RE: Bringing civility back to congress.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Bringing civility back to congress.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bringing civility back to congress.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:17:10 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Folks--if we cut EVERYTHING outside of defense, SS, medicaid/medicare, and interest on the debt--it STILL wouldn't erase the deficit. DOES EVERYBODY GET THAT??? This means cuts in defense, cuts in entitlements, and increasing revenue. Anything else is just fantasy.

Not political opinion--simple mathematics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/

Anything else just isn't going to address the deficit.

And yes, that's gonna slow the economy. Welcome to reality, Ye Partisans on All Sides.

Your link is to Blowboy's supposed budget, not to actual current spending. But the real problem with your statements are that 1) repealing the Bush tax cuts on those earning >250,000 wouldnt erase the deficit either (but repealing them on those earning <250,000 would come close to it) 2) static numbers are worthless 3) you increase revenue by getting out of the way of the private sector

Political opinion? Yes. Also a fact.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 41

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:18:56 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

And I agree. It will take raising taxes, cutting defense, scaling back entitlements.

All else is mathematic fantasy.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 42

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:19:31 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

I think he was getting at what I was trying to lead you to discuss, which is that your approach isn't founded in math....

If the House Republicans truly wanted to solve our debt problems they would be looking at defense spending, as well as that of social programs. They would also be willing to INCREASE TAXES on those that have the money to pay them... which at this point is the wealthy.

You are so wanting to sell the idea of cutting government (the parts you do not find necessary) that you do not want to talk about the place with LOTS of excess to cut, which is defense spending... This seems overly ideological to me.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to lockedaway)

Post #: 43

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:20:14 PM

lockedaway

Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

If the debt showed a small but steady decline because of better management, that would be fine.

See, even bold and in blue, you don't get it.

The debt is NOT going to show ANY decline--it's going to continue to grow larger. It might grow more slowly with some cuts, but it's going to continue to grow larger and larger, because there will still be an annual deficit.

Without defense cuts, entitlement scalebacks, and increased revenue, the debt will continue to grow. Mathematics.

I even linked you to the numbers. I know you hate research so.

What do you not understand about my post? Nothing was spared in my post. Defense by 10%, social spending by 10%, hell...congressional and senate salaries by 10%, 25% cut in their expense accounts. Nothing gets spared. Nada, zip, zilch. It all gets cut across the board. And you would see a reduction.

You would also see that a flat tax and a federal income tax would be revenue positive.

Now why isn't Julia answering my questions? I will tell you why. Julia doesn't pay federal income tax and if you imposed a flat tax and a federal sales tax, she would pay MORE THAN SHE HAS EVER PAID. That's why, MM. It is pretty obvious.

< Message edited by lockedaway -- 7/22/2011 12:21:29 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 44

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:22:13 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

And you would see a reduction.

In the deficit...but not in the debt, which would continue to grow.

Run the numbers. You're going to need revenue enhancement.

Math. It's just simple math.

(in reply to lockedaway)

Post #: 45

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:24:34 PM

lockedaway

Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I think he was getting at what I was trying to lead you to discuss, which is that your approach isn't founded in math....

If the House Republicans truly wanted to solve our debt problems they would be looking at defense spending, as well as that of social programs. They would also be willing to INCREASE TAXES on those that have the money to pay them... which at this point is the wealthy.

You are so wanting to sell the idea of cutting government (the parts you do not find necessary) that you do not want to talk about the place with LOTS of excess to cut, which is defense spending... This seems overly ideological to me.

You know what the beautiful thing about you is, Julia. I said it in another thread that you are a socialistic, entitlement minded person who believes you are owed a living. I proved it in the welfare thread or in some other thread. And I have proved it here to. You have a very distinct pecuniary interest in seeing only the upper tier taxed while the rest get a free ride because YOU ARE PART OF THE REST.

Now...MM, are YOU part of the rest? Would YOU be willing to pay 10% of your income to the Federal Government and pay a federal sales tax? Yes or No. Mnottertail, would you agree with a 10% flat income tax? Would you consider that to be an undue burden on you?

