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 3

post #81 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.  
Connected, but not parallel. You can reduce the size of government without reducing the role of government, by improving efficiency.
Quote:
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.
You are right and wrong. We, the people are responsible for citizens' prosperity, correct. Not by any decree, but by the simple concept of right and wrong, it's our responsibility. How do we do that? Two ways. Through management of business or through government. Management of business has the inherent goal of profit for shareholders, leaving out charity. Non-shareholders also have zero power in controlling the actions of business. Private charity is also a business, and has the inherent goal of targeted groups, leaving other groups out. Private charity has never and will never be enough to encourage prosperity. This is why every society has a system of government. Alternatively, you can blow a raspberry at people who are disadvantaged, make mistakes, or aren't smart enough to ensure their own prosperity. Sounds like you think that's what they deserve.
Quote:
Quote:
 It doesn't take a physically huge, in terms of personnel, or in terms of structure, to do that.

Apparently, it does. 
Seriously, you need to get out. The US is not the world. There are small (per capita) successful governments all around the world that do a better job than the US, providing more with less.
Quote:
Quote:
 What we need is more efficient government, not fewer regulations or social programs.

We need both.  
Why? That's bullshit. Unless you mean by less regulation you mean more efficient regulation. We cannot allow untested food and medicine products, unlicensed practitioners, unbridled collusion, and we need a social safety net.
Quote:
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. 
So. It's the right thing to do. And we have the right to vote for things that make humanism part of our government.
Quote:
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.  
Let the individual be concerned about it. It is absolutely vital to society. However, it is a second priority. Compassion comes morally before greed, and that's all there is to it.
Quote:
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.  
No. I am claiming that economic growth for the sake of growth ignores, and often even hinders, the social health of workers, the underpeivileged and those left behind.
post #82 of 238

So...The "Bush tax cuts" were tax cuts for the rich, but NOW their tax cuts across the board. 

post #83 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Connected, but not parallel. You can reduce the size of government without reducing the role of government, by improving efficiency.

 

That has not been the case in practice...at least not here.  

 

 

Quote:
You are right and wrong. We, the people are responsible for citizens' prosperity, correct. Not by any decree, but by the simple concept of right and wrong, it's our responsibility. 

 

I see.  So we are our brother's keeper.  Got it.  

 

Quote:
How do we do that? Two ways. Through management of business or through government.

 

False dichotomy.  We do that by allowing people to live their lives, free to pursue their own innate talents and ambitions.  

 

 

Quote:
Management of business has the inherent goal of profit for shareholders, leaving out charity. Non-shareholders also have zero power in controlling the actions of business. Private charity is also a business, and has the inherent goal of targeted groups, leaving other groups out. Private charity has never and will never be enough to encourage prosperity.

 

Business does more that just collect profit for shareholders.  It also produces needed goods and services, provides jobs and gives back to the community in many cases.  Also, charity does not encourage prosperity.  It helps mitigate the lack of prosperity.  

 

Quote:
This is why every society has a system of government.

 

There are many other reasons.  And I'm not arguing against the existence of government.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Alternatively, you can blow a raspberry at people who are disadvantaged, make mistakes, or aren't smart enough to ensure their own prosperity. Sounds like you think that's what they deserve.

 

Barring physical or mental disability and assuming equal opportunity in terms of education, that's exactly what they deserve.  By the way...please define "disadvantaged."   

 

Quote:
Seriously, you need to get out. The US is not the world. There are small (per capita) successful governments all around the world that do a better job than the US, providing more with less.

 

1.  I live in the United States, and I'm addressing our governmental societal issues.  I understand that the U.S. is not the world.  

 

2.  I know there are smaller governments who do a better job.  But what you mean is that there are smaller government who give more free shit to people, which is not what I'd call "better."  

 

Quote:
Why? That's bullshit. Unless you mean by less regulation you mean more efficient regulation. We cannot allow untested food and medicine products, unlicensed practitioners, unbridled collusion, and we need a social safety net.

 

I mean both.  We have too much regulation in most industries.  We also need more efficient regulation.  As for food, medicine, licenses, etc...I tend to agree.  That being said, there is an argument to be made that companies who bring unsafe products to market wouldn't be in business very long, and that the market would ensure safety.  

