls if they're employed at all, since they're paying payroll tax) and close our deficit.

 

You cannot... and close our deficit.

 

 

 

See how easy that was?

 

According to your logic, since no single one of those things can close the deficit, we shouldn't do any one of them.

 

Untrue.

 

Some single items on your list that would come very close if not entirely close the gap (if anyone has the political backbone) include:

 

  • You cannot reform Medicare and close our deficit.
  • You cannot cut military funding and close our deficit.
  • You cannot cut welfare and close our deficit.
 
So those should be the start. No tax increase until those are done.
 
If those three don't get you there (very surprising if that's the case) then go ahead and cut FEMA (et al). There's no doubt that many, many, many things can be cut and "reformed" before taxes need to be raised.
 
Obama's problem (well one of them anyway) is that he's so focused on higher taxes and playing to his little class war thing, that he's got what's good for the nation all backwards, upside down and inside out. He's pandering to his base. He's pandering to polls. He's not leading. Plus, I'm almost certain that once he gets his tax hikes...the spending cuts will magically disappear.
 
Finally, cutting taxes (in the right ways) can lead to increased economic growth and increased revenue.

Edited by MJ1970 - 12/7/12 at 1:17pm

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 #169 of 238
How about this? How about Republicans vow never to pass a bill with tax cuts that are set to expire after a certain period, and then dishonestly call that expiry a tax increase when the time comes? If you wanna pass tax cuts, make them permanent, or stop the lies about expiry being an increase.
post #170 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How about this? How about Republicans vow never to pass a bill with tax cuts that are set to expire after a certain period, and then dishonestly call that expiry a tax increase when the time comes? If you wanna pass tax cuts, make them permanent, or stop the lies about expiry being an increase.

 

I agree about making take cuts "permanent."

 

However, saying that when they expire it is a tax increase is not lying. Tax rates are rising. They are tax increases. That is not a lie. The reasons for the increase do not change that simple fact. No one needs to conform to your Orwellian Newspeak.

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 #171 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

 

"You cannot tax "rich" people enough to close our deficit."

 

Yup.  

 

 

 

You cannot reform Medicare and close our deficit.

 

 

On its own?  No.  But it helps as it's a major driver. 

 

 

 

Quote:

You cannot cut taxes (magically increasing revenue?) and close our deficit.

 

 

Done the right way, it will lead to more growth and thereby revenue.  Growth is the answer.  We know this because it's worked before.  

 

 

 

Quote:
You cannot privatize FEMA and close our deficit.

 

True.  I don't think anyone is arguing for doing that, are they?  Sending it back to the states is not the same as privatizing it.  

 

 

 

Quote:

You cannot cut military funding and close our deficit.

 

 

I don't support doing that, but it would help.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

You cannot cut welfare and close our deficit.

 

 

Yes, you can.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
You cannot add the poorest people to the (income) tax rolls (they actually already are on the tax rolls if they're employed at all, since they're paying payroll tax) and close our deficit.

 

Yes, that will increase revenue (despite your framing of the issue as "the poorest people.")  

 

 

 

Quote:

You cannot... and close our deficit.

 

 

 

See how easy that was?

 

According to your logic, since no single one of those things can close the deficit, we shouldn't do any one of them.

 

Those weren't my words, nor my logic.  I merely stated that confiscating even 100% of the rich's wealth doesn't even get us close.  What the President has proposed is not the "balanced approach" he advocated.  He proposed ZERO spending cuts and $50 billion in new spending.  He also wants to raises taxes on the rich to "reduce the deficit."  But it doesn't...certainly not on its own.  And it has unintended consequences (but not unforeseeable ones).  So why do it?  

 

The answer is not one you like to admit.  You know the math doesn't work, but you support higher taxes on the rich anyway.  Why?  To make the system "more fair."  To pursue more equality of outcome.  

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 #172 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

 

"You cannot tax "rich" people enough to close our deficit."

 

Yup.  

 

 

 

You cannot reform Medicare and close our deficit.

 

 

On its own?  No.  But it helps as it's a major driver. 

 

 

 

Quote:

You cannot cut taxes (magically increasing revenue?) and close our deficit.

 

 

Done the right way, it will lead to more growth and thereby revenue.  Growth is the answer.  We know this because it's worked before.  

 

 

 

Quote:
You cannot privatize FEMA and close our deficit.

 

True.  I don't think anyone is arguing for doing that, are they?  Sending it back to the states is not the same as privatizing it.  

 

 

 

Quote:

You cannot cut military funding and close our deficit.

 

 

I don't support doing that, but it would help.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

You cannot cut welfare and close our deficit.

 

 

Yes, you can.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
You cannot add the poorest people to the (income) tax rolls (they actually already are on the tax rolls if they're employed at all, since they're paying payroll tax) and close our deficit.

 

Yes, that will increase revenue (despite your framing of the issue as "the poorest people.")  

 

 

 

Quote:

You cannot... and close our deficit.

 

 

 

See how easy that was?

