Lookin' For That Apology...

[daveman]

This is not about 'prosperity'. This is about fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsiblity is not a stimulus program.

And the stimulus wasn't fiscally responsible, either.

[But let's look at the numbers. According to Recovery.gov, Obama has funded 675,841 jobs. Obama has also increased the debt by $3,219,617,798,657.

The math says that for every job credited to Obama, it's cost us $4,763,868.72.

Do you really want to keep defending that?

I'm not defending it. I'm questioning your support for a repeat of it.

We cannot cut spending deeply enough or fast enough to address the deficit in time, Dave. The debt load we are carrying is equal to the GDP.

Increasing taxes is a necessity.

Sure. Cripple the economy even further. Grand idea!

You insist the 2009 stimulus didn't work, but insist we do it again. Why is that?

You'd have a point if all money belongs to the government.

It doesn't.

 

[daveman]

Now YOU"RE agreeing with me. I'm saying taxes can't be cut unless spending is cut at the same time. THAT'S my opposition to this GOP/Obama stimulus package.

Now you're saying do it at the same time, but, you won't INSIST on doing it at the same time, you're willing to let them do the easy part, cutting taxes. That never works. The cuts are never made later.

Pay as you go has to work both ways. No spending without paying for it. No tax cuts without paying for them.

It's funny the way you pretend you want to decrease the size of the government.

Where have you been the last two years while the Democrats were skyrocketing the deficit?

You have never heard me tout deficits. This is not about the size of government, this is about paying for the government the people get no matter what size it is.

Then I suggest you start advocating cutting the size of government.

 

[Trajan]

I'd say that has nothing to do with my point. You're arguing FOR running up the deficit and debt, I'm arguing against it.

it is exactly on point, 90% of the fed income taxes are paid by folks who use the fewest services rendered in specie or otherwsie.


You said the gov. does not have a right to gov. they don't pay for......well???

That is complete and total Bull Shit

language RW tsk tsk...

It is the wealthy who benefit the most from our taxes. The military does not help the poor. They maintain an international security that enable the extremely wealthy to make more money. Our roads, railways, international shipping all help the wealthy. Tax code is written by the wealthy...for the wealthy.
Our education system provides an educated workforce that the wealthy benefits from but does not pay for. Our welfare system enables businesses to pay substandard wages and have the government pay for housing and food subsidies

I'll answer this nonsense tomorrow....I'll give you some time to edit this, uhm, post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so if I told you that people who make say, over 250K, use fewer services, receive fewer goods etc. as compared to people who say make less than 45K which I believe is still the median income for the US, what would you say?

I'd say that has nothing to do with my point. You're arguing FOR running up the deficit and debt, I'm arguing against it.

it is exactly on point, 90% of the fed income taxes are paid by folks who use the fewest services rendered in specie or otherwsie.


You said the gov. does not have a right to gov. they don't pay for......well???

I said the People. That's a collective noun. Rich people get enormous benefits from government spending. Ask Bill Gates how much Microsoft software the government buys. Ask a millionaire business owner with 100 employees how many of his employees were educated in public schools, got government help for college. The more wealth a person has, the more people and institutions and businesses were involved in the creation of that wealth with government having played a significant contributory role throughout. The idea that the typical millionaire in this country has received less benefits from the government than the average welfare family is preposterous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny the way you pretend you want to decrease the size of the government.

Where have you been the last two years while the Democrats were skyrocketing the deficit?

You have never heard me tout deficits. This is not about the size of government, this is about paying for the government the people get no matter what size it is.

Then I suggest you start advocating cutting the size of government.

Government will never get smaller as long as it has an unlimited credit card with ever-decreasing minimum monthly payments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is everyone here aware that the new GOP/Obama Stimulus Bill includes continuations of some of the 2009 Stimulus Bill?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And the stimulus wasn't fiscally responsible, either.

​

I'm not defending it. I'm questioning your support for a repeat of it.

Sure. Cripple the economy even further. Grand idea!

You insist the 2009 stimulus didn't work, but insist we do it again. Why is that?

You'd have a point if all money belongs to the government.

It doesn't.

My point was you opposed the 2009 stimulus of 750 billion and claim that it was a costly failure,

and yet you want to do an even bigger version in 2011.

Who does the debt belong to that will be created by this Obama/GOP tax/stimulus bill?

 

[daveman]

You have never heard me tout deficits. This is not about the size of government, this is about paying for the government the people get no matter what size it is.

Then I suggest you start advocating cutting the size of government.

Government will never get smaller as long as it has an unlimited credit card with ever-decreasing minimum monthly payments.

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

 

[daveman]

I'm not defending it. I'm questioning your support for a repeat of it.

You insist the 2009 stimulus didn't work, but insist we do it again. Why is that?

You'd have a point if all money belongs to the government.

It doesn't.

My point was you opposed the 2009 stimulus of 750 billion and claim that it was a costly failure,

and yet you want to do an even bigger version in 2011.

Who does the debt belong to that will be created by this Obama/GOP tax/stimulus bill?

Bush?

 

[rightwinger]

Then I suggest you start advocating cutting the size of government.

Government will never get smaller as long as it has an unlimited credit card with ever-decreasing minimum monthly payments.

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

We have a massive country. 300 million people, the largest economy on earth,a military larger than the rest of the worlds militaries combined

To claim that we need a small government to manage the worlds only superpower is just plain idiotic. We are the leader of the free world, we have massive responsibilities both at home and abroad.

To try to revert to a 19th century government is juvenile

 

[Big Fitz]

Government will never get smaller as long as it has an unlimited credit card with ever-decreasing minimum monthly payments.

