Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

[The Rabbi]

It's not wimping out to think you are suggesting an unmitigated disaster. Why don't you try to jump your car over the grand canyon? Don't wimp out on me now.

You say it with no rationale. I say taxing a trillion dollars out of the economy will be an unmitigated disaster. We need pro growth policies. Not pro big government policies.

You mean the pro-growth policies that republicans routinely passed over the last thirty years? The ones that explode deficit you hate so much? They aren't working and are still raising the deficit so what new are you wanting to do?

I dont recall any downgrades of US debt when the GOP controlled Congress. I recall that under Bush UE was routinely 4-5%. Obama would love to have Bush's numbers.
Again, you're flinging slogans and cliches rather than arguing with facts.

 

[The Rabbi]

I went to look for another chart that projects military spending into the future that explicitly includes the sequestration cuts and it seems that there is tremendous disagreement as to what they entail so at this point I can't say for sure what they will look like, some show precipitous plunges (not believing it) others show modest declines while other claim that spending will go up anyway due to pending contracts so your guess is as good as mine since that seems to be all anyone is doing.

The military budget is less than what you want to cut so I would assume that would turn out to be pretty fucken severe.

I never even suggested cuts that massive, I was hoping you would go back and read rather than keep on attacking me for such a ludicrous thing as cutting the defense budget by a trillion. If you are interested read back or you can just take my word for it that I suggested cutting them to 2005 levels as a kind of half-assed challenge to Rabbi who wanted to cut the federal budget to 2005 levels which happens to be a bigger cut than the sequestration cuts. edit: and an overall one year cut of a trillion dollars to the entire federal budget.

You keep dodging here. You want to increase taxes on the rich but fail to acknowledge that would be far worse than cutting spending. What is it about cutting spending you object to? You think widows and orphans will be starving in the streets if we do this?

 

[mudwhistle]

Now that the election is over the Democrats are starting to sound the same as Mitt Romney.

The talking-points they've been using has been "We're going to let the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthiest 1% expire".

Now they're saying "We don't want to raise rates but remove loop-holes".

Actually both plans are pretty much the same. The Democrats rhetoric is just less honest because who decides which loop-holes they decide to remove? Will the loop-holes only effect the rich or everyone?

Well, behind closed doors politicians are liable to do anything......and a politician that thinks he can get away with murder is a dangerous possibility.

This is your typical Democrat today.

 

[mudwhistle]

I went to look for another chart that projects military spending into the future that explicitly includes the sequestration cuts and it seems that there is tremendous disagreement as to what they entail so at this point I can't say for sure what they will look like, some show precipitous plunges (not believing it) others show modest declines while other claim that spending will go up anyway due to pending contracts so your guess is as good as mine since that seems to be all anyone is doing.

The military budget is less than what you want to cut so I would assume that would turn out to be pretty fucken severe.

I never even suggested cuts that massive, I was hoping you would go back and read rather than keep on attacking me for such a ludicrous thing as cutting the defense budget by a trillion. If you are interested read back or you can just take my word for it that I suggested cutting them to 2005 levels as a kind of half-assed challenge to Rabbi who wanted to cut the federal budget to 2005 levels which happens to be a bigger cut than the sequestration cuts. edit: and an overall one year cut of a trillion dollars to the entire federal budget.

Sequestration cuts $500 billion from the Defense budget and you wanted to double that.

Your ideas are horseshit. Cutting a trillion dollars for a year would decimate the government to the point that it wouldn't recover for a decade.

You want a depression that's the way to do it.

We're already cut back to the bone and you want to cost jobs in the federal government and all of those contractors that depend on Defense spending as well.

What we need less of is all of the free giveaways to folks that don't need it. Free cell phones, social security disability for people that are able bodied but unable to work, 99 weeks of unemployment payments. Cut back on food stamps. This is where most of the waste is today. This is where the cuts need to be made. Instead of sucking off of the government teet they need to find another job and the government needs to stop intentionally making them unemployed.

 

[JoeB131]

It would barely raise enough money to get FEMA out of its deficit. If they want to raise taxes I say let all the cuts expire. Fair is fair

No, we really need to make the rich pay their fair share.

