Republican politicians lie when they say they want to stop deficit spending

[Queen]

BTW, we should not raise taxes in a recession.

Guess what? It's going to happen very soon...Obama has announced he's "agnostic" about raising taxes on "all Americans."

Yeah, you guys keep spreading that lie. Obama keeps saying he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

He's just going to let Bush tax cuts on the rich expire.

Well be back to the days of prosperity like in the 90s.

 

[SFC Ollie]

BTW, we should not raise taxes in a recession.

Guess what? It's going to happen very soon...Obama has announced he's "agnostic" about raising taxes on "all Americans."

Yeah, you guys keep spreading that lie. Obama keeps saying he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

He's just going to let Bush tax cuts on the rich expire.

Well be back to the days of prosperity like in the 90s.

Obama has already raised taxes on some of the poorest Americans in the form of his cigarette tax.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Obama has already raised taxes on some of the poorest Americans in the form of his cigarette tax.

Cigarettes are intrinsically a "stupid" tax. Only stupid people smoke so only stupid people have to buy them. Putting a tax on them is actually a possible way to reduce the consumption of cigarettes (along with consumption due to cigarettes) without hurting anyone. People who spend $60 a week on cigarettes can still spend &60 a week on cigarettes and just smoke less. Win Win

 

[Misty]

"Congress agreed Thursday to revive the pay-as-you-go budget rules that helped wipe out massive deficits and balance the budget during the Clinton administration, although the new version includes a long list of exceptions that would permit Democrats to add at least $1.5 trillion to the nation's tab over the next decade."

Long list of exceptions. Another empty promise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020400354.html

 

[Tech_Esq]

BTW, we should not raise taxes in a recession.

Dang you toro and your logic. LOL.

These guys wanted to eliminate the deficit. I was discussing with them how that would have to work. I figured they'd reach the conclusion that you can't reduce the deficit until the recession is over on their own, eventually, and therefore stop bitching about deficit spending ending "RIGHT NOW".

I personally agree, in general, that you should not raise taxes until the recession is over, for the same reason you should not lower federal spending until the deficit is over.

But rightie-types don't want to hear that, so I figured I'd play along for a bit and see where it went. If they reached the conclusion on their own they might be more amenable to it...

The problem with that is that you can't spend enough to make a difference. This is a $12 Trillion / year economy. Can you even comprehend how much the government would have to spend to move the needle on that? Well, don't be ashamed if you can't, it's eluding the best so-called minds in the government today.

The only way you can do it is to spend money be cutting taxes. Then you get the multiplier of private investment. Create certainty instead of doubt in the markets so businesses are not afraid to invest. Until then, it's good money after bad.

 

[Tech_Esq]

"Congress agreed Thursday to revive the pay-as-you-go budget rules that helped wipe out massive deficits and balance the budget during the Clinton administration, although the new version includes a long list of exceptions that would permit Democrats to add at least $1.5 trillion to the nation's tab over the next decade."

Long list of exceptions. Another empty promise.

washingtonpost.com

More soft-soap and eye-wash. THANKS HARRY!!!

 

[Charles Stucker]

Hmmm, how did the economy do in the 90s before Bush cut taxes on the richest of the rich?

You asked the question the wrong way.
"How is it that, despite a tremendously robust economy fueled by technological development the Democrats led by Bill Clinton could not pay down the debt?"
The Boom of the 90's was caused by the internet revolution. Not by Bill Clinton or the Democrats.
Don't be an idiot.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Obama has already raised taxes on some of the poorest Americans in the form of his cigarette tax.

Cigarettes are intrinsically a "stupid" tax. Only stupid people smoke so only stupid people have to buy them. Putting a tax on them is actually a possible way to reduce the consumption of cigarettes (along with consumption due to cigarettes) without hurting anyone. People who spend $60 a week on cigarettes can still spend &60 a week on cigarettes and just smoke less. Win Win

Wait! Obama smokes.....are you saying Obama is ...

No! couldn't be.

 

[Tech_Esq]

BTW, we should not raise taxes in a recession.