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

We have a massive country. 300 million people, the largest economy on earth,a military larger than the rest of the worlds militaries combined

To claim that we need a small government to manage the worlds only superpower is just plain idiotic. We are the leader of the free world, we have massive responsibilities both at home and abroad.

To try to revert to a 19th century government is juvenile

What is the purpose of Government in one paragraph or less?

 

[Madeline]

Then I suggest you start advocating cutting the size of government.

Government will never get smaller as long as it has an unlimited credit card with ever-decreasing minimum monthly payments.

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

Dave, I agree we need to cut spending and reduce the size of government. You and I might not agree on which parts of government to cut, but we at least agree on the concept.

What baffles me is, how do you expect to both reduce the deficit and reduce taxes? Why is it you think a lower tax rate will increase the overall tax revenues?

 

[Big Fitz]

What baffles me is, how do you expect to both reduce the deficit and reduce taxes?

it's the laffer curve. Currently we are being taxed higher than the balance point of maximum revenue for minimum tax. We've got a long way to go with that actually. A flat tax with no exemptions at like 10-13% would be the best way to reach that.

Also, you'd have to do a lot of fed government program slashing and budget reduction. Pretty much every cabinet department made after 1951 would do a lot.

 

[Madeline]

What baffles me is, how do you expect to both reduce the deficit and reduce taxes?

it's the laffer curve. Currently we are being taxed higher than the balance point of maximum revenue for minimum tax. We've got a long way to go with that actually. A flat tax with no exemptions at like 10-13% would be the best way to reach that.

Also, you'd have to do a lot of fed government program slashing and budget reduction. Pretty much every cabinet department made after 1951 would do a lot.

Well, clearly we all want the same thing and just disagree on what is the best means to achieve it....that alone is some progress. I'm not convinced the Laffer Curve makes sense, certainly not in a deflationary economy, and I think a flat tax is wishful thinking.

But still, we do have areas of agreement. That's more than I would have expected.

 

[Big Fitz]

The Flat Tax IS wishful thinking because the political will is not there to end the IRS as a wealth redistribution tool.

 

[Madeline]

The Flat Tax IS wishful thinking because the political will is not there to end the IRS as a wealth redistribution tool.

I agree, but I bet you and I disagree as to who would oppose it. (Well, first, let's concede that a true flat tax is not possible. We need a simple graduated rate to protect the destitute.)

The flat tax is more than imposing a single level of tax on all taxpayers. It is also elimination of all deductions, exemptions and any other fiddling around. Items of income that have never been taxed in the US....loan proceeds, life insurance pay offs, inheritances, etc.....would all be subject to taxation for the first time. Deductions such as mortgage interest expense, charitable donations, married filing jointly, dependent children -- all gone.

I'll give you one guess where I think the loudest bellyaching would come from.

 

[Big Fitz]

The Flat Tax IS wishful thinking because the political will is not there to end the IRS as a wealth redistribution tool.

I agree, but I bet you and I disagree as to who would oppose it. (Well, first, let's concede that a true flat tax is not possible. We need a simple graduated rate to protect the destitute.)

The flat tax is more than imposing a single level of tax on all taxpayers. It is also elimination of all deductions, exemptions and any other fiddling around. Items of income that have never been taxed in the US....loan proceeds, life insurance pay offs, inheritances, etc.....would all be subject to taxation for the first time. Deductions such as mortgage interest expense, charitable donations, married filing jointly, dependent children -- all gone.

I'll give you one guess where I think the loudest bellyaching would come from.

The key word then is Destitute. As in poorer than poor. Say a yearly income of less than 15k. All others pay.

Remember, a 10% tax on a person making 20k is only 2k a year. On a person making 2 million, it's 200k. That's quite fair I think.

 

[Madeline]

The Flat Tax IS wishful thinking because the political will is not there to end the IRS as a wealth redistribution tool.

I agree, but I bet you and I disagree as to who would oppose it. (Well, first, let's concede that a true flat tax is not possible. We need a simple graduated rate to protect the destitute.)

The flat tax is more than imposing a single level of tax on all taxpayers. It is also elimination of all deductions, exemptions and any other fiddling around. Items of income that have never been taxed in the US....loan proceeds, life insurance pay offs, inheritances, etc.....would all be subject to taxation for the first time. Deductions such as mortgage interest expense, charitable donations, married filing jointly, dependent children -- all gone.

I'll give you one guess where I think the loudest bellyaching would come from.

The key word then is Destitute. As in poorer than poor. Say a yearly income of less than 15k. All others pay.

Remember, a 10% tax on a person making 20k is only 2k a year. On a person making 2 million, it's 200k. That's quite fair I think.

You'll get no argument from me, Fizzy, but the consensus among most tax pundits is a flat tax will redistribute the tax burden (to a degree, downward onto the working poor) largely onto the wealthy. And that, in a nutshell, is why we'll never have one.

 

[Big Fitz]

The top 5% of all wage earners currently pay more than 75% of all taxes. The bottom 60% pays nothing, or worse, gets more back than they paid. This would actually take the burden off the top tax brackets while still collecting the most from them (meaning that 10% of their earnings is still larger than everyone else). The ending of the redistribution would also lower the tax burden.

Combine that with appropriate spending cuts and federal departments, problem's solved quickly.

You must realize that if hiring an accountant for a tens of thousands of dollars to play loophole games that then dodge hundreds of thousands of dollars is a great savings, even though you're still having to employ someone specifically for the job of finding exemptions because someone in the government feels it's wrong for them to have what they earn or own. Better to reduce excessive rates and eliminate social engineering loopholes and dodges and just charge it flat and let the chips fall where they may.

FYI, Russia employs a flat tax of 13%.

 

[Madeline]

I dispute your figures, my Big Fizzy friend, and I remind you that wages are not the only form of income.