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 2

post #41 of 238

I am a socialist, and that's not by assumption, nor is it by theory, nor is it by any ambition for my own profit at the expense of others, or for the profit of my nation at the expense of other nations. I simply want as many people to be cared for as possible. I am a humanist.

 

I am a socialist, and I take my position by OBSERVATION.

 

I observe what has happened due to the rise of supply-side economics during the Reagan era, and it is not progress.

 

I observe what happens when countries take care of their own people, especially providing health care, education and housing. And it is ALL good. The most socialist European economies are thriving. The most austere European countries are failing.

 

This is observation.

 

Not Fantasy I got from a book written by Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. Not fantasy from what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh tell me.

 

You ought to try observing for once. Taxes were cut by Bush. Heavily Things got a LOT worse, very fast. There are other factors involved, yes, but there is definitely correlation and causation involved there. Things have NOT gotten worse under Obama. He has not yet been able to fix things to pre-Bush levels, that's true, but if anyone tells you things are WORSE in 2012 than they were in 2009 for the majority of people, they are liars, or they are fools. Observe. Go out onto the streets in Los Angeles or Chicago, or New York, and observe.

 

Or go out to the Appalachians or the dust bowl, the RED STATES, where conservatives have been ruling for decades. That's where things have gotten worse.

 

Observe. Don't theorize.

post #42 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I am a socialist, and that's not by assumption, nor is it by theory, nor is it by any ambition for my own profit at the expense of others, or for the profit of my nation at the expense of other nations. I simply want as many people to be cared for as possible. I am a humanist.

 

 

 

Great.  Show me where, in the United States Constitution, your view is enshrined.  

 

 

I am a socialist, and I take my position by OBSERVATION.

 

I observe what has happened due to the rise of supply-side economics during the Reagan era, and it is not progress.

 

Record revenue to the federal government, millions of new jobs, low inflation and rising standards of living would seem to prove you wrong.  

 

 

 

Quote:
I observe what happens when countries take care of their own people, especially providing health care, education and housing. And it is ALL good. The most socialist European economies are thriving. The most austere European countries are failing.

 

Governments should not be obligated to "take care of" their people.  The United States was not founded on "taking care of" people.  It was founded on people taking care of themselves.  By the way, are you actually arguing that European "austerity" (if one can even call it that) has caused the economic problems they face?  

 

 

Quote:

This is observation.

 

Not Fantasy I got from a book written by Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. Not fantasy from what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh tell me.

 

The United States rose to become the greatest economic power on Earth despite having a vastly less socialized system.  This is observation.  

 

 

 

Quote:
You ought to try observing for once. Taxes were cut by Bush. Heavily Things got a LOT worse, very fast.

 

So the Bush tax cuts caused the economy to nearly collapse?  lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
There are other factors involved, yes, but there is definitely correlation and causation involved there.

 

No, there isn't even really correlation.  The economy expanded greatly from 2001-2008.  Deficits were far lower than today, and even they were caused by increased domestic and military spending, not loss of revenue.  By 2007, revenue hit records.  Unemployment, on average, was far lower than today (in fact, it never hit 7%).  Now, can you please explain how Bush policies caused the problems we now face?  Specifically?  

 

 

Quote:
Things have NOT gotten worse under Obama. 

 

That's debatable in itself.  Fiscally, we're in much worse shape.  And what's more debatable is Obama's policies helping or hurting the natural market recovery.  

 

 

 

Quote:
He has not yet been able to fix things to pre-Bush levels, that's true,

 

He hasn't even gotten near the Bush levels themselves.  Go look at the numbers.  

 

 

Quote:

 

 but if anyone tells you things are WORSE in 2012 than they were in 2009 for the majority of people, they are liars, or they are fools. Observe. Go out onto the streets in Los Angeles or Chicago, or New York, and observe.

 

I'm not sure what metric you are using there, but it certainly isn't employment, or crime, or overall standard of living, or fiscal sanity.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Or go out to the Appalachians or the dust bowl, the RED STATES, where conservatives have been ruling for decades. That's where things have gotten worse.

 

Observe. Don't theorize.

 

That's not true, and I challenge you to provide data and rationale for your statement.  

