Is this a defensible position?

[Matt1970]

It was a housing bubble. I don't know if you were there or not.

Arguing this would also agree that Clintons surplus was due to tax increases (internet bubble).

Don't bring shit economics into this argument, please.

The housing bubble didn't start till late 2005.

 

[trenchfoot]

Like I said before, the rich don't want their taxes raised, so DON'T.

Just LOWER taxes for the middle class and the poor only.

And while we're at it, close those stupid loopholes the rich bought for themselves via the legislators they've had on leashes for so long.

Writing laws and then inserting loopholes just for the rich to exploit makes about as much sense as writing loopholes into laws that don't exist.

All those loopholes really do is exempt the rich from paying the tax they were meant to, thus making those specific tax laws apply only to the middle class and the poor.

 

[Jhhnn]

The housing bubble didn't start till late 2005.

Utterly incorrect.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

It was headed for the moon in 2002.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Those numbers don't mean alot without the exact amount that the Rich pay in taxes combined . If ya put those numbers in there it be a better debate.

 

[boomerang]

We are broke because we don't tax the rich at an appropriate level.<snip>

Show me some hard numbers to back up your claim. Show me the results if we took every dollar from every 'rich' person in the country. Don't forget to define 'rich'.

You're spouting talking points of the left. Talking points designed to elicit a reaction from people that think like yourself. Give me those numbers and show me how we wouldn't be broke.

If the day ever comes when you realize that our elected officials feel it is their duty to not only spend every dollar they can get their hands on but to spend every dollar we can borrow, you will be that much closer to understanding the position of fiscal conservatives. Our elected officials excel at taking the low road. Taking the path that leads to an easy re-election. It's difficult and unpopular to make the hard decisions needed to conform to an actual budget. What is easy is to continue to spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow. That behavior eventually causes the piper to have to be paid.

Continually giving them more makes us enablers. We're not doing them any favors and we're certainly not doing ourselves any favors. The spending in D.C. is an addiction and when those in D.C. hit rock bottom they're going to take us down with them.

There is no appropriate level for taxing the rich. The extra revenue will just be wasted, we'll still be broke and those in D.C. will still be crying for more. Crying for more because it appears to be the easy way out.

Start thinking for yourself. Apply logic to the situation. You're taking the easy way out too.

 

[Nemesis 1]

@ post 53 Yep if you look at the chart it took off after Clinton hornshoed that bill threw congress . That was the beginning as the chart clearly shows

 

[Matt1970]

Utterly incorrect.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

It was headed for the moon in 2002.

If the rise of Revenue in 2004 was due to the housing bubble that the NY Times says was in full swing 2 years earlier, than Revenue shouldn't have droped in 2003. Can't have your Cake and eat it too.

 

[First]

"Here are the likely cuts."

Nothing more than conjecture. Another biased piece of tripe from the George Soros funded Center for American Progress. Designed to rouse the faithful and from the posts here, it's working. Newsflash, we're broke. Wishing doesn't change that.

I wonder when the conservative canard that we're broke will stop. Sorry, no, to be broke you have to have fewer assets than liabilities.

 

[ProfJohn]

I wonder when the conservative canard that we're broke will stop. Sorry, no, to be broke you have to have fewer assets than liabilities.

Do you really want to go there?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
US unfounded liabilities $115 trillion.
National assets $76 trillion.

According to your definition we are broke.

 

[Nebor]

It seems that we need to raise taxes across the board. I think a simpler tax system would be a good precursor that though.

And you can't have a large percentage of the country paying no taxes, or negative taxes while you're trying to raise taxes on others.

 

[sarsipias1234]

Do you really want to go there?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
US unfounded liabilities $115 trillion.
National assets $76 trillion.

According to your definition we are broke.

Bankrupt is a more appropriate term.

When a citizen has more debt than assets and cannot pay bills they go bankrupt.

Yet I have yet to hear the term 'bankrupt' by any politician.

They collectively agree to not use perjorative terms for reality.

Notice how Obama never uses the word 'poor' or 'poverty'?

 

[Pia]

Comparisons like this typically try to make tax breaks on luxury items like yachts sound like subsidies to the rich, but that's completely invalid. If without the tax break the items would be bought and/or kept elsewhere, then the state gets strictly more taxes - both from the item, and more importantly all the business in selling and maintaining the item - than if it had not given the tax break. So the poor benefit from the yacht tax break.

It's the exact same reason capital gains taxes simply cannot be set above certain levels; you do that, capital will GTFO and then your whole economy dies.

 

[cubby1223]

Is anyone happy with these results?

*sigh*

Yes, it is a defensible position!

Get over it.

Why?

Because you can ALWAYS play this game no matter what the current tax and spending levels are.

Let's say congress agrees to the first item, takes $690b from the wealthy and distributes it out to schools. Are the progressives happy? Why should they be? There is another $690b they could be taxing and redistributing. And once that is done, they can go after another amount from "the rich". This is a never-ending cycle until all tax levels are at 100&#37;.



And the spending numbers are inflated from the Obama spend-a-thon his first two years in office.

And I am *always* skeptical of people who love to be generous so long as it is being generous with *other* people's money.

And look at the educational system, it has been shown time and time and time again that throwing money at a broken system doesn't fix it. Why *should* "the rich" give up more to education when we already spend more per person on education than any other country (I think) in the world, and get such horrible results? Can you guarantee that throwing more money at schools will fix the problem? Why should "the rich" want to hand over their money to something that will not work?

 

[Acanthus]

Show me some hard numbers to back up your claim. Show me the results if we took every dollar from every 'rich' person in the country. Don't forget to define 'rich'.

You're spouting talking points of the left. Talking points designed to elicit a reaction from people that think like yourself. Give me those numbers and show me how we wouldn't be broke.

