Obama says ending tax breaks required to cut deficit

Originally posted by macman
The Govt should be run at a zero sum gain. No red, no black.

and farts should smell like lilies.
Meanwhile back in reality.

reply to post by OuttaTime


Thanks OT, I would have liked to have seen that documentary.

Originally posted by buster2010
I always laugh when I hear people cry about taxes then complain about the bad economy. History shows that when taxes go up the economy goes up. When tax breaks are given the economy goes down. Clinton raised taxes just a little and had a surplus Bush came in office gave out the tax breaks and everything started to go down hill.

I am no expert in economics. Not by any means. What I don't understand is why democrats are for raising taxes and then spending and why republicans are for cutting taxes and cutting spending. To me, it seems that in order to get more money in, you'd cut the spending and raise taxes. Isn't that how you save too? You cut your spending and if possible give yourself a raise? Maybe someone can fill me in on why this is wrong.

Originally posted by macman
I agree that everyone should pay fairly. A Flat Tax or everyone pays say 13% out of income, period.
I don't agree with Corps getting discounts, Obama providing tax cuts for jet purchases, GE getting kickbacks and so on.

Hey that post actually makes sense...
...right up until I talk to a hardcore neocon about the definition of "income." Then it falls apart again. It seems rich people have all kinds of ways to make money come to them from other places without it being "income." That needs to be rectified.

reply to post by Kitilani


Would you two stop, where is the bickering getting us, all sides are guilty.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Because the government already confiscates enough money. They need to stop spending so damn much. How hard is that to understand? If you are low on money stop spending. Stop spending on stuff you don't need and pay only for essentials. Cut foreign aid. End the BS wars. Disband the TSA. Cut the dept of education(students have gotten dumber and dumber every year since it was implemented). Cut corporate welfare. Cut all other types of welfare, it is all unconstitutional at the federal level. If the several states want socialistic redistributionism in their states, there is nothing to stop the states from enacting it. BUT at the federal level it is unconstitutional. Their powers are clearly delineated. Any powers not SPECIFICALLY GIVEN to the federal government in the Constitution are retained by the people and the several states.

While I disagree with your analysis of what is Constitutional and what is not, I fully agree that we need to cut foreign aid. I'd cut it in a DRAMATIC way.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman
No, I said that. It appears that is how you want the Govt run. Way to twist it though.

Well you assumed wrong after totally f***ing up my quote. Not going to address that are ya?

Pleas explain the now null and void graphical statistic you provided.

That particular graph has been proven null? I missed that post.

Well, since you agreed that stats can be pushed to one way or the other, providing stats is really a mot point.

As for your Cesar quote, no I get it. I don't think of myself as a Cesar.
My quote is a reflection as to how it seems you think the Govt should be run.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman

Yes stats can be fun and quite malleable. I do not believe I ever suggested otherwise.

Ok, so your stat is null and void.
What else you got.

What stat is my stat?

From the Graph you provided, but more then likely did not create.

Never claimed I created it. In fact I think it has a credit on it.
When was that graph shown to be null or void?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman
I agree that everyone should pay fairly. A Flat Tax or everyone pays say 13% out of income, period.
I don't agree with Corps getting discounts, Obama providing tax cuts for jet purchases, GE getting kickbacks and so on.

Hey that post actually makes sense...
...right up until I talk to a hardcore neocon about the definition of "income." Then it falls apart again. It seems rich people have all kinds of ways to make money come to them from other places without it being "income." That needs to be rectified.

Easy, if it is money earned, then it falls under it.
Why is it that you and Walkingfox got such a hard-on for using terms like neo-con and such?
SOunds more like a 12 year swearing just to hear themselves swear.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman

Yes stats can be fun and quite malleable. I do not believe I ever suggested otherwise.

Ok, so your stat is null and void.
What else you got.

What stat is my stat?

From the Graph you provided, but more then likely did not create.

Never claimed I created it. In fact I think it has a credit on it.
When was that graph shown to be null or void?

When you agreed that stats can be manipulated anyway the creator wants.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

Thanks OT, I would have liked to have seen that documentary.

It's been on a few times, I just happened to catch it this time, but I'm sure it will be on again. It was on right before the series called American Greed.

reply to post by inforeal

Under Bill Clinton, when he raised taxes on the rich, the economy blossomed so much so that he left office with a surplus in the budget that Bush destroyed with his tax cuts for the rich and other bad republican policies.

Bill Clinton was no more than a lucky bystander. The economy flourished during his term in spite of him raising taxes. The dot com bubble was rising and that is what caused the surplus, and it would have done the same if Alfred E. Neumann was POTUS.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman

Yes stats can be fun and quite malleable. I do not believe I ever suggested otherwise.

Ok, so your stat is null and void.
What else you got.

What stat is my stat?

From the Graph you provided, but more then likely did not create.

Never claimed I created it. In fact I think it has a credit on it.
When was that graph shown to be null or void?

When you agreed that stats can be manipulated anyway the creator wants.

You seem really special.
I said they can be. I never said that graph was. If you believe it is incorrect in any way I am more than happy to hear your argument.

reply to post by Janky Red


There is a great difference between today and the periods in which you are desribing

1. Money today is far more fluid, capital markets are more sophisticated and the financial instruments that exist today enable the rich to do things with their money that they simply could not do before. Folks talk about the loopholes that made the Kennedys and their like rich. Prior to the 1980s those avenues were not available to the average "rich person". Today they are and higher the taxes are the more money will flow out of the country. The number of folks leaving the US is at an all time high and the primary driver is high taxes.