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 #43 of 238
Thread Starter 

For the Sake of Intellectual Integrity, Republicans Should Not Cite the CBO When Arguing against Obama’s Proposed Fiscal-Cliff Tax Hike

 

While the author make some good points, unfortunately, he assumes a couple of things:

 

a) Elected Republicans care about integrity (intellectual or otherwise).

b) They're interested in lower taxes and spending.

 

I'm not sure of either at this 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 #44 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

So we agree, tax cuts stimulate the economy. Then it is stupid at this time to increase taxes. So, Obama's insistence on doing so indicates he's either stupid or explicitly against stimulating the economy.

Tax cuts on those who actually will spend the money, not hoard it.

 

“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 #45 of 238

Could someone explain to me, again, why allowing top marginal tax rates to return their very recent, already historically low but slightly higher than now rates, destroys the country?  When much higher rates demonstrably have not?

post #46 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I am a socialist, and that's not by assumption, nor is it by theory, nor is it by any ambition for my own profit at the expense of others, or for the profit of my nation at the expense of other nations. I simply want as many people to be cared for as possible. I am a humanist.

 

I am a socialist, and I take my position by OBSERVATION.

 

I observe what has happened due to the rise of supply-side economics during the Reagan era, and it is not progress.

 

I observe what happens when countries take care of their own people, especially providing health care, education and housing. And it is ALL good. The most socialist European economies are thriving. The most austere European countries are failing.

 

This is observation.

 

Not Fantasy I got from a book written by Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. Not fantasy from what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh tell me.

 

Apparently you forgot to observe the 100 million+ deaths attributed to Communism. You don't want as many to be cared for as possible. You want them to be cared for TODAY with no thought about tomorrow. You would feed them the seed and later wonder why there aren't any crops to harvest. The most socialist European economies are thriving FOR TODAY largely due to energy policies they follow. This has been discussed with you but you like to ignore it.

 

 

Quote:

You ought to try observing for once. Taxes were cut by Bush. Heavily Things got a LOT worse, very fast. There are other factors involved, yes, but there is definitely correlation and causation involved there. Things have NOT gotten worse under Obama. He has not yet been able to fix things to pre-Bush levels, that's true, but if anyone tells you things are WORSE in 2012 than they were in 2009 for the majority of people, they are liars, or they are fools. Observe. Go out onto the streets in Los Angeles or Chicago, or New York, and observe.

 

Do you observe past the end of your nose? Things got worse well before the Bush tax cuts and the tax cuts were passed with Democrats controlling the Senate. They were passed because the nation had gone into recession due to the collapse of the internet stock bubble. The recession lasted eight months and the economy recovered quickly. Things are worse in 2012 if you look at what must happen to repay the borrowed growth. If you don't understand that borrowing steals from future growth then you need to observe a little better. This is the weakest recovery in modern history and more people have signed up for food stamps, social security disability and unemployment than have found jobs. That is an observable fact.

Quote:

Or go out to the Appalachians or the dust bowl, the RED STATES, where conservatives have been ruling for decades. That's where things have gotten worse.

 

Observe. Don't theorize.

 

You can't be serious. Blue states increasingly look like war zones. I'd love to see you walk through many of the blue areas that give Obama most of his votes and somehow not the "prosperity" there. These groups are voting their identity, not their pocketbook.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Could someone explain to me, again, why allowing top marginal tax rates to return their very recent, already historically low but slightly higher than now rates, destroys the country?  When much higher rates demonstrably have not?

 

Take it up with Obama. The Bush tax cuts could have expired two years ago and will expire now with no effort on anyone's part. The rates will go back to the Clinton era levels and millions of people will be back on the tax rolls.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 238
****. You mention socialism and some completely ignorant moron talks about Soviet Russia. Inevitable. And it completely explains the idiocy that drives Republican Conservativism.
Edited by tonton - 11/11/12 at 3:26pm
post #48 of 238

Bill Kristol now says taxing the rich won't destroy the country, nor cause the moon to stop orbiting the earth.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/bill-kristol-taxes-millionaires_n_2113671.html

 

"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #49 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Bill Kristol now says taxing the rich won't destroy the country, nor cause the moon to stop orbiting the earth.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/bill-kristol-taxes-millionaires_n_2113671.html

 

"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

 

Good. Does he knock down any other straw men?