 

Quote:
So. It's the right thing to do. And we have the right to vote for things that make humanism part of our government

 

It's not the right thing to do, and we definitely don't need it to be part of our government.  The results of such humanistic-llike policies (i.e. The Great Society) have been economically and socially disastrous in the United States.  We've spent over $5 Trillion on poverty.  We spend hundreds of billions on welfare.  We spend more than just about anyone on government-run education...and things continue to get worse, including the lives of people we are supposed to be helping.  

.

Quote:
Let the individual be concerned about it. It is absolutely vital to society. However, it is a second priority. Compassion comes morally before greed, and that's all there is to it.

 

Rarely do I see someone so openly state that he is, in essence, a collectivist.  tonton, your views are completely antithetical to what the United States is, and to principles upon which it was founded.  The entire concept of our founding is that the individual comes before the State.  Individual liberty is the cornerstone of our nation.  It is not merely "vital" to society.  It is not a second priority.  It is the first priority, because our society is comprised of individuals following their own dreams, talents and gifts, as well as overcoming their challenges.  That is what made America the economic powerhouse it is, or was.  That is what led to a rapidly increasing standard of living compared to most other nations.  That is what enabled us to develop a thriving middle class.  The State comes second.

 

Quote:
No. I am claiming that economic growth for the sake of growth ignores, and often even hinders, the social health of workers, the underpeivileged and those left behind.

 

You use these terms as if they make any sense.  What is the "social health" of workers, and who are "the underprivileged?"  Why are they underprivileged?  How do we help them?  The problem here is that you view the "underprivileged" as a constant.  Your solution is to continue and expand the notion of giving people cash assistance based on financial "need."   Other than short-term assistance, food and clothing, etc, we should change our system to one where people only get help based on ability.  People who are mentally and physically firm should not be on long term assistance.  This teaches nothing, and only destroys the work incentive.  We should not be giving cash to single mothers every time they have another child.  This "compassion" is the kind that results in fatherless households, massive expenditures, and more poor children, not less.  We've already created a system where we literally punish success and self-reliance, and reward poor decisions, lack of work ethic, and destructive behavior.  And you want to expand that system.  

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

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?

 

Perhaps you should try again.

"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 #85 of 238
Thread Starter 

It's fascinating to watch the Obama administration hang on so hard to a fiscal policy that has almost no chance of reducing the deficit by any significant amount.

 

They're stubborn insistence on higher tax rates on the rich is a clear sign they are not serious about deficit reduction and would rather pander to the class warfare and envy they've helped foment.

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 #86 of 238
Thread Starter 

It occurred to me this morning that maybe Obama really wants higher taxes on everyone (not just the rich.) It's been clear that his goal is to convert the United States into a European style Social(ist) Democracy. That requires higher taxes for everyone.

 

He must also know that higher rates on the rich is not going to bring in the revenue he needs for this.

 

I'm starting to think that's what he really wants but he knows he can't ask for it politically, so his strategy is to attempt to back the Republicans into a corner and cause them to allow the tax rates to rise and blame them for the higher taxes, while later taking credit for all the spending he has planned.

 

It's clear he has no plans to cut spending. It's clear he wants even more spending. It's clear he's unconcerned with deficit reduction or entitlement "reform."

 

I'm betting he's banking on higher rates for everyone resulting in a government revenue "windfall" from which he will be able to dole out more gifts to more people and being able to take credit for being Santa Claus.

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 #87 of 238

I say let's go over the "fiscal cliff".

 

Obama is still an amateur that is out of his league. Him getting re-elected doesn't change that.

post #88 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I say let's go over the "fiscal cliff".

 

I think I agree.

 

At this point it would be better for everyone's taxes to go up (which still won't balance any budgets) and for the true cost of Obamaism to be felt right now. When they ask why their taxes are so high (and the budget still isn't balanced), we can point to the out of control spending and that tax rates must go still higher if we are unwilling to cut spending.

 

Direct taxes today are better than indirect taxes (e.g., inflation) tomorrow (deficit spending.) At least it might force the issue to the forefront.

