Republicans are afraid to propose spending cuts!

[saveliberty]

Obviously not free money. But indeed sufficient spending to help mitigate the unfair effects of cutbacks in base and other communities where military spending created economies which are near solely dependent upon personnel and bases we created, even if as I believe they were a multiple of what was needed to defend our nation.

In short, we created the monster and need to scale it down responsibly.

Since it was irresponsible to make the monster in the first place, its doubtful anyone in Washington has a clue what responsible is.

 

[Oldstyle]

OMG, this is getting funnier by the minute.

According to the latest accounts, Obama is pushing very hard on taxing the rich -- not only expiration of Bush tax cuts, but also rising the dividend and estate taxes. In exchange, Dems are proposing modest spending cuts, leaving it to Republicans to offer what else they see fit to axe.

Now that is where it gets comical -- Republicans refuse to detail any additional spending cuts! They say they are desperately needed, huge cuts too. But they are afraid -- and for a good reason too -- that if they themselves would put any specific proposals regarding the entitlement programs on the table, the voters would punish them.

So Republicnas are practically begging the Dems to do the honor and commit a political suicide.

Now tell me -- aren't they cute? Saying no to them is like taking a candy from a little girl -- breaks one's heart! I see John Boehner crying again.

They should be afraid to cut. Me, too. Sending is already cut to the bone, IMO. And businesses, mostly small businesses, are struggling for sales. How on earth anyone thinks cuts in spending, by either us or our government, will do anything but fuck over already struggling small businesses, baffles me.

So let's just raise taxes and get on with the task of growing the market.

And if the only victim is the retarded pseudo-economic rhetoric the GOP has been relying on, then so be it. The needs of the American People trumps the political convenience of the GOP, IMO.

Ah yes...another progressive who slept through Econ. 101 is heard from!

Let's raise taxes...taking money out of the private sector...instead of cutting governmental waste and reforming entitlements so they are actually affordable. THAT'LL GROW THE MARKET ALL RIGHT!!!

What is wrong with you people? Seriously...were you all stoned when your Econ Prof. went over the effects of raising taxes on an economy? Or were you taking Basketweaving and the Anthropology of Primitive People instead of a course that was actually useful?

 

[GoneBezerk]

So I'm guessing an idiot like you doesn't think there is a need for a strong military, there's no threat out there. Right?

China isn't growing their military? Russia isn't modernizing their military post-Cold War? Iran really, really building towards nuclear weapons?

Just ignore other countries out there and turn military bases into work center, amusement parks, etc.

Of course, you're the idiot that thinks the US military only stood up for World War II. There were no bases before WWII in your uneducated mind.

Not that I know of, nor would I wish it until our non college bound young people have other alternatives in lieu of military service, and base communities are transitioned with federal government assistance.

your answer to everything

free money

Obviously not free money. But indeed sufficient spending to help mitigate the unfair effects of cutbacks in base and other communities where military spending created economies which are near solely dependent upon personnel and bases we created, even if as I believe they were a multiple of what was needed to defend our nation.

In short, we created the monster and need to scale it down responsibly.

 

[Koios]

Obviously not free money. But indeed sufficient spending to help mitigate the unfair effects of cutbacks in base and other communities where military spending created economies which are near solely dependent upon personnel and bases we created, even if as I believe they were a multiple of what was needed to defend our nation.

In short, we created the monster and need to scale it down responsibly.

Since it was irresponsible to make the monster in the first place, its doubtful anyone in Washington has a clue what responsible is.

Be that as it may, being irresponsible on top of a prior irresponsible expenditure is as unacceptable as the initial irresponsibility.

 

[Koios]

So I'm guessing an idiot like you doesn't think there is a need for a strong military, there's no threat out there. Right?

China isn't growing their military? Russia isn't modernizing their military post-Cold War? Iran really, really building towards nuclear weapons?

Just ignore other countries out there and turn military bases into work center, amusement parks, etc.

Of course, you're the idiot that thinks the US military only stood up for World War II. There were no bases before WWII in your uneducated mind.

your answer to everything

free money

Obviously not free money. But indeed sufficient spending to help mitigate the unfair effects of cutbacks in base and other communities where military spending created economies which are near solely dependent upon personnel and bases we created, even if as I believe they were a multiple of what was needed to defend our nation.

