Well which one is it? Flip flop.
And yes, the Enron stockholders were intelligent, very intelligent. :roll:
Well which one is it? Flip flop.
And yes, the Enron stockholders were intelligent, very intelligent. :roll:
I like how the conservatives on this board are completely ignoring WHY we're saying tax cuts are inopportune (sp?) at this moment and time. Shareholders (who in your ideal world include the poor) are NOT going to get the troops back home. They're not going to contribute in any way towards getting a true ideal realized and they're not going to get Bin Laden. After we get the means to eliminate these things that threaten our way our life and take care of this massive debt, you can do whatever the heck with the tax system.
Interesting how so-called conservatives like to look at income taxes in a vacuum, as if there aren't any others, and ignore the ultimate consequences of explosive debt and cost of maintaining it.
As I've said many times, show me a realistic balanced budget scenario that doesn't include tax increases, one that the American public can accept, one that won't drive the perps from office in the next election. ~1/3 of all non-SS expenditures are currently made on borrowed money, so, uhh, have at it...
Higher taxes are a long term necessity, and anybody with a lick of sense knows it. Putting it off, cutting taxes even further only increases the pain down the road, and increases the likelihood of fiscal collapse of the govt. Debt maintenance is now ~1/7th of federal expenditures- how bad does it have to get before we wake up? 37% like our Argentine friends, or even worse, like the Brazilians?
Don't tell me about what's "fair" in your estimation, or about how we'll somehow increase revenues down the road through some mystical magical mechanism, or about how tax cuts for those at the top increase investment, or any of the rest of it- give me some comprehensive and concrete proposals that close the gap between spending and revenue...
As I've said many times, show me a realistic balanced budget scenario that doesn't include tax increases, one that the American public can accept, one that won't drive the perps from office in the next election. ~1/3 of all non-SS expenditures are currently made on borrowed money, so, uhh, have at it...
Higher taxes are a long term necessity, and anybody with a lick of sense knows it. Putting it off, cutting taxes even further only increases the pain down the road, and increases the likelihood of fiscal collapse of the govt. Debt maintenance is now ~1/7th of federal expenditures- how bad does it have to get before we wake up? 37% like our Argentine friends, or even worse, like the Brazilians?
Don't tell me about what's "fair" in your estimation, or about how we'll somehow increase revenues down the road through some mystical magical mechanism, or about how tax cuts for those at the top increase investment, or any of the rest of it- give me some comprehensive and concrete proposals that close the gap between spending and revenue...
It's mainly a rhetorical response to lordtyranus who seems to be a social darwinist. I'm just taking his views to their absurd conclusions.
http://www.budgetsim.org/nbs/longbudget04.html
Before you whine about the Iraq war, whine twice as much about SS, Medicare, and Social Welfare programs.
That's funny, I'm working on an automation project right now to reduce headcount. The ROI is kind of difficult, to determine if the cost savings of the reduced headcount outweighs the initial capital cost. Then, you have to consider the NPV of that cost. Ugh!
You must not own stock. I agree with your boss 100%. Sure it's greed, if greed means wanting to make as much money as you can. I'd like to retire at 50, who wouldn't? But to do that, I need to make a couple million in the next 20 years. That's not going to happen by limiting profits in the name of creating jobs.
Like I said, Lordtyranus, have at it, don't just post an empty worksheet. And I don't think you can really cut SS, seeing as how it still pays for itself, and provides a surplus to the budget every year. suicide scenarios don't count...
Ok, so lemme get this straight. The topic is "Why is everyone's reaction to "higher taxes" a bad one?" Evidently Engineer fits into that category because he likes tax cuts, but he's arguing out his ass about something or other that doesn't quite relate... rich people are bad or something. Another guy brings up Iraq (can we just move on from that for a sec already?), and Infohawk pops up to help ruin another decent conversation. Ahh, nothing like a day on the AT forums.
Jhhnn: The idea is that by cutting taxes, more money is put back into the economy to spur spending, saving, investing, job creation, economic growth, and hence MORE tax revenue. Your idea of raising taxes on the rich would slow the economy down... just what we need.
I remember the same type of people writhing their hands and crapping their shorts about those killer deficits from the 80s and early 90s, and how they would crush the government and bankrupt all the youngins'. It's always so passionately overplayed. I realize they're a problem, but I also realize it's not forever, we had a recession, and we're in a war. Any major effort to reduce them now should focus on reduced spending, not tax cuts.
Jhhnn: The idea is that by cutting taxes, more money is put back into the economy to spur spending, saving, investing, job creation, economic growth, and hence MORE tax revenue. Your idea of raising taxes on the rich would slow the economy down... just what we need.
