Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;1222689 wrote:
    But I'm sure you'd much rather raise taxes on those bastard poor who aren't paying enough, lower corporate and wealthy taxes even more or to zero, and then give corporations and banks more billions in interest free loans and bailouts. That's apparently the GOP plan for the economy. The democratic one isn't much different except for the tax issue is flipped.
    Nice straw man, no one, and I mean NO ONE on here has suggested the poor pay more taxes. I think the idea of a negative effective tax rate is retarded (getting back more than you paid) but NO ONE has suggested raising taxes on the poor.

    You look bad IWP when you do stuff like this, you look like isadore.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1222827 wrote:Absolutely not true as a percentage of GDP which is the name of the game. I'm sure you're talking in nominal numbers but that makes no sense. We're taking in 14.9% as a percentage of gdp. The historical average is just above 18%. The lowest amount that came in during the Reagan Years was 17.4% in 1984. We need to at the very least get back to 18% or we have no hope.
    That would be a very valid argument if our spending vs GDP wasn't at historic highs (other than WWII). We are spending 40% vs GDP.
  • BoatShoes
    fish82;1222907 wrote:It's the number of dollars the government has available to spend, and even adjusted for inflation, the government has as many dollars as they've had at any period in 100 years. I'm not shocked that you think that's a "silly number," though.
    First of all even though your argument about raw dollars is stupid...and it is...it is not even true that "we have as many dollars as ever." We had 2.57 in 2007 , 2.52 trillion in FY 2008 and only had 2.3 trillion in 2011 and 2.16 trillion in 2010.

    You have to understand that nominal dollars is not the best measurement. Raw dollars over time do not make sense because of economic growth and inflation. This is simply not an argument but "you people" as you like to say, will cite anything you can to suggest we're overtaxed. The last time tax receipts were as low as they are now on par with our economy was in the 1950's.

    But either way, you're wrong under your metric or as a percentage of GDP. I know you've got your Mr. Cool persona or whatever and you couldn't bring yourself to admit that this argument about raw dollars but it is. The U.S. simply does not have as much revenue as it ever has.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1222966 wrote:That would be a very valid argument if our spending vs GDP wasn't at historic highs (other than WWII). We are spending 40% vs GDP.
    No. Federal government spending is about 25% of GDP. This historical average is 20.1% of GDP. We need about 3% more revenue and to reduce spending by 5% of GDP (once we get to full employment) and we'll be on the right track. The long term problems are entirely due to health care costs and if we don't control those, even if there were no medicare they will consume our economy any way. For instance, private health insurance expenditures are rising faster than medicare expenditures. If we had the health care costs of other industrialized nations (i.e. socialist ones) we'd have no long term budget problem.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1222963 wrote:Nice straw man, no one, and I mean NO ONE on here has suggested the poor pay more taxes. I think the idea of a negative effective tax rate is retarded (getting back more than you paid) but NO ONE has suggested raising taxes on the poor.

    You look bad IWP when you do stuff like this, you look like isadore.
    Well they kinda have. People on here always complain about the 50% "who don't pay taxes" and how they need to have "skin in the game." What else are you suggesting other than that lower income americans ought to pay more taxes? Furthermore, if you put into law a tax plan that "broadens the base" by lowering marginal rates and eliminating tax expenditures as Romney has proposed and the Ryan plan has proposed...it is going to increase taxes on lower income Americans. A flat tax with few deductions like Rick Perry proposed is going to raise taxes on lower income Americans.

    Matter of Fact, Con-Alma for one, in this very thread indicates how he would be happy if "everyone" finally started to pay taxes...intimating that those poorz ought to start payin teh gubmint.

    And, for what it's worth, both Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman supported negative income tax rates/earned income tax credits, etc.
  • I Wear Pants
    jmog;1222963 wrote:Nice straw man, no one, and I mean NO ONE on here has suggested the poor pay more taxes. I think the idea of a negative effective tax rate is retarded (getting back more than you paid) but NO ONE has suggested raising taxes on the poor.