 

[JoeB131]

Sequestration cuts $500 billion from the Defense budget and you wanted to double that.

Your ideas are horseshit. Cutting a trillion dollars for a year would decimate the government to the point that it wouldn't recover for a decade.

You want a depression that's the way to do it.

We're already cut back to the bone and you want to cost jobs in the federal government and all of those contractors that depend on Defense spending as well.

What we need less of is all of the free giveaways to folks that don't need it. Free cell phones, social security disability for people that are able bodied but unable to work, 99 weeks of unemployment payments. Cut back on food stamps. This is where most of the waste is today. This is where the cuts need to be made. Instead of sucking off of the government teet they need to find another job and the government needs to stop intentionally making them unemployed.

Actually, I would rather give food stamps to people that are hungry than spend 440 million on a super-secret stealth fighter that can't fly in the rain, apparenlty.

High-Priced F-22 Fighter Has Major Shortcomings

This is why the GOP keeps losing elections. Somehow "conservatism" has morphed into a sort of mean-spiritedness that most people reject.

 

[occupied]

The military budget is less than what you want to cut so I would assume that would turn out to be pretty fucken severe.

I never even suggested cuts that massive, I was hoping you would go back and read rather than keep on attacking me for such a ludicrous thing as cutting the defense budget by a trillion. If you are interested read back or you can just take my word for it that I suggested cutting them to 2005 levels as a kind of half-assed challenge to Rabbi who wanted to cut the federal budget to 2005 levels which happens to be a bigger cut than the sequestration cuts. edit: and an overall one year cut of a trillion dollars to the entire federal budget.

Sequestration cuts $500 billion from the Defense budget and you wanted to double that.

Your ideas are horseshit. Cutting a trillion dollars for a year would decimate the government to the point that it wouldn't recover for a decade.

You want a depression that's the way to do it.

We're already cut back to the bone and you want to cost jobs in the federal government and all of those contractors that depend on Defense spending as well.

What we need less of is all of the free giveaways to folks that don't need it. Free cell phones, social security disability for people that are able bodied but unable to work, 99 weeks of unemployment payments. Cut back on food stamps. This is where most of the waste is today. This is where the cuts need to be made. Instead of sucking off of the government teet they need to find another job and the government needs to stop intentionally making them unemployed.

Did you wake up in a bad mood? Or just with a hard-on for the worthless poor. Buying super-weapons systems that suck or tanks the army doesn't even want is the epitome of useless, wasteful teat suckling. If you are going to spend then spread that cash around in the most economically stimulating manner possible and nothing even comes close to beating food stamps for economic stimulus.

 

[mudwhistle]

It would barely raise enough money to get FEMA out of its deficit. If they want to raise taxes I say let all the cuts expire. Fair is fair

No, we really need to make the rich pay their fair share.

They're already doing that?

Got any new ideas or are you intent on using the usual recycled nonsense?

 

[Care4all]

It would barely raise enough money to get FEMA out of its deficit. If they want to raise taxes I say let all the cuts expire. Fair is fair

it isn't just letting the tax cuts expire on the highest tax bracket....it is also letting the tax cuts expire on Social Security, and eliminating the tax credit for contributing to your 401k, and a few other tax cuts....

And spending cuts...

every little bit counts towards reaching the goal of no deficits at all in 10-20 years.

to walk away just because it does not lower the deficit to zero TODAY is foolish.

 

[mudwhistle]

I never even suggested cuts that massive, I was hoping you would go back and read rather than keep on attacking me for such a ludicrous thing as cutting the defense budget by a trillion. If you are interested read back or you can just take my word for it that I suggested cutting them to 2005 levels as a kind of half-assed challenge to Rabbi who wanted to cut the federal budget to 2005 levels which happens to be a bigger cut than the sequestration cuts. edit: and an overall one year cut of a trillion dollars to the entire federal budget.

Sequestration cuts $500 billion from the Defense budget and you wanted to double that.

Your ideas are horseshit. Cutting a trillion dollars for a year would decimate the government to the point that it wouldn't recover for a decade.

You want a depression that's the way to do it.

We're already cut back to the bone and you want to cost jobs in the federal government and all of those contractors that depend on Defense spending as well.

