A question for Republicans

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's an excellent idea.
We'll return tax rates to the Clinton numbers but first we have to reduce expenditures to the Clinton numbers.

Like we needed another proof of your dishonesty.

What baffles me is what the Republicans are really after? It is obvious that they don't care about the debt. They only use it as a pretext for dismantling the welfare state. But why? Why would they need the US government to stop caring for seniors and the poor?

I think it is because of people Krugman calls "political entrepreneurs". The sell a message -- and so they invent a message that would sell well. But they really don't care about the message itself -- the policy that the message promotes and the implications of actually implementing that policy.

So if political entrepreneurs notice that some message is resonating among many voters, they start promoting it even though they know that it will hurt those very people, and the US as a country. That would not be their problem.

Add the fact that so many Americans got fooled by their card companies, and we are looking at a pretty grim picture.

You don't want to go back to the perfection of the Clinton years?
Then what exactly do you want?

What baffles me is what the Republicans are really after?

I don't know about "the Republicans", but I'm after smaller, much smaller, government.

 

[ilia25]

You don't want to go back to the perfection of the Clinton years?
Then what exactly do you want?

I want you to stop playing dumb. We need to restore the taxes to Clinton levels, but I think I have explained to you personally (though it should be obvious) that government expenditures cannot stay at the same level, they have to rise -- as they have been since 1 million in 1789.

What baffles me is what the Republicans are really after?

I don't know about "the Republicans", but I'm after smaller, much smaller, government.

What is a smaller government? A government that do not provide social security or Medicare, or you want a smaller army? What program you would like to see terminated?

 

[gonewt2012]

Collect more and you'll spend more ... show me ONE historical period anywhere on the planet when this wasn't the case.

We had balanced the budget about 15 years ago, hadn't we?

Which had nothing to do with a tax increase.

Captain obvious says: it's not the bond market that the Chinese use to do this, it's the forex market.

Ah, it's the forex! Then maybe the Captain can enlighten us as to what exactly Chinese did with the trillions of dollars they have bought on forex? You think they've been stuffing them under a specially designed mattress?

They don't have to buy U.S. bonds with those dollars. That's the point. They can buy Eurobonds or Libyan oil leases or real estate in Brazil. Instead they've bought U.S. Bonds.

Which they can sell.

On a very liquid and fast moving market.

At any instant.

If they dumped our bonds every other interest rate paid would suddenly spike across the board.

Like I said -- before trying to estimate the effects of Chinese bond dump, why don't you do some research and find out what problem they were trying to solve by buying the US debt in the first place. Not that I haven't explained it already

I think you're smart enough to realize that this is nothing but facile propaganda. Are the forex and bond markets completely independent? No, obviously not.

But the fact is that the USG grousing to the Chinese has been about the pegging of the currency. They don't want them to sell their treasuries but they want them to float the RMB.

You can't make the problem go away by ignoring it.

 

[ilia25]

And yes, it was Clinton, not Gingrich who has balanced the budget in the 90s:

Gingrich’s argument comes down to this: In August 1997, Congress passed a bill called the “Balanced Budget Act,” which promised to balance the federal budget five years later, in fiscal 2002. Soon after the bill was signed, the budget was balanced. Therefore, the balanced budget act balanced the budget. But that’s demonstrably false.

In fact, the budget surpluses that we enjoyed from 1998 to 2001 had nothing to do with the balanced budget act. Instead, the surpluses stemmed from a dramatic surge in federal revenues, mainly personal income taxes. Here’s what really happened. In 1993, Bill Clinton undid some of the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy, in a bill that every Republican in Congress opposed…Clinton’s 1993 increase in tax rates on high earners applied to a new wave of taxable income from corporate executives cashing in their lucrative stock options (which are taxed as wages). In fiscal 2000, the surplus peaked at $237 billion, and it remained a robust $128 billion in fiscal 2001 (Clinton’s last budget year).

All of these surpluses would have occurred if the Balanced Budget Act had never been enacted.​

http://ctj.org/ctjinthenews/2011/03/sorry_newt_you_never_balanced_the_budget.php

 

[gonewt2012]

The only reason Clinton didn't spend that money was because it came in too fast from the dot com bubble for him to redo the baselines.

 

[theunbubba]

A fair comparison for people refusing to believe the numbers. Americans are bad at math that's a well known fact. Honestly, what kind of people can get fooled by a credit card company (which had diligently sent its victims letters describing how the scheme works)?

I believe the numbers prove we overspend.

Only fools "believe" in things they cannot substantiate. And they do it at they own peril.

Failure to use proper syntax, when trying to tell somebody that they are an idiot, is a complete fail.

 

[theunbubba]

Only fools "believe" in things they cannot substantiate. And they do it at they own peril.

FDsys - Browse BUDGET

You are fool not because you cannot find the numbers -- it's because you making claims that contradict those very numbers.

You can't possibly be an American with that pidgin english.

 

[theunbubba]

Your source? Or do prefer to just plagiarize? Or perhaps you just made it up!