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 46

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:26:08 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

They would also be willing to INCREASE TAXES on those that have the money to pay them... which at this point is the wealthy.

Your revered POTUS doesnt agree with you:

Todd reminded Obama that he had promised to raise taxes on “some of the wealthiest” Americans.

Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”

Of course, the real message is that he would delay increasing taxes, even on the wealthy, until after 2012. Not because its good for the economy to raise taxes even when in a period of growth, it isnt. Wonder why?

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 47

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:28:58 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Now...MM, are YOU part of the rest? Would YOU be willing to pay 10% of your income to the Federal Government and pay a federal sales tax? Yes or No.

Irrelevant to the topic. I'd actually pay far less than I'm paying now. But No. I'd end ALL the Bush cuts, end the mortgage deduction (which mainly subsidies more expense homes), and add a VAT. That still may not be enough.

Look---if you cut ALL discretionary spending, every penny, and the ENTIRE defense budget, completely (which I understand we can't do, just illustrating the point), that would just barely cover the deficit.

It's gonna take increasing revenue. It just is. Mathematics.

(in reply to lockedaway)

Post #: 48

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:29:07 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

quote:

You know what the beautiful thing about you is, Julia. I said it in another thread that you are a socialistic, entitlement minded person who believes you are owed a living. I proved it in the welfare thread or in some other thread. And I have proved it here to. You have a very distinct pecuniary interest in seeing only the upper tier taxed while the rest get a free ride because YOU ARE PART OF THE REST.

I have been saying that we need to save money in all directions, and raise taxes on those who can afford to pay them...

No, I do not think that the working poor, and those who cannot find anything but part time work, can afford to pay more taxes at this point. Since you would cut all social spending, and these people would have no safety net, what you are advocating is that people in this country go hungry... and that is unacceptable to me.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to lockedaway)

Post #: 49

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:29:42 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

I want to see how the numbers work on that, where did 10% come from? I am a business owner, and I will direct you to the thread where you asked the question about deductions (not loopholes) from that as well. But in general, 10% shouldn't be an undue burden for me. I doubt I would agree to absolute FLAT (as I believe I have stated before), more of a progressive/flat.

And unless ALL LOOPHOLES are closed and wherever there is ANY legislative or legal advantage to corporations, a very high tax on them.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 7/22/2011 12:31:19 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to lockedaway)

Post #: 50

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:30:46 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Of course, the real message is that he would delay increasing taxes, even on the wealthy, until after 2012. Not because its good for the economy to raise taxes even when in a period of growth, it isnt. Wonder why?

Same reason the Republicans aren't going to anything real either.

This is the bipartisan path we took to get here. It's time for voters to stop parroting it.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 51

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:33:32 PM

lockedaway

Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Now...MM, are YOU part of the rest? Would YOU be willing to pay 10% of your income to the Federal Government and pay a federal sales tax? Yes or No.

Irrelevant to the topic. I'd actually pay far less than I'm paying now. But No. I'd end ALL the Bush cuts, end the mortgage deduction (which mainly subsidies more expense homes), and add a VAT. That still may not be enough.

Look---if you cut ALL discretionary spending, every penny, and the ENTIRE defense budget, completely (which I understand we can't do, just illustrating the point), that would just barely cover the deficit.

It's gonna take increasing revenue. It just is. Mathematics.

For FUCK SAKE...if the other 50% of the country paid income taxes and a federal sales tax AND the illegal population paid the federal sales tax, YOU WOULD BE TAXING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS MORE THAN WHAT YOU ARE TAXING TODAY!!!!!!! It would be a revenue positive change to the tax code.