In short, we created the monster and need to scale it down responsibly.

Guess again.

 

[saveliberty]

Obviously not free money. But indeed sufficient spending to help mitigate the unfair effects of cutbacks in base and other communities where military spending created economies which are near solely dependent upon personnel and bases we created, even if as I believe they were a multiple of what was needed to defend our nation.

In short, we created the monster and need to scale it down responsibly.

Since it was irresponsible to make the monster in the first place, its doubtful anyone in Washington has a clue what responsible is.

Be that as it may, being irresponsible on top of a prior irresponsible expenditure is as unacceptable as the initial irresponsibility.

I think you're confusing irresponsible with financial challenges.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Are you still claiming we didn't have a standing military "before" World War II?

Last time I checked....FDR was building up the US military BEFORE Congress declared war on Japan.....but we can go earlier than that like say the start of this country with the USMC.

So I'm guessing an idiot like you doesn't think there is a need for a strong military, there's no threat out there. Right?

China isn't growing their military? Russia isn't modernizing their military post-Cold War? Iran really, really building towards nuclear weapons?

Just ignore other countries out there and turn military bases into work center, amusement parks, etc.

Of course, you're the idiot that thinks the US military only stood up for World War II. There were no bases before WWII in your uneducated mind.

Obviously not free money. But indeed sufficient spending to help mitigate the unfair effects of cutbacks in base and other communities where military spending created economies which are near solely dependent upon personnel and bases we created, even if as I believe they were a multiple of what was needed to defend our nation.

In short, we created the monster and need to scale it down responsibly.

Guess again.

 

[Koios]

Are you still claiming we didn't have a standing military "before" World War II?

Last time I checked....FDR was building up the US military BEFORE Congress declared war on Japan.....but we can go earlier than that like say the start of this country with the USMC.

So I'm guessing an idiot like you doesn't think there is a need for a strong military, there's no threat out there. Right?

China isn't growing their military? Russia isn't modernizing their military post-Cold War? Iran really, really building towards nuclear weapons?

Just ignore other countries out there and turn military bases into work center, amusement parks, etc.

Of course, you're the idiot that thinks the US military only stood up for World War II. There were no bases before WWII in your uneducated mind.

Guess again.

Truman Doctrine lead to our modern day standing military.

 

[GoneBezerk]

There has always been a standing military in this country ever since we broke away from the British.

After World War II we realized we couldn't be in a situation again where it took years to build up our military to stop a threat, otherwise you get millions killed in World Wars.

Downsizing the military for some so-called "peace dividend" will eventually bite you in the ass when the next threat pops up and we aren't able to stop it in time.

It's better to prevent war by being meaner, bigger and stronger than the enemy than to give them any hope they can beat us in a war....what a concept. The kid in school that showed weakness, usually got attacked by bullies....the badass kid didn't get bothered by the bullies because payback would be a bitch to fight the badass.

Are you still claiming we didn't have a standing military "before" World War II?

Last time I checked....FDR was building up the US military BEFORE Congress declared war on Japan.....but we can go earlier than that like say the start of this country with the USMC.

Guess again.

Truman Doctrine lead to our modern day standing military.

 

[beagle9]

There has always been a standing military in this country ever since we broke away from the British.

After World War II we realized we couldn't be in a situation again where it took years to build up our military to stop a threat, otherwise you get millions killed in World Wars.

Downsizing the military for some so-called "peace dividend" will eventually bite you in the ass when the next threat pops up and we aren't able to stop it in time.

It's better to prevent war by being meaner, bigger and stronger than the enemy than to give them any hope they can beat us in a war....what a concept. The kid in school that showed weakness, usually got attacked by bullies....the badass kid didn't get bothered by the bullies because payback would be a bitch to fight the badass.

Are you still claiming we didn't have a standing military "before" World War II?

Last time I checked....FDR was building up the US military BEFORE Congress declared war on Japan.....but we can go earlier than that like say the start of this country with the USMC.

Truman Doctrine lead to our modern day standing military.

It's funny how the simplist of things can't be absorbed into the mind isn't it ? They know what you are saying, but for some reason they have been duped or re-programed in their lives to forget these important points made.

 

[ilia25]

OMG, this is getting funnier by the minute.