    You look bad IWP when you do stuff like this, you look like isadore.
    Good lord, I was responding to Quaker Oats. Of course I wasn't trying to craft a well thought out argument because even in that case he'd just go look back at the GOP playbook. If I'm quoting Quaker Oats you can assume I'm just having a laugh.
  • Con_Alma
    BoatShoes;1223107 wrote:Well they kinda have. People on here always complain about the 50% "who don't pay taxes" and how they need to have "skin in the game." What else are you suggesting other than that lower income americans ought to pay more taxes? Furthermore, if you put into law a tax plan that "broadens the base" by lowering marginal rates and eliminating tax expenditures as Romney has proposed and the Ryan plan has proposed...it is going to increase taxes on lower income Americans. A flat tax with few deductions like Rick Perry proposed is going to raise taxes on lower income Americans.

    Matter of Fact, Con-Alma for one, in this very thread indicates how he would be happy if "everyone" finally started to pay taxes...intimating that those poorz ought to start payin teh gubmint.

    And, for what it's worth, both Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman supported negative income tax rates/earned income tax credits, etc.
    Yes, I have stated that and do agree.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "Well they kinda have. People on here always complain about the 50% "who don't pay taxes" and how they need to have "skin in the game." What else are you suggesting other than that lower income americans ought to pay more taxes? "

    Here is a suggestion. Every American (rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight) gets a living income deduction. Everyone, the wealthiest Hollywood actor or the beggar on the block. Whether it is $10,000, $20,000 or $40,000 or some other figure per annum, that first sum isn't taxed. If the federal government cannot pay its consistently rising debts they should not expect American citizens to bail them out at the risk of their own survival - call it a historical argument, it counters our guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. After that threshold (which again, everyone takes part in), there is no reason why any citizen shouldn't pay some sort of income tax. Low income or not, their basic needs are met and they should have skin or the game. We've seen the disastrous results where rent-seeking has punished our fiscal situation.
  • QuakerOats
    I Wear Pants;1222689 wrote:The tax cuts were implemented by George W. Bush correct? Therefore it is fine to call them George W. Bush-era tax cuts because they, well, are.

    I'd be fine with the tax cuts expiring if it meant the Dems and GOP both accepted spending reductions for their favored programs.

    But I'm sure you'd much rather raise taxes on those bastard poor who aren't paying enough, lower corporate and wealthy taxes even more or to zero, and then give corporations and banks more billions in interest free loans and bailouts. That's apparently the GOP plan for the economy. The democratic one isn't much different except for the tax issue is flipped.

    Bush: "Bush tax cuts" = correct

    obama: "expiration of Bush tax cuts" = incorrect

    obama: "obama tax increases" = correct.

    Always good to get the terminology to its most precise extent, so we all know exactly how to properly define what is occuring.


    Everyone should pay something, at least $100, for national defense, even the "poor". Half the wage earners in this nation should NOT be paying zero, (or getting a refund on taxes they never paid, for Christ sakes); that is simply ridiculous, not to mention very dangerous (you know why).

    Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world --- you figure out why capital flees the U.S.

    You keep throwing up the same liberal drivel ..... someday you might realize how the dramatic growth of government crowds out the private sector, stunts true economic growth, limits innovation, and forces capital to flee. Hopefully that day arrives soon.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1222821 wrote: We see how extending the tax cuts for two years proved a folly because the economy didn't turn around in two years

    Not a folly whatsoever. In this instance though, we were burdened with disastrous legislation that has created so much additional future cost (read 'taxes') that any meager reductions in marginal income tax rates will be dwared by the new confiscatory taxes and regulatory costs that are now at our doorstep. Thus, the normal progression out of recession has been unable to occur and this is directly the result of the obama regime's regulatory environment and the pelosi/reid legislative policy creating so much future cost that it is causing business to retrench and not re-invest.

    You cannot have a minor tax cut be swamped by other mitigating factors that have the potential to sink the economy again in the immediate future, and then make a false argument. The disingenuousness of doing so is rather remarkable.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1222827 wrote:Absolutely not true as a percentage of GDP which is the name of the game. I'm sure you're talking in nominal numbers but that makes no sense. We're taking in 14.9% as a percentage of gdp. The historical average is just above 18%. The lowest amount that came in during the Reagan Years was 17.4% in 1984. We need to at the very least get back to 18% or we have no hope.
    This a becoming a seriously lame argument. Screw the relationship of government spending to GDP, unless you want to make it a national goal to run a lean government at 10% of GDP or less. The false underlying premise of your argument is that government needs to grow in tandem with GDP; that is poppycock. We should be going in an inverse direction, frankly.

