That's a wonderful fucking plan. Tax the most overtaxed income bracket some more. A two income family busts it's ass to make 80-100k and you want them to help balance the budget. There's important federal social welfare programs to fund after all.Originally Posted by MadScientist
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
What are your thoughts on the Laffer Curve?Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
It's a joke
Seriously the real questions on the Laffer curve are where is the maximum, vs where the current tax rates are, and how does the curve change with change in income levels. Note, in 2003, the United States Department of the Treasury released a non-partisan economic study showing that the 1981 Kemp-Roth tax act produced a major loss in government revenues of almost 3% of GDP.
Ah yes, the standard republican yakking point that a lesser tax cut is a tax increaseThat's a wonderful fucking plan. Tax the most overtaxed income bracket some more. A two income family busts it's ass to make 80-100k and you want them to help balance the budget. There's important federal social welfare programs to fund after all.Seriously, do you really think the deficit is a good thing? I don't approve of borrowing from China to pay for tax cuts. I don't approve of having a president needing to kiss Chinese ass so they won't cut our funding off.
You can go off on cutting spending, but it didn't happen when the republicans controlled everything (even if you remove the war spending, the deficit still shot up). So what makes you think anything will happen on that front if we give them another chance?
By the way Skin, what are you, lover of porn, doing hanging with the holy rollers?
That's dishonest. Absolute tax receipts increased dramatically, because the economy grew because of the tax cuts. Same as under Coolidge and Kennedy and Dubya's tax cuts, and same as reducing cap gains taxes here as well as business taxes in the former Soviet Republics and Ireland, etc. The revenues may decrease relative to the GDP, but it's because the GDP grows so much. Bush's tax cuts increased tax receipts by about 200 billion/year. Problem was that government grew at an absurd rate because of automatic spending increases overwhelmingly in entitlement programs, new entitlement and governmental programs and also defense and war spending.It's a joke
Seriously the real questions on the Laffer curve are where is the maximum, vs where the current tax rates are, and how does the curve change with change in income levels. Note, in 2003, the United States Department of the Treasury released a non-partisan economic study showing that the 1981 Kemp-Roth tax act produced a major loss in government revenues of almost 3% of GDP.
You're the one who wants "no tax break" and has been pointed out Obamarama is set on letting the current tax rate expire which *GASP* would equal a tax increase, no matter how cleverly you or his campaign want to phrase it.Ah yes, the standard republican yakking point that a lesser tax cut is a tax increaseThat's a wonderful fucking plan. Tax the most overtaxed income bracket some more. A two income family busts it's ass to make 80-100k and you want them to help balance the budget. There's important federal social welfare programs to fund after all.
You can go off on cutting spending, but it didn't happen when the republicans controlled everything (even if you remove the war spending, the deficit still shot up). So what makes you think anything will happen on that front if we give them another chance?
By the way Skin, what are you, lover of porn, doing hanging with the holy rollers?
I'll trust McCain to curb spending more than I will Obama, although as you point out, voting republican these days doesn't guarantee that. What I can guarantee is that McCain will take less money from me than Obama, and that's about as much as I can control by voting.
Just because I like watching people fuck doesn't mean I like a socialist cock in my ass. I like my money. I like spending my money. I don't want some motherfucker telling me he's going to take my money and give it out willy nilly to the poor simply because "I can afford it." Well, the poor can suck me off twice a week, because you know what, they've got the time, so why not?
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
texaspackerbacker wrote:
On the most significant point above, Obama's claim of cutting taxes for 95% of the people, the HUGE reason why that simply is NOT true is because his figure begins at a point AFTER he fails to renew the Bush tax cuts--which in effect, is a LARGE tax increase. Yeah, maybe after taking THAT kind of a bite out of people's incomes, maybe 95% get a little bit back. The even MORE significant point is that even Obama admits that his program is a net TAX INCREASE--in other words, his sinister redistribution of wealth away from upper income people outweighs what he intends to give back on the lower end--even if you disregard his nonrenewal of the Bush Tax cuts. Thus, his program amounts to same ol' same ol'--liberal TAX AND SPEND crap.
MadScientist responded:
Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.
Texaspackerbacker responds back:
In order to get the Bush tax cuts past the Democrats in Congress, Republicans had to agree to time limits of 2009/2010. The whole thing--which basically amounts to across the board cuts--will end within the next couple of years unless Congress--which is now heavily Democrat and likely to get worse that way--takes positive action to extend them.
Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama. Even though the NET EFFECT of Obama NOT renewing the Bush tax cuts and pushing his own plan would benefit nowhere near the 95% he claims, at least his "cuts" would be a minor positive for growth. They WOULD be if not for the fact that the amount subtracted due to his cuts is greatly outweighed by the amount added in his massive redistribution of wealth scheme--confiscating much more of the income of people in the higher income ranges. So even if you disregard his NOT extending the Bush tax cuts, Obama's program STILL is a net tax INCREASE instead of a cut.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Again, Obama's plan will continue the existing tax cuts and add more tax cuts for all but those over $250000 ($200k for individuals). That's it, period. I don't know where you (and skin and others) are getting different ideas, but they are not from Obama's proposals, or independent analysis.
What I am is a deficit hawk. I want to see it attacked asap, but in a sustainable way. To me it's more important than tax cuts including cuts for me, but given the current economic situation I recognize the need to try something for stimulation. As for spending, I tend to favor things that give the US good value for the $$ spent (education, research, infrastructure, and yes even defense). I'm in favor of early childhood development and intervention programs that are shown to reduce kids turning to crime later. (Is that tax and spend liberalism or pro-growth and smaller government?)Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama.
You're absolutely right about Obama and the 250K. And your post seems pretty reasonable. I too favor a pragmatic approach when it comes to governmental programs - they ought to work to stay funded. Problem with the 250K limit to the taxes is that it will hurt a lot of businesses, and ultimately, raising taxes will reduce tax receipts and Obama will be forced into more cuts and or more taxes. And taxing businesses via his proposed increase in the cap gains tax will drive businesses away, even as he claims to want to keep them here (no tax breaks for businesses that leave the country).Again, Obama's plan will continue the existing tax cuts and add more tax cuts for all but those over $250000 ($200k for individuals). That's it, period. I don't know where you (and skin and others) are getting different ideas, but they are not from Obama's proposals, or independent analysis.
What I am is a deficit hawk. I want to see it attacked asap, but in a sustainable way. To me it's more important than tax cuts including cuts for me, but given the current economic situation I recognize the need to try something for stimulation. As for spending, I tend to favor things that give the US good value for the $$ spent (education, research, infrastructure, and yes even defense). I'm in favor of early childhood development and intervention programs that are shown to reduce kids turning to crime later. (Is that tax and spend liberalism or pro-growth and smaller government?)Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama.
MadScientist, what evidence do you have that Obama intends to continue the Bush tax cuts as you say? This runs contrary to everything I've ever heard. Since you make so much use of these "truth squad" websites, some assurance from something with a reputation for objectivity would be nice.Again, Obama's plan will continue the existing tax cuts and add more tax cuts for all but those over $250000 ($200k for individuals). That's it, period. I don't know where you (and skin and others) are getting different ideas, but they are not from Obama's proposals, or independent analysis.
What I am is a deficit hawk. I want to see it attacked asap, but in a sustainable way. To me it's more important than tax cuts including cuts for me, but given the current economic situation I recognize the need to try something for stimulation. As for spending, I tend to favor things that give the US good value for the $$ spent (education, research, infrastructure, and yes even defense). I'm in favor of early childhood development and intervention programs that are shown to reduce kids turning to crime later. (Is that tax and spend liberalism or pro-growth and smaller government?)Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama.
As for your other point, you stated you would prefer that the government take the massive money grabbed by the government from his "redistribution" tax increase for people earning over $250,000, and NOT use it to decrease taxes for people of income less than $250 or 200,000. First of all, regardless of what you or other "deficit hawks" want, it's safe to say it ain't gonna happen. Far more likely, given the rotten and liely to get worse DEm/lib majority in Congress is the scenario of that money going for massive new social programs--as that, after all, is what Obama-esque liberals are all about.
If you DID get your way, however, the result could be even worse. Paying down the debt has a dampening/deflationary effect on the economy. That would definitely be the third best of the three scenarios: tax cut--best, spending--second best, pay down debt--third.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Look, changing the tax rates won't mean jack-crap if the feds don't CUT discretionary spending. The reason why the deficit is so huge is due to several factors, but the main one is that THEY SPEND TOO MUCH!
It's not the EEEEEEVIL Bush tax cuts, it's actions like the raiding of the Soc. Sec. trust fund plus all these new federal programs and "entitlements". When the baby boomers start retiring in the next few years, this problem will only balloon.
