Obama, the Liar-In-Chief

[scottw]

out to lunch"ed"ness

i think that's correct....

you two are lucky TDF isn't around

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

out to lunch"ed"ness

i think that's correct....

you two are lucky TDF isn't around

Spence said that white people who are opposed to gay mariage are all in the same boat as jerks who wear "God hates fags" tshirts. I've never said anythiing here, nor could I, that compares with that. If the moderators let that fly, my stuff here pales in comparison.

The ironic thing is that gay marriage is an issue on which I agree with him. But he still managed to marginalize himself, even as I was trying to agree with him.

Here, I just want to know how tax cuts (especially cuts followed by increased tax ravenue) had a "tremendous impact" on the recession. I've heard Obama say that, though I see he doesn't bother to explain the connection. Spence, in true liberal parrot fashion, also regurgitates that talking point. I'm just trying to figure out how, if we get to keep a slightly higher percentage or our wages, that made anyone else poorer?

Afetr all, revenues collected, and government spending, both increased after those tax cuts. But if tax cuts had a "tremendous impact" on the recession, I genuinely want to know why, because I don't want to be misinformed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence said that white people who are opposed to gay mariage are all in the same boat as jerks who wear "God hates fags" tshirts.

Afetr all, revenues collected, and government spending, both increased after those tax cuts. But if tax cuts had a "tremendous impact" on the recession, I genuinely want to know why, because I don't want to be misinformed.

he seemed satisfied with my answer on the subject and didn't accuse me of wearing off-color tee shirts

you ask alot of questions and demand answers that you should already know or expect the predictable response...if someone responds predictably, you shouldn't get angry....if someone believes that the only or largest issue that we face is that government is underfunded .....they will also believe that the increase or decrease in taxation is either the solution or the problem

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

you ask alot of questions and demand answers that you should already know or expect the predictable response...if someone responds predictably, you shouldn't get angry....if someone believes that the only or largest issue that we face is that government is underfunded .....they will also believe that the increase or decrease in taxation is either the solution or the problem

Stop being reasonable or I'll have to put you back on ignore

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

he seemed satisfied with my answer on the subject and didn't accuse me of wearing off-color tee shirts

you ask alot of questions and demand answers that you should already know or expect the predictable response...if someone responds predictably, you shouldn't get angry....if someone believes that the only or largest issue that we face is that government is underfunded .....they will also believe that the increase or decrease in taxation is either the solution or the problem

Can't argue with any of that...

Back to the main point of this thread. Obama said in a commercial that trickle down tax cuts are what caused this recession. I'm not making that up, it's what the man said.

Can anyone here support that statement? Merely repeating it, is not supporting it.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

you two are lucky TDF isn't around

That's because TDF actually had better things to do than be here to get between a couple of "Pre-Teen Girls" arguing whether its "Edward or Jacob"

[Sea Dangles]

Until he gets to work...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

This is a peculiar understanding of "top down/bottom up." Generally, when applied to current politics, top down refers to government as being the mover and shaker of society with the people following its direction and regulation, and bottom up refers to the private sector, "the people" being the creators of and driving force, with the government, in a democratic free market system republic, being merely a cohesive force with limited powers granted to it and consented by the private sector. Tax policies, whether those of Obama or Bush or Romney, would all be top down policies. Tax cuts would be government, the top, relinquishing power thus restoring it to the bottom, the people, so, would be enabling the bottom to direct and produce more. Tax raises would be the opposite, shifting power to the top, the government, and siphoning power from the bottom. In effect, lowering taxes is a bottom up approach, and raising taxes is a top down approach. This applies to on whomever the taxes are raised or lowered, the rich, middle class, or poor. Top down tinkering to favor any class is usually, if not always, divisive. The theory that cutting taxes on those who create business and the ensuing jobs is a top down decision to enable bottom up conditions to flourish. But picking the winners and losers, the "class" that benefits from policies is class warfare that divides.

The founders and their Constitution never intended for an ultimate top down system of government that would divide the people and give it the power to create the conditions of society. That was to be left to the people, bottom up. Ironically, In their view, the top WAS the people. Though societal structures as flow charts or pyramids place government on top, their Constitution was the most anti-government government document ever written. It was government ceding power from the top of the flow-chart to the bottom sectors. It was government limiting itself from the top and dispersing it to the people to govern, for the most part, themselves. It was government limiting its own power, and letting the greatest portion of powers to remain in the hands of the people who were to be, in contrast to previous notions and practices of government, the actual top of the chart. Progressive shift in politics has now given government the highest position.

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

Well, when revenues went up with the Bush tax cuts, that could pay for the wars. But even more to the point, foreign wars are the responsibility of the Federal government and its legitimate financial responsibillity. Its current massive bureacracy and the programs and regulaltions it spues forth, spending trillions of dollars, for the most part, are not legitimate, Constitutional responsibilites. And now there is only the dwindling Afghanistan war, so tax cuts, even under the pay for the war responsibility, especially if they allow the private sector to flourish better as a bottom up force thus creating more gvt. revenue, shouldn't be such a problem, and especially if the gvt. stops, or at least cuts back on, its bureaucratic spending.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, when revenues went up with the Bush tax cuts, that could pay for the wars. But even more to the point, foreign wars are the responsibility of the Federal government and its legitimate financial responsibillity.

Yes, and in addition there was the costs of 9/11, forming Homeland Security and Katrina besides the wars,
all Federal responsibilities.
Now that those expenses are close to being over, there should be more $$ to help
pay down the debt unless it's used for expanding Big G even more.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Tax cuts would be government, the top, relinquishing power thus restoring it to the bottom, the people, so, would be enabling the bottom to direct and produce more. Tax raises would be the opposite, shifting power to the top, the government, and siphoning power from the bottom.

You could also argue that in our present situation tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper. Yes, this does assume a level of responsibility we've not seen from either party.

Progressive shift in politics has now given government the highest position.

Assuming that in this case "Progressive" = Republicans and Democrats?

And now there is only the dwindling Afghanistan war, so tax cuts, even under the pay for the war responsibility, especially if they allow the private sector to flourish better as a bottom up force thus creating more gvt. revenue, shouldn't be such a problem, and especially if the gvt. stops, or at least cuts back on, its bureaucratic spending.

There is no war dividend when you're running a deficit.

I'd also argue that government revenues ultimately have more to do with larger (increasingly global) economic trends rather than incentives like low taxation or deregulation.

Our taxes are at historic lows and wealth continues to concentrate at the top and be funneled offshore. Trusting industry has given our housing market a 10+ year wound...

How can anyone seriously argue that yet lower taxes and even less regulation is going to change the vector positively for the American people?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You could also argue that in our present situation tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper. -spence

Spence...please elaborate on this gem

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You could also argue that in our present situation tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper. Yes, this does assume a level of responsibility we've not seen from either party.

You might argue that if you believe that the more powerful the state is the more power the individual has. Since I don't believe that, I wouldn't argue that tax raises, or anything else which would give the central gvt. in our present situation even more power or control over our lives than it already has, would increase individual strength. Nor do I believe that the state making itself "stronger" at the expense of the individual equates with the "bottom" building a stronger state. Unless, of course, the state is, ultimately, the people who make their individual lives more prosperous. When the state and the people are one, then the bottom is the top, and their elected representatives are their servants, the bottom, who will be constrained by the limits that the people have enumerated in their constitution, And the people, who you refer to as the bottom, can then make a stronger state because the people will direct by their actions how they, the state, will thrive. But when the state and the people are not one, and the state is the top, and the people are the bottom who are not directly represented by responsive servants, but are dictated to by unelected bureaucrats appointed with plenary, unrepresentative power by those servants, that is tyranny and does not make the true state, the people, stronger. It strengthens only the stolen state, that power separated from the people, a select few experts who allow rights and priveleges to a people that once had inalienable rights, and directs the "vector" of a people who once determined their own.

