I am not saying that you are actually saying this, but it seems like either side likes to create this false dichotomy that corps are bad and govt good, or govt is bad and corps are good. Both can be good if properly regulated. Corps need to be regulated by the govt, and the govt needs to be regulated by the people. Right now neither is regulated very well. In America as it is today, the only ones really getting regulated are the people. It is a sickly amusing irony.No no no.
This is the mantra.
Corporations evil, government good. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Part of "the program" whatever that is, is to drastically increase Medicaid. That's going to cost $$$$. Health care? $$$$ (and I have a nice bridge to sell anyone who really believes that government is going to save on the TCO of health care- Medicare projections vs. actual costs for example).
Yes, we're going to spend spend spend out way out of this financial situation, but we're going to increase taxes and that's going to decrease what the government (read us) owes.
Show me on paper how that works.
You're acting ignorantBaseless?
The government raided SS - Check.
Government programs far exceeding projected costs- Check.
Government spending increases in good times and bad- Check.
So when did the federal government ever take a tax increase and not spend it?
You know what won't pay down the debt for sure? Spending the money not paying down the debt.
So let's get this on the record.
Assuming a tax increase, will Congress spend it or dedicate it to paying down the debt, or if both how do you think it divided?
History is on my side. Discredit me and show when the federal government has increased taxes to pay for reducing the deficit, and I mean in a substantial non smoke and mirrors way.
You know, I think I hear your mother calling you. Maybe you should go find out what she wants.You're acting ignorant
They have to spend more when the times hit hard. They have to spend more on things like unemployment, job programs, and other shit. Fuck, it's just general economics. At least read a book or take a college level class on the stuff
EDIT: One of the other stuff(this will blow your mind) is creating debt because the tax revenues go down, and so yeah... we go into debt when a recession hits because we like to keep our standards of living high, and because we like to fund wars/armies/naval-fleets, etc. Although, we do like to cut space programs.
I think you need only look at the tax rates of WW2 and the aftermath, and at the 1993 tax increases to see that raising taxes has been used to reduce deficits.History is on my side. Discredit me and show when the federal government has increased taxes to pay for reducing the deficit, and I mean in a substantial non smoke and mirrors way.
If these tax cuts had been coupled with equal spending cuts, then I'd agree that we'd be increasing taxes. However, they weren't, so really, all that they were was an advance. And the bill's due.Worse recession since the Great Depression...increase taxes...brilliant!
I love the way you spin this as not a tax increase....and the amazing part is you actually believe it!If these tax cuts had been coupled with equal spending cuts, then I'd agree that we'd be increasing taxes. However, they weren't, so really, all that they were was an advance. And the bill's due.
And here I thought you wanted the deficit reduced ?
Of course the Bush taxcuts are going to expire, as well they should. They were forced through using reconscilliation (the thing you no doubt called evil when the Dems were considering it for healthcare), which means they could not last beyond 10 years.
This wasn't passed through a normal vote though, it was passed through reconsciliation. Basically the Republicans didn't actually have the votes they needed at the time, so they found a loophole and forced it through. But the loophole wasn't perfect, it had a 10-year limit by law (Byrd rule) since it increases the deficit.
Using Buffet as an example in a tax discussion is very misleading.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html
I think the liberals Ben Stein and Warren Buffet sum up the situation pretty well.Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.
It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”
Interesting. didnt know that.Using Buffet as an example in a tax discussion is very misleading.
Mr. Buffet's low tax rate applies to only a very few taxpayers in a verty specific industry and is not applicable in any way to "rich people" as a whole.
Mr. Buffet is a a fund manager, and for some Congress carved out a special rule for them so that they pay only a tax rate of 15% on their income. So, unlike "rich people" Buffet is not subject to the higher (or highest) tax brackets like other high-earners.
Interestingly enough, Congress has in the past tried to rectify this only to be prevented by C. Schumer (D) from NY. Presumably he's protecting Wall Street because it's in his district.
Does this sound familiar?not a tax increase...Not a tax increase...NOT a Tax Increase...NOT A TAX INCREASE! Sigh...it's just not working.
BTW...I love how you put words in my mouth about the stimulus bill that I never uttered...and then scream hypocrisy. Seriously.
Or this?Congress and the President have the power to repeal the Bush tax cuts...no? So who's the blame here...Bush and Republicans for passing it...or Obama and Dems for failing to repeal it? Are the Dems actually serious about fixing the deficit? Or is this just a BDS hangover? Seriously.
Your words. In fact there are several other threads that a quick forum search reveals you wailing on deficit spending. Furthermore, the same search reveals you repeatedly slamming Democrats for not voting to repeal these "tax cuts" sooner!I share your criticism of Bush for the tax cuts to the wealthy and wish Congress would take action to repeal that part and not throw out the other tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. If I remember correctly...the bulk of the tax cuts for the wealthy were in the last 2 or 3 years of the plan. But isn't it interesting that our recent deficits are not caused by decreased revenues but by increased spending. Yet you've advocated increased spending. I share your frustration with "having nothing to show for it". I just don't think heaping on more debt is the answer...I firmly believe that it'll come back to us in the end and bite us in the butt...big time
So...let me get this straight...by calling the expiration of the Bush tax cut a tax increase and objecting to deficit spending are somehow hypocritical?Does this sound familiar?
Your words. In fact there are several other threads that a quick forum search reveals you wailing on deficit spending. Furthermore, the same search reveals you repeatedly slamming Democrats for not voting to repeal these "tax cuts" sooner!
So, why the change of heart? There is no way to extend these "tax cuts" without further ballooning the deficit. What spending offsets do you propose the federal government makes in order to afford these "tax cuts," which the first time around were around $1.3 trillion (and obviously would increase if they were made permanent)? Or, as your second quote indicates, would you just like the cuts extended for the middle class?
So yes, respectfully, I call you a hypocrite. I'm sure a similar search of my posts will reveal the same thing about me.
Here's a link about it:Fern
What specifically is this "loophole" you refer to.
I would argue that if that is indeed the case, the reverse must be true. For example, the stimulus bill was "an advance" and therefore it was a tax increase. The only debatable point is when is the "bill due".I love the way you spin this as not a tax increase....and the amazing part is you actually believe it!