    As for spending - THE problem --, it has risen an astounding 52% under obama over Mr. Bush's years, to an unbelievable $3.6 TRILLION from $2.4 trillion. All that at a time when GDP and inflation were barely bumping along. This historic spending barage has proven to be a disaster, piling on an unaffordable $6 trillion in new debt, enslaving future generations to government largesse, and drastically limiting economic freedom and innovation. It is nothing short of criminal.

    There can be no clear thinkers looking back over the last 3 1/2 years at these radical spending increases who believe it has served us well. It is a complete fail, and one that will haunt us for decades.

    November '12 cannot arrive soon enough.
  • believer
    QuakerOats;1223408 wrote:November '12 cannot arrive soon enough.
    Without a doubt. But Quaker, the bizarre thing is there are still plenty of BHO Kool Aid drinkers out there and we also have the Pauliban who would rather see Barry get 4 more years to pile on the debt and "justify" it by insisting that Romney will be just more of the same. Perhaps, but I'd still be much happier with even slightly less fiscal insanity than continuing down the path we're heading.

    Enter now O-Trap, Footwedge, and Sleepr to tell me I'm part of the problem. ;)
  • I Wear Pants
    QuakerOats;1223384 wrote:Bush: "Bush tax cuts" = correct

    obama: "expiration of Bush tax cuts" = incorrect

    obama: "obama tax increases" = correct.

    Always good to get the terminology to its most precise extent, so we all know exactly how to properly define what is occuring.


    Everyone should pay something, at least $100, for national defense, even the "poor". Half the wage earners in this nation should NOT be paying zero, (or getting a refund on taxes they never paid, for Christ sakes); that is simply ridiculous, not to mention very dangerous (you know why).

    Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world --- you figure out why capital flees the U.S.

    You keep throwing up the same liberal drivel ..... someday you might realize how the dramatic growth of government crowds out the private sector, stunts true economic growth, limits innovation, and forces capital to flee. Hopefully that day arrives soon.
    Corporate taxes were vastly higher when our economy was growing much faster.

    Not that I think we need to go back to those levels but it just goes to show that our tax level isn't the only thing keeping us from better job growth. But you and the GOP keep spreading the lie that if we would just cut taxes for corporations and the rich and make those freeloading poor people pay something then the jobs would explode.
  • Con_Alma
    I Wear Pants;1223571 wrote:Corporate taxes were vastly higher when our economy was growing much faster.

    Not that I think we need to go back to those levels but it just goes to show that our tax level isn't the only thing keeping us from better job growth. But you and the GOP keep spreading the lie that if we would just cut taxes for corporations and the rich and make those freeloading poor people pay something then the jobs would explode.
    Not necessarily. It's not about cutting taxes and jobs will explode in the US. It's about keeping more jobs from leaving. This economy is much more global than it's ever been. China continues to expand as a consumer of products more than ever. The opportunities and labor pool dwarfs those of the U.S. There's simply fewer and fewer reason's for corporations not to look for labor elswhere.
  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;1223571 wrote:Corporate taxes were vastly higher when our economy was growing much faster.

    Not that I think we need to go back to those levels but it just goes to show that our tax level isn't the only thing keeping us from better job growth. But you and the GOP keep spreading the lie that if we would just cut taxes for corporations and the rich and make those freeloading poor people pay something then the jobs would explode.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

    The problem is that back when we taxed corporations higher global travel, global communications (internet, cell phones, etc), global shipping was NOT as easy or cheap.

    Back then if you wanted to sell something in the US you needed to make it in the US. That is not the case anymore. Now you can have your company in whatever cheaper tax rate country in the world, make it there, and ship it here to sell.

    We have to adapt and compete if we want the jobs to come back, that involves getting corporate tax rates down to low enough levels that the cost of shipping to the US becomes the loss of profit.
  • O-Trap
    believer;1223516 wrote: Perhaps, but I'd still be much happier with even slightly less fiscal insanity than continuing down the path we're heading.

    Enter now O-Trap, Footwedge, and Sleepr to tell me I'm part of the problem. ;)
    Sorry I'm late. Hate to disappoint.