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 #89 of 238
Thread Starter 

Barack Obama’s Country for Kids Who Can’t Add Good:

 

 

Quote:
In a sane world, politicians would cut every last dollar of government spending they could in order to bring financial order back to an entitlement-happy society. After government’s debilitating spending habits were slashed or restructured, only then would the conversation shift to taxes and revenue to make up the gap. Of course, this isn’t a sane world. It’s the world in which it’s Israel’s fault for every ill in Palestine and Republicans are evil and stupid for wanting to cut spending.

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

It occurred to me this morning that maybe Obama really wants higher taxes on everyone (not just the rich.) It's been clear that his goal is to convert the United States into a European style Social(ist) Democracy. That requires higher taxes for everyone.

 

He must also know that higher rates on the rich is not going to bring in the revenue he needs for this.

 

I'm starting to think that's what he really wants but he knows he can't ask for it politically, so his strategy is to attempt to back the Republicans into a corner and cause them to allow the tax rates to rise and blame them for the higher taxes, while later taking credit for all the spending he has planned.

 

It's clear he has no plans to cut spending. It's clear he wants even more spending. It's clear he's unconcerned with deficit reduction or entitlement "reform."

 

I'm betting he's banking on higher rates for everyone resulting in a government revenue "windfall" from which he will be able to dole out more gifts to more people and being able to take credit for being Santa Claus.

 

You know, I'm not sure.  I actually hadn't given that any real thought.  You may be right.  Then again, I think it may just be that they are stuck in permanent campaign mode.  Obama for America, INC has not shut down and is still asking for contributions, after all.  He's a bit of a sadist in this respect...he almost seems to enjoy torturing Republicans with ridiculous policy proposals, "war on...." analogies, etc.   I think it's more likely that he simply thinks they have no choice but to cave.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I think I agree.

 

At this point it would be better for everyone's taxes to go up (which still won't balance any budgets) and for the true cost of Obamaism to be felt right now. When they ask why their taxes are so high (and the budget still isn't balanced), we can point to the out of control spending and that tax rates must go still higher if we are unwilling to cut spending.

 

Direct taxes today are better than indirect taxes (e.g., inflation) tomorrow (deficit spending.) At least it might force the issue to the forefront.

 

I completely agree, though it's going to cost me thousands.  I think you're right about people understanding the effects of Obamanomics.  Obama is banking on the GOP getting the blame (even if he does want all taxes to go up), but I'm not sure it will come out that way.  In the end, the GOP may have to ride the car right over the cliff in order to prove they are willing to go all the way.  I suspect that Dems will panic once it actually happens, and a retroactive deal will get done.  

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 #91 of 238
Thread Starter 

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 #92 of 238

 

That is an excellent article.  I see no way the GOP can vote against middle class tax cuts standing on their own.  That said, I also don't think the Dems want the kind of cuts sequestration brings.  The GOP could probably turn around and demand that defense spending be restored, for example.  Then the Dems would have to vote against that on its own.  

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

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

Of all first-world nations...

 

  • We have the fewest vacations days.  
  • We rank low in health outcomes.  
  • We have the most income disparity.  
  • We have the most wealth disparity.
  • We have the lowest happiness index.

 

But hey, we have a heck of a lot of economic growth historically!  Are they inversely proportional?  Well, maybe...maybe not.  Of course, you changed the meaning of tonton's statement (you are really good at coming up with replies to statements that no one actually made).  

 

focus on economic growth above and beyond the rest certainly can be a significant factor in a decrease in health, happiness, and well-being.  

 

“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 #94 of 238

Well I will say one thing the Republicans still know how to ramp up their popularity index.1wink.gif

 

They really need to be over Grover and think about the big picture which they aren't seeing at all.

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 #95 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They really need to be over Grover and think about the big picture which they aren't seeing at all.

 

Blame Grover? I see you got your Democrat talking points memo. 1rolleyes.gif

 

But seriously, if anyone is not looking at the big picture here, it is Obama & Co. Their overall fiscal strategy appears to be to deny that reality (and math) exist.

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 #96 of 238

Obama is a %#%#@% LIAR.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Taking to Twitter to press his case in "fiscal cliff" talks with Congress, President Barack Obama said on Monday that tax breaks benefiting middle class families such as the mortgage interest deduction could be at risk if rates for top earners do not rise....