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

****. You mention socialism and some completely ignorant moron talks about Soviet Russia. Inevitable. And it completely explains the idiocy that drives Republican Conservativism.

 

You mention U.S. election returns and some completely ignorant moron talks about small, monoculltural countries that pump a bunch of oil out of the ground and sell it while ignoring that said countries wouldn't even be a good size state in the U.S. Likewise they talk about government in a country that is little more than a large city and wonder why that model can't be expanded across three tousand miles.

 

Inevitable and it completely explains the idiocy that continues to borrow a trillion plus dollars a year for failed policies and vote buying.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Bill Kristol now says taxing the rich won't destroy the country, nor cause the moon to stop orbiting the earth.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/bill-kristol-taxes-millionaires_n_2113671.html

 

"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

 

 

Did anyone bother to ask him whether the Bush tax cuts expiring and putting millions back onto the tax rolls via an expanded tax base would kill the country or stop the moon from orbiting the earth?

 

Because I'm pretty sure that per our leftist members, it might.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #52 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Tax cuts on those who actually will spend the money, not hoard it.

 

Oh boy...this shit again.  Isn't that like "unemployment checks are a job creator?"  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Could someone explain to me, again, why allowing top marginal tax rates to return their very recent, already historically low but slightly higher than now rates, destroys the country?  When much higher rates demonstrably have not?

 

It won't "destroy the country."  But it will very likely slow growth, which we can ill afford right now.  During the upswing of the mid 90's, we could afford to have higher rates.  The problem is that Obama and his ilk are out there claiming the Clinton tax rates caused growth, which is of course absurd. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Bill Kristol now says taxing the rich won't destroy the country, nor cause the moon to stop orbiting the earth.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/bill-kristol-taxes-millionaires_n_2113671.html

 

"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

 

If all we were doing was taxing "millionaires" a bit more, that wouldn't necessarily have a negative impact.  But a few points:  First, why would we do it?  You're talking about maybe $90 billion more revenue over ten years.  It's not even a drop in the bucket.  Secondly, it's not just Donald Trump types that you're taxing.  You're affecting small business.  Team Obama claims that this only affects 3% of businesses, which is correct.  However, those 3% of businesses employ 50% of all small business workers, and 25% of the country's workforce.  It's very likely this will have a negative economic impact.  You don't raise taxes when growth is sluggish.  

 

By the way, this doesn't even begin to broach the subject other new taxes Obama has pushed for and implemented.  The effect on the economy is cumulative...the more you tax something, the less you get of it.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

Did anyone bother to ask him whether the Bush tax cuts expiring and putting millions back onto the tax rolls via an expanded tax base would kill the country or stop the moon from orbiting the earth?

 

Because I'm pretty sure that per our leftist members, it might.

 

Putting people back on the tax rolls makes you a heartless bastard who hates the "poor."  You should know that! 

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 #53 of 238

As mentioned by SDW...  Let's not forget about small businesses getting hit with the $2000/worker Obamacare tax.  Many small businesses are already looking at how to reduce their workforce to avoid what would be a minimum of $100k in new taxes on them due to Obamacare.  SDW is right about the cumulative impact of raising taxes and the healthcare mandate.

 

If you were to look at a hypothetical company with 50 employees making $5 million in profit that is taxed...  This company would get hit with $100k in new healthcare taxes, along with $230k in increased taxes from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for a total of $330k in tax increases.  You really think a 6.6% tax increase on this business is going to encourage growth?  Personally, I see that $330k as maybe half a dozen new jobs that this business could fill by hiring new employees. 

 

Now, let's look at the flip side...  The tax increases on the evil rich will bring in less than $100 billion per year, and bear in mind that this is based on projections of both growth AND subsequent revenues from the taxes.  (Just try to find an instance where tax increases actually yielded their estimated revenues.)  Even if the numbers are correct and the savings are near $100 billion per year, this is still only around 3 weeks worth of federal expenditures.  Let's also face the facts that the near term projects are nowhere near this rosy as 2013 and 2014 are each only about $40 billion which is less than 2 weeks worth of the federal budget.