You don't want it because you would be paying less than you are paying now? Sorry...don't believe you. Oh...and some people WOULD pay less but not a lot less. A couple making $200,000 would pay $20,000.00 and I don't believe there would be a marriage benefit or a dependent deduction or a mortgage interest deduction. Salary was $200,000? Here's your bill; $20,000.00. Some would pay less. Many would pay more. Many, many, many would pay something for the first, fucking, time.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 52

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:35:32 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

(in reply to lockedaway)

Post #: 53

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:36:36 PM

lockedaway

Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

You know what the beautiful thing about you is, Julia. I said it in another thread that you are a socialistic, entitlement minded person who believes you are owed a living. I proved it in the welfare thread or in some other thread. And I have proved it here to. You have a very distinct pecuniary interest in seeing only the upper tier taxed while the rest get a free ride because YOU ARE PART OF THE REST.

I have been saying that we need to save money in all directions, and raise taxes on those who can afford to pay them...

No, I do not think that the working poor, and those who cannot find anything but part time work, can afford to pay more taxes at this point. Since you would cut all social spending, and these people would have no safety net, what you are advocating is that people in this country go hungry... and that is unacceptable to me.

You never answered my questions and you are the most disingenuous person on this board. Sorry...but you are. I never said about eliminating all public spending so the social safety net would NOT BE GONE! Don't mis-quote. The social safety net would be reduced.....like everything else under the sun with no exception....by 10%. So...still a social safety net. A little less of one, agreed.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 54

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:38:27 PM

Anarrus

Posts: 475
Joined: 11/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Your link is to Blowboy's supposed budget, not to actual current spending. But the real problem with your statements are that 1) repealing the Bush tax cuts on those earning >250,000 wouldnt erase the deficit either (but repealing them on those earning <250,000 would come close to it) 2) static numbers are worthless 3) you increase revenue by getting out of the way of the private sector
Political opinion? Yes. Also a fact.

Ok, let's go with #3 of your opinion. i.e The argument that if the private sector is left alone to do business it will generate more taxable profits and more jobs with people in those jobs paying taxes into the government till.

What would you do, what do you suggest the government do to get out of the way of the private sector?
I'm truly curious about just which regulations and laws you view as being in the way of the private sector. List a few of the major ones.

_____________________________

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."...Goethe
"Send lawyers, guns and money" ..Warren Zevon

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 55

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:40:31 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Some would pay less. Many would pay more.

What nonsense.

Flat tax is a tax cut for the wealthiest. Period.

And it sure as shit isn't going to balance the budget.

Not by any means using mathematics and real data.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 7/22/2011 12:41:46 PM >

(in reply to lockedaway)

Post #: 56

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:44:09 PM

lockedaway

Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anarrus

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Your link is to Blowboy's supposed budget, not to actual current spending. But the real problem with your statements are that 1) repealing the Bush tax cuts on those earning >250,000 wouldnt erase the deficit either (but repealing them on those earning <250,000 would come close to it) 2) static numbers are worthless 3) you increase revenue by getting out of the way of the private sector
Political opinion? Yes. Also a fact.

Ok, let's go with #3 of your opinion. i.e The argument that if the private sector is left alone to do business it will generate more taxable profits and more jobs with people in those jobs paying taxes into the government till.

What would you do, what do you suggest the government do to get out of the way of the private sector?
I'm truly curious about just which regulations and laws you view as being in the way of the private sector. List a few of the major ones.

Anarrus, there isn't much of the private sector left. It has been in steady decline for the past 60 years. That is the problem. It takes five private sector jobs to support one government job and private sector employment diminishes a little more every year.

(in reply to Anarrus)

Post #: 57

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:50:10 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

I'm pretty sure you have run across the rationale for progressive income taxes. Incidentally, you'll note I also support a regressive one, the VAT.

But here's an interesting take (yes, it's an opinion piece):

To claim that "the rich" should be taxed more heavily than the middle or the poor simply because they can afford it is a loser. To claim that "the poor" should receive more aid is also a loser. But when it can be shown that a progressive income tax actually improves the economy and provides more job opportunities, then we have a winner (which also helps the poor). The theory of "trickle down" or "supply side" economics has been pursued since the 1980's. The results are massive debt and indentured servitude of the producer class to those of the owner class. Highly progressive income taxation and estate taxation functions to prevent "to big to fail" in the corporate arena and "class nobility" in the family world. And such prevention is the only way to assure a competitive capitalism that delivers what "capitalism" is claimed to deliver. The idea behind "capitalism" is one of competition and earned privilege. And it is the lack of progressive taxation that promotes the "too big to fail" monopoly power that drains the life's blood of the producer class. Flat transaction taxes (income and sales taxes) allow too much "ownership" to accumulate in too few hands.

