Obama Proposal To End Tax Cuts ONLY For Rich Is Irresponsible

64 posts / 0 new

Bottom line is we NEVER could afford ANY of the Bush tax cuts. They were passed when We The People were then $6 TRILLION in debt and by 2001 the surplus was disappearing.
Now that debt has increased by another 10 trillion the past 11 years.

We The People have now pissed away some 15 trillion on ourselves the past 30 years THAT WE REFUSED TO TAX OURSELVES FOR. Unless we do, it's the biggest theft in history… by our generation from our kids and grandkids. Yet many, especially on the Right, believe this $15 trillion free lunch wasn't enough and they are overtaxed!

It's too late to complain that money was spent poorly. It's OUR generation's debt... and it can NOT be paid down with spending cuts. Debt can ONLY be paid down with excess REVENUE over spending. Sadly, the GOP can NOT be trusted to use a surplus to pay down debt. Bush proved they'll do anything possible to create MORE debt as part of their Starve The Beast strategy.

Despite the fact revenues in constant dollars have been virtually FLAT, only exceeding 2000 levels twice in the past 12 years, the GOP insists tax cut we never could afford MUST be extended. And now the Dems have joined this insanity by insisting that only the tax cuts for the rich must be phased out as if we could afford the rest. Sadly, tragically, both our parties are playing politics with the debt.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Comments

Quote Pierpont:

We The People have now pissed away some 15 trillion on ourselves the past 30 years THAT WE REFUSED TO TAX OURSELVES FOR. Unless we do, it's the biggest theft in history… by our generation from our kids and grandkids.

It's too late to complain that money was spent poorly. It's OUR generation's debt...

By "our" I'm assuming that you like Thom, and the majority of posters here in the THC are part of the "Baby Boomer" generation that decided it was going to squander the incredible gains sacrificed for and created by their parents, the WW2 "Greatest Generation".

Boomers spent the entire 60's and 70's partying it up with the credo "Sex, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll". Uncountable trillions of productivity hours were lost in a haze of illegal drug smoke, cocaine, and alcohol, Long held social values that survived for thousands of years, such as the entire concept of nuclear families and saving for old age were thrown out in an orgy of disease and AIDS.

Into the 80's and 90's "Boomers", using their incredible weight of numbers, began to exert their political might and vote for themselves massive Social Security benefits that their children, Generation X, would have to pay for. We now have a situation were Boomers are now taking up to 30 TIMES MORE in Social Security benefits than they ever paid into during their drug fueled party on heyday.

As a Generation X'er myself I have grown up under this oppression my entire life, and now that my generation is starting to gain political power along with our younger Gen Y brothers it is time to bring the house back in order and to say finally.

Sorry Hippy.

But the party is now OVER.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Quote Calperson:

Quote Pierpont:

We The People have now pissed away some 15 trillion on ourselves the past 30 years THAT WE REFUSED TO TAX OURSELVES FOR. Unless we do, it's the biggest theft in history… by our generation from our kids and grandkids.

It's too late to complain that money was spent poorly. It's OUR generation's debt...

By "our" I'm assuming that you like Thom, and the majority of posters here in the THC are part of the "Baby Boomer" generation that decided it was going to squander the incredible gains sacrificed for and created by their parents, the WW2 "Greatest Generation".

Blah blah. It's wasn't the 60's generation that back in the 70's came up with the Starve the Beast strategy to use fiscal irresponsibility to sabotage the finances of the federal government hoping to undermine New Deal and Great Society programs. But that insanity has continued with right wingers since then… and it's a policy you seem to embrace. How goddamn noble.

Don't try your rabid Right crap on me CP. I was a proud hippie AND I'm a deficit hawk who's decried the fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP since the Reagan era... and of the Dems as I'm doing now. As a GenXer it's YOU who are stealing from our kids while pretending to be oppressed even as you've enjoyed the biggest Free Lunch in history. That you excuse the GOP and blame Dems proves you're not in the least concerned about fiscal policy... only politics.

Are there any intelligent Right wingers with principles out there? Didn't think so.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

I agree, rhetoric aside the portion of the tax cuts that went to "The rich" was minor.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am
Quote WorkerBee:

I agree, rhetoric aside the portion of the tax cuts that went to "The rich" was minor.

Really? Have an actual percentage? And just what income level does the right wing definition of "rich" begin?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Using the often cited by Obama 200k (250k for married couples) point. "Minor" is perhaps too strong a word but certainly the bulk of the "cost" of extending the rates do not go to the wealthy.


Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am
Quote WorkerBee:Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

OK, just making sure we're using the same numbers because some Right source once saying it would be a mere $7 billion a year. They must have taken the 700 billion divided by 10, then someone unknowingly divided by 10 again.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

OK, just making sure we're using the same numbers because some Right source once saying it would be a mere $7 billion a year. They must have taken the 700 billion divided by 10, then someone unknowingly divided by 10 again.

I think that is how much the Buffet rule would bring in?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am

The Greatest Generation will ultimately be remembered as the last generation to lynch black Americans.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

The Greatest Generation will ultimately be remembered as the last generation to lynch black Americans.

What? Did you wander into the wrong thread?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am

Reply to this:

Quote Calperson:

By "our" I'm assuming that you like Thom, and the majority of posters here in the THC are part of the "Baby Boomer" generation that decided it was going to squander the incredible gains sacrificed for and created by their parents, the WW2 "Greatest Generation".

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:

As a GenXer it's YOU who are stealing from our kids while pretending to be oppressed even as you've enjoyed the biggest Free Lunch in history.

Assuming we are talking about the same Gen X I sincerly would LOVE to hear your theory how Gen X is enjoying "the biggest free lunch in history".

You are going to have to forgive my peers and I for resenting paying into a Social Security ponzi scheme that will go bankrupt before we even retire and we will never see a single penny of.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am
Quote Calperson:You are going to have to forgive my peers and I for resenting paying into a Social Security ponzi scheme that will go bankrupt before we even retire and we will never see a single penny of.

Gee Einstein... YOU support Right wing policies designed to undermine SS then you worry it's not going to be able to meet 100% of its payments when you retire? You may deserve what you get for your stupidity. I don't.

Are there any sane Right wingers out there?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote chilidog:

Reply to this:

Quote Calperson:

By "our" I'm assuming that you like Thom, and the majority of posters here in the THC are part of the "Baby Boomer" generation that decided it was going to squander the incredible gains sacrificed for and created by their parents, the WW2 "Greatest Generation".

I already did. Both of Cal's typical braindead simplifications do more to conceal the truth than enlighten. It wasn't the Baby Boomers that concocted Starve The Beast... a plan to sabotage the fiscal health of the federal government. It was some ultra Right wingers of Cal's "greatest generation."

And if Cal is so impressed with the accomplishments of the "greatest generation" perhaps he also wants to go back to the government policies that were enacted during the New Deal… infrastructure investment like dams and rural electrification, Glass Steagall, or perhaps that 90% (later 70%) top marginal tax rate, or import tariffs to protect domestic jobs, a strong union movement, the GI Bill, etc. Cal wants to credit some generic generation outside the context it lived in.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Has the percentage rate of paycheck confiscation ever, ever, been LOWERED by Congress?? Please cite which Bills or laws you are talking about, or any changes at all in SS at any time EVER.

No, Social Security has been running the same since its inception and the huge Baby Boomer bulge has long been predicted to exhaust the fund. Last year it started paying out more than it took in and will be totally empty in the 2030's or even earlier, way before any of my peers or I reach retirement. That is of course using the leftist meme that it is NOT actually stuffed with IOU's from other departments and the General Fund, but that however, is a topic for another thread.

It is time to end to end the ponzi scheme of forcing one generation to pay for another and move to a regulated system of IRA's (Individual Retirement Accounts) where people can take responsibility for their own lives and welfare, and begin to again feel pride in themselves, their savings, and the personal honor of self sufficiency.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Seems all the Right wingers are determined to hijack this thread away from the original topic: If we NEVER could afford ANY of the Bush tax cuts, then isn't now twice as stupid to insist they stay in place when we're now 10 trillion more in debt. Who can blame them. They've been convinced there's no revenue problem… even if in constant dollars revenues have been LOWER than Clinton's last year for 9 of the past 11 years… and they care more about their righteous delusion of infallibility more than the nation itself. So intellectually they can't face the truth they believe in lies.