What we need less of is all of the free giveaways to folks that don't need it. Free cell phones, social security disability for people that are able bodied but unable to work, 99 weeks of unemployment payments. Cut back on food stamps. This is where most of the waste is today. This is where the cuts need to be made. Instead of sucking off of the government teet they need to find another job and the government needs to stop intentionally making them unemployed.

Did you wake up in a bad mood? Or just with a hard-on for the worthless poor. Buying super-weapons systems that suck or tanks the army doesn't even want is the epitome of useless, wasteful teat suckling. If you are going to spend then spread that cash around in the most economically stimulating manner possible and nothing even comes close to beating food stamps for economic stimulus.

I didn't wake up in a bad mood. I just have reached my BS tolerance level.

Obama has been president for 4 years. He cut all of that shit out the first year he was in office with little or no fanfare from the press. He hasn't given federal workers a pay increase since taking office. Your problem is you're living off of old data and leftwing propaganda.

The problem we're having today is spending. Obama has been spreading that cash around and it still isn't working. He has overseen a 95% federal spending increase. And it has nothing to do with the military. It's money going out of this country through proxies like AIG. Using taxpayer cash to bail out union pension plans. 47 million people on food stamps. People leaving unemployment and going directly into social security disability.

The problem is spending to buy public support for their destructive programs.

I used your link. Too bad you don't understand it. If you're going to argue economics and talk about the budget it would help if you didn't just repeat rhetorical nonsense.

 

[The Rabbi]

It would barely raise enough money to get FEMA out of its deficit. If they want to raise taxes I say let all the cuts expire. Fair is fair

it isn't just letting the tax cuts expire on the highest tax bracket....it is also letting the tax cuts expire on Social Security, and eliminating the tax credit for contributing to your 401k, and a few other tax cuts....

And spending cuts...

every little bit counts towards reaching the goal of no deficits at all in 10-20 years.

to walk away just because it does not lower the deficit to zero TODAY is foolish.

And on cue you chime in with worthless garbage.

Obama's own figures for increased tax revenue call for $800B over 10 years. That's not going to have any effect on a trillion dollar plus yearly deficit. It isn't even a credible plan. It's like you facing a $3,000 monthly deficit with maxed out cards and promising you won't spend $4 at Starbucks every week.

 

[The Rabbi]

It would barely raise enough money to get FEMA out of its deficit. If they want to raise taxes I say let all the cuts expire. Fair is fair

No, we really need to make the rich pay their fair share.

The rich (whoever that is) pay about 86% of the total income taxes in this country. How would you define "fair share"? If you taxed them at 100% of their income you still wouldn't make much dent in the deficit.
I got it: instead of taxing them we'll enroll them in a union so you can feel good about high wages.

 

[Antares]

The moment a Lefty uses the phrase "fair share" you know they are ignorant.

 

[mudwhistle]

Sequestration cuts $500 billion from the Defense budget and you wanted to double that.

Your ideas are horseshit. Cutting a trillion dollars for a year would decimate the government to the point that it wouldn't recover for a decade.

You want a depression that's the way to do it.

We're already cut back to the bone and you want to cost jobs in the federal government and all of those contractors that depend on Defense spending as well.

What we need less of is all of the free giveaways to folks that don't need it. Free cell phones, social security disability for people that are able bodied but unable to work, 99 weeks of unemployment payments. Cut back on food stamps. This is where most of the waste is today. This is where the cuts need to be made. Instead of sucking off of the government teet they need to find another job and the government needs to stop intentionally making them unemployed.

Actually, I would rather give food stamps to people that are hungry than spend 440 million on a super-secret stealth fighter that can't fly in the rain, apparenlty.

High-Priced F-22 Fighter Has Major Shortcomings

This is why the GOP keeps losing elections. Somehow "conservatism" has morphed into a sort of mean-spiritedness that most people reject.

Nonsense.

Unless you're using a movie like Star Wars as a ref you can't get around aerodynamics. Unless you can design an aircraft that can levatate you still have to work around the effects weather has on an aircraft.

Designing a jet with anti-radar capabilities has inherent shortcomings. One of them is instability making flying in bad weather risky which is risky for any aircraft.

The problem I see is a failure for liberals like you to face up to reality.