 

One questioner, who identified herself as Emma Robertson, expressed concern that popular tax breaks for homeownership could be threatened in an eventual deal.

"As a home owner, I worry deductions for home owners are at risk. Is that the case?" she asked in a tweet.

Obama responded that such tax breaks were important for middle class families and could be at risk if taxes for the wealthiest Americans are not increased.

"Breaks for middle class impt for families & econ. if top rates don't go up, danger that middle class deductions get hit - bo," the president said via Twitter.

 

This is baldfaced LIE.  The mortgage deduction and other deductions for the middle class will NOT be in danger.  It would take an act of Congress to remove those deductions, and neither party will support such a change (certainly not both houses).  Obama's permanent, dishonest campaign continues.  

 

The GOP should walk away right now.  They should hold a news conference and say the following:  

 

After trying to negotiate with President Obama over the coming "fiscal cliff" for many months, we have reached the conclusion that the President is simply not interested in reaching an agreement.  He is clearly more interested in using this serious situation for political gain, as if the recent election had not yet happened.  If no agreement is reached, all taxpayers will pay more--not just the so-called "rich."  In addition, draconian budget cuts will take place automatically, including $500 billion in defense cuts.  It is clear to us now that, given the President's completely unserious and insulting proposals, he wants all taxes to go up, including on the middle class and lower income earners.  The President is clearly more interested in damaging the Republican Party than solving our nation's problems and helping our citizens live better lives.  Negotiations take two parties who are willing to work towards a common goal.  Sadly, we have determined that we no longer have an honest partner with which to deal.  We cannot in good conscience continue to negotiate as a result.  Our latest proposal raises revenue without raising tax rates...on anyone.  It also contains cuts that will not harm our economy, citizens, nor military.  Today, we stand here to explain to the American people that this is our final proposal.  The ball is now in the President's court.  Either he and his party can pass this solution, or we will plunge over the fiscal cliff, and likely into a recession as a result.  We sincerely hope they make the right choice.  Thank you, and God Bless America.  

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 #97 of 238
Thread Starter 

First, I agree that, unfortunately, neither party is willing to address the long-standing subsidy to the housing industry (and homeowner's) as it should. That's not going to happen and Obama is simply engaging in the politics of fear (more than the Republicans).

 
That said, there's at least problem with what you propose here:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The GOP should walk away right now.  They should hold a news conference and say the following:  

 

After trying to negotiate with President Obama over the coming "fiscal cliff" for many months, we have reached the conclusion that the President is simply not interested in reaching an agreement.  He is clearly more interested in using this serious situation for political gain, as if the recent election had not yet happened.  If no agreement is reached, all taxpayers will pay more--not just the so-called "rich."  In addition, draconian budget cuts will take place automatically, including $500 billion in defense cuts.  It is clear to us now that, given the President's completely unserious and insulting proposals, he wants all taxes to go up, including on the middle class and lower income earners.  The President is clearly more interested in damaging the Republican Party than solving our nation's problems and helping our citizens live better lives.  Negotiations take two parties who are willing to work towards a common goal.  Sadly, we have determined that we no longer have an honest partner with which to deal.  We cannot in good conscience continue to negotiate as a result.  Our latest proposal raises revenue without raising tax rates...on anyone.  It also contains cuts that will not harm our economy, citizens, nor military.  Today, we stand here to explain to the American people that this is our final proposal.  The ball is now in the President's court.  Either he and his party can pass this solution, or we will plunge over the fiscal cliff, and likely into a recession as a result.  We sincerely hope they make the right choice.  Thank you, and God Bless America.  

 

From what I've read, the "fiscal cliff" would require about $1.2T in spending cuts...over ten years. This amounts to around $120B a year. Calling these "draconian" is a bit hyperbolic.

 

This is part of the problem here, no one wants to speak the truth. No one wants to deal with reality. Everyone wants to posture.

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

First, I agree that, unfortunately, neither party is willing to address the long-standing subsidy to the housing industry (and homeowner's) as it should. That's not going to happen and Obama is simply engaging in the politics of fear (more than the Republicans).

 
That said, there's at least problem with what you propose here:
 

 

From what I've read, the "fiscal cliff" would require about $1.2T in spending cuts...over ten years. This amounts to around $120B a year. Calling these "draconian" is a bit hyperbolic.