Oh boy... Has it ever occurred to you that you can -- and should -- do your own research? I can reproduce the graph above in 30 minutes, why can't you?

Even more interesting is why would you doubt that chart in the first place? Didn't you know that Reagan started to run huge deficits? Didn't you know that Clinton balanced the budget?

Clinton did no such thing. Every budget he submitted was rejected and a balanced one was forced down his fucking throat. Stop lying.

 

[ilia25]

The only reason Clinton didn't spend that money was because it came in too fast from the dot com bubble for him to redo the baselines.

Right, and maybe Clinton planned to sacrifice innocent babies to Baal, but we'll never know.

What we do know, is that his tax hike on the rich balanced the budged. And we can do it again.

 

[ilia25]

They don't have to buy U.S. bonds with those dollars. That's the point. They can buy Eurobonds or Libyan oil leases or real estate in Brazil. Instead they've bought U.S. Bonds.

Which they can sell.

On a very liquid and fast moving market.

At any instant.

If they dumped our bonds every other interest rate paid would suddenly spike across the board.

Like I said -- before trying to estimate the effects of Chinese bond dump, why don't you do some research and find out what problem they were trying to solve by buying the US debt in the first place. Not that I haven't explained it already

I think you're smart enough to realize that this is nothing but facile propaganda. Are the forex and bond markets completely independent? No, obviously not.

But the fact is that the USG grousing to the Chinese has been about the pegging of the currency. They don't want them to sell their treasuries but they want them to float the RMB.

You can't make the problem go away by ignoring it.

Look, it was the dollar peg that forced China to buy 3 trillions dollars. And there is not many places were you can park such a huge sum. I am sure they bought some eurobonds or some real estate in Brasil. But they had no other choice than to park one trillion in the US debt at low interest.

They can sell their holdings, but then they will be faced with the same problem -- what to do with a trillion dollars? That's why they are not going to do it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't want to go back to the perfection of the Clinton years?
Then what exactly do you want?

I want you to stop playing dumb. We need to restore the taxes to Clinton levels, but I think I have explained to you personally (though it should be obvious) that government expenditures cannot stay at the same level, they have to rise -- as they have been since 1 million in 1789.

What baffles me is what the Republicans are really after?

I don't know about "the Republicans", but I'm after smaller, much smaller, government.

What is a smaller government? A government that do not provide social security or Medicare, or you want a smaller army? What program you would like to see terminated?

How much additional revenue will be raised at the Clinton rates? Spell it out.

Yes, as it stands now, the shortfall in Social Security and Medicare shows that we can't afford those programs as currently structured.
I'd eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy, for starters.
Eliminate agricultural subsidies, "green energy" subsidies and a slew of other multibillion dollar pork barrel programs.

 

[ilia25]

You don't want to go back to the perfection of the Clinton years?
Then what exactly do you want?

I want you to stop playing dumb. We need to restore the taxes to Clinton levels, but I think I have explained to you personally (though it should be obvious) that government expenditures cannot stay at the same level, they have to rise -- as they have been since 1 million in 1789.

What baffles me is what the Republicans are really after?

I don't know about "the Republicans", but I'm after smaller, much smaller, government.

What is a smaller government? A government that do not provide social security or Medicare, or you want a smaller army? What program you would like to see terminated?

How much additional revenue will be raised at the Clinton rates? Spell it out.

As you can imagine, coming out with a hard number like that is not easy, but we are in luck. CBO makes the deficit projection for the years to come and and calculates alternative scenarios:

The BLUE area shows deficits assuming the current laws remain in place -- meaning the expiration of Bush's tax cuts. The BROWN area shows the impact of making those tax cuts permanent.

In other words, making Bush tax cuts permanent are going to increase our deficit by about 5% of GDP (for this year it is about 800 billions).

Yes, as it stands now, the shortfall in Social Security and Medicare shows that we can't afford those programs as currently structured.

That is simply not true. We more than capable of paying for Social Security and Medicare in their current form. The question is whether we are willing to.

I'd eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy, for starters.
Eliminate agricultural subsidies, "green energy" subsidies and a slew of other multibillion dollar pork barrel programs.

OK, that saves you maybe 200 billions, or 6% of the government expenditures, most it comes from eliminating the Department of Education -- thank for willing to invest in the American future, BTW.

Still, do you thing that anyone will even notice a 6% reduction in spending (although the kids will sure notice that they cannot afford a college anymore)?

 

[Liability]

That is not what it means, so go fuck yourself.

You truly are too fucking stupid to breathe, ya twatwaffle.

And yes, that IS what it means. So eat shit and choke.

Actually, I stand corrected, you might have a point -- I just had trouble seeing it under the layers of crap that you cover everything you say with.

So yes, if by turds and "schmucks that can't be trusted with plastic sporks" you mean the majority of Americans, then yes -- we do have access to your paycheck and your wallet. They also call it "democracy", the rule of majority, he he In particularly, the majority ultimately decides what are the appropriate taxes that someone should pay for the privilege of pursuing his happiness in the US of A.