Guess what? It's going to happen very soon...Obama has announced he's "agnostic" about raising taxes on "all Americans."

Yeah, you guys keep spreading that lie. Obama keeps saying he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

He's just going to let Bush tax cuts on the rich expire.

Well be back to the days of prosperity like in the 90s.

So, let me see if I can follow your logic.

If Obama let's the "BUSH" tax cuts expire. No more child credit for me, my marginal rate increases 5+% (I hate to say it, but I'm not rich either). Since the Dems haven't passed the AMT patch, I might get hit with that.

But, despite all the wealth being taken from me, you claim that the days of prosperity will be back. So, if more money is taken from someone, they are said to be more prosperous???? I think you need to look the word up. There is a good chance you don't know what it means.

 

[uscitizen]

Guess what? It's going to happen very soon...Obama has announced he's "agnostic" about raising taxes on "all Americans."

Yeah, you guys keep spreading that lie. Obama keeps saying he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

He's just going to let Bush tax cuts on the rich expire.

Well be back to the days of prosperity like in the 90s.

Obama has already raised taxes on some of the poorest Americans in the form of his cigarette tax.

Yep for the stupid ones of us.
Now if they would just double alcohol taxes.

 

[uscitizen]

Guess what? It's going to happen very soon...Obama has announced he's "agnostic" about raising taxes on "all Americans."

Yeah, you guys keep spreading that lie. Obama keeps saying he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

He's just going to let Bush tax cuts on the rich expire.

Well be back to the days of prosperity like in the 90s.

So, let me see if I can follow your logic.

If Obama let's the "BUSH" tax cuts expire. No more child credit for me, my marginal rate increases 5+% (I hate to say it, but I'm not rich either). Since the Dems haven't passed the AMT patch, I might get hit with that.

But, despite all the wealth being taken from me, you claim that the days of prosperity will be back. So, if more money is taken from someone, they are said to be more prosperous???? I think you need to look the word up. There is a good chance you don't know what it means.

And the rest of us are supposed to give you lower taxes because you have children?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Now if they would just double alcohol taxes.

I could get on board for that tax increase too.

 

[Article 15]

There is so much partisan douchebaggery going on in this thread that it makes me sick.

 

[uscitizen]

Don't let it get to ya man.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Yeah, you guys keep spreading that lie. Obama keeps saying he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

He's just going to let Bush tax cuts on the rich expire.

Well be back to the days of prosperity like in the 90s.

So, let me see if I can follow your logic.

If Obama let's the "BUSH" tax cuts expire. No more child credit for me, my marginal rate increases 5+% (I hate to say it, but I'm not rich either). Since the Dems haven't passed the AMT patch, I might get hit with that.

But, despite all the wealth being taken from me, you claim that the days of prosperity will be back. So, if more money is taken from someone, they are said to be more prosperous???? I think you need to look the word up. There is a good chance you don't know what it means.

And the rest of us are supposed to give you lower taxes because you have children?

You do now. Don't blame me for the stupid tax system. The liberals came up with it. You're the ones that think a "Progressive income tax" is the way to go. With all it's warts, it's yours not mine. I just do my best not to fall on the wrong side of it. (Which is no mean feat, by the way).

 

[Article 15]

Don't let it get to ya man.

This poo flinging and blame assigning is sickening.

 

[Toro]

Obama has already raised taxes on some of the poorest Americans in the form of his cigarette tax.

Cigarettes are intrinsically a "stupid" tax. Only stupid people smoke so only stupid people have to buy them. Putting a tax on them is actually a possible way to reduce the consumption of cigarettes (along with consumption due to cigarettes) without hurting anyone. People who spend $60 a week on cigarettes can still spend &60 a week on cigarettes and just smoke less. Win Win

Cigarettes have a low price elasticity. What that means is that demand falls much more slowly than the rise in price. Most rich nations heavily tax smokes for this reason.

As much as I agree with taxing cigs heavily, doing it now would be a bad idea.

 

[Toro]

BTW, we should not raise taxes in a recession.

Dang you toro and your logic. LOL.