 

Tax increases do NOT spur on economic activity, at best they don't significantly constrain it, hence the ways Dems like to portray the economic climate during the Clinton years.  The dot com bubble kept the economy strong enough that the tax increases weren't really significant in comparison.  The economy today is obviously far different and I think the conventional wisdom is that any significant task increases right now carry is substantial risk of hurting or destroying the fragile recovery that we are currently experiencing.

post #54 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

As mentioned by SDW...  Let's not forget about small businesses getting hit with the $2000/worker Obamacare tax.  Many small businesses are already looking at how to reduce their workforce to avoid what would be a minimum of $100k in new taxes on them due to Obamacare.  SDW is right about the cumulative impact of raising taxes and the healthcare mandate.

 

If you were to look at a hypothetical company with 50 employees making $5 million in profit that is taxed...  This company would get hit with $100k in new healthcare taxes, along with $230k in increased taxes from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for a total of $330k in tax increases.  You really think a 6.6% tax increase on this business is going to encourage growth?  Personally, I see that $330k as maybe half a dozen new jobs that this business could fill by hiring new employees. 

 

Now, let's look at the flip side...  The tax increases on the evil rich will bring in less than $100 billion per year, and bear in mind that this is based on projections of both growth AND subsequent revenues from the taxes.  (Just try to find an instance where tax increases actually yielded their estimated revenues.)  Even if the numbers are correct and the savings are near $100 billion per year, this is still only around 3 weeks worth of federal expenditures.  Let's also face the facts that the near term projects are nowhere near this rosy as 2013 and 2014 are each only about $40 billion which is less than 2 weeks worth of the federal budget.

 

Tax increases do NOT spur on economic activity, at best they don't significantly constrain it, hence the ways Dems like to portray the economic climate during the Clinton years.  The dot com bubble kept the economy strong enough that the tax increases weren't really significant in comparison.  The economy today is obviously far different and I think the conventional wisdom is that any significant task increases right now carry is substantial risk of hurting or destroying the fragile recovery that we are currently experiencing.

 

Great post.  Just one clarification...it's not 100 billion a year.  It's 90 billion over TEN years.  

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 #55 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Great post.  Just one clarification...it's not 100 billion a year.  It's 90 billion over TEN years.  

 

Actually, I believe it is about $80-90B a year. Still not enough to solve the problem at all.

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 #56 of 238
Top Mittens advisor recommends.... raising taxes on the rich. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/66564c38-2cbd-11e2-9211-00144feabdc0.html Economic advisor to Mittens himself.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #57 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Top Mittens advisor recommends.... raising taxes on the rich. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/66564c38-2cbd-11e2-9211-00144feabdc0.html Economic advisor to Mittens himself.

 

And the illusion of choice begins to fade.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #58 of 238
Thread Starter 

So...the fiscal "cliff".

 

Is this really such a big deal?

 

Everyone is now saying we should raise taxes. That's part of the "fiscal cliff". About $500B a year worth.

 

Plus about $100B is spending cuts. All of this amounts to an "automatic" $600B deficit reduction...bringing the deficit down to only about 50% higher than Bush's last deficit.

 

So let's just go off the "cliff" and then start work on another $600B in deficit reduction.

 

Gee, where will that money come from?

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 #59 of 238

HF.com

 

While we all enjoy the nice pictures of people sticking heads up their butts related to polls and election outcomes, the much deeper problem is those same people doing the gloating "won" because they can stick their heads up their butts with regard to reality and the fact that you can't borrow and spend an extra trillion dollars a year.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #60 of 238
Thread Starter 

Republicans and the Tax Pledge:

 

 

Quote:
One of the more amazing post-election spectacles is the media celebration of Republicans who say they're willing to repudiate their pledge against raising taxes. So the same folks who like to denounce politicians because they can't be trusted are now praising politicians who openly admit they can't be trusted.
 