    Your precedent for believing that Romney would lead to even a shred more fiscal sanity is what?

    As for my precedent believing he won't, I just look at the conventional Republican presidents in recent history. They spent more than their predecessor, whether Republican or Democrat.
  • QuakerOats
    I Wear Pants;1223571 wrote:Corporate taxes were vastly higher when our economy was growing much faster.

    Not that I think we need to go back to those levels but it just goes to show that our tax level isn't the only thing keeping us from better job growth. But you and the GOP keep spreading the lie that if we would just cut taxes for corporations and the rich and make those freeloading poor people pay something then the jobs would explode.

    They were never "VASTLY" higher; they were higher, briefly, but they are 35 times higher today than when first enacted (proving once again, that taxes and government generally just get bigger and bigger).

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

    Just how much do you want to soak the entities that do the hiring and producing in this nation?

    I spread no lies, and it isn't just about cutting taxes; it is about a balanced, LONG-TERM approach to fiscal sanity, to cutting regulations, cutting taxes (combined with cutting government spending), reversing the growth of government, getting off the backs of the producers, and creating some sense of certainty so business can properly plan.

    But all we've gotten is pathetic leadership out of the White House, terrible legislative policy from pelosi/reid, tremendous uncertainty and cost increase over a horrific obamacare law, and radical regulators piling on ridiculous regulations at a breakneck pace. Are you telling me you would invest/risk serious sums of your own money into that type of environment? I didn't think so.
  • jmog
    My only hope, when it comes to Romney, is if we vote in enough fiscal conservatives to the HoR and Senate THEY will reign in his spending.

    That's about my only belief/hope that Romney would be better than if Obama was re-elected. If he is re-elected and we get more conservatives in Congress, it will just be more standoff.
  • HitsRus
    My only hope, when it comes to Romney, is if we vote in enough fiscal conservatives to the HoR and Senate THEY will reign in his spending
    DING, DING, DING! Hence the importance of beginning a movement at the grassroots level.

    reps
  • queencitybuckeye
    jmog;1223643 wrote:My only hope, when it comes to Romney, is if we vote in enough fiscal conservatives to the HoR and Senate THEY will reign in his spending.
    Nice thought, but how many actual fiscal conservatives are there now? 10? 20? 50?
  • believer
    jmog;1223643 wrote:My only hope, when it comes to Romney, is if we vote in enough fiscal conservatives to the HoR and Senate THEY will reign in his spending.

    That's about my only belief/hope that Romney would be better than if Obama was re-elected. If he is re-elected and we get more conservatives in Congress, it will just be more standoff.
    I'm just hoping that the Repubs will take enough seats in both houses to give Obamacare repeal a real possibility.

    But let us not forget how the Repubs blew a golden opportunity to reign in spending in the early 90's by choosing to spend like Democrats.

    Frankly I have ZERO confidence in the Repubs to effect real change and a lot less than zero in the Dems. This country is in serious trouble IMHO.
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;1223571 wrote:Corporate taxes were vastly higher when our economy was growing much faster.
    This may be true, but globally over the past decade countries have been cutting corporate rates, and now America has among the highest (read: uncompetitive) corporate rates among developed countries. It's not like we are seeing a mass exodus, but corporations ARE choosing to incorporate in countries with lower rates, especially in the case of multinationals. We are also seeing the regulatory burden of our exchanges pushing some companies to choose to list on other global exchanges.
  • O-Trap
    believer;1223854 wrote:Frankly I have ZERO confidence in the Repubs to effect real change and a lot less than zero in the Dems. This country is in serious trouble IMHO.
    I'm not sure confidence can be quantified in the negatives, but we agree here.
  • jmog
    believer;1223854 wrote:
    Frankly I have ZERO confidence in the Repubs to effect real change and a lot less than zero in the Dems. This country is in serious trouble IMHO.
    O-Trap is right, but we agree. Mine is more like 0% confidence in Obama, 1% change in Romney if the Senate stays D, 10% change if both houses are R.
  • O-Trap
    I'm more around 0% - 0% - 0.1% ... the last one being contingent on some of the Republican movers and shakers being ACTUAL budget cutter conservatives, not the high-spending Republicans that currently make up most of the houses' crop.