If the day ever comes when you realize that our elected officials feel it is their duty to not only spend every dollar they can get their hands on but to spend every dollar we can borrow, you will be that much closer to understanding the position of fiscal conservatives. Our elected officials excel at taking the low road. Taking the path that leads to an easy re-election. It's difficult and unpopular to make the hard decisions needed to conform to an actual budget. What is easy is to continue to spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow. That behavior eventually causes the piper to have to be paid.

Continually giving them more makes us enablers. We're not doing them any favors and we're certainly not doing ourselves any favors. The spending in D.C. is an addiction and when those in D.C. hit rock bottom they're going to take us down with them.

There is no appropriate level for taxing the rich. The extra revenue will just be wasted, we'll still be broke and those in D.C. will still be crying for more. Crying for more because it appears to be the easy way out.

Start thinking for yourself. Apply logic to the situation. You're taking the easy way out too.

There is an appropriate level for taxing the rich, look at every other first world nation.

Where do we rank for tax revenue / GDP?
Tax revenue / NDP?
Average total tax rate paid by the top decile? top quintile?

Ill give you a hint, not even in the top 15 for any of these.

 

[Acanthus]

*sigh*

Yes, it is a defensible position!

Get over it.

Why?

Because you can ALWAYS play this game no matter what the current tax and spending levels are.

Let's say congress agrees to the first item, takes $690b from the wealthy and distributes it out to schools. Are the progressives happy? Why should they be? There is another $690b they could be taxing and redistributing. And once that is done, they can go after another amount from "the rich". This is a never-ending cycle until all tax levels are at 100%.



And the spending numbers are inflated from the Obama spend-a-thon his first two years in office.

And I am *always* skeptical of people who love to be generous so long as it is being generous with *other* people's money.

And look at the educational system, it has been shown time and time and time again that throwing money at a broken system doesn't fix it. Why *should* "the rich" give up more to education when we already spend more per person on education than any other country (I think) in the world, and get such horrible results? Can you guarantee that throwing more money at schools will fix the problem? Why should "the rich" want to hand over their money to something that will not work?

Throwing money at the best college system on earth is probably a good idea, since it one of the VERY few things America is still good at.

You can reform the school system while still funding it.

We aren't talking about throwing more money at it, we are talking about taking money away.

The rich don't want to "hand over their money" at all, to any cause. They want to hoard their winnings provided by the stable free society without giving back to the system that provided them that opportunity.

 

[Acanthus]

It seems that we need to raise taxes across the board. I think a simpler tax system would be a good precursor that though.

And you can't have a large percentage of the country paying no taxes, or negative taxes while you're trying to raise taxes on others.

This i agree with.

 

[glenn1]

Is anyone happy with these results?

Why not? if you believe that the federal government should be Uncle Sugar, dispensing monies to favored groups for whatever reason (the elderly, the poor, whatever), you really can't complain when "rich" people start getting into line for their own handouts.

 

[MovingTarget]

Why not? if you believe that the federal government should be Uncle Sugar, dispensing monies to favored groups for whatever reason (the elderly, the poor, whatever), you really can't complain when "rich" people start getting into line for their own handouts.

Yes, you can. Programs directed to the elderly, the poor, whatever as you call it have a higher economic multiplier than directing programs to the already wealthy. It increases demand much more efficiently. As we've seen the past thirty years or so, wealth trickles up much faster than it trickles down. So, it ultimately helps the wealthy much more, albeit more indirectly than they would like. It makes much more economic sense.

 

[fskimospy]

California spends 50 billion dollars a year on costs related to illegal immigrants.

Who doesn't hire illegal immigrants in California when 1/3 of illegal immigrants live here.

More than two-thirds of the estimated 340,000 agriculture workers in California are noncitizens, most of whom are believed to be illegal immigrants, according to a 1998 study on farmworkers prepared for the state Legislature.

No matter who you are in California you benefited from illegal immigrant labor in the past.

Of course now we are paying for this cheap labor by the massive debt incurred from illegal immigrant costs.

This is the exact same thing that is occuring now with this debt deal.

Congress is trying to shift the burden of the debt onto the poor.

We will see the true costs of this debt deal in further decline in tax revenue and more debt.

California's state debt is not from the costs of illegal immigrants.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

So how much did that stupid 20,000 mph Glider cost that DARPA tested on thursday? We dont need technology that we will never use! Remember the last bomb they made? They called it MOAB and we never used that. What about the stupid ramjet tests? Did we ever make a ramjet? How about something useful like an electric car that is powered off of this new Bloom Box Technology?????

Uh....

Being able to strike anywhere in the world in an hour is pretty sweet.

We use MOABs a lot.

We use lots of ramjets.

Bloom Box technology can't power an electric car.

Not sure if kidding or stupid...

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

double post, please delete

 

[rchiu]

There is an appropriate level for taxing the rich, look at every other first world nation.

Where do we rank for tax revenue / GDP?
Tax revenue / NDP?
Average total tax rate paid by the top decile? top quintile?

Ill give you a hint, not even in the top 15 for any of these.

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.

 

[sarsipias1234]

California's state debt is not from the costs of illegal immigrants.

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???

 

[Macamus Prime]

NO!

I'm not happy with that.

I want $1.2 trillion in spending cuts from this year's budget as the maximum for FY 2012's budget and not one cent in tax increases.

Oh, yes, get rid of at least 50% of these onerous federal regulations.

You see, your happiness is like a giant ape, climbing up the Empire State building, with a hot blonde in his hand. You aren't too sure where this ape came from exactly - just that he escaped from a Broadway show on him. He gets to the top, swipes at a few airplanes, but he eventually falls off and dies when hits the pavement.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Is anyone happy with these results?

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.