These guys wanted to eliminate the deficit. I was discussing with them how that would have to work. I figured they'd reach the conclusion that you can't reduce the deficit until the recession is over on their own, eventually, and therefore stop bitching about deficit spending ending "RIGHT NOW".

I personally agree, in general, that you should not raise taxes until the recession is over, for the same reason you should not lower federal spending until the deficit is over.

But rightie-types don't want to hear that, so I figured I'd play along for a bit and see where it went. If they reached the conclusion on their own they might be more amenable to it...

The problem with that is that you can't spend enough to make a difference. This is a $12 Trillion / year economy. Can you even comprehend how much the government would have to spend to move the needle on that? Well, don't be ashamed if you can't, it's eluding the best so-called minds in the government today.

The only way you can do it is to spend money be cutting taxes. Then you get the multiplier of private investment. Create certainty instead of doubt in the markets so businesses are not afraid to invest. Until then, it's good money after bad.

One of Bush's chief economic advisers, Greg Mankiw, estimated that for every dollar in tax cuts, the government lost 83 cents in revenue. In other words, there was some increased economic activity but it only generated 17 cents in taxes, not the $1 or higher for every $1 in taxes cut.

The idea that the US is on the right side of the Laffer Curve has not only never been proven empirically, no serious economist argues it today. Even when Laffer conceived of the idea, he didn't back it up with statistical data. It was just an idea.

 

[Toro]

Hmmm, how did the economy do in the 90s before Bush cut taxes on the richest of the rich?

You asked the question the wrong way.
"How is it that, despite a tremendously robust economy fueled by technological development the Democrats led by Bill Clinton could not pay down the debt?"
The Boom of the 90's was caused by the internet revolution. Not by Bill Clinton or the Democrats.
Don't be an idiot.

Clinton certainly benefited from the rise in capital gains tax receipts, but his (and George HW Bush's) tax increases, as well as his and the Republican Congress's spending restraints are the main reason why the budget was in surplus.

The debt rose under Clinton because of increases in liabilities in the social security and medicare trusts. Total publicly held debt fell under Clinton.

As for how well did the rich do in the 90s.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Dang you toro and your logic. LOL.

These guys wanted to eliminate the deficit. I was discussing with them how that would have to work. I figured they'd reach the conclusion that you can't reduce the deficit until the recession is over on their own, eventually, and therefore stop bitching about deficit spending ending "RIGHT NOW".

I personally agree, in general, that you should not raise taxes until the recession is over, for the same reason you should not lower federal spending until the deficit is over.

But rightie-types don't want to hear that, so I figured I'd play along for a bit and see where it went. If they reached the conclusion on their own they might be more amenable to it...

The problem with that is that you can't spend enough to make a difference. This is a $12 Trillion / year economy. Can you even comprehend how much the government would have to spend to move the needle on that? Well, don't be ashamed if you can't, it's eluding the best so-called minds in the government today.

The only way you can do it is to spend money be cutting taxes. Then you get the multiplier of private investment. Create certainty instead of doubt in the markets so businesses are not afraid to invest. Until then, it's good money after bad.

One of Bush's chief economic advisers, Greg Mankiw, estimated that for every dollar in tax cuts, the government lost 83 cents in revenue. In other words, there was some increased economic activity but it only generated 17 cents in taxes, not the $1 or higher for every $1 in taxes cut.

The idea that the US is on the right side of the Laffer Curve has not only never been proven empirically, no serious economist argues it today. Even when Laffer conceived of the idea, he didn't back it up with statistical data. It was just an idea.

I assume the reverse is true as well? No one has taken the time to prove we're on the other side of the Laffer curve and therefore its logic doesn't apply.

In any case, I'm beginning to believe that the real problem with taxation isn't quite so much the fact of it as the specter of it. Business not knowing what the future will hold with regard to so much of the government regulation/taxation/health care landscape, has virtually stopped them in their tracks. How can you make rational short and medium term decisions when you don't know what tomorrow will look like.

While taxes may in the end be devastating or not, uncertainty is here and it's a MF'r!