 

According to your logic, since no single one of those things can close the deficit, we shouldn't do any one of them.

 

Those weren't my words, nor my logic.  I merely stated that confiscating even 100% of the rich's wealth doesn't even get us close.  What the President has proposed is not the "balanced approach" he advocated.  He proposed ZERO spending cuts and $50 billion in new spending.  He also wants to raises taxes on the rich to "reduce the deficit."  But it doesn't...certainly not on its own.  And it has unintended consequences (but not unforeseeable ones).  So why do it?  

 

The answer is not one you like to admit.  You know the math doesn't work, but you support higher taxes on the rich anyway.  Why?  To make the system "more fair."  To pursue more equality of outcome.  

Does reinstating tax rates close the deficit?

 

"On its own?  No.  But it helps as it's a major driver."

 

Reinstating tax income that was passed with the promise that it would expire won't close the deficit, but it will help. It is also the opinion of the majority of Americans that this should be done, and if it is done, it can add to consumer confidence among those Americans, which will help more. If tax cuts for the rich aren't allowed to expire as they were promised to do, then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class. If Medicare or welfare are cut then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class. If military is cut than nobody will change their spending except maybe the ultra-paranoid gripped-by-fear Muslim haters.

 

A lot of what drives the economy is perception. And the perception among most Americans is that restoring tax rates for the top 2% will help. Even among those in the top 2% themselves:

 

Again:

 

“In the near term, [income tax rates] need to go up some,” Langstaff said. "This is a fairness issue -- there needs to be recognition that we’re not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we’ve fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up.”

 

Notice that quote doesn't say that restoring tax rates on the rich will close the deficit. Nor is that what I'm saying. But it will help.

post #173 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Reinstating tax income that was passed with the promise that it would expire won't close the deficit, but it will help.

 

Raising these taxes will not hep much at all.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It is also the opinion of the majority of Americans that this should be done, and if it is done

 

Perhaps, but no matter who (or how many) hold such an opinion does not make it right or effective.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

...and if it is done, it can add to consumer confidence among those Americans, which will help more.

 

Possibly. However this sounds suspiciously like an article of faith...not even based on any evidence at all. So, really, just speculation. More likely just wishful thinking that conforms to what you want to happen.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If tax cuts for the rich aren't allowed to expire as they were promised to do, then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class.

 

Again, it is pure speculation on your part that if taxes are not raised on the "rich" a "consumer depression among the middle and lower class" (whatever that is) will continue. Now it sounds like you're just making shit up.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If Medicare or welfare are cut then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class.

 

Again, more speculative and made up shit.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

A lot of what drives the economy is perception. And the perception among most Americans is that restoring tax rates for the top 2% will help.

 

I think this is merely your (faith-based) interpretation, unsupported by any facts or evidence that raising taxes on the "rich" is all about restoring confidence among some group of people.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Notice that quote doesn't say that restoring tax rates on the rich will close the deficit. Nor is that what I'm saying. But it will help.

 

Again, this is your speculation.

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 #174 of 238
And what you're saying is your speculation. But 30 years of failed Reaganomic policy says your way doesn't work in the long run.
post #175 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And what you're saying is your speculation. But 30 years of failed Reaganomic policy says your way doesn't work in the long run.

 

No and no. Wow.

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 #176 of 238

The Republicans are a bunch of obstinate in considerate jerks who always want their own way regarding the people who do not need to raise the taxes over 2200 a year for a family.They could care less.
 

post #177 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Does reinstating tax rates close the deficit?

 

"On its own?  No.  But it helps as it's a major driver."

 

Reinstating tax income that was passed with the promise that it would expire won't close the deficit, but it will help. 

 

Barely, and that's assuming 1) We get the revenue predicted (usually not, historically) and 2) It doesn't slow the economy and cost jobs (likely at least to some degree).  

 

 

Quote:
It is also the opinion of the majority of Americans that this should be done, and if it is done, it can add to consumer confidence among those Americans, which will help more.

 

1)  That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.  Of course it's popular.  What answer do you think you're going to get when you ask "Do you want to raise taxes on rich people?"  The people that answer yes are either misinformed, ignorant on this issue (for whatever reason), or are having the wool pulled over their eyes.  

 

2) How the hell can it add to consumer confidence?  

 

Quote:
If tax cuts for the rich aren't allowed to expire as they were promised to do, then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class.

 

First, they weren't "promised to expire."  They were scheduled to expire.  Bush took a 10 year time limit for the full cut he wanted instead of halving the amount of the cut (it's called negotiation...something Obama might want to study).  Secondly, how can you honestly claim that "the rich" keeping more of their money will cause a depression for the lower and middle classes?  That's just...bizarre.  

 

Quote:
If Medicare or welfare are cut then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class

 

Prove that.  Provide at least some evidence for that statement, and/or explain in detail why that would occur.  Don't you think it matters how they are cut?  Are you claiming we can never cut those programs and reform them?  