 

This is part of the problem here, no one wants to speak the truth. No one wants to deal with reality. Everyone wants to posture.

 

I understand, I'm simply putting it in political terms.  That's what they should say.  I agree that these cuts are not draconian in reality.  Not even close.  

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They really need to be over Grover and think about the big picture which they aren't seeing at all.

 

Blame Grover? I see you got your Democrat talking points memo. 1rolleyes.gif

 

But seriously, if anyone is not looking at the big picture here, it is Obama & Co. Their overall fiscal strategy appears to be to deny that reality (and math) exist.

Since you don't believe in any taxes why should your comments matter to me on this issue? Also I was talking about the GOP's waining popularity over this and other matters like it. Personally I think it's the Republicans who are throwing caution to the wind. Being sort of on their side I'm sure you disagree.

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 #100 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Since you don't believe in any taxes why should your comments matter to me on this issue?

 

If my comments don't matter to you, ignore them. Evidently they do enough for you to have replied though.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also I was talking about the GOP's waining popularity over this and other matters like it. Personally I think it's the Republicans who are throwing caution to the wind. Being sort of on their side I'm sure you disagree.

 

But you also made a claim about who was looking at the big picture. I commented on that.

 

 

From a political perspective, Obama may well be playing out a larger "big picture" game that are engineered to benefit him, his "legacy" and his party. In this political gamesmanship, Obama may well "win" and the Republicans may well "lose." But the political gamesmanship aside, from an economic perspective, Obama is clearly not seeing, understanding or caring about the bigger picture. He's extremely short-term and narrowly focused.

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

Since you don't believe in any taxes 

 

Did he state that?  I don't know if that's true.  

 

 

 

Quote:
why should your comments matter to me on this issue?

 

As he said, ignore them then.  

 

 

Quote:
 Also I was talking about the GOP's waining popularity over this and other matters like it.

 

If that's true, then I would simply say:  You can't fix stupid.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Personally I think it's the Republicans who are throwing caution to the wind. Being sort of on their side I'm sure you disagree.

 

 

How so?  They think that raising rates is bad for the economy (they are right).  They note that even with rate increases on the so-called "wealthy," the problem won't get close to being fixed.  They oppose a new stimulus, which (unbelievably) Obama has proposed without any spending reductions.  They oppose counting "war savings" as cuts.   They want a plan that cuts spending and keeps rates stable while eliminating loopholes and deductions for the upper income brackets.  This will not harm small business, but will bring in more revenue from the wealthy.  What is unreasonable about their plan?  Why is it reckless?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

If my comments don't matter to you, ignore them. Evidently they do enough for you to have replied though.

 

 

 

But you also made a claim about who was looking at the big picture. I commented on that.

 

 

From a political perspective, Obama may well be playing out a larger "big picture" game that are engineered to benefit him, his "legacy" and his party. In this political gamesmanship, Obama may well "win" and the Republicans may well "lose." But the political gamesmanship aside, from an economic perspective, Obama is clearly not seeing, understanding or caring about the bigger picture. He's extremely short-term and narrowly focused.

 

I think he knows exactly what he's doing long-term.  Obama believes that it is government's role to ensure equality of outcome.  He believes we live in a fundamentally unfair country where people are stuck in their current economic class forever.  He wishes to raise taxes on the wealthy (defined as anyone making more than $200,000 a year!) and quite literally spread the wealth around.  He's also apparently a egomaniacal narcissist who revels in torturing his political opposition and enjoys creating constant crises.  Put those together and it explains his current actions perfectly.  

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

Did he state that?  I don't know if that's true.

 

Actually it's not that I don't "believe" in them (whatever that means), but I do oppose all of them and consider them, properly understood, to be theft.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

They want a plan that cuts spending and keeps rates stable while eliminating loopholes and deductions for the upper income brackets.  This will not harm small business, but will bring in more revenue from the wealthy.