I remember the same type of people writhing their hands and crapping their shorts about those killer deficits from the 80s and early 90s, and how they would crush the government and bankrupt all the youngins'. It's always so passionately overplayed. I realize they're a problem, but I also realize it's not forever, we had a recession, and we're in a war. Any major effort to reduce them now should focus on reduced spending, not tax cuts.
How did I ruin the conversation? It seems to me your the one poisoning it by saying your opponents are "talking out of their asses" and your condescending attitude. (and don't think I haven't noticed that you ultmately bail out of all the Iraq discussions).
Infohawk, it's because your a DNC operative dumbass, and talking to you is a waste of bandwidth. Why do you think I tried to change my identity 
Quit following me around... and say something longer than 2 sentences for once somewhere, it'll make you loook smarter
Quit following me around... and say something longer than 2 sentences for once somewhere, it'll make you loook smarter
I disagree. The idea of tax cuts is that the people can spend money more efficiently than a bloated government.
As illustrated by the budget page I linked to, Bush's tax cuts only cut down about $200 billion or so. Reverting them does little, unless combined with massive spending reductions.
I am a huge advocate of true fiscal conservatism. Sad that it seems dead today. Don't get me wrong, I'd still take Bush's reckless spending in areas I feel are worthwhile than Kerry's reckless spending in areas I feel are not.
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Infohawk, it's because your a DNC operative dumbass, and talking to you is a waste of bandwidth. Why do you think I tried to change my identity
You're admitting you're a re-registered troll?
Maybe you are new here... "following you around" :roll: I guess you haven't noticed I post everywhere. Can't say sorry for being a quicker thinker and typer.
Oh and I'd refrain on personally insulting people. Personally flames like "dumbass" is against the forum rules.
No, I changed my icon as a joke because you follow me into totally off-topic areas you've never posted in and demand to know why I support the Iraq invasion. You're a stalker and perhaps the most annoying little flea I've ever encountered.
How the hell would changing your icon prevent me from "following" you? :roll: Did you see that your name is also posted?
Given that I've been in most threads today I don't see how you can say I'm stalking you. You're in an ""alice in wonderland " world."
Lordtyranus, I fully agree that people can spend their own money better than the government, and that's a good moral/practical argument. But as far as taxes go, tax cuts can stimulate the economy, grow it, and bring in more revenue (as Reagan's capital gains cut did)... which is a pretty decent side benefit, especially if we'd like to cut the deficit.
I think Bush's spending puts leftists to shame, and any good liberal should be jealous. But he's better than the alternative.
I think Bush's spending puts leftists to shame, and any good liberal should be jealous. But he's better than the alternative.
Infohawk, I said it was a joke. You know, JOKE, because people commented to me that you're like a little girl who won't bug off, so I did it as a JOKE. ok? J.O.K.E. (your either a very selective reader or dense... or both)
For anyone wanting proof of Infohawk's stalking, check this out:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
By the way, I will have a one on one debate with you over Iraq. Just not now, because dealing with your stupidity has grown tiresome tonight. //squelch
For anyone wanting proof of Infohawk's stalking, check this out:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
By the way, I will have a one on one debate with you over Iraq. Just not now, because dealing with your stupidity has grown tiresome tonight. //squelch
You maaay just want to check out the form rules again. And how big of you to get the last word in and then ditch.
I personally do not want to pay higher taxes so some lazy schmuck can sit around in his section 8 government paid house and munch on his government bought cheetos. If government spending wasn't out of control for non essential fluff we wouldn't have this deficit problem. This is an interesting graph. We currently spend as much for social programs as a percentage of GDP as we did on defense spending during world war II. Socialist states of America here we come......
LINK
LINK
I think assistance should be short term, effective, and primarily state and local. I'd much rather have private organizations playing a larger role also. I believe it would be more efficient and not encourage the lazy schmucks mentioned above.
I'd agree that a short term tax hike to eliminate debt would be a positive thing. Unfortunately Republicans and Democrats alike just can't control themselves when it comes to spending. Any tax hike would be accompanied with a claim that it was for the long term good, but in reality, they'll just spend it on more pork.
"OK, we've got an extra 500B per year to pay down some debt, what should we do with it?"
"We could spend 200B on defense!"
"And 200B on Medicare!"
"Don't forget about Social Security."
"How about 100B on the space program"
Whoops, there goes all the money. Republicrats will never change. Why would they? What are you gonna do about it? Vote third party?
"OK, we've got an extra 500B per year to pay down some debt, what should we do with it?"
"We could spend 200B on defense!"
"And 200B on Medicare!"
"Don't forget about Social Security."
"How about 100B on the space program"
Whoops, there goes all the money. Republicrats will never change. Why would they? What are you gonna do about it? Vote third party?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter