love this

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The truth is - as usual - somewhere in the middle though me thinks that it is more realistic on the side of the Tea Party.

I am not sure I disagree with that. I haven't paid much attention to occupy, but I think there is a good part of the tea party that isn't that crazy, even if I understand the sentiment, I disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. However, when I see the whack jobs that the tea party has put up as candidates, I think it is loses any credibility as a viable party over the long haul.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

However, when I see the whack jobs that the tea party has put up as candidates, I think it is loses any credibility as a viable party over the long haul.

ummmmmmmmm.....Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are still the democrat LEADERS in Congress..Obama has now effectively passed Carter as the worst president in modern history and has apparently learned nothing and Biden is his VP...these are but the tip of the iceberg of questonable characters who become "progressively" unstable and venomous as you move down the democrat food chain.....the bile being spewed by elected democrats has reached epic proportions in the "age of civility" and a large majority show support...no, true love .....for the leftist radicals that are creating mayhem in our streets ...and they somehow hope that they can ride this counter American revolt together with federally funded union muscle and Obama Money Give Aways sprinkled with charges of racism to an election year victory.....

whose party's candidates are whackjobs and which party has lost credability?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I am not sure I disagree with that. I haven't paid much attention to occupy, but I think there is a good part of the tea party that isn't that crazy, even if I understand the sentiment, I disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. However, when I see the whack jobs that the tea party has put up as candidates, I think it is loses any credibility as a viable party over the long haul.

" disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. "

OK, so I assume you mean that you think we need taxes on the wealthy.

Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

If we eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, the HIGHEST estimate I've ever seen, is that it would generate $90 billion a year in additional revenue. Our current debt is $14 trillion, and that EXCLUDES the shortfalls in social security and medicare. If you include those programs, our debt is at least $60 trillion. So, if we get $90 billion a year from the tax hikes on the wealthy, it would take a mere 667 years to pay down the debt, and that's ignoring interest.

Zimmy, that math is the exact reason why people like me say it's a waste of time to talk about tax hikes. While it may seem fair to tax the wealthy more, THE IRREFUTABLE FACT is that it's meaningless compared to our debt.

The answer is that massive cuts are needed. I do not like that answer. I really wish that all we needed to do was tweak tax rates on the rich. But the math clearly shows that tax hikes alone cannot even begin to solve this.

Go ahead, Zimmy, tell me where I'm wrong please. You tell me how tax hikes on a small % of our population will generate tens of trillions of dollars. If you can do that, I swear to God I'll campaign for Obama.

You're in a tough spot here, Zimmy. Because I think long, hard, and rationally before I form my opinions. And in this case, my opinion is based on hard, irrefutable facts. All liberals have is ideology.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

" disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. "

OK, so I assume you mean that you think we need taxes on the wealthy.

Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

You're in a tough spot here, Zimmy. Because I think long, hard, and rationally before I form my opinions. And in this case, my opinion is based on hard, irrefutable facts. All liberals have is ideology.

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

Z- good response, but here is the kicker. Politics aside, we know for a fact the O administration gave millions to these green energy cos that went defunct. That was millions of OUR money. Why would I want to give MORE? We could have saved millions by the govt doing nothing, right? I dont see one example of govt spending doing any good. I see plenty examples of my spending do others good. I do agree that taxes should be changed. I dont agree with the rate increase constantly being proposed. I think we should change the capital gains tax and close loopholes and remove the AMT. There are gives and takes in there that will benefit the economy as a whole.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Z- good response, but here is the kicker. Politics aside, we know for a fact the O administration gave millions to these green energy cos that went defunct. That was millions of OUR money. Why would I want to give MORE? We could have saved millions by the govt doing nothing, right? I dont see one example of govt spending doing any good. I see plenty examples of my spending do others good. I do agree that taxes should be changed. I dont agree with the rate increase constantly being proposed. I think we should change the capital gains tax and close loopholes and remove the AMT. There are gives and takes in there that will benefit the economy as a whole.

I don't think we are far apart either on this. The solar issues is ridiculous. Why the heck huge loans are given out that aren't backed by insurance is beyond me. The fdup thing is the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, how much money was lost in no-bid jobs to Haliburton over the previous administration. Both sides are bad at that crap.
The problem now is there is an overt policy that Republicans in congress will not do anything that helps Obama. That does no one any good.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I don't think we are far apart either on this. The solar issues is ridiculous. Why the heck huge loans are given out that aren't backed by insurance is beyond me. not too hard to figure out actually...

The fdup thing is the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, how much money was lost in no-bid jobs to Haliburton over the previous administration. Both sides are bad at that crap. FactCheck.org: Anti-Bush Ad Overstates Case Against Halliburton

The problem now is there is an overt policy that Republicans in congress will not do anything that helps Obama. That does no one any good.

why would Republicans help Obama?...the Democrats won't even help Obama....he wants to continue many disasterous policies that I'm sure you're "many, many" economists fully support

btw...House Passes Obama Jobs Bill Provision

October 27, 2011 12:57 P.M. By Andrew Stiles
The House overwhelmingly approved a measure to eliminate a much-maligned rule requiring government agencies to withhold 3 percent of payments to government contractors. This provision, which was included in President Obama’s $450 billion “jobs” bill, passed by a vote of 405 to 16.

Earlier this week, the White House announced its support of the House bill, as well as second measure to cover the cost of repealing the rule (about $11.2 billion over ten years) by tightening eligibility requirements for Medicare and other health benefit programs, which the House also passed today, 262 to 157. The idea was taken from the president’s most recent “deficit” package.

The House has now passed a total of 17 jobs bills that are still awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and Republicans are hoping to ramp up pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) to act.

the "cuts" to which you refer in most cases amount to little more than reductons in the rates of growth of government programs and that is viciously attacked by the dems...

the ONLY time that we can talk about cutting government is during a downturn like this and there shouldn't be an additional penny in increased spending until massive reductions in the size and scope of government occur and future spending is reigned in and current unfunded programs and promises are on solid footing...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

"Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money"

You're saying that as government spends money, unemployment goes down, as jobs get created. Then perhaps you could explain tp us why, despite Obama dumping hundreds of billions of government spending into the economy, unemployment is much higher than when he took office?Those same economists you support, said Obamaa's "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8%.

Anyway, I reject your premise that "most economists" say that spending cuts are counterproductive in a recession. I can quote just as many economists who say the last thingf you want to do in a recession is raise taxes.

So Zimmy, since you are opposed to cuts, please tell us how we generate another $60 trillion or so before the baby boomers die off? Because we need at least that much.

"Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit"

Where on Earth do you get your facts? Our deficit this year will be about $1.5 trillion. Please post some numbers to show that tax hikes can generate anywhere near that number.

And Zimmy? You're saying that tax rate increases will lead to more tax revenue? So why, then, did tax revenue reach it's highest levels ever, AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS? Answer...tax cuts can be stimulative.

You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.

[zimmy]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;896650
You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.[/QUOTE]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Liberal rant

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I knew you wouldn't get it. Liberal rant

Sorry Zimmy, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I proved you wrong...

You claimed the economy needs govt spending to create jobs, and you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...Obama has dumped hundreds of billions into the economy, and unemployment increased. You offer no reply, because you cannot.

You also claimed that raising taxes on the wealthy would put a serious dent in our annual deficit, but you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...Our annual deficit ($1.5 trillion)is 15 times higher than what liberals claim tax hikes on the wealthy would rake in ($90 billion). You offer no reply, because you cannot.

You claim that tax cuts on the wealthy lower tax revenue collected, but you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...after the Bush tax cuts, tax revenues collected hit an all-time high. FACT...after the Bush tax cuts, the portion of taxes paid by the wealthy hit an all-time high, which lowers the burden on the rest of us. You offer no reply, because you cannot.

There's simply no talking to liberals. Even when you are mathematically proven wrong, you won't consider re-thinking your position. That's called "brainwashed".

The facts may not support your Marxist narrative Zimmy, but them there is still the facts.

If I'm wrong, show me some different facts. I am rational and persuadable.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sorry Zimmy, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I proved you wrong...



The facts may not support your Marxist narrative Zimmy, but them there is still the facts.

If I'm wrong, show me some different facts. I am rational and persuadable.

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS. We need to reduce the borrowing first. I then followed with long term deficit reduction requires both tax increases and cuts. Just because you don't understand that, does not mean your statements are facts. I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. I am a big boy, you aren't going to make me feel sad or inferior with your name calling. Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995. Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. I think JohnR's thoughts on capital gains taxes are right on target. The most reasonable analysis of economics, in my opinion (I guess if they were your ideas, they would be facts), is that both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues. That is not an original idea of mine, but it makes sense based on mathematics. I will admit, you are right, just taxes can't do it. I have pointed that out each time I have posted. Maybe you missed that

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree.

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

"a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that..."

We need more tax revenue, meaning, we need more tax dollars. Raising tax rates does not always increase revenue, just like when a store raises prices, that does not mean revenue will increase (not if you price yourself out of the market). If the economy grows, then even at the same tax rates, we have more tax revenue collected. We need to grow the stagnant economy (a raising tide does indeed lift all boats), not reduce anyone's after-tax pay.

Finally, every analysis I've ever seen, suggests that the effect of tax hikes is almost completely meaningless in the face of the debt. We simply cannot generate another $60 trillion in the next 30 years, even if we adopt North Korea's tax rates, we cannot begin to tax our way out of this. The effect of tax hikes is so insignificant, it's barely worth talking about, yet liberals are fanatically fixated on taxing the wealthy.

I do not like the situation we are in. If there was any reasonable analysis out there that said we could put a meaningful dent in the debt by tweaking taxes on the rich, that would make me very happy. I wish that were the case. But it's not.