The real justification for progressive taxation has nothing to do with compassion or fairness or funding the welfare roles. The rationale for progressive is the preservation of competitive markets in which people are not prevented from entering into a business and/or employment because of monopoly or oligarchical control by a few large "owners" of the productive means. Nowhere is this more evident than in the "financial" sector. It should be obvious that if corporate income in the billions is taxed much more heavily than corporate income in the millions then earnings per share will be better in smaller corporate entities. And if that is the case then we have a very elegant control on the size of corporations.

If competing enterprises in an open "market" is the soul of capitalism then why is progressive taxation not seen as the elegant tool that it is? The simple answer is that advocates of "returns to scale" claim that larger entities are much more effective and efficient in that duplicated efforts are eliminated. But past a certain point that return is offset by the lack of competition. When entities become so large that they spend more on lobbying the congress than they do on advertising and actual production, the return to scale argument no longer wins the day. It should be noted that this "return to scale" argument is the same for a national health care system or a national insurance system run by government when such a system is compared to competing private corporations bound by state laws. In either case returns to scale or competition is being chosen because the "return" (the effectiveness) of the operation is greater than it would otherwise be. In the final analysis it seems to the more alert that "too big to fail" is "too big to be private". And instead of invoking the heavy hand of government in sectors other than insurance (because insurance is a natural role of government), it is more rational to employ more indirect and elegant solutions to limit the size and power of private institutions and to promote competition as opposed to monopoly.

This is the proper rationale for supporting progressive taxation because it wins the plurality.

[Don't read this and claim it's *my* opinion necessarily...just sharing the piece.]

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 7/22/2011 12:51:05 PM >

(in reply to lockedaway)

Post #: 58

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:56:09 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

private sector employment diminishes a little more every year.

So does federal government as a percentage of GDP and of population.

State and local government, since the 80s, have ballooned.

(in reply to lockedaway)

Post #: 59

RE: Bringing civility back to congress. - 7/22/2011 12:58:50 PM

lockedaway

Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

he results are massive debt and indentured servitude of the producer class to those of the owner class. Highly progressive income taxation and estate taxation functions to prevent "to big to fail" in the corporate arena and "class nobility" in the family world. And such prevention is the only way to assure a competitive capitalism that delivers what "capitalism" is claimed to deliver.

I can pick this opinion piece apart and reveal it for the shit it is. Look, MM, if you are a socialist, just come the fuck out and say it! Really! Be true to yourself and true to the people on the board! Read the part in bold. Now tell me why a successful person should not be able to bequeath an estate that HE/SHE ALREADY PAID TAXES ON TO BUILD IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE to his/her sons and daughters? Please answer that question!

This is supposed to be a free country. In this free country, if I am smart enough and ambitious enough to build myself a little empire and then pass that down to future generations that I raised right and taught them how to manage and expand, then so be it. Right? Why do you constantly look to steal from people that owe you NOTHING. N-O-T-H-I-N-G!-!-!-!

Hey....Nottertail....you have kids, right? Do you have grandkids? Do you love them? Do you intend to leave them anything? Do you want people like MM and Uncle Same to say "hey, Nottertail, nice job, you were a good earner....FOR US MOTHERFUCKER! Awww...wazza matter? You felt your kids needed the fruits of your labor for whatever reason? You felt that it was part of the American dream to give your kids a better opportunity than what you had? Well fuck you and your kids. We have brownstones in Georgetown, pal, private jets, HUGE expense accounts and we have to pay out entitlements so we can buy votes and stay in power in perpetuity. Sorry about your kids, pal. You were a sucker to think we were in this for anything or anyone other than ourselves."

Ok...that is just my response to the first paragraph or so. The more I read on the more shit I will find.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bringing civility back to congress.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094