That is what taxation WITH representation means, by the way. And that is true whether you like it or not. And yes, in case you don't, my advice still holds true -- go to an inhabitant island and fuck yourself.

I was talking about modern American "liberals," meaning assholes exactly like YOU and the current President and that foul used sanitary pad Pelousy.

The rest of your blithering blathering post is a void because you have no principled philosophy.

The "majority" in a Constitutiional (limited) REPUBLIC, you dickweed, gets no greater claim to any protion of my earnings on the basis of a "majority" vote than it would have it its "views" were constrained by being the MINORITY view. Either way, that doesn't matter BECAUSE the will of the majority cannot be permitted to become a tyrannic force.

AGAIN, you only prove that schmucky liberoidal drones like you are incapable of appreciating the very purpose of the system we put up. This explains why you always try to undermine the limits or erode them or evade them.

You assholes DID make lots of insidious inroads, but you have not yet fully succeeded in trashing the limits entirely. And this also explains your rabid reaction to those (like the Tea Party adherents) who speak loudly to expose and prevent the shit you and your filthy ilk are attempting to do.

 

[zeke]

I just don't know why it is such an issue to tax the rich and ultra rich a lot more. Why should I give a flying fuck if a multi millioniare playing baseball, football, you name the ball, pays 45% in taxes vs 35%,

Why should I fucking care if a multi billioniare hedge fund manager, who made his billions gaming the market, why should I care if he pays 75% income tax.

How 'bout the rapper that make millions. You really care if he gets hit hard on taxes.

Well I don't care. They sure as hell ain't worried about me. And they sure as hell have had it going their way for years. And they have the money.

I lost a lot of money from the collapse of the housing market. Brought about by those multi millioniares that many are so reluctant to tax. Rich people are not looking out for the middles best interest. Why is that so damn hard to understand?

And for you Repubs who are so concerned; take up a collection and send a check to your favvorite multi millioniare, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Liability]

I just don't know why it is such an issue to tax the rich and ultra rich a lot more. Why should I give a flying fuck if a multi millioniare playing baseball, football, you name the ball, pays 45% in taxes vs 35%,

Why should I fucking care if a multi billioniare hedge fund manager, who made his billions gaming the market, why should I care if he pays 75% income tax.

How 'bout the rapper that make millions. You really care if he gets hit hard on taxes.

Well I don't care. They sure as hell ain't worried about me. And they sure as hell have had it going their way for years. And they have the money.

I lost a lot of money from the collapse of the housing market. Brought about by those multi millioniares that many are so reluctant to tax. Rich people are not looking out for the middles best interest. Why is that so damn hard to understand?

And for you Repubs who are so concerned; take up a collection and send a check to your favvorite multi millioniare, if it makes you feel better.

Us vs. them is sooooo Obama.

 

[Big Fitz]

I just don't know why it is such an issue to tax the rich and ultra rich a lot more. Why should I give a flying fuck if a multi millioniare playing baseball, football, you name the ball, pays 45% in taxes vs 35%,

Why should I fucking care if a multi billioniare hedge fund manager, who made his billions gaming the market, why should I care if he pays 75% income tax.

How 'bout the rapper that make millions. You really care if he gets hit hard on taxes.

Well I don't care. They sure as hell ain't worried about me. And they sure as hell have had it going their way for years. And they have the money.

I lost a lot of money from the collapse of the housing market. Brought about by those multi millioniares that many are so reluctant to tax. Rich people are not looking out for the middles best interest. Why is that so damn hard to understand?

And for you Repubs who are so concerned; take up a collection and send a check to your favvorite multi millioniare, if it makes you feel better.

"There is no jealousy or envy in me. Move on. Move on."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb45tJhzmcI]The Man Behind the Curtain.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

Betcha you'd be first in line to take every tax credit you could.

 

[ilia25]

What a stupid retort.

Look at the numbers and then try to pretend we don't overspend.

We clearly do.

How did you came to such a conclusion?

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

The debt is growing not because we overspend, but because we do not collect enough of revenue.

 

[Big Fitz]

How did you came to such a conclusion?

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

The debt is growing not because we overspend, but because we do not collect enough of revenue.

Tell that to a creditor. "I didn't overspend, you under limited me."

 

[Liability]

How did you came to such a conclusion?

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

The debt is growing not because we overspend, but because we do not collect enough of revenue.

We "take in" fucking PLENTY. We spend vastly more.

You, clearly, are not just wrong, but amazingly dim-witted.

There IS a "cure" for deficit spending.

SPEND less -- lots less -- and not one penny more than you expect to take in.

Idiots like you and your ridiculous ilk ALWAYS spend more than you take in primarily because you love spending other people's money or imaginary money. There is no limit to how deeply you'll reach into the pockets of others -- and the pockets of those generations not yet even born.

You guys are cretins and lowlife bastards.

 

[ilia25]

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

The debt is growing not because we overspend, but because we do not collect enough of revenue.

We "take in" fucking PLENTY. We spend vastly more.

We spend vastly more than we "take in" means we don't "take in" enough, you dickhead.

And shut up already. Nobody loves you, and nobody cares about your silly hissy-fits.