I Hope Obama Doesn't Cave On Taxes.

UncleBuck said:

plus, those shitty jobs are in TEXAS.

some of the texans around here speak of $500 ounces. it must suck to live in texas.

Click to expand...

Lived there for a while in the early 90's, lotta hot woman in Texas I must admit....and yeah it sucked, the laws are archaic and crime is nuts there. As far as the qualiy of weed, in my time there I never had green smoke, always Mexican shit weed....real smoke was just too expensive.

sync0s said:

Wrong.

Click to expand...

Actually I'm right and nothing you quoted even attempts to dispute what I'm saying.

Milton Friedman was Reagan's economic adviser and Reagan increased spending running up huge deficits during his recession. The interview you posted was talking about a surplus, not a deficit. So he was talking about tax cuts in a strong economy.

So no. That is not an economist talking about cutting spending during a recession. It's an economist talking about using a revenue surplus for the purposes of tax cuts. Whole different thing.

The economist you quoted did work in the white house and when he did he most definitely did not advocate cutting spending during a recession when he was responsible for the outcome.

I guess it's easier to spout ideology when you aren't the one people are going to point their finger at when it destroys the economy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason you don't support cutting government spending is because it lowers our national GDP and thus our economy ends up losing money, thus making the economy worse, less jobs, failing infrastructure, etc. Right? We have our options to increase the other areas of our GDP beyond the amount that we would cut from our governments spending. We need to use these options, and our GDP can still have the potential to rise. A raising GDP means better economic performance which means jobs, businesses, etc.

Click to expand...

It also means cutting essential services to middle class/poor Americans, the ones that need it the most. And it's all being done so we can make sure that the richest Americans can continue to pay a lower portion of their taxes than everyone else.

If we made the rich pay their fair share, we wouldn't need to cut essential services to American working class people. When you cut services to the working class, it has the same effect on them as raising their taxes. It's basically a regressive tax on the middle class or the poor.

If for example you were to cut funding to transportation, bus fairs would go up. The result is no different than raising taxes on people who ride the bus. Who rides the bus? Working class and poor people. If you raise the age on social security or medicare, you're making those people spend that money out of pocket. The practical effect is raising the taxes on the elderly.

So that's what we are doing when we are talking about cutting spending. We are doing something that has the exact same effect as raising the taxes of the poor, middle class, and elderly. And for what? So we can continue to give tax cuts for billionaires, give free money to multinational oil companies, and make sure the largest corporations in America pay no taxes? Fuck that.

Conservative economic theory might sound really good and fair, but the real world effect is that the poor, middle class, and the elderly pay more money so the ultra-wealthy can increase their profits. It's class warfare. The people pushing for this know what they are doing, they just can't admit it publicly because they would have no popular support. Unless you're extremely wealthy, conservative economic policies go against your interests.

I am pretty sure the President remembers the last time he caved on taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

He won't be doing that again.

The rich got a tax break because Bush projected a Surplus. No Surplus? No justification for the tax cuts. It is that simple.

Repeal them.

txpete77 said:

What the Democrats are doing (and have been doing for years) is playing a slight-of-hand trick, so to speak. Democrats are of the mind that tax increases are theonly way to raise revenue.

Click to expand...

When the wealthy paid their fair share, we didn't have massive deficits in this country. We've spent more than a decade cutting taxes to the wealthy and guess what? It didn't create a strong economy. It did exactly the opposite.

While at first glance most would think that this is the easiest way to raise revenue, and the reality is that it is actually the easiest way to decrease the revenues. Maryland and New York are good examples of this; both states have raised taxes on the wealthiest of their citizens. Did they experience the increase in revenue the politicians promised? No, in fact they experienced the opposite effect - they lost revenue.

Click to expand...

The idea that tax cuts to the wealthy increase revenue to the point where they pay for themselves is a complete fraud. There is no examples of this happening ever on a national level in our modern history.

What happened is that those states that engaged in punishing the wealthiest found that many of those individuals (if they had the ability) moved to more tax friendly, large economy states (Florida, Texas, etc.) Money, like electricity, water, and countless other things will try to find the path of least resistance.

Click to expand...

So you think if we raise taxes on a national level they'll all move out of the country? Seems unlikely, but if they do, fuck them. Let them leave.

What "Essential services" does the Federal Government provide?

The trend of widening inequality appears to be driven less by tax rates than by economic forces, such as wages that rise fastest for the skilled and educated. But some economists worry that American society and democracy will become less stable if this trend continues.
Whichever side is right, ending tax cuts for the rich will not close the federal budget gap by itself. Yes, it's big money. The tax breaks are estimated at $700 billion over the next decade. But Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission last week outlined a goal of nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years to restore the government's fiscal health

The United States did a lot better under Clinton's tax rates than we did under Bush's.

You can look it up.

Proof is in the pudding. Not interested in Right Wing Fairy Tales and Horror Stories. Stick with the facts.

In my opinion no one under, say, 50 has a real idea of how futile it has become. Reason I say that is you have to have seen it repeated so many times that their words become meaningless. That, plus I have never seen the divide as wide as it is now. And the stakes have never been higher.

There is always someone who promises to change all that. They feel how we do about it, and they won't cave to special interests. Over and over. I'm here to tell you that person doesn't exist. You can't believe any of them and even the few who truly have your interests at heart cannot overcome the forces that don't. You see this play out enough times and you lose any optimism that it can change. I have.

NoDrama said:

What "Essential services" does the Federal Government provide?

Click to expand...

Medicare, medicaid, social security, the EPA, the FDA, the SEC, VA, dept of transportation, dept of education, etc.

You cut medicare or social security, it has the same effect as raising the taxes of the elderly. You cut medicaid and it raises the taxes of poor people. You cut the FDA and you potentially cause health problems, increasing Americans medical bills. You cut the SEC, more Americans will fall victim to financial scams. Cut the VA, it has the same effect as taxing those who fought for us. Cut the department of transportation, it has the effect of taxing people who do things like take trains, in some cases drivers. Cut the department of education, it lowers the quality of education of parents.

All this so we can continue to give tax cuts to billionaires? How high are you?

BendBrewer said:

The United States did a lot better under Clinton's tax rates than we did under Bush's.

You can look it up.

Proof is in the pudding. Not interested in Right Wing Fairy Tales and Horror Stories. Stick with the facts.

Click to expand...

Under Eisenhower the tax rate on the ultra-wealthy was around 90%. Strongest economy we've ever had. The idea that low taxes on the rich = a stronger economy is a complete myth. There has never been any evidence of this being true and quite a bit of evidence proving the opposite is true.

Nevertheless, on December 23, 1913, taking advantage of the absence of congressmen opposed to the creation of a fiat monetary system during the Christmas break, the Federal Reserve Act was passed.
Years later, during the great depression, Congressman Louis T. McFadden (who served twelve years as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency) asked for congressional investigations of criminal conspiracy to establish the privately owned 'Federal Reserve System'. He requested impeachment of Federal officers who had violated oaths of office both in establishing and directing the Federal Reserve -- imploring Congress to investigate an incredible scope of overt criminal acts by the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve Banks. McFadden even suggested that the Federal Reserve deliberately triggered the great stock market crash of 1929, in order to eventually force the passage of the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, which suspended the gold standard. In describing the FED, McFadden remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932: "Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the misadministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".

Dan Kone said:

All this so we can continue to give tax cuts to billionaires? How high are you?

Click to expand...

When did I EVER say I supported tax cuts for Billionaires? I will wait patiently while you peruse the 8,000 plus posts so you can attempt to make your point have one iota of merit.

Dan Kone said:

Actually I'm right and nothing you quoted even attempts to dispute what I'm saying.

Milton Friedman was Reagan's economic adviser and Reagan increased spending running up huge deficits during his recession. The interview you posted was talking about a surplus, not a deficit. So he was talking about tax cuts in a strong economy.