 

 

Quote:
. If military is cut than nobody will change their spending except maybe the ultra-paranoid gripped-by-fear Muslim haters.

 

Have you been drinking?  Tell me, how can the Left claim that the military-industrial complex is 50% of our economy, and then in the same breath, say that nothing will change if the military budget is cut?  I mean, talk about your cognitive dissonance.  And your comment about "Muslim haters" is just uncalled for.  

 

 

Quote:
A lot of what drives the economy is perception. And the perception among most Americans is that restoring tax rates for the top 2% will help. Even among those in the top 2% themselves:

 

The first part is true.  I don't know if the second part is true even on the surface.  Help what?  Most people have been told raising taxes will reduce the deficit.  Those who don't know the math might believe that.  But you're saying that after not being interested enough (or smart enough, or lied to), they then make the leap that reducing the deficit will help the economy, and then their confidence will increased as a result?  That sounds pretty fantastical to me.  The only thing that will affect confidence is certainty about their tax rates.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Again:

 

“In the near term, [income tax rates] need to go up some,” Langstaff said. "This is a fairness issue -- there needs to be recognition that we’re not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we’ve fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up.”

 

Notice that quote doesn't say that restoring tax rates on the rich will close the deficit. Nor is that what I'm saying. But it will help.

 

1.  A fairness issue?  How is it a fairness issue?  It's only one if you accept the false premise that the rich aren't paying their "fair share."  

 

2.  There is a good argument that we are collecting plenty of revenue, but that we spend too much.  

 

3.  If you reject #2, then the question is how to get more revenue.  Taxing the so-called "rich" is the worse and least effective way to do that.  The answer is economic growth.  We need total tax reform as a result...to unleash the economy and create jobs.  

 

4.  LOL.  But that's the argument your President has been using for months.  It's a LIE.  

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 #178 of 238
Thread Starter 

Good. More violent characterizations to help move things along.

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 #179 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Does reinstating tax rates close the deficit?

 

"On its own?  No.  But it helps as it's a major driver."

 

Reinstating tax income that was passed with the promise that it would expire won't close the deficit, but it will help. 

 

Barely, and that's assuming 1) We get the revenue predicted (usually not, historically) and 2) It doesn't slow the economy and cost jobs (likely at least to some degree).  

 

 

Quote:
It is also the opinion of the majority of Americans that this should be done, and if it is done, it can add to consumer confidence among those Americans, which will help more.

 

1)  That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.  Of course it's popular.  What answer do you think you're going to get when you ask "Do you want to raise taxes on rich people?"  The people that answer yes are either misinformed, ignorant on this issue (for whatever reason), or are having the wool pulled over their eyes.  

 

2) How the hell can it add to consumer confidence?  

 

Quote:
If tax cuts for the rich aren't allowed to expire as they were promised to do, then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class.

 

First, they weren't "promised to expire."  They were scheduled to expire.  Bush took a 10 year time limit for the full cut he wanted instead of halving the amount of the cut (it's called negotiation...something Obama might want to study).  Secondly, how can you honestly claim that "the rich" keeping more of their money will cause a depression for the lower and middle classes?  That's just...bizarre.  

 

Quote:
If Medicare or welfare are cut then the country will remain in a consumer depression among the middle and lower class

 

Prove that.  Provide at least some evidence for that statement, and/or explain in detail why that would occur.  Don't you think it matters how they are cut?  Are you claiming we can never cut those programs and reform them?  

 

 

Quote:
. If military is cut than nobody will change their spending except maybe the ultra-paranoid gripped-by-fear Muslim haters.

 

Have you been drinking?  Tell me, how can the Left claim that the military-industrial complex is 50% of our economy, and then in the same breath, say that nothing will change if the military budget is cut?  I mean, talk about your cognitive dissonance.  And your comment about "Muslim haters" is just uncalled for.  

 

 

Quote:
A lot of what drives the economy is perception. And the perception among most Americans is that restoring tax rates for the top 2% will help. Even among those in the top 2% themselves:

 

The first part is true.  I don't know if the second part is true even on the surface.  Help what?  Most people have been told raising taxes will reduce the deficit.  Those who don't know the math might believe that.  But you're saying that after not being interested enough (or smart enough, or lied to), they then make the leap that reducing the deficit will help the economy, and then their confidence will increased as a result?  That sounds pretty fantastical to me.  The only thing that will affect confidence is certainty about their tax rates.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Again:

 

“In the near term, [income tax rates] need to go up some,” Langstaff said. "This is a fairness issue -- there needs to be recognition that we’re not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we’ve fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up.”

 

Notice that quote doesn't say that restoring tax rates on the rich will close the deficit. Nor is that what I'm saying. But it will help.

 

1.  A fairness issue?  How is it a fairness issue?  It's only one if you accept the false premise that the rich aren't paying their "fair share."  

 

2.  There is a good argument that we are collecting plenty of revenue, but that we spend too much.  

 

3.  If you reject #2, then the question is how to get more revenue.  Taxing the so-called "rich" is the worse and least effective way to do that.  The answer is economic growth.  We need total tax reform as a result...to unleash the economy and create jobs.  

 

4.  LOL.  But that's the argument your President has been using for months.  It's a LIE.  

 

Quote:

It's only one if you accept the false premise that the rich aren't paying their "fair share." 

However if you don't accept the obvious idea that one class can deal with higher taxes ( as they once did about 12 years ago ) much easier than another you're ignoring the obvious. Those people live totally different lives than the bulk of what makes up the middle class or the poor. And once again trickle down economics hasn't stood the test of time. And guess what? In that period of time we're talking about things were going better for everyone so keeping taxes lower for the rich doesn't seem to help. That's been the case for over a decade now and look at the state of things ( and yes I'm talking about a longer period before Obama so really don't harp on that  ). You can can call it whatever you want but your argument doesn't hold water.


Edited by jimmac - 1/2/13 at 11:06am
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 #180 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And what you're saying is your speculation. But 30 years of failed Reaganomic policy says your way doesn't work in the long run.

 

No and no. Wow.

If it did we'd have been in a lot better shape awhile ago wouldn't we?1wink.gif Taxes have been lower for the rich for some time now and things really don't seem rosier. You of course can try to blame that on Obama but we were in this state before he took office. So once again the argument holds water like a sieve.

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 #181 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Good. More violent characterizations to help move things along.

Well this is really serious business and the GOP is being very illogical about the whole thing. No one is going to be asking those kinds of questions the day after we go over the cliff I assure you. They'll be wanting a fix quickly to stop their supporters from being so angry.1wink.gif

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 238

No, don't you see?  If the banks were more free, they wouldn't have acted irresponsibly.  They just weren't free enough to put the country ahead of their own greed.

 

“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 #183 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, don't you see?  If the banks were more free, they wouldn't have acted irresponsibly.  They just weren't free enough to put the country ahead of their own greed.

lol.gif From everything I've heard about what got us into this debacle freedom wasn't an issue. One comment in particular discribing lending institutions of the period always sticks in my mind. " It was like the wild west ".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9626442/Greg-Smith-Goldman-Sachs-London-office-was-like-the-Wild-West.html

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 #184 of 238

No, but don't you see?  The Wild West wasn't free enough.  Your greatest fallacy is that you won't allow for the possibility that there is a level of freedom past which corporations will stop being socially irresponsible and will usher in a new dawn of Utopian Jesayn Chrandianity. 

 

“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 #185 of 238

Regardless of what you think about rich vs poor, doesn't it occur to people that when a government is measuring it's budget in trillions that it's all got a bit ridiculous and out of control?

post #186 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Regardless of what you think about rich vs poor, doesn't it occur to people that when a government is measuring it's budget in trillions that it's all got a bit ridiculous and out of control?

What's even more interesting is how it got that way.1wink.gif

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 #187 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

However if you don't accept the obvious idea that one class can deal with higher taxes ( as they once did about 12 years ago ) much easier than another you're ignoring the obvlous. Those people live totally different lives than the bulk of what makes up the middleclass or the poor. And once again trickle down ecomomics hasn't stood the test of time. And guess what? In that period of time we're talking about things were going better for everyone so keeping taxes lower for the rich doesn't seem to help. That's been the case for over a decade now and look at the state of things ( and yes I'm talking about a longer period before Obama so really don't harp on that  ). You can can call it whatever you want but your argument doesn't hold water.

 

Go ahead, jimmac.  Just keep thinking that higher tax rates only affect millionaires and billionaires.  Really, this entire argument is just so stupid.  Not even Obama and the Dems believe taxing the wealthy more will make any real difference in our fiscal situation.  

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 #188 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Go ahead, jimmac.  Just keep thinking that higher tax rates only affect millionaires and billionaires.  Really, this entire argument is just so stupid.  Not even Obama and the Dems believe taxing the wealthy more will make any real difference in our fiscal situation.  

Well when it doesn't work the problem will be because taxes weren't high enough.

post #189 of 238

So, the House has passed "the" bill.   While I'm happy that I personally won't have to pay thousands more in taxes, I also don't know that I could have supported this bill if I had a vote.  It does nothing to contain spending, and in fact contains new spending.   Watching some of the pressers yesterday, I thought to myself "these people are ALL completely full of crap.  They created this entire situation, and are now on TV pontificating about how they are going to 'fix' it.  This entire thing is nothing more than political posturing...it's all pure garbage." 

 

My feelings extend towards both parties. The Dems are clearly out to sadistically torture the GOP by making them vote for higher taxes.  They lack ANY credibility on spending, especially in the Senate, where there has been no budget passed in nearly four years.  They also know that the tax increases in the bill solve nothing. It's all about continuing to carve up the electorate and get Pelosi and Hoyer on TV to make their case to return to power in two years.  

 

And Team Boehner?  They negotiated from a position of weakness and fear instead of on what they felt was right.  They were too worried about the political consequences of taxes going up, not wanting to be blamed if we went over the so-called "fiscal cliff."   What they should have done is had the balls to go in front of the American people and explain why they couldn't vote for this turd of a bill.  They should have explained that while they despised higher taxes on working families, they couldn't vote for a bill that actually increases the deficit and decreases economic growth because to do so would be bad for the country.  They then should have stated that if people held them responsible, so be it.  Had they done that, we'd have at least a palatable deal within a week.  Obama would cave on spending cuts and could probably even be persuaded to exempt small business from the new rates.   

 

Regardless, I'm beginning to see it's all nothing more than political theater.  Both parties are morally and ideologically corrupt, concerned only about their own power. Now, on to the next manufactured crisis to drive up cable TV ratings:  The debt ceiling.    

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 #190 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

However if you don't accept the obvious idea that one class can deal with higher taxes ( as they once did about 12 years ago ) much easier than another you're ignoring the obvious. Those people live totally different lives than the bulk of what makes up the middle class or the poor. And once again trickle down economics hasn't stood the test of time. And guess what? In that period of time we're talking about things were going better for everyone so keeping taxes lower for the rich doesn't seem to help. That's been the case for over a decade now and look at the state of things ( and yes I'm talking about a longer period before Obama so really don't harp on that  ). You can can call it whatever you want but your argument doesn't hold water.

 

Go ahead, jimmac.  Just keep thinking that higher tax rates only affect millionaires and billionaires.  Really, this entire argument is just so stupid.  Not even Obama and the Dems believe taxing the wealthy more will make any real difference in our fiscal situation.  

You seem to support the idea of trickle down economics by saying this. If that was any good at all it should have been obvious by now. Instead things are worse than ever for the middle class and poor. And guess what the taxes for the rich were when things were going better? Trickle down is a fallacy. Contrary to what your signature says you know nothing SDW.  Your ideas don't hold water.


Edited by jimmac - 1/2/13 at 11:07am
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 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You seem to support the idea of trickle down economics by saying this

 

Your interpretation and inferences are not my problem.   

 

 

Quote:
. If that was any good at all it should have been obvious by now. Instead things are worse than ever for the middleclass and poor. You know nothing SDW.  Your ideas don't hold water.

 

Well, your entire point is predicated on something I didn't say, but I'll put that little problem aside.   Let's address so-called "trickle-down" economics and their effects.   Here is a good place to start:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

 

 

 

Quote:
The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2] The term is mostly used ironically or as pejorative.

 

Yes, you read that right,  jimmac. It's a pejorative coined not by a politician or economist, but a humorist.   And then there is this:    

 

 

Quote:
Although the term "trickle down" is mainly political and does not denote a specific economic theory, some economic theories reflect the meaning of this pejorative. 

 

So to start, I reject the notion that somehow supporting low tax rates in general makes me a proponent of "trickle down" economics.  In fact, one can argue that "trickle down" has never really been enacted at all.  Even the Reagan tax cuts did not cut taxes exclusively for the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class.  And the Bush tax cuts actually raised the share the wealthy pay in terms of the total tax bill.   More on this:  

 

 

Quote:

Speaking on the Senate floor in 1992, Sen. Hank Brown said, "Mr. President, the trickle-down theory attributed to the Republican Party has never been articulated by President Reagan and has never been articulated by President Bush and has never been advocated by either one of them. One might argue whether trickle down makes any sense or not. To attribute to people who have advocated the opposite in policies is not only inaccurate but poisons the debate on public issues."[21]

Thomas Sowell claimed that, despite its political prominence, no trickle-down theory has ever existed among economists.

 

Now, if you'd like to discuss what I actually wrote, that's fine.  I said that the tax increases on the so-called rich didn't solve the problem, and the Democrats knew it.  I stand by this statement.  By their own math, these increases will only bring in $40--60 Billion a year.  Combined with what appears to be zero spending cuts (at least for now), one has to ask:  Why raise taxes on these people?  It's a useless policy to pursue, and may even slow economic growth.   What is your answer to that?  

 

Finally, as to economic theories and such, you made this statement:  

 

 

 

Quote:
 If that was any good at all it should have been obvious by now. Instead things are worse than ever for the middleclass and poor. You know nothing SDW.  Your ideas don't hold water.

 

I can only assume that you are referring to policies like the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.   The fact is that the evidence shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.  After the Reagan cuts, the economy recovered from a near depression within three years.  Growth exploded, and millions of new middle class jobs were created.  Revenue went up an inflation adjusted 20%-25% over Reagan's presidency.  President Bush entered office with less severe recession, and enacted much more modest cuts.  The result was again a relatively quick turnaround in growth, unemployment and thereby government revenue.  In fact, revenue to the federal government hit a record level in 2007.  

 

So assuming you are referring to above policies as "trickle down," I'm afraid you're wrong.  Those policies were quite effective in terms of creating growth and revenue to the government.  The spending side is, of course, a separate matter.  Both Presidents presided over massive increases in spending (some justified in my opinion, some not) that outstripped the increased revenue.   Congress (Republican and Democrat) shares most of the blame there.  Either way, it doesn't change the fact that across the board tax cuts stimulate the economy.   

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 #192 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You seem to support the idea of trickle down economics by saying this

 

Your interpretation and inferences are not my problem.   

 

 

Quote:
. If that was any good at all it should have been obvious by now. Instead things are worse than ever for the middleclass and poor. You know nothing SDW.  Your ideas don't hold water.

 

Well, your entire point is predicated on something I didn't say, but I'll put that little problem aside.   Let's address so-called "trickle-down" economics and their effects.   Here is a good place to start:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

 

 

 

Quote:
The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2] The term is mostly used ironically or as pejorative.

 

Yes, you read that right,  jimmac. It's a pejorative coined not by a politician or economist, but a humorist.   And then there is this:    

 

 

Quote:
Although the term "trickle down" is mainly political and does not denote a specific economic theory, some economic theories reflect the meaning of this pejorative. 

 

So to start, I reject the notion that somehow supporting low tax rates in general makes me a proponent of "trickle down" economics.  In fact, one can argue that "trickle down" has never really been enacted at all.  Even the Reagan tax cuts did not cut taxes exclusively for the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class.  And the Bush tax cuts actually raised the share the wealthy pay in terms of the total tax bill.   More on this:  

 

 

Quote:

Speaking on the Senate floor in 1992, Sen. Hank Brown said, "Mr. President, the trickle-down theory attributed to the Republican Party has never been articulated by President Reagan and has never been articulated by President Bush and has never been advocated by either one of them. One might argue whether trickle down makes any sense or not. To attribute to people who have advocated the opposite in policies is not only inaccurate but poisons the debate on public issues."[21]

Thomas Sowell claimed that, despite its political prominence, no trickle-down theory has ever existed among economists.

 

Now, if you'd like to discuss what I actually wrote, that's fine.  I said that the tax increases on the so-called rich didn't solve the problem, and the Democrats knew it.  I stand by this statement.  By their own math, these increases will only bring in $40--60 Billion a year.  Combined with what appears to be zero spending cuts (at least for now), one has to ask:  Why raise taxes on these people?  It's a useless policy to pursue, and may even slow economic growth.   What is your answer to that?  

 

Finally, as to economic theories and such, you made this statement:  

 

 

 

Quote:
 If that was any good at all it should have been obvious by now. Instead things are worse than ever for the middleclass and poor. You know nothing SDW.  Your ideas don't hold water.

 

I can only assume that you are referring to policies like the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.   The fact is that the evidence shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.  After the Reagan cuts, the economy recovered from a near depression within three years.  Growth exploded, and millions of new middle class jobs were created.  Revenue went up an inflation adjusted 20%-25% over Reagan's presidency.  President Bush entered office with less severe recession, and enacted much more modest cuts.  The result was again a relatively quick turnaround in growth, unemployment and thereby government revenue.  In fact, revenue to the federal government hit a record level in 2007.  

 

So assuming you are referring to above policies as "trickle down," I'm afraid you're wrong.  Those policies were quite effective in terms of creating growth and revenue to the government.  The spending side is, of course, a separate matter.  Both Presidents presided over massive increases in spending (some justified in my opinion, some not) that outstripped the increased revenue.   Congress (Republican and Democrat) shares most of the blame there.  Either way, it doesn't change the fact that across the board tax cuts stimulate the economy.   

Ah! The old long convoluted response basically saying nothing new.1wink.gif

 

 

 

Quote:
The result was again a relatively quick turnaround in growth, unemployment and thereby government revenue. In fact, revenue to the federal government hit a record level in 2007. 

Followed by just a year later with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

 

 

 

In other news :

 

 

Quote:

Fiscal cliff deal a 'debacle' for the GOP, sets up bigger fight in months

 

Quote:
Todd called the deal to avoid the fiscal cliff a “debacle” for the Republican Party. “yesterday we almost had the Republican leadership in the House almost completely undermine the Republican leadership in the Senate. It looked like they threatened to scuttle the whole thing, and they ended up helping Barack Obama raise taxes more than any Republican Party in a generation has helped anybody raise taxes, and they got nothing for it. … The Republican Party has to figure out what it wants to be, first, before they sit down at the negotiating table. And then they’ve got to figure out who’s going to do the negotiating for them. Is it Mitch McConnell? Is it John Boehner? Who runs the Republican Party? I think that’s unclear out of all of this. … Until the Republican Party figures is sort of unified in what it wants to do, it’s not going to be an effective negotiating force against the president.”

 

They need to drop the Tea party types completely or they'll have no political future.

 

I'm sure you're stil in complete denial about all of this as the GOP ship sinks slowly in the west ( blub, blub! ) but that won't change the reality.1wink.gif


Edited by jimmac - 1/2/13 at 2:15pm
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 #193 of 238

Two questions, jimmac:  

 

1)  What is trickle down economics (in your opinion)?  