The spectacle is part of what is becoming a tripartisan—Democrats, media, some Republicans—attempt to stigmatize Grover Norquist as the source of all Beltway fiscal woes and gridlock. Mr. Norquist, who runs an outfit called Americans for Tax Reform, is the fellow who came up with the no-new-taxes pledge some 20 years ago. He tries to get politicians to sign it, and hundreds of Republicans have done so. He does not hold a gun to their heads.
 
Grover's—everyone calls him Grover—apparent crime against Washington is that he now actually wants to hold politicians to what they willingly signed. If enough Republicans will disavow their tax pledge, then the capital crowd can go about agreeing to a grand fiscal bargain that raises taxes, pretends to cut spending and avoids the January 1 fiscal crack-up that the politicians have set us up for. Voters are supposed to believe that only Grover stands in the way of this happy ever-after.

 

 

Quote:
If Republicans in Congress want to repudiate the pledge, they are free to do so at any time. They could even quote Edmund Burke's line that a democratic representative owes his electors his best judgment, not a slavish fealty to majority opinion. But that would mean saying they didn't mean it when they signed the pledge. So they are now busy pretending that Mr. Norquist is a modern Merlin who conned them into signing the pledge and must be eliminated before they can do the "right thing" and raise taxes.

 

 

Quote:
The one thing Republicans shouldn't do is join the media and Democratic chorus that Mr. Norquist and his pledge are the root of our political and economic woes. The real problems are a political class that won't control its spending and economic policies that are retarding growth.

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 #61 of 238

This entire debate is nothing but a partisan distraction.  The GOP wants to raise revenue through closing loopholes and deductions for upper income earners, and cut spending.  The Democrats want to raise marginal rates on everyone above $250,000, and claim to want to cut spending (though I don't think they actually do).  

 

Both approaches are wrong.  Yes, we need more revenue.  Yes, we need spending cuts.  But the problem can only be solved by actually cutting spending and having a tax code that results in growth.  Growth is what leads to more revenue in the long term, not raising rates.   If anything, we should be cutting tax rates on everyone to get more growth, which will result in more revenue.  We should also reduce spending, reduce deductions for upper income earners, and start means-testing Medicare and Social Security.  Of course, my preference is to trash the entire tax code and start over, but that's not likely to happen.  

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 #62 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This entire debate is nothing but a partisan distraction.  The GOP wants to raise revenue through closing loopholes and deductions for upper income earners, and cut spending.  The Democrats want to raise marginal rates on everyone above $250,000, and claim to want to cut spending (though I don't think they actually do).  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Both approaches are wrong.

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, we need more revenue.

 

No.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, we need spending cuts.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If anything, we should be cutting tax rates on everyone to get more growth, which will result in more revenue.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We should also reduce spending

 

Yes.

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 #63 of 238

Let me clarify:  To maintain the government we have or anything near it, we need more revenue.  I understand that you favor a vastly reduced government, which would require less revenue.  

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 #64 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

To maintain the government we have or anything near it, we need more revenue.

 

And that is the root problem right there.

 

We don't need the amount of government we have. No where near the amount we have now.

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 #65 of 238
Thread Starter 

"Jumping off the fiscal cliff"

 

 

 

Quote:
So what exactly is this “fiscal cliff” we have been hearing so much about lately?
 
Perhaps some background will be helpful.
 
Recall that back in the summer of 2011, Congress had run out of money. We were told then that unless something was done, the U.S. government would default on its debts for the first time in history.
 
Well, that wasn’t true on a couple of levels.
 
First of all, the U.S. government had indeed defaulted before.
 
In 1933, when FDR suspended the dollar’s domestic convertibility to gold, that was the U.S. government defaulting on its obligations.
 
In 1971, when President Richard Nixon terminated the dollar’s convertibility to gold internationally, the U.S. government was once again defaulting.
 
And some would argue that the U.S. government defaults every time the Fed monetizes Treasury debt. Sure, Washington’s creditors are paid in nominal terms, but they are being fleeced in real terms: the new dollars they receive are worth less than the old dollars they lent out.
 
Secondly, Congress had other options than outright default in 2011. They could have slashed spending and liquidated some of the U.S. government’s assets. This would have enabled them to stay current with their creditors. But it also would have required deep cuts in the federal budget. Despite the deplorable state of the U.S. government’s finances, there was no political will on Capitol Hill to actually reduce spending.
 