According to the latest accounts, Obama is pushing very hard on taxing the rich -- not only expiration of Bush tax cuts, but also rising the dividend and estate taxes. In exchange, Dems are proposing modest spending cuts, leaving it to Republicans to offer what else they see fit to axe.

Now that is where it gets comical -- Republicans refuse to detail any additional spending cuts! They say they are desperately needed, huge cuts too. But they are afraid -- and for a good reason too -- that if they themselves would put any specific proposals regarding the entitlement programs on the table, the voters would punish them.

So Republicnas are practically begging the Dems to do the honor and commit a political suicide.

Now tell me -- aren't they cute? Saying no to them is like taking a candy from a little girl -- breaks one's heart! I see John Boehner crying again.

They should be afraid to cut. Me, too. Sending is already cut to the bone, IMO. And businesses, mostly small businesses, are struggling for sales. How on earth anyone thinks cuts in spending, by either us or our government, will do anything but fuck over already struggling small businesses, baffles me.

So let's just raise taxes and get on with the task of growing the market.

And if the only victim is the retarded pseudo-economic rhetoric the GOP has been relying on, then so be it. The needs of the American People trumps the political convenience of the GOP, IMO.

Ah yes...another progressive who slept through Econ. 101 is heard from!

Let's raise taxes...taking money out of the private sector...instead of cutting governmental waste and reforming entitlements so they are actually affordable. THAT'LL GROW THE MARKET ALL RIGHT!!!

What is wrong with you people? Seriously...were you all stoned when your Econ Prof. went over the effects of raising taxes on an economy? Or were you taking Basketweaving and the Anthropology of Primitive People instead of a course that was actually useful?

A research paper recommending 70% top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

 

[saveliberty]

A research paper recommending 70% top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

So is Obama. You got a point?

 

[ilia25]

A research paper recommending 70% top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

So is Obama. You got a point?

Diamond has won a Nobel in Economics. They don't give those if you don't know what are you talking about.

Also, why is it that you are keep playing dumb? Don't you realize that your are discredit yourself by comments like this, or about my chart from 2010 (showing a 30 year trend) being too old?

 

[Koios]

There has always been a standing military in this country ever since we broke away from the British.

After World War II we realized we couldn't be in a situation again where it took years to build up our military to stop a threat, otherwise you get millions killed in World Wars.

Downsizing the military for some so-called "peace dividend" will eventually bite you in the ass when the next threat pops up and we aren't able to stop it in time.

It's better to prevent war by being meaner, bigger and stronger than the enemy than to give them any hope they can beat us in a war....what a concept. The kid in school that showed weakness, usually got attacked by bullies....the badass kid didn't get bothered by the bullies because payback would be a bitch to fight the badass.

Truman Doctrine lead to our modern day standing military.

It's funny how the simplist of things can't be absorbed into the mind isn't it ? They know what you are saying, but for some reason they have been duped or re-programed in their lives to forget these important points made.

Apparently so.

 

[Koios]

There has always been a standing military in this country ever since we broke away from the British.

After World War II we realized we couldn't be in a situation again where it took years to build up our military to stop a threat, otherwise you get millions killed in World Wars.

Downsizing the military for some so-called "peace dividend" will eventually bite you in the ass when the next threat pops up and we aren't able to stop it in time.

It's better to prevent war by being meaner, bigger and stronger than the enemy than to give them any hope they can beat us in a war....what a concept. The kid in school that showed weakness, usually got attacked by bullies....the badass kid didn't get bothered by the bullies because payback would be a bitch to fight the badass.

Are you still claiming we didn't have a standing military "before" World War II?

Last time I checked....FDR was building up the US military BEFORE Congress declared war on Japan.....but we can go earlier than that like say the start of this country with the USMC.

Truman Doctrine lead to our modern day standing military.

Not really, comparatively speaking. Military was scaled to need, as needed, whether dealing with the war with England, part duex, Indian Wars, etc.

But the Truman Doctrine changed all that. Military was scaled to our current methodology, which is a standing military, which can be mobilized instantly should a need arise.

Obviously there's some cost involved, and thus economies built up around it, going on 50+ years. And thus simply defunding it is not without other costs, such as huge layoffs at Lockheed, Boeing, etc. Base towns thrust into economic ruin. Military personnel dumped into the streets, at a time that job prospects are less than rosy. So huge unemployment costs would result. Crime would increase in base towns turned into ghost towns, which would ill afford the cost of dealing with it. Revenues would diminish from displaced workers and reduced company profits. So once again, we created the monster, making it ours to deal with intelligently (read: the opposite of how Libertarian dimwits who have no grasp of the dynamic nature of economies would suggest.)

 

[Oldstyle]

They should be afraid to cut. Me, too. Sending is already cut to the bone, IMO. And businesses, mostly small businesses, are struggling for sales. How on earth anyone thinks cuts in spending, by either us or our government, will do anything but fuck over already struggling small businesses, baffles me.

So let's just raise taxes and get on with the task of growing the market.

And if the only victim is the retarded pseudo-economic rhetoric the GOP has been relying on, then so be it. The needs of the American People trumps the political convenience of the GOP, IMO.

Ah yes...another progressive who slept through Econ. 101 is heard from!

Let's raise taxes...taking money out of the private sector...instead of cutting governmental waste and reforming entitlements so they are actually affordable. THAT'LL GROW THE MARKET ALL RIGHT!!!

What is wrong with you people? Seriously...were you all stoned when your Econ Prof. went over the effects of raising taxes on an economy? Or were you taking Basketweaving and the Anthropology of Primitive People instead of a course that was actually useful?

A research paper recommending 70% top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

Am I really supposed to be impressed with the fact that someone won a Nobel Prize these days? Might I remind you that Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for showing up? A Nobel Prize used to mean something...now it's just an "anointment" by a group of people with a liberal agenda.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Ah yes...another progressive who slept through Econ. 101 is heard from!

Let's raise taxes...taking money out of the private sector...instead of cutting governmental waste and reforming entitlements so they are actually affordable. THAT'LL GROW THE MARKET ALL RIGHT!!!

What is wrong with you people? Seriously...were you all stoned when your Econ Prof. went over the effects of raising taxes on an economy? Or were you taking Basketweaving and the Anthropology of Primitive People instead of a course that was actually useful?

A research paper recommending 70% top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

Am I really supposed to be impressed with the fact that someone won a Nobel Prize these days? Might I remind you that Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for showing up? A Nobel Prize used to mean something...now it's just an "anointment" by a group of people with a liberal agenda.

yeah, the Nobel Prize is now a worthless piece of paper....... wing nut logic at its finest.

 

[Koios]

Ah yes...another progressive who slept through Econ. 101 is heard from!

Let's raise taxes...taking money out of the private sector...instead of cutting governmental waste and reforming entitlements so they are actually affordable. THAT'LL GROW THE MARKET ALL RIGHT!!!

What is wrong with you people? Seriously...were you all stoned when your Econ Prof. went over the effects of raising taxes on an economy? Or were you taking Basketweaving and the Anthropology of Primitive People instead of a course that was actually useful?

A research paper recommending 70% top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

Am I really supposed to be impressed with the fact that someone won a Nobel Prize these days? Might I remind you that Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for showing up? A Nobel Prize used to mean something...now it's just an "anointment" by a group of people with a liberal agenda.

What did it mean before? And when was the shift?

I merely ask since I need to know at what point Nobel laureate economists became icons of Liberal ideology and Beck and Limbaugh took over the mental heavy-lifting.

TIA,
-K

 

[Oldstyle]

And even in the paper that your liberal economists put out advocating raising taxes they admit the following: "Of course, increasing upper income tax
rates can discourage economic activity through behavioral responses, and hence
potentially reduce tax collections, creating the standard equity-efficiency trade-off
discussed in the introduction."

What they're admitting is that there is a natural response to higher taxes and that response is to move capital into investments that aren't taxed at the new higher rate.

 

[Oldstyle]

A research paper recommending 70% top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

Am I really supposed to be impressed with the fact that someone won a Nobel Prize these days? Might I remind you that Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for showing up? A Nobel Prize used to mean something...now it's just an "anointment" by a group of people with a liberal agenda.

yeah, the Nobel Prize is now a worthless piece of paper....... wing nut logic at its finest.

The Nobel Prize is what it is...it's an award given by a certain group of "selectors" who to be quite frank have politicized the award to the point of making it less prestigious than it used to be. It's hardly worthless since it's accompanied by a million dollar prize. Does it make the people that receive it "right"? Hardly...