 

2)  What policies did the Bush administration enact that led to the 2008 economic downturn?  

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 #194 of 238
Spare us the semantics. What has been disproven is the theory that putting more financial resources into the hands of the wealthy benefits the non-wealthy more than putting the same financial resources directly in the hands of the non wealthy.

In fact, we see that in the last 30 years that taxes have been cut more in terms of percentage for the wealthy than they have been for the non-wealthy (by mean income percentile as a better measurement -- NOT by median, as the median and mean are drifting further and further apart -- a lower percentage of people are living over the mean than ever before, as a select few of the wealthy are amassing most of the wealth while everyone else's wealth is decreasing in comparison source).

In those same thirty years, the middle and lower class have not benefitted as much as the wealthy have.

The idea supporters of top-down economics seem to have is that the wealthy are there for a reason. Smarter, more creative, more hardworking, more productive, etc., so they will be more efficient at producing more wealth. Although this is not always the case, I'll admit that it's probably true in general.

But the factor that is ignored is that the wealthy do NOT like to produce wealth that benefits others. It's the greed factor. Faced with a profit, instead of building more businesses in the US where US workers can benefit, businesses are increasingly building business overseas, where further profit goes straight into the hands of the business owners, upper management, and investors -- not into the hands of the workers. Instead of giving raises to frontline workers, BoDs are giving massive raises to CEOs, cutting wages and benefits as much as is legal for their labor force, which in times of unemployment, has become highly replaceable.

At the same time, we're seeing more and more of the wealthy hoarding their wealth, either in luxury goods or properties, or even worse, by stashing their profits in places like the Caymans. This is the profit that SHOULD be being used to create more jobs or increase wages and benefits for existing workers. Instead it's being sheltered, which helps no one except perhaps the eventual heirs to the fortunes. Heirs who will continue the same hoarding as their predecessors.

Anyway, whatever you want to call it, putting more money in the hands of the wealthy has not helped. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer more than ever before.

An easy solution might be to tie a minimum wage to per capita GDP. That way, as wealth increases, businesses are forced to distribute that wealth fairly across the economic spectrum. Then this type of economics (whatever it's called) might just work.
Edited by tonton - 1/3/13 at 1:25am
post #195 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Spare us the semantics. What has been disproven is the theory that putting more financial resources into the hands of the wealthy benefits the non-wealthy more than putting the same financial resources directly in the hands of the non wealthy.

 

 

Spoken like the true socialist you are.  To you, all money belongs to the government, only being returned to people as as it sees fit.  In reality, the opposite is true.  Supporters of low tax rates want the government to confiscate as little as possible.  

 

 

Quote:
In fact, we see that in the last 30 years that taxes have been cut more in terms of percentage for the wealthy than they have been for the non-wealthy (by mean income percentile as a better measurement -- NOT by median, as the median and mean are drifting further and further apart -- a lower percentage of people are living over the mean than ever before, as a select few of the wealthy are amassing most of the wealth while everyone else's wealth is decreasing in comparison source).

 

That is a dubious statistic, because it simply doesn't tell the whole story.  The lower brackets don't pay anywhere near as much to begin with, no they naturally won't see the same level of cuts.  This is the same argument presented by Dems like Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt during the debate on the Bush cuts.  They argued that if you were rich, you'd be able to buy a new Lexus with your tax cut, whereas you could only afford a new muffler if one was were middle class or lower.  Well, duh.  That wealthy person pays 10x the taxes at a much higher rate.   Tax relief goes to those who pay taxes.  

 

 

Quote:
In those same thirty years, the middle and lower class have not benefitted as much as the wealthy have.

 

That depends what you mean by "benefit."  I argue that the middle class benefits from the rising tide, as they did in 1980s and 2000s.   The health of the economy is paramount.  

 

Quote:
The idea supporters of top-down economics seem to have is that the wealthy are there for a reason. Smarter, more creative, more hardworking, more productive, etc., so they will be more efficient at producing more wealth. Although this is not always the case, I'll admit that it's probably true in general.
But the factor that is ignored is that the wealthy do NOT like to produce wealth that benefits others. It's the greed factor. Faced with a profit, instead of building more businesses in the US where US workers can benefit, businesses are increasingly building business overseas, where further profit goes straight into the hands of the business owners, upper management, and investors -- not into the hands of the workers. Instead of giving raises to frontline workers,

 

A fundamental misunderstanding of how business and the economy itself works. It's not a question of "liking" to produce wealth that benefits others.  It's a question of economic activity.  The rich person who buys a yacht needs to have it built.  The builder needs workers.  The workers need materials.  The materials need to be shipped.  The shipping company needs drivers, and mechanics.  The mechanics need computers.  It goes on and on.  Now, this is not an argument to avoid all taxation or have a regressive tax, but it does show that the wealthy do benefit the economy.  

 

Quote:
BoDs are giving massive raises to CEOs, cutting wages and benefits as much as is legal for their labor force, which in times of unemployment, has become highly replaceable.