2. We live in an intellectual property society today. A firm can easily move overseas and do so in a minute. They have ideas not factorys. There is absolutely no reason that a firm like Google could not pick up stakes and move within 6 months. They can even leave the bulk of their employees in the US, but that would obviously be a temporary, transition period. You see it today within the states. Firms are leaving high tax, high employee cost states for low tax, low employee cost states. Its what the entire business regarding Boeing and Washington State/Carolina is all about. Thats in the news due to the size of Boeing. It is happening on a smaller scale thousands of times a year. Folks relocating their business 5 miles from Washington to Idaho or from California to Nevada, etc. You can't tax what is not there.

3. While taxes were high, it was possible to create wealth far easier than it is today due to the regulatory burdens placed on private enterprise. When you can grow your company 20%/year, you are minting coin and tax rates don't bother you too much, because your margins are high. When you have to comply with absurd regulations like environment regs, Sarbanes/Oxley and the host of others, your margins are eroded and it makes it extremely difficult to grow a business, hence tax rates matter. Where do most public companies list today? London, something that nobody would have ever guessed 20 years ago. Why? To avoid the anti-business nonsense that has become the US government. Why are record numbers of firms taking their firms back to private status? Same reason.

4. Government actually worked then. It fundamentally does not work today. Most rich folks would not mind paying more in taxes for quality product from the government. If the schools were 1st in the world, if the levels of corruption and flagrant incompetence did not exist it would be different. Asking folks to pay more in taxes when that money is in most cases simply wasted is one of the primary reasons higher taxes are opposed. Were you to take the 50% of the government that is absolute wasteful nonsense and get the government back to its constitutionally mandated and limited functions and performed those functions excellently, few would complain about the need to raise taxes to maintain excellence in those functions. Folks rightfully do complain when 60% of the public schools are failing, bridges are falling down and the government spends our money building cucumber museums and building culverts to protect some toads and yet want to confiscate more of their property.

5. The dependant class was far smaller than it is today. Over 50% of Americans pay no income tax, and actually pay no true taxes at all. The safety nets are not what they were designed to be, which were programs for the truly needy. Today they are social engineering/wealth distributive attempts to balance out the outcomes between the successful and the unsuccessful. Between the workers and the non-workers. It is no different than the cousin who keeps asking you for a loan that they will never repay. After a while, you ignore his calls. When the programs are not meant to get folks off programs, at some point you need to stop the programs.

The reason its different today is because its different today.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Would you two stop, where is the bickering getting us, all sides are guilty.

Just asking me to have both of us stop?
Not sure I have that kind of power. Or are do you really just mean me?

My post history shows I have nothing but blame for both sides. I have never disputed such a thing. What I am discussing here is historical empirical evidence. The difference between Bush and Clinton is not partisan bashing, it is the ability to understand what has happened in the last few decades.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman

Yes stats can be fun and quite malleable. I do not believe I ever suggested otherwise.

Ok, so your stat is null and void.
What else you got.

What stat is my stat?

From the Graph you provided, but more then likely did not create.

Never claimed I created it. In fact I think it has a credit on it.
When was that graph shown to be null or void?

When you agreed that stats can be manipulated anyway the creator wants.

You seem really special.
I said they can be. I never said that graph was. If you believe it is incorrect in any way I am more than happy to hear your argument.

No, just see the error in stat creation. I don't trust stats. I trust real world.
I know and remember the talk and pictures of gas lines under Carter. I know and remember how well things were during Reagan, Clinton, Bush's and Obama.
The tax rates, prices and interest rates speak for themselves.

Originally posted by macman


Well, since you agreed that stats can be pushed to one way or the other, providing stats is really a mot point.

How so?
As long as the particular stats I provided are true, what is the problem. Again, if you dispute the information in the graph I am happy to hear your argument.

As for your Cesar quote, no I get it. I don't think of myself as a Cesar.
My quote is a reflection as to how it seems you think the Govt should be run.

I know what your quote was. It was a clear demonstration that you did not actually read my post, you glanced at key words and responded. You said your quote was what I wrote. It was not.

So onto disputing the job growth chart. I am listening.

Originally posted by macman
No, just see the error in stat creation. I don't trust stats. I trust real world.
I know and remember the talk and pictures of gas lines under Carter. I know and remember how well things were during Reagan, Clinton, Bush's and Obama.
The tax rates, prices and interest rates speak for themselves.

That is just fantastic but I do not care about your irrelevant anecdotes. The data in the graph is job growth by decade. I simply ask that the job growth be explained with concurrent tax rates. You claim the graph is faulty so I am more than eager to read your refutation.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Would you two stop, where is the bickering getting us, all sides are guilty.

Just asking me to have both of us stop?
Not sure I have that kind of power. Or are do you really just mean me?

My post history shows I have nothing but blame for both sides. I have never disputed such a thing. What I am discussing here is historical empirical evidence. The difference between Bush and Clinton is not partisan bashing, it is the ability to understand what has happened in the last few decades.

In addition, this is not bickering, this is the age old idea of discussion and debate.
Today people want everyone to get along just for getting along. That is the reason why we are in this position.
It is time for people to stand by what they believe in.
Regardless of anyone's opinion, it is important to get it out.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman
No, just see the error in stat creation. I don't trust stats. I trust real world.
I know and remember the talk and pictures of gas lines under Carter. I know and remember how well things were during Reagan, Clinton, Bush's and Obama.
The tax rates, prices and interest rates speak for themselves.

That is just fantastic but I do not care about your irrelevant anecdotes. The data in the graph is job growth by decade. I simply ask that the job growth be explained with concurrent tax rates. You claim the graph is faulty so I am more than eager to read your refutation.

It showed data within this, yes.
But it does not state that because of a tax increase that job creation was the result.