 

This is no different than raising tax rates. And there's no way to say that it won't hurt small businesses or investment in general. Any money that you take from the "wealthy" runs the risk of curtailing investment which could harm the economy at many levels.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think he knows exactly what he's doing long-term.  Obama believes that it is government's role to ensure equality of outcome.  He believes we live in a fundamentally unfair country where people are stuck in their current economic class forever.  He wishes to raise taxes on the wealthy (defined as anyone making more than $200,000 a year!) and quite literally spread the wealth around.  He's also apparently a egomaniacal narcissist who revels in torturing his political opposition and enjoys creating constant crises.  Put those together and it explains his current actions perfectly.  

 

You're probably right.

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 #103 of 238
Obama: "I'll cut these programs here, and here, and here, and extend all tax cuts for the middle class, if you give up tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans."

Republicans: "We'll give up the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans if you... **** YOU! You refuse to compromise!!!"
post #104 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obama: "I'll cut these programs here, and here, and here, and extend all tax cuts for the middle class, if you give up tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans."
Republicans: "We'll give up the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans if you... **** YOU! You refuse to compromise!!!"

 

Stop lying.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obama: "I'll cut these programs here, and here, and here, and extend all tax cuts for the middle class, if you give up tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans."

Republicans: "We'll give up the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans if you... **** YOU! You refuse to compromise!!!"

Stop lying.

Now you explain how what Obama offered wasn't a compromise, and what the Republicans asked for in exchange for letting the top tax cuts expire.
post #106 of 238

For someone who claims to be so independent and unaffiliated with the Republican party, MJ sure seems to toe shit out of the GOP line here.  The Republicans have not offered specifics--they've just cried about Obama not negotiating with himself and proposing what he ran on and received a mandate from the people on.

 

“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 #107 of 238

Well, now the Republicans have offered specifics. A massive tax hike for the middle class, while keeping the tax cuts for the rich intact. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

post #108 of 238

I thought they were still being vague about which loopholes to cut.  But, surprise indeed. 

 

“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 #109 of 238
Funny how for trumpy and SDW, (most likely) the republican proposal would actually mean less money in their pocket than the Obama proposal.
post #110 of 238

Nothing is a surprise with the GOP Party. The same old saying rich get richer and poor suffer more and middle class that is their strategy.Nothing changes with them.
 

post #111 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Nothing is a surprise with the GOP Party. The same old saying rich get richer and poor suffer more and middle class that is their strategy.Nothing changes with them.

 
It IS their strategy to make the poor poorer and to make more of the middle class poor. A huge supply of a cheap labor force means more profit. More productivity too, higher per-capita GDP when the Wal•Marts of the country have plenty of people "thankful" for their minimum-wage part-time jobs with no benefits. The MJs of the nation deny this simple economic fact.
post #112 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It IS their strategy to make the poor poorer and to make more of the middle class poor. A huge supply of a cheap labor force means more profit. More productivity too, higher per-capita GDP when the Wal•Marts of the country have plenty of people "thankful" for their minimum-wage part-time jobs with no benefits. The MJs of the nation deny this simple economic fact.

 

The scariest part is that you actually believe all that.

 

1eek.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 #113 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It IS their strategy to make the poor poorer and to make more of the middle class poor. A huge supply of a cheap labor force means more profit. More productivity too, higher per-capita GDP when the Wal•Marts of the country have plenty of people "thankful" for their minimum-wage part-time jobs with no benefits. The MJs of the nation deny this simple economic fact.

 

The scariest part is that you actually believe all that.

 

1eek.gif


The scariest part is people who dismiss it as a possibility, and fail to recognize it as a valid motivation for opposition to a) minimum wage and b) welfare programs.

 

post #114 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Not only will they kick it down the road, they will double down on stupid.

Sadly, this is the most likely course of action. 2013 is where we see China start to slowly surpass the USA to eventually become the world superpower of the mid-21st-Century.

The USA in 2060 will be like the UK now, in terms of Empire lost.

It's sad.
post #115 of 238

Every time they kick the can down the road, they draw more attention to the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.

 

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 #116 of 238
Watch DeSouza's documentary "Obama 2016"... Obama is single-handedly dismantling the USA...

Obama's not "Left"... He's... insane.

Eliminate the Debt Ceiling? Hah. Guess why. To bankrupt the USA himself.

Obama's doublespeak is even more insidious than GWBush's.
post #117 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Every time they kick the can down the road, they draw more attention to the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.


Bingo Bingo Bingo. EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING.