So no. That is not an economist talking about cutting spending during a recession. It's an economist talking about using a revenue surplus for the purposes of tax cuts. Whole different thing.

The economist you quoted did work in the white house and when he did he most definitely did not advocate cutting spending during a recession when he was responsible for the outcome.

I guess it's easier to spout ideology when you aren't the one people are going to point their finger at when it destroys the economy.

Click to expand...

Dude... really. Do the words "on any pretext what soever" mean anything to you? So what if he was his advisor. Key word: advisor.. meaning he doesn't call the shots, he just advises.

FRIEDMAN: Right. That’s why for a long time now I have been in favor of any tax cut, under any circumstances, in any way, in any form whatsoever.
ROBINSON: On any pretext.
FRIEDMAN: On any pretext because that’s the only way to keep down government spending.

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

It also means cutting essential services to middle class/poor Americans, the ones that need it the most. And it's all being done so we can make sure that the richest Americans can continue to pay a lower portion of their taxes than everyone else.

If we made the rich pay their fair share, we wouldn't need to cut essential services to American working class people. When you cut services to the working class, it has the same effect on them as raising their taxes. It's basically a regressive tax on the middle class or the poor.

If for example you were to cut funding to transportation, bus fairs would go up. The result is no different than raising taxes on people who ride the bus. Who rides the bus? Working class and poor people. If you raise the age on social security or medicare, you're making those people spend that money out of pocket. The practical effect is raising the taxes on the elderly.

So that's what we are doing when we are talking about cutting spending. We are doing something that has the exact same effect as raising the taxes of the poor, middle class, and elderly. And for what? So we can continue to give tax cuts for billionaires, give free money to multinational oil companies, and make sure the largest corporations in America pay no taxes? Fuck that.

Conservative economic theory might sound really good and fair, but the real world effect is that the poor, middle class, and the elderly pay more money so the ultra-wealthy can increase their profits. It's class warfare. The people pushing for this know what they are doing, they just can't admit it publicly because they would have no popular support. Unless you're extremely wealthy, conservative economic policies go against your interests.

Click to expand...

War on Drugs $15billion (2010), Iraq/Afghanistan $159.3billion (2011), Foreign Aid $51.7billion (proposed by Obama), Foreign Bases $250billion (2009), United Nations Costs $6billion (2009), Oil subsidies $36.5billion (2010)

Are you serious? This is a small example of what could be cut, none of which are your programs you mention. This is $518.5billion dollar cut that does not affect the programs on the middle/low class. There is so much other spending our government does that actually helps the rich, or is completely against the poor, that we can cut as well. Do you think I'm stupid or something, that I don't look at the US budget. Or do you truly believe the only thing our government pays for is things that help the poor?

Dan Kone said:

Medicare, medicaid, social security, the EPA, the FDA, the SEC, VA, dept of transportation, dept of education, etc.

You cut medicare or social security, it has the same effect as raising the taxes of the elderly. You cut medicaid and it raises the taxes of poor people. You cut the FDA and you potentially cause health problems, increasing Americans medical bills. You cut the SEC, more Americans will fall victim to financial scams. Cut the VA, it has the same effect as taxing those who fought for us. Cut the department of transportation, it has the effect of taxing people who do things like take trains, in some cases drivers. Cut the department of education, it lowers the quality of education of parents.

All this so we can continue to give tax cuts to billionaires? How high are you?

Click to expand...

The "elderly " are the richest segment of our society. Look it up.

Of coarse that doesn't fit with your idealogical bullshit arguments.

You could confiscate every penny the rich have and your life wouldn't get a single ounce better.

Class warfare is foolish.

jeff f said:

The "elderly " are the richest segment of our society. Look it up.

Of coarse that doesn't fit with your idealogical bullshit arguments.

You could confiscate every penny the rich have and your life wouldn't get a single ounce better.

Class warfare is foolish.

Click to expand...

actually, when the wealth of a nation is more evenly spread out life is totally better.

but you don't believe the truth.

our nation was doing better when more people had more disposable income, which creates demand.

you want to blame the government at all costs.

not the tyrannical rich who will do ANYTHING, including kicking people to the curb, to keep their wealth....

how's that for a dose of reality for ya....

jeff f said:

The "elderly " are the richest segment of our society. Look it up.

Of coarse that doesn't fit with your idealogical bullshit arguments.

You could confiscate every penny the rich have and your life wouldn't get a single ounce better.

Class warfare is foolish.

Click to expand...

why do you agree with GIVING money to very rich people? they dont need the money, they have plenty of their own. paying a few percent more in taxes isnt going to make them sell their mansions and fire all their employees. they dont create all the jobs, smaller businesses do. also the very rich spend the money on themselves

lets say we taxed a billionaire ten thousand bucks. is he going to miss it? no. BUT, how many poor people could that money feed? how many lives could be affected in a positive way? and thats just ten thousand bucks

Luger187 said:

why do you agree with GIVING money to very rich people? they dont need the money, they have plenty of their own. paying a few percent more in taxes isnt going to make them sell their mansions and fire all their employees. they dont create all the jobs, smaller businesses do. also the very rich spend the money on themselves

lets say we taxed a billionaire ten thousand bucks. is he going to miss it? no. BUT, how many poor people could that money feed? how many lives could be affected in a positive way? and thats just ten thousand bucks

Click to expand...

exactly. Small business creates something like 60% of our new jobs; placing super tax brackets on the super rich really wont effect job creaton much at all IMO and we do need to get our tax system back into being a true progressive system as necessary. But that wont do it alone, Syn0s points out half a trillion in spending and I'm sure you can find another half trillion in defense... Couple that with responsible entitlement reform - preserving as much benefits as possible while "bending the curve" - and you've got a pretty balanced debt reduction deal IMO.

Only problem is that we shouldn't be focused on debt reduction with a 9.2% unemployment rate, we should be focusing on JOBS now and the debt later, over the long term and during a healthy economy so as to avoid further damage to an already fragile economy.

Job creation, job creation blah blah blah. The tax breaks given to the wealthy, big oil and other corporations does not do that. Trickle down never did work. And today, even if they do create any jobs, they will not be in America.

mame said:

exactly. Small business creates something like 60% of our new jobs; placing super tax brackets on the super rich really wont effect job creaton much at all IMO and we do need to get our tax system back into being a true progressive system as necessary. But that wont do it alone, Syn0s points out half a trillion in spending and I'm sure you can find another half trillion in defense... Couple that with responsible entitlement reform - preserving as much benefits as possible while "bending the curve" - and you've got a pretty balanced debt reduction deal IMO.

Only problem is that we shouldn't be focused on debt reduction with a 9.2% unemployment rate, we should be focusing on JOBS now and the debt later, over the long term and during a healthy economy so as to avoid further damage to an already fragile economy.

Click to expand...

spending is also a problem. however, we shouldnt just rake all the spending away. we should go through it with a fine toothed comb and figure out what we need, what works best, and what doesnt. look at cost Vs. benefits. if we dont do that, we may end up destroying the whole system by pulling the carpet out from under ourselves.

the top 400 people or so own more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans. that is about half the country. that is a problem

Luger187 said:

spending is also a problem. however, we shouldnt just rake all the spending away. we should go through it with a fine toothed comb and figure out what we need, what works best, and what doesnt. look at cost Vs. benefits. if we dont do that, we may end up destroying the whole system by pulling the carpet out from under ourselves.

the top 400 people or so own more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans. that is about half the country. that is a problem

Click to expand...

I agree 100%, let me ask you a couple questions if you dont mind... see if I can zero in on your thinking: Are you a proponent of Austerity NOW or are do you favor a more long term approach? If Austerity is a long term problem to you, than are you opposed to infrastructure stimulus spending in the short term to deal with unemployment? And if Austerity is an immediate problem in your eyes, aren't you worried about the effects of spending cuts on the already fragile recovery, specifically the prospect of even more increased joblessness?