 

They will always pay as little as possible for labor.  That is the nature of business.  What you fail to understand is that the government encourages them to pay less and hire less with all of the expensive mandates in place.  Rising minimum wage=fewer jobs.  Obamacare=fewer jobs.   Higher taxes on the upper brackets=fewer jobs.  

 

Quote:
At the same time, we're seeing more and more of the wealthy hoarding their wealth, either in luxury goods or properties, or even worse, by stashing their profits in places like the Caymans.

 

You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that the wealthy hoard their wealth anymore than they did in the past.  

 

Quote:
 This is the profit that SHOULD be being used to create more jobs or increase wages and benefits for existing workers. Instead it's being sheltered, which helps no one except perhaps the eventual heirs to the fortunes. Heirs who will continue the same hoarding as their predecessors

 

Who are you to tell people what they should be doing with their money?  Unless they've stolen it or they are truly ill-gotten gains, that's their business.  People like you are exactly the problem.  People like you are in government, telling people what they have to buy, have to pay and have to do.   It doesn't work.  

.

 

Quote:
Anyway, whatever you want to call it, putting more money in the hands of the wealthy has not helped. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer more than ever before.

 

I reject, again, the phrasing of that.  No one is "putting more wealth in the hands of the wealthy."  What the Reagan tax cuts (for example) did was allow people to keep more of their own money.  The result was a massive expansion of economic activity and government revenue, which can be used to help people with less. 

 

 

Quote:
An easy solution might be to tie a minimum wage to per capita GDP. That way, as wealth increases, businesses are forced to distribute that wealth fairly across the economic spectrum. Then this type of economics (whatever it's called) might just work.

 

Ah, "fairness."  Who gets to determine what's "fair?"   Hmmm?  The problem here is two-fold.  First, you are obsessed with equality of economic outcome.  But that is not what our system was founded upon.  It was founded upon equality of opportunity...upon a foundation that allowed each individual to pursue his own talents, gifts and desires.   Secondly, your statements continue to imply that "wealth" is somehow inherently the  property of all people on this planet (or in this case, this country)...as if there is some giant economic pie that we all have a right too.  This collectivism and secular humanism at its finest.  From these beliefs come your obsession with fairness and distribution of wealth, which both necessitate your grand schemes to redistribute that wealth.   Any such system will fail and lead to less prosperity, because it is corrupt at its core. 

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 #196 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Two questions, jimmac:  

 

1)  What is trickle down economics (in your opinion)?  

 

2)  What policies did the Bush administration enact that led to the 2008 economic downturn?  

1. The mistaken idea that if we keep overhead low ( taxes ) for the wealthy it will eventually make life less expensive for the rest of us.

 

Now you can say that's wrong but it's the aspect every conservative brings up everytime they try to defend this idea.

 

2. All of them. Little or no regulation of our financial institutions. Spending on unnescessary wars in a time of economic strife. Also keeping taxes low for the wealthy. Things were going much better when they weren't that way. Hence the proof that trickle down economics doesn't work.

 

 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/the-bush-recession-lets-c_b_167231.html

 

http://money.msn.com/mutual-fund/article.aspx?post=09d90714-2402-4772-a6c5-86d2af7ccaed

 

I'm sure you'll disagree but it really doesn't matter given the reality we're in. Spin won't help that.1wink.gif

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 238
Once again, SDW missed my point by concentrating on semantics and strawmen.
post #198 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Once again, SDW missed my point by concentrating on semantics and strawmen.

Yes. Once again.1wink.gif

 

When you don't have a real argument it's easier to look at things that way.

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 #199 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. The mistaken idea that if we keep overhead low ( taxes ) for the wealthy it will eventually make life less expensive for the rest of us.

 

Now you can say that's wrong but it's the aspect every conservative brings up everytime they try to defend this idea.

 

That's not what it is.  But thanks for your opinion.  

 

 


 

 

Quote:
2. All of them.

 

False. 

 

Quote:
 Little or no regulation of our financial institutions.

 

Tell me who proposes that. I don't know any politician on either side who proposes that.  

 

Quote:
Spending on unnescessary wars in a time of economic strife.

 

Afghanistan was unnecessary?  And the economy was in strife when Iraq started?  And those are the prime contributors to our deficit and debt?  

 

 

 

Quote:

Also keeping taxes low for the wealthy. Things were going much better when they weren't that way. Hence the proof that trickle down economics doesn't work.

 

 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/the-bush-recession-lets-c_b_167231.html

 

http://money.msn.com/mutual-fund/article.aspx?post=09d90714-2402-4772-a6c5-86d2af7ccaed

 

 

Quote:
I'm sure you'll disagree but it really doesn't matter given the reality we're in. Spin won't help that.1wink.gif

 

I assume then that you are arguing that higher taxes on the wealthy will create economic growth and prosperity?  

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 #200 of 238

If less money were sequestered in offshore bank accounts and instead flowing through the economy, we would be better off.

 

“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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have $1T deficits become the new norm?