Government needs to come up with ideas such as means-testing Soc. Security (if you have enough assets on hand, you get either less paid out to you). With longer life expectancies and fewer paying into the Soc. Sec. system, the amt. of revenue to meet the obligations will dwindle. An even more effective idea would be to allow Americans the CHOICE of opting out of Soc. Security and into individual retirement accounts. Taking 8% off the top of my check (15% for self employed people) to a system we ALL know will die seems to be ludicrous at best.
Do we need to fund military bases in Korea, Germany and Japan? No. Even if we pare back to just 1-2 facilities in these countries, we could save significant tax revenue. It's not an isolationist view, it's a pragmatic view considering what the next several decades are going to mean to the U.S. economy.
-digital dean
No "TROLLS" allowed!
You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit........
I am for scaling back operations in Iraq at a responsible pace. The strategic judgments on that I'd defer to the military commanders in the theater.You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit
If they agree boots on the ground are better served in Afghanistan (or home), then great, phase down and withdraw.
-digital dean
No "TROLLS" allowed!
Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.
Look, I'm in favor of controlling ALL spending, not just military spending. There are some practical things that will have to be addressed (over the next few years).Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.
-Cost effective replacements for the B-52 which is beyond ancient technology
-Replacements for the F-15 and F-16 which were started in the 1970s
and that's just for starters.
Reshaping how we fight future conflicts politically and militarily will greatly affect this. If we citizens do nothing re: staying informed on these topics and keeping on our Sens. and Reps. in DC then we deserve what happens to us. We can blame DC all we want regardless of who is in office. But if we as a nation have a passive approach on this and only get involved when it reaches crisis stage, then we have no one to pissed off at except ourselves.
-digital dean
No "TROLLS" allowed!
Shouldn't this be a percentage, not a number? I am interested in the point, but it doesn't make sense.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
We spend money on the military frivolously...i agree we need it, but we can't give them a blank check.Look, I'm in favor of controlling ALL spending, not just military spending. There are some practical things that will have to be addressed (over the next few years).Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.
-Cost effective replacements for the B-52 which is beyond ancient technology
-Replacements for the F-15 and F-16 which were started in the 1970s
and that's just for starters.
Reshaping how we fight future conflicts politically and militarily will greatly affect this. If we citizens do nothing re: staying informed on these topics and keeping on our Sens. and Reps. in DC then we deserve what happens to us. We can blame DC all we want regardless of who is in office. But if we as a nation have a passive approach on this and only get involved when it reaches crisis stage, then we have no one to pissed off at except ourselves.
Nor do i approve of outsourcing the military to Halliburton with no bid contracts. And the fraud that is perpetrated against us by our contractors.
Nor do i approve of losing track of 9 billion in Iraq.
Why do you think we should not be in the war?You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news..._tpc/index.htm
If you scroll down a bit, you will find:
Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000
What's your source?
1) I agree that something closer to straight tax increase (to levels that were not disastrous when they were in place) won't get passed in this climate. Note, don't bother blathering about dem spending, repubs spend just as much, they just like to go into debt (or deeper into debt) to do it.As for your other point, you stated you would prefer that the government take the massive money grabbed by the government from his "redistribution" tax increase for people earning over $250,000, and NOT use it to decrease taxes for people of income less than $250 or 200,000. First of all, regardless of what you or other "deficit hawks" want, it's safe to say it ain't gonna happen. Far more likely, given the rotten and liely to get worse DEm/lib majority in Congress is the scenario of that money going for massive new social programs--as that, after all, is what Obama-esque liberals are all about.
If you DID get your way, however, the result could be even worse. Paying down the debt has a dampening/deflationary effect on the economy. That would definitely be the third best of the three scenarios: tax cut--best, spending--second best, pay down debt--third.
2) In my post I recognized the need for stimulus with the tanking economy, which is why I mentioned keeping the cuts on the below 75K group, where most of the additional cash is likely to be spent, and spent right away.
3) My take is that the staggering debt and huge deficits are also a drag on the economy (higher interest rates, weaker dollar which is like a tax increase, without the benefit of potentially usful government spending). You act like debt and deficits are ways of getting free money. It also puts us at a huge risk - if China ever decides they can survive a collapse of the US economy, we are dead. Even if they don't do it, they'll own us.
With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.
There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.
But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote