Is this a defensible position?

[Ausm]

Is anyone happy with these results?

The rabid Right Wingers that frequent this forum will never believe this because these numbers where calculated by The Center of American Progress.

 

[Ausm]

The "job creators" are. Now they can grow their wealth even more so in the next 40 years than they have in the past 40 years.

The rich are in control. And, they got what they wanted.

And, the lap dogs on these forums are happy as well. Because,... well, because they are lap dogs.

Right Wingers privatize profits and Socialize the pain but it stops at the Peons..got to love that "shared sacrifice" shit. :thumbsdown:

 

[Macamus Prime]

The rabid Right Wingers that frequent this forum will never believe this because these numbers where calculated by The Center of American Progress.

And we all know that Hitler started the Center of American Progress. So, this chart is nothing more than Nazi propaganda.

 

[fskimospy]

Look up the cost of illegal immigrants in california.

50 billion a year!

Do you think this money does not contribute to the state debt???

It is a factor, but nowhere close to the driving factor behind California's debt problems. Those problems come from poor tax policy.

 

[Atreus21]

Is anyone happy with these results?

How is it that subsidies are called tax breaks?

Why are we subsidizing any businesses at all?

Where do they get that figure on the bush tax cuts?

 

[Ausm]

How is it that subsidies are called tax breaks?

Why are we subsidizing any businesses at all?

Where do they get that figure on the bush tax cuts?

We subsidize big biz because they pad the pockets of Congress.

 

[werepossum]

It is a factor, but nowhere close to the driving factor behind California's debt problems. Those problems come from poor tax policy.

It's well known that all government debt comes from taxes being too low. Government spending can never be too high; in fact, it's always too low!

Just need to pry the Magic Cupboard open a little farther and everything will be peachy.

 

[woolfe9999]

double post

 

[woolfe9999]

It's well known that all government debt comes from taxes being too low. Government spending can never be too high; in fact, it's always too low!

Just need to pry the Magic Cupboard open a little farther and everything will be peachy.

Actually the problem with California tax policy isn't a question of too high/too low. It's a question of low property taxes in exchange for high-average income and sale taxes, where the property taxes provide a base that is more stable during a recession than the income and sales taxes, which go into the crapper. This is why California's public sector booms more than most during a strong economy (the late 1990's), then tanks worse than most during a recession.

That said, we can cut spending as well. For example, we spend ludicrous amounts on our correctional system, wherein we lock up gobs of non-violent offenders every year. Our welfare spending isn't that high per capita compared to the national average, and the illegal immigrant aspect is overplayed in terms of its fiscal impact. And our educational spending - in regionally adjusted dollars - is below the national average.

 

[BoberFett]

We subsidize big biz because they pad the pockets of Congress.

Which is why then the clear answer is to send more money to Washington and let Congress spend it...

Wait a sec...

 

[momeNt]

Which is why then the clear answer is to send more money to Washington and let Congress spend it...

Wait a sec...

Direct deposit to the poor folk.

 

[Triumph]

How is it that subsidies are called tax breaks?

When the Repubs started calling the elimination of subsidies a "tax hike."

I don't like the graph because I don't like George Soros or the Center for American Progress. What this seems to convey to people is that somewhere, in a smokey room, a bunch of stodgy old white men went line by line and forced Nancy Pelosi at gunpoint to take a hit on low income energy subsidies while keeping oil and gas company subsidies.

"Listen you pathetic whore, you're going to cut $11 billion from tutoring programs, but you WILL consider our yachts and vacation homes sacred. Muahahaha!"

All the CAP did here was go through the tax code and find things that roughly equated to the cost cuts and demonized them by comparing to something else of an equal value. They may never have even been brought up for discussion, the tax code is so large and unwieldy. Who knows.

That being said, the Repubs unwillingness to eliminate and reduce subsidies is a shame. I thought they wanted to simplify the tax code?

 

[Acanthus]

I will also give you a hint, which of other first world nations with higher tax has bigger economy than the US? the answer is none.

Sure European/Canada has higher tax, but that's because they follow socialist ideology. Are they are more successful than the US? not necessary. You can easily make an argument that US is what it is today thanks to the free market capitalist policies we have. Sure there are problems, but we also enjoyed a good period of strong/expanding economy. We have to solve the problem we face today, but not necessary a 180% reversal of the ideology.

Another thing, countries/city states like Hong Kong and Singapore have lower tax revenue as % of GDP compared to the US because they believe in even more free trade and less restriction. But their country is not necessary heavy in debt. It's all depending on how you manage your spending.

Hong Kong and Singapore are trading arteries to the rampant wage slavery in China...

Put an equal tariff on China that they charge on US goods and see how the growth in Singapore and Hong Kong contracts.

"free trade" is a contradictory to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

 

[Fern]

OP: Center for American Progress. Yeah, I'm sure that graph is accurate and completely unbiased. Or not.
-snip-

The graph is crap.

Nobody yet knows what will get cut. Hence it's all made up.

And I know for a fact the numbers on the right side are fiction. The CBO sure as heck doesn't agree with them. It will take one heckuva economic rebound before those tax cut numbers climb that high.

The whole thing's a 'what if'.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Broke? Hardly. We just refuse to collect the revenues required to avoid deficits, because those revenues would necessarily need to come from the Rich, who are now wealthier than ever at the expense of everybody else. Their servants in the Republican party intend to keep it that way, too.

It's simply not possible to eliminate the deficit with increased taxes alone. We've all seen the numbers, there just isn't that much tax revenue available. Jeebus, tax the rich to eliminate the deficit? We've seen that we could just take ALL their money and it wouldn't last but a few months (or something similar) at the pace this govt blows money.

I find the progressive's/Left's/Dem's position a curious one. For some reason reducing govt spending will hurt the economy by reducing demand, but taking money out of the hands of private persons so they have less to spend won't?

Fern

 

[Craig234]

It's simply not possible to eliminate the deficit with increased taxes alone.

For the 100th frickin time - and probably more - not one liberal here is saying we can. You are falsely representing liberals, repeating a lie about what they say.

I find the progressive's/Left's/Dem's position a curious one. For some reason reducing govt spending will hurt the economy by reducing demand, but taking money out of the hands of private persons so they have less to spend won't?

Fern

You are really that clueless after countless posts on the topic, about the difference between money in the hands of people who will spend it, and the ultra wealthy?

In that case telling you against seems pointless, banking your head against a wall.

 

[sarsipias1234]

When I pay taxes I don't even care what government does with my taxes.

They can take my tax money and burn the money for heat for the poor for all I care.

Why are rich people so concerned with how their tax money is spent when they don't need the money?

How can a rich person be sure they will spend the money better than the government?

I would say keeping more tax money is the worst scenario as that is selfish and will be used to generate more wealth for the individual paying less taxes.

The only people against taxes for the rich are the rich so shouldn't we give the majority what they want?

We don't have democracy for this reason alone. The rich do what they want. We have a monarchy ruled by rich people.

 

[Nebor]

When I pay taxes I don't even care what government does with my taxes.

They can take my tax money and burn the money for heat for the poor for all I care.

Why are rich people so concerned with how their tax money is spent when they don't need the money?

How can a rich person be sure they will spend the money better than the government?

I would say keeping more tax money is the worst scenario as that is selfish and will be used to generate more wealth for the individual paying less taxes.

The only people against taxes for the rich are the rich so shouldn't we give the majority what they want?

We don't have democracy for this reason alone. The rich do what they want. We have a monarchy ruled by rich people.

Wut.

Also learn the difference between a monarchy and a plutocracy.

 

[sarsipias1234]

Wut.

Also learn the difference between a monarchy and a plutocracy.

Okay, so technically not even a plutocracy as I just read the definition of both.

A plutarchy then if you want to get specific.

My point was that we are ruled by the rich.

You are just nitpicking to be annoying.

You've done this several times to my post.

Ignore list number 3!

 

[Fern]

For the 100th frickin time - and probably more - not one liberal here is saying we can. You are falsely representing liberals, repeating a lie about what they say.

BS. See the post I quoted, that is exactly what was said.

You are really that clueless after countless posts on the topic, about the difference between money in the hands of people who will spend it, and the ultra wealthy?

Not clueless, just not falling for that Progressive BS/myth.

You don't see me on here saying that raising taxes on the rich means less jobs etc. But you take money away from people, demand goes down; no two ways about it.

Fern

 

[Acanthus]

BS. See the post I quoted, that is exactly what was said.




Not clueless, just not falling for that Progressive BS/myth.

You don't see me on here saying that raising taxes on the rich means less jobs etc. But you take money away from people, demand goes down; no two ways about it.

Fern

When we analyze things like this for economics it is all about efficiency and trying to correlate action/reaction while keeping as many variables steady as possible and accounting for any other outside influences that may be skewing the results.

The fact is that while raising taxes will, in fact, reduce some demand--it is not going to fall by the same amount that you gain by keeping robust social programs in tact.

No one here is advocating dramatic increases to social welfare programs, just to keep the effective programs we have in place. You offset the cost of these as much as possible with increased taxes and removing some loop holes and simplifying the tax code in the process.

The Keynesian approach for infrastructure spending is a separate argument... While the principle is the same you also have to consider the long-term costs of compounded interest on such a program, the inevitable politics that come into play (ARRA being half tax cuts, making work pay, etc), and the natural human reluctance to save during times of prosperity (zero real budgetary surpluses in 40 years).

 

[Craig234]

BS. See the post I quoted, that is exactly what was said.

That's not what he said.

Here's what happened:

The thread is about a chart comparing 'likely cuts' to expenses the right is protecting.

Boomerag replied 'likely cuts? conjecture.'

Jhhnn replied, to quote exactly:

We'll see how the cuts shape up. The giveaways on the right side of the chart are unlikely to end, bet on that.

Broke? Hardly. We just refuse to collect the revenues required to avoid deficits, because those revenues would necessarily need to come from the Rich, who are now wealthier than ever at the expense of everybody else. Their servants in the Republican party intend to keep it that way, too.

Where does he say collecting revenues is ALL that's needed? It looks to me like he's referring to the right's refusal to collect any revenues that are part of what's needed.

What liberals are saying is that a balance of cuts and revenue are needed - to cuts are needed, and revenue is needed.

Not clueless, just not falling for that Progressive BS/myth.

You don't see me on here saying that raising taxes on the rich means less jobs etc. But you take money away from people, demand goes down; no two ways about it.

Fern

Yes, clueless. If the plan was to just burn the money, you would have a point. It's not.

That money goes into MORE productive uses for the economy - into the hands of people who will SPEND it, driving the economy.

That's benefit both to the consumer side directly, and for whatever the money goes to like infrastructure.

The estimated return to the economy from tax cuts for the rich was 22 cents per dollar. Many of these spending areas return over a dollar per dollar spent.

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't see me on here saying that raising taxes on the rich means less jobs etc. But you take money away from people, demand goes down; no two ways about it.

You assume that money taken from the wealthy as taxes would otherwise be spent, which is simply not true. If it's otherwise used to create asset inflation in the market, build a new factory in China or stashed as cash reserves in a corporate entity, how does that create domestic spending, anyway?

Who buys US govt securities, anyway? Why should we borrow & pay interest when we can simply & rather painlessly take more in taxes?

It's not like today's wealthy are repressed by taxes, at all. They paid much higher rates prior to the flimflam of Reaganomics, and were still, you know, *Wealthy*.