And there is no level of responsibility that those in this top down state, separate from the people who are relegated to the bottom, that applies, except the responsibility to do as they choose. When the people are ruled rather than rule, it is the people who must be responsible to the government, not vice versa. To expect undefined responsibility from those you have allowed to rule you is your last and hopeless wish. If you want responsibility, rule yourself. We would have that under Constitutional governance.

Assuming that in this case "Progressive" = Republicans and Democrats?

Of course. I've said so several times. That's why I said progressive, not Democrat or Republican.


There is no war dividend when you're running a deficit.

There are no dividends when you run a deficit. It is more dificult to fund a war when you run a deficit. If you continually run deficits, as we mostly have for 80 years or so, it is difficult to run anything.

I'd also argue that government revenues ultimately have more to do with larger (increasingly global) economic trends rather than incentives like low taxation or deregulation.

Low taxation and less regulation would put us in a competitive position in the global market, and would lessen the need to funnel stuff offshore.

Our taxes are at historic lows and wealth continues to concentrate at the top and be funneled offshore. Trusting industry has given our housing market a 10+ year wound...

How can anyone seriously argue that yet lower taxes and even less regulation is going to change the vector positively for the American people?

-spence

Depends on what you mean by positive. And it depends on what you mean by historic. There were boom times with lower taxes and less regulation in the past. But, if you prefer Wilson's, and the progressives', idea of society being a well ordered bee hive, directed by government, then tinkering with economic levers from the "top" may be your way of achieving a positive vector. If you prefer individual sovereignty, the vector should be directed by the people, not the government.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

Our taxes are at historic lows and wealth continues to concentrate at the top and be funneled offshore. -spence

This also includes Corporate Taxes: Corporate income taxes for the past three years have hovered at just over 1 percent of GDP, lower than for any three-year period since World War II. The average for OECD countries is 3.5 percent.

The problem I have is the amount of $$’s wasted. Too many stories of gross and wasteful spending and so much scandal in our Government. Regardless of taxes being historically low, an argument could be made that government spending is historically high. So it’s the chicken and the egg, cut spending or increase taxes. I think we need a little of both from everyone. Not just concessions from the rich or the poor, but from everyone. (even though I don’t know what is rich and what is poor)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You could also argue that in our present situation tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper. Yes, this does assume a level of responsibility we've not seen from either party.


Assuming that in this case "Progressive" = Republicans and Democrats?


There is no war dividend when you're running a deficit.

I'd also argue that government revenues ultimately have more to do with larger (increasingly global) economic trends rather than incentives like low taxation or deregulation.

Our taxes are at historic lows and wealth continues to concentrate at the top and be funneled offshore. Trusting industry has given our housing market a 10+ year wound...

How can anyone seriously argue that yet lower taxes and even less regulation is going to change the vector positively for the American people?

-spence

"tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper"

Which explains why there is no poverty in places with strong, tax-funded states like Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.

"Our taxes are at historic lows ..."

That makes a great bumper-sticker, because yes there were tax rates in the 70's at one point. But that argument is destroyed when you consider that just about no one paid those taxes, because there were even more shelters then...

Furthermore Spence, you need to consider all taxes. For example, CT did not have an income tax 25 years ago, nowt it's around 5.5%.

I'm guessing that the average earner works longer into the year to pay his tax bill, than he did 50 years ago. I don't have the data to prove that, but it cannot be false.

"There is no war dividend when you're running a deficit.

"

True. But despite what people on your side of the ailse like to claim, we don't enter into wars for profit.

"How can anyone seriously argue that yet lower taxes and even less regulation is going to change the vector positively for the American people?"

Because it worked when Clinton did it. And it worked beter after Bush did it. You work in finance, right? Wasn't the economy robust from 1996-2007? Granted, much of that was fueled by a reckless housing bubble, but not all of it.