Tax hikes might get us 10% of what we need. That means that the other 90% must come from spending cuts. I don't like that any more than liberals do. Unlike liberals, however, I am able to accept it.

If Obama is correct, taxing the wealthy more will bring in $90 billion a year. Our ANNUAL deficit is $1.5 trillion, our current debt is $14 trillion, and we need at least another $50 trillion for social security and Medicare (some actuaries say we need $100 trillion).

What is $90 billion a year? Nothing. If we collected $90 billion more in taxes from the rich, and if we used every cent of that to pay off curent debt, all that means is our debt increases $1.41 trillion this year, instead of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo. Our debt is still increasing by more than a trillion dollars.

Scott, where am I wrong? I just don't get it.

[scottw]

simplification of the tax code and elimination of "loopholes" as mentioned would effectively be a tax increase, it would also result in many who share none of the federal burden currently to make a contribution, would make it tougher for politicians to build in set asides and favors through tax policy carrots and business would not find it as necessary to buy favorable status and treatment...the current tax code is the playground of the well connected, all of these foundations and shelters that are little more that political arms of the various interests and government subsidies and investments are doled out based on patronage...

simply raising taxes on "the rich" is a desperate concept being offered by a desperate man in a situation that he loaths, which is that America is no longer in love with him so he needs to return to his roots and drum up some anger.... the people that have money will find ways to shelter their money through the complexities of the current tax code, the people hit the hardest will be those that are upwardly mobile, actively moving, investing and growing their particular field and that's who will be burdened at a time when their investments and energy are needed...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"
Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

.

The fact that it is impossible to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes (ie Herman Cain) or cut taxes and spend (ie GWB and the republican congress) is very evident in where we are compared to 2000. Bush didn't start with the massive recession. Obama comes in with a massive recession and you beleive the way to fix it is to try to solve 100 years of social economics. Bad timing.

[JohnR]

Bush came in at the Dot Com bubble so wasn't exactly handed a booming economy. The reason things were not so bad is that a Republican Congress and a Democratic President got together and put together budgets that required being balanced (or close too). Then between wars and increased domestic spending we got out of control, only accelerated with the housing bubble.

WE SPEND TOO MUCH. That is the problem. We take in enough. We spend too much.

I am not opposed of increasing taxes on the uberwealthy, or even paying some more myself. But I REFUSE to see it pi$$ed away the way the Dems will do.


There is a balance and we are so far from that balance it is crazy. Sorry for the drive-by post but working

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I am not opposed of increasing taxes on the uberwealthy, or even paying some more myself. But I REFUSE to see it pi$$ed away the way the Dems will do.


There is a balance and we are so far from that balance it is crazy. Sorry for the drive-by post but working

See, you and I could run the country I agree we spend too much in general, but I also see the facts that show we cannot cut our way out of the deficit. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. Also, a recession or the beginning of a recovery is economically the wrong time to make drastic cuts. If the current Republicans would have budged even a little bit on taxes for the very highest earners, congress and the president could at least work some things out. The influence of the tea party and election politics prevented that from happening.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by zimmy

See, you and I could run the country I agree we spend too much in general, but I also see the facts that show we cannot cut our way out of the deficit. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. Also, a recession or the beginning of a recovery is economically the wrong time to make drastic cuts. If the current Republicans would have budged even a little bit on taxes for the very highest earners, congress and the president could at least work some things out. The influence of the tea party and election politics prevented that from happening.

PFFFFTTTT!!!! ( )

Pelosi, Reed, and Frank have no desire to cut on where we spend MOST of the money. They want to cut defense in order to free MORE money for entitlements.

We've been paying for SS / Medicare for our professional lives and they have been borrowing against that to fuel other stuff - like spending more than we take in.

I do agree that now is a tough time to make cuts BUTTTTTT the times when it was good to make cuts the left side of the aisle SPENT MORE MONEY. THEY REGULATED to the nth degree and have stifled rather than fostered innovation.

They have put more and more teat out there for the mob to suckle on.

I used to be a Dem, now I am independent. I refuse to be associated with EITHER party as both are just pocketing the donations and catering to the lobbyists.

At least the Tea Party wants us to stop spending like drunken sailors. They want us to go back to our roots a bit that some smart guys figured out a couple hundred years ago. The left wants to keep kicking the can down the road (I used to love that phrase but it was worn down the past few months) time and time again and point fingers like little sissy 'yotches blaming everyone else but themselves. They REFUSE to buckle down and get something done.

Personally I would like to see 80% of both parties tossed in the klink as enemies foriegn AND DOMESTIC.

Sorry - getting worked up but I do weep for my country.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnR

PFFFFTTTT!!!! ( )



I do agree that now is a tough time to make cuts BUTTTTTT the times when it was good to make cuts the left side of the aisle SPENT MORE MONEY. THEY REGULATED to the nth degree and have stifled rather than fostered innovation.

2001-2009? That was the left spending the money?