 

[occupied]

It would barely raise enough money to get FEMA out of its deficit. If they want to raise taxes I say let all the cuts expire. Fair is fair

No, we really need to make the rich pay their fair share.

The rich (whoever that is) pay about 86% of the total income taxes in this country. How would you define "fair share"? If you taxed them at 100% of their income you still wouldn't make much dent in the deficit.
I got it: instead of taxing them we'll enroll them in a union so you can feel good about high wages.

There's a lot wrong with your statement but if the rich (let's say a million plus a year) actually paid the same share of all federal, state and local taxes as their share of the total income and wealth they would long for the tax rates suggested by democrats.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, Mud. We dont have as many bayonets as in 1916 either.
He is proposing a classic guns v butter dichotomy. A false one. "Taking the money to feed hungry people" sounds pretty noble. Except he is talking other people's money to feed people who could feed themselves if they had jobs. Or people who could start private charities that are far more efficient than government.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, we really need to make the rich pay their fair share.

The rich (whoever that is) pay about 86% of the total income taxes in this country. How would you define "fair share"? If you taxed them at 100% of their income you still wouldn't make much dent in the deficit.
I got it: instead of taxing them we'll enroll them in a union so you can feel good about high wages.

There's a lot wrong with your statement but if the rich (let's say a million plus a year) actually paid the same share of all federal, state and local taxes as their share of the total income and wealth they would long for the tax rates suggested by democrats.

No, the rich are anyone making $250k and above. Don't you listen to Obama?
The rest of your statement is nonsense. Why should their tax be anything like their share of total income and wealth, whatever that is?
If you want fairness, go after the 47% who aren't paying any tax at all.

 

[mudwhistle]

It would barely raise enough money to get FEMA out of its deficit. If they want to raise taxes I say let all the cuts expire. Fair is fair

it isn't just letting the tax cuts expire on the highest tax bracket....it is also letting the tax cuts expire on Social Security, and eliminating the tax credit for contributing to your 401k, and a few other tax cuts....

And spending cuts...

every little bit counts towards reaching the goal of no deficits at all in 10-20 years.

to walk away just because it does not lower the deficit to zero TODAY is foolish.

First person on the left to admit what the Dems are really after.

Raising everyone's taxes.

 

[occupied]

The rich (whoever that is) pay about 86% of the total income taxes in this country. How would you define "fair share"? If you taxed them at 100% of their income you still wouldn't make much dent in the deficit.
I got it: instead of taxing them we'll enroll them in a union so you can feel good about high wages.

There's a lot wrong with your statement but if the rich (let's say a million plus a year) actually paid the same share of all federal, state and local taxes as their share of the total income and wealth they would long for the tax rates suggested by democrats.

No, the rich are anyone making $250k and above. Don't you listen to Obama?
The rest of your statement is nonsense. Why should their tax be anything like their share of total income and wealth, whatever that is?
If you want fairness, go after the 47% who aren't paying any tax at all.

The worthless 47% pay the bulk of state and local taxes that are so terribly recessive that they more than make up for your bullshit claims of inequality in the tax structure, it's why I included state and local in my statement. On the state and local level the rich are let off the hook in a big way throwing the burden squarely on the middle class and working poor.

 

[mudwhistle]

There's a lot wrong with your statement but if the rich (let's say a million plus a year) actually paid the same share of all federal, state and local taxes as their share of the total income and wealth they would long for the tax rates suggested by democrats.

No, the rich are anyone making $250k and above. Don't you listen to Obama?
The rest of your statement is nonsense. Why should their tax be anything like their share of total income and wealth, whatever that is?
If you want fairness, go after the 47% who aren't paying any tax at all.

The worthless 47% pay the bulk of state and local taxes that are so terribly recessive that they more than make up for your bullshit claims of inequality in the tax structure, it's why I included state and local in my statement. On the state and local level the rich are let off the hook in a big way throwing the burden squarely on the middle class and working poor.

Looks like you know what you're talking about to a point.

The folks being hit the hardest is those who don't pay hardly any income taxes at the federal level. They do however pay FICA and Medicare along with sales-taxes and higher prices due to jacked up excise taxes on businesses.