Spence, lower taxes means people like me and you get to keep more of our money. You honestly don't think that would help you? And assuming you will either spend, donate, invest, or save that money in a bank, it will help others, too. That's not rocket science.

Spence, let me turn that around. What evidence do you have, to suggest that more taxes and more regulation, will improve the situation?

No one is saying we don't need any regulation. but there is such a thing as too much regulation.

Das Vedanya...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

"So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession?"

I never said that. I specifically said that the fishy financial products played a large role. But since the de-regulation of those products was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Democratic president, i don't see how one party is at fault.

Also, I think that the Bush tax cuts had just about nothing to do with it.

"we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone"

True. But I don't feel that government debt had much at all to do with this recesion. This recession was caused by the subprime mortgage crisis, and the rippling effectsthroughout the financial sector. Government debt will have everything to do with the next recession, however,

"Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before?"

I don't know. In the case of the bUsh tax cuts, I don't see that it matters. Because th efact is (and thgis seems to escape liberals), tax revenues increased aftre the tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts did not result in tax revenue being lower than it was before the tax rate cuts.

People, mostly liberals, do not seem to be able to grasp that. If tax revenues always decreased proportionately with tax rates, you'd have a point. But clearly they do not. What I mean is this...no one can say for sure that the feds would have collected more revenue, if Bush had not cut taxes. It's not that simple. All we know is this...after Bush cut tax rates (the percentage of one's salary that one pays) tax revenues collected by the feds (total dollars collected) hit their all-time high.

Liberals constantly claim (falsely) that the Bush tax cuts (1) onlyhelped the rich (that is demonstrably false), and (2) caused the recession (which makes no sense).

I think I have answered most, if not all, of your questions.

So can you answer one of mine? Just one...if Bush's reduction in tax rates were followed by an increase in tax dollars collected by the feds, how can that cause a recession?

The feds collected more tax dollars from us after the Bush tax cuts. Not less. More. That is undisputed fact, and it annihilates the liberal theory that increasing tax rates will automatically increase tax revenue. Even though it's demonstrably false, liberals continue to beat that drum.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

"So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession?"

I specifically said that fishy financial products, tied to mortgages, played a big role. So I cannot imagine why on Earth you'd claim that I said something so stupid.

"top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for"

Bush advocated a top-down approach? Then can you explain why Bush lowered tax rates for everyone, not just for the rich (which liberals like to lie about)?

Romney wants a small-government approach. Why does that, in your view, equate to a "top-down" approach? Romney isn't proposing to eliminate anti-poverty programs. He isn't proposing to eliminate welfare, food stamps, or unemployment. He just doesn't want the feds doing things they suck at. In a sane world, liberals would happily debate the merits of a limited-government approach. Instead, as always, they demonize the other side, saying things like "that's how we got into this mess, and he wants to do it again! We can't afford that!"

Rockhound, government debt didn't cause this recession (though it will cause the next one). And let me make one more point, and try to pay attention, because this is something liberals REALLY struggle with. Let's pretend I agree with you that federal tax revenue plays a big role in recessions...President Bush cut tax rates. Those lower tax rates were followed by the largest amount of tax dollars ever collected by the IRS.

Thus, where do liberals get off claiming that the Bush tax cuts cost us anything? You cannot know for sure that higher tax rates would have produced more tax revenue. It's not that simple. Why? Because demand increases when you reduce price. Always.

Rockhound, do you claim that higher tax rates will always produce more tax dollars, than lower tax rates? If so, why not impose tax rates of 100%?

It is irrefutable, demonstrable fact, that it's possible to lower tax rates and increase tax revenue. It happened within the last 10 years, for God's sakes.

Now, please don't suggest that I'm saying lower tax rates will always increase tax revenue, because that's equally ridiculous. But they don't always move proportionately. Liberals hate that fact, and thus cannot accept it.