The government, corporations, China, Obama, whoever...

No limit to bankrupting the USA (even more).

Default replaced with Inflation... but no difference.

Federal Reserve... A private corporation, not "federal".

Fiat Currency... The time has come to pay the piper.

My Dad still thinks they use gold/foreign reserves or something for the USD. Nice sentiment, and he's a smart guy and great father, but as I understand that time has long, long gone.
post #118 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obama: "I'll cut these programs here, and here, and here, and extend all tax cuts for the middle class, if you give up tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans."
Republicans: "We'll give up the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans if you... **** YOU! You refuse to compromise!!!"

 

Obama has proposed no real cuts whatsoever.  Let's get that straight right away.  What he has said is that there will be no deal under any circumstances where tax rates on the "rich" don't go up.  Republicans have offered equal and greater revenue additions without raising rates, which they feel will harm the economy.  Now you tell me..who is being unreasonable?  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Well, now the Republicans have offered specifics. A massive tax hike for the middle class, while keeping the tax cuts for the rich intact. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

 

Please describe this "massive tax hike" for the middle class they want.  And by the way, please stop calling it "tax cuts" for the rich.  We are talking about rates that have been in place for over a decade.  There is no "tax cut" being proposed for anyone.  There is no "paying for" said "tax cut."  The rates are the rates, and they are more fair in terms of how much the rich pay then they were prior.   The rich pay more of the total tax bill than they did, and millions of low income people don't pay taxes at all, where they once did.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Funny how for trumpy and SDW, (most likely) the republican proposal would actually mean less money in their pocket than the Obama proposal.

 

1. That's not true, not from what I've seen.  

2. If it was true, I might still support it given I thought it made sense.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It IS their strategy to make the poor poorer and to make more of the middle class poor. 

 

Yes, it is the Democrats strategy to do that.  

 

 

 

Quote:
A huge supply of a cheap labor force means more profit. More productivity too, higher per-capita GDP when the Wal•Marts of the country have plenty of people "thankful" for their minimum-wage part-time jobs with no benefits. The MJs of the nation deny this simple economic fact.

 

And your President wishes to have as many people dependent on government as possible.  And he thinks you're "rich" if you make $200,000 a year.  

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

 

Actually it's not that I don't "believe" in them (whatever that means), but I do oppose all of them and consider them, properly understood, to be theft.

 

Well, you tend to oppose not just taxes but all government too, right?  So I suppose that's not a surprise.  That said, would you support ANY taxation to support even a minimal government of some kind?  

 

 

 

Quote:
This is no different than raising tax rates. And there's no way to say that it won't hurt small businesses or investment in general. Any money that you take from the "wealthy" runs the risk of curtailing investment which could harm the economy at many levels.

 

It is different, because it can exempt small business by not focusing on their deductions.   I do agree that taking more money hurts the economy somewhat no matter what is done.  I suppose I meant "hurts less."  

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

Well, you tend to oppose not just taxes but all government too, right?  So I suppose that's not a surprise.  That said, would you support ANY taxation to support even a minimal government of some kind?

 

Short answer: Yes.

 

Long answer: I believe taxation is theft and immoral. Immorality should be reduced or minimized to the smallest amount if for some reason it cannot be eliminated. The same applies to the general proposition that that state is the legitimate user of force and coercion.

 

Put differently: In a purely philosophical perspective they should be eliminated completely; from a practical perspective there might need to be some to fund a minimal "night watchman state."

 

Truth be told, I don't have a problem with the government properly kept within its appropriate boundaries (protecting the basic rights of life, liberty and property of its citizens.) The problem I have is figuring out how to keep it within that boundary for any length of time. I've noodled on this, but haven't come up with a good solution. The best I can imagine is a new and improved constitution that builds on what the US had (and the original Articles of Confederation) and adds to it some of the lessons we've learned since then and explicitly codifies some things like: separation of education and state, separation of banking/money and state, separation of trade and state, etc.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It is different, because it can exempt small business by not focusing on their deductions.   I do agree that taking more money hurts the economy somewhat no matter what is done.  I suppose I meant "hurts less."  

 

Fair enough.


Edited by MJ1970 - 12/4/12 at 8:30am

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

Reply

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

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