So Congress reached a last-minute compromise — the Budget Control Act of 2011. This agreement raised the debt limit by $2.1 trillion, which was enough to keep the federal government funded until January 1, 2013. But it also stipulated that, absent another compromise, a series of tax increases and budget cuts will kick in automatically on January 1, 2013.
 
Now we are being told that unless Congress borrows more money, they will be forced to cut spending and cover their expenses with taxes rather than debt.
 
This is the dreaded fiscal cliff?
 
Isn’t that exactly what Congress should have been doing all these many years?
 
Now, I am no fan of taxes, but I prefer them to inflation or debt, which really are insidious forms of alternative taxation, in that they conceal the true costs of government.
 
Seen in this light, the fiscal cliff is not the problem. Indeed, it appears to be part of the solution. Congress needs to get its fiscal house in order. This can only happen if Congress slashes spending. And plunging over the so-called fiscal cliff would do exactly that.
 
Nevertheless, we are being told that unless Congress avoids these spending cuts, the ensuing “austerity” will bankrupt thousands of businesses and throw millions of Americans out of work.
 
Is that correct? Is the U.S. economy forever dependent on debt-financed government spending?
 
Well, in its current grotesque form, it is. And that’s the problem. 

The U.S. government’s debt-financed “stimulus spending” and the Fed’s “accommodating” monetary policies have distorted the nation’s economy, rendering it fundamentally unsound. The political problem here is that, however destructive these policies are in the long term, they are generally popular in the short term because they do create an illusion of prosperity. This, of course, is useful to spendthrift politicians whose time horizons usually extend no further than the next election.

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 #66 of 238
Thread Starter 

I think it is time for the Republicans in Congress to forfeit to Obama.

 

Give Obama what he wants. Everything he wants.

 

Make sure everyone knows that Obama got everything he wanted.

 

Then back away.

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

 

And that is the root problem right there.

 

We don't need the amount of government we have. No where near the amount we have now.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you.  And though I think we've established that I favor somewhat more government than you do, it's probably moot.  My point is only that if we are to maintain anything near the current level (which I think is much more likely than not), we need more revenue.  I see no realistic chance of getting spending to levels where even I would like it, much less where you would like it.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think it is time for the Republicans in Congress to forfeit to Obama.

 

Give Obama what he wants. Everything he wants.

 

Make sure everyone knows that Obama got everything he wanted.

 

Then back away.

 

I think that very well might be a good option.   The other option would be to just walk away and let sequestration kick in.  Of course, I'd be none too thrilled about paying over $2,000 more per year in taxes.  If Obama gets his way, it would be even better.  My taxes wouldn't go up like that, and perhaps the results of his disastrous tax and spend policies would be laid bare.  

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 #68 of 238
You guys are confusing the size of government with the role of government. Government has to take a great role in encouraging, and ensuring, prosperity for its citizens. It doesn't take a physically huge, in terms of personnel, or in terms of structure, to do that. What we need is more efficient government, not fewer regulations or social programs.
post #69 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You guys are confusing the size of government with the role of government.

 

I'm not.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Government has to take a great role in encouraging, and ensuring, prosperity for its citizens.

 

No it doesn't. That's just 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 #70 of 238
Yes it is. My opinion is strongly founded on a humanist perspective. Yours is founded on a growth perspective.

From a humanist perspective, the goal of society is the health, happiness and well being of all the citizens.

From a growth perspective, the goal of society is growth, profit, GDP, often at the expense of the health, happiness and well being of many citizens.
post #71 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

My opinion is strongly founded on a humanist perspective.

 

If you say so.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yours is founded on a growth perspective.

 

Wrong.

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

You guys are confusing the size of government with the role of government. Government has to take a great role in encouraging, and ensuring, prosperity for its citizens. It doesn't take a physically huge, in terms of personnel, or in terms of structure, to do that. What we need is more efficient government, not fewer regulations or social programs.

 

The role of government is directly proportional to its size, is it not?

 

How else do you propose to administer the healthcare of 300 million people without a ridiculously huge, bloated bureaucracy?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #73 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The role of government is directly proportional to its size, is it not?
Of course not. That's a completely narrow viewpoint.
Quote:
How else do you propose to administer the healthcare of 300 million people without a ridiculously huge, bloated bureaucracy?
We can look at any number of developed nations other than the US and see exactly how they do it better and cheaper than the US does. Why are you so resistant to looking outside for successful policy ideas?

For instance, how much of the bloated US system of anything is devoted to means testing?

Cut out the means testing and you cut out bloat and inefficiency.

As for taxes, flatten the tax rate to a marginal rate high enough to support all the programs necessary, and eliminate deductions except for a large standard deductible to ensure a minimum standard of living. How much bureaucracy could be cut if we did that?

Good luck in finding any Democrat or Republican who supports that.

But that's exactly how so many other countries accomplish so much more with much, much smaller government.
post #74 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes it is. My opinion is strongly founded on a humanist perspective. Yours is founded on a growth perspective.

From a humanist perspective, the goal of society is the health, happiness and well being of all the citizens.

From a growth perspective, the goal of society is growth, profit, GDP, often at the expense of the health, happiness and well being of many citizens.

 

Humanism is a philosophy. It isn't scientific. You are ignoring science and demanding other bow to your philosophy. That is no different than me saying you must do what I say because God said so.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #75 of 238

Transparency: Walk the Walk, Mr. President

 

Quote:
Conservatives are worried that the negotiations that will begin this week to avoid the “fiscal cliff” will end in disaster. Tax increases that will weaken the economy could be combined with spending cuts that never materialize in an agreement that will leave many Republicans — especially those who have signed the “no net new taxes” pledge promoted by Americans for Tax Reform — vulnerable to public outrage, and indeed to primary challenges in the midterm elections.
 
The way to avoid that outcome may be for conservatives to insist on the transparency and openness that Barack Obama has spent much of his career promoting but has almost never delivered in practice. The White House has asserted false claims of executive privilege to avoid questions on the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious gun-running scandal. The Washington Post reported last year that a large number of requests for public records elicited no material at all from the administration. The same Barack Obama who as a 2008 candidate promised that health-care negotiations would be shown on C-SPAN instead cobbled together the abomination of Obamacare behind closed doors.
 
Many old Washington hands recall that Republicans agreed on tax-increase-for-spending-cuts deals in 1982 under Ronald Reagan and in 1990 under George H. W. Bush. These deals politically damaged the party in the short run, and they also proved to be bad policy. The 1982 budget deal, which promised seven dollars in spending cuts for every three dollars in tax increases, was never honored. Congress agreed to less than 27 cents in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases, and President Reagan came to bitterly regret his decision to approve the deal. Ed Meese, Reagan’s senior counselor at the time and later his attorney general, recalls that the 1982 deal “was the worst domestic-policy mistake of the Reagan administration.”
 
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee today, has argued that transparency will help conservatives avoid the worst possible budget outcomes. “Secrecy cements the status quo: more spending, more debt, more runaway government,” he said this month in a news release. “It is the enemy of accountability, change, and reform. We cannot simply rush through some secret deal that no one can amend, alter, review, scrutinize, or dispute.” He thinks that Congress needs to take at least a week to debate any deal and offer amendments, and that it needs to make the proposal available on the Internet for public review: “It is time to try the one thing that hasn’t been tried: open, public process on the Senate floor.”
 
Americans for Tax Reform’s founder, Grover Norquist, who originated the anti-tax-increase pledge, says that having an honest, open debate will promote political accountability. “The party that doesn’t want the budget debate to be transparent can be held to account,” he told me. “The American people should get to see the sausage being made and get to read the contract before it’s signed. They shouldn’t have to wait a year for Bob Woodward to write a book about what really happened behind closed doors.”
 
But calling for transparency isn’t enough. Democrats have every incentive not to agree to transparency, but conservatives should not let the issue fall by the wayside. They must insist on an open process as the fiscal cliff approaches.
 
Senate majority leader Harry Reid has gotten away with flouting the law — which requires the Senate to adopt a budget resolution each year by April 15 — for more than 1,300 days. Reid even admitted in 2011 that one of his motivations for ignoring this law was that it would be politically “foolish” for his party to adopt a budget. President Obama offered his own budget plan earlier this year, but it was so unrealistic and stuffed with accounting gimmicks that not a single person in his own party in Congress supported it when it came to a vote.
 
In February, treasury secretary Timothy Geithner admitted in congressional testimony that the administration lacks a long-term plan to deal with the nation’s soaring $16 trillion debt. “We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem,” he told House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan. “What we do know is, we don’t like yours.”
 
Having the budget negotiations out in the open would at least expose such blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Obama administration or, at best, force it to pony up and negotiate honestly. If negotiations remain in the shadows, Democrats will follow the precedent they’ve set in years past and push for higher taxes in order to feed an ever-growing government that they have little interest in reforming.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #76 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Many old Washington hands recall that Republicans agreed on tax-increase-for-spending-cuts deals in 1982 under Ronald Reagan and in 1990 under George H. W. Bush. These deals politically damaged the party in the short run, and they also proved to be bad policy. The 1982 budget deal, which promised seven dollars in spending cuts for every three dollars in tax increases, was never honored.

 

Quote:

If negotiations remain in the shadows, Democrats will follow the precedent they’ve set in years past and push for higher taxes in order to feed an ever-growing government that they have little interest in reforming.

 

This is exactly what I predict will happen. There will be tax increases on the rich that will bring in relatively no money and no spending cuts of any significance and we'll continue to see trillion dollar plus deficits for as far as the eye can see.

 

Obama is not to be trusted.

 

He's become a more clever politician to be sure. This is not the same as being wise or a good leader.

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 #77 of 238
Thread Starter 

Holy crap. Is Obama serious?

 

 

Quote:
President Barack Obama made an opening bid in budget talks with Republicans that calls for a $1.6 trillion tax increase, a $50 billion economic-stimulus program and new power to raise the federal debt limit without congressional approval, a broad set of demands Republicans viewed as a step back in talks to avoid looming tax increases and spending cuts.

 

So, tax increases, no spending cuts (in fact spending increases) and more power.

 

Uh huh.

 

1rolleyes.gif

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 #78 of 238
This
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes it is. My opinion is strongly founded on a humanist perspective. Yours is founded on a growth perspective.


From a humanist perspective, the goal of society is the health, happiness and well being of all the citizens.


From a growth perspective, the goal of society is growth, profit, GDP, often at the expense of the health, happiness and well being of many citizens.

Humanism is a philosophy. It isn't scientific. You are ignoring science and demanding other bow to your philosophy. That is no different than me saying you must do what I say because God said so.
This can't be a serious post. You're being sarcastic, right?
post #79 of 238
Thread Starter 

And now begins talk of "hostage taking."

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

You guys are confusing the size of government with the role of government. 

 

No, we are addressing both.  They are connected, after all.  

 

 

Quote:
Government has to take a great role in encouraging, and ensuring, prosperity for its citizens.

 

100%, ass- backwards wrong.  We The People are responsible for government, not the other way around.  Government is not responsible for ensuring the prosperity of its citizens.  

 

 

Quote:
 It doesn't take a physically huge, in terms of personnel, or in terms of structure, to do that.

 

Apparently, it does. 

 

 

 

Quote:
 What we need is more efficient government, not fewer regulations or social programs.

 

We need both.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes it is. My opinion is strongly founded on a humanist perspective.

 

Good for you.  Now just realize your perspective is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or founding principles of this nation. 

 

 

 

Quote:
 Yours is founded on a growth perspective.

 

I won't speak for MJ, but that may or may not be true.  

 

 

Quote:
From a humanist perspective, the goal of society is the health, happiness and well being of all the citizens.

What about the goal of the individual?  I notice you don't seem concerned about that.  

 

 

 

Quote:
From a growth perspective, the goal of society is growth, profit, GDP, often at the expense of the health, happiness and well being of many citizens.

 

So you're claiming that economic growth is inversely proportional to the health, happiness and well-being of the populace?  Jesus.  

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
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?