My belief is we should let these irresponsible tax cuts expire PLUS for the next 10-15 years, raise the top marginal rate back to Reagan's 1981 50%. I'd also like to see a Budget SURPLUS Amendment so neither party can play fiscal games... and we begin to pay down the debt for what we spent on ourselves.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

It's freaking amazing that we can't let these helplessly reckless tax policies expire so that we get back to a top rate of... 39.6%... and we can't even fathom getting back to Kemp-Roth's top rate of 50%, when everyone was popping champagne and buying the posters that said "Poverty Sucks!"

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Calperson:....paycheck confiscation....

If you detest taxes, your beef is with the Constitution. Article 1, Sec 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
and the 16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

In the meantime, Einstein, I'm waiting for YOUR plan how we can pay down $16 TRILLION in debt with spending cuts alone... when Tax Cut Psychos YOU support rush to claim ANY budget surplus is "proof" we're overtaxed... and pass irresponsible tax cuts.

Don't bother answering. It's all just more of your rabid Orwellian Right bullsh*t.

And pray tell Brainiac... if We The People are $16 TRILLION in debt... just how much of your paycheck is yours... and how much belongs to our creditors?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote Calperson:...the huge Baby Boomer bulge has long been predicted to exhaust the fund.
The so called "Trust Fund" is SUPPOSED to be exhausted. It was created to deal with a demographic bubble... not to exist forever. Whether the actuarial calculations made in 1983 during the Reagan admin are correct... who knows. It might need adjusting. But the basic idea of SS isn't based on "trust fund" but intergenerational financing.

Last year it started paying out more than it took in and will be totally empty in the 2030's or even earlier, way before any of my peers or I reach retirement.
Gee Einstein... it's because there was a cut in the SS rate... money that is supposed to be paid back. I think it was a stupid move to mess with SS funding. Then there was the decrease in SS revenue cause by the insane Right wing economic ideas YOU support.

It is time to end to end the ponzi scheme of forcing one generation to pay for another and move to a regulated system of IRA's (Individual Retirement Accounts) where people can take responsibility for their own lives and welfare, and begin to again feel pride in themselves, their savings, and the personal honor of self sufficiency.

Get a clue small-fry... Wall Street is the true Ponzi Scheme. It stagnated for about 25 years until IRAs started pumping money into the market about 1980. People trade in hard cash for a piece of paper hoping it will be worth more in 20-30-40 years. Sure, as long as there's more buyers than sellers. But that Baby Boom is going to be cashing in. So where will that excess money come from to keep prices high? Gen Xers will see prices dropping as the Baby Boom are cashing out… and you think they won't sell? OH I KNOW! The new money will come from privatizing SS.... which will pump up the market with a new source of money. Ya, that's not a Ponzi Scheme! Why anyone would want Wall St psychopaths to get their hands on this cash is beyond me.

Like I said before… if you value SS… then STOP SUPPORTING THOSE DETERMINED TO UNDERMINE IT!!!

BTW... I await your actually responding to the topic of this thread... if we could never afford the Bush tax cuts... why should they be extended when we're now $10 TRILLION more in debt.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Like I said before… if you value SS… then STOP SUPPORTING THOSE DETERMINED TO UNDERMINE IT!!!

BTW... I await your actually responding to the topic of this thread... if we could never afford the Bush tax cuts... why should they be extended when we're now $10 TRILLION more in debt.

I don't value SS at all, the sooner it is crushed and drowned the better for me and my generation. Like I was trying to explain before, Social Security will be bankrupt long before me or any of my friends will retire so we look at the amount that is being "confiscated" from our paychecks and just weep. And it is "confiscation" because we will never see it again, and it is being used to fund the lifestyles of other people. "Taxation" implies that we will be "represented" by the money in some way. For a start there needs to be a way to stop Boomers withdrawing more SS than they put into the system during their drug fueled "work life". This is the true "free ride" and it is coming at the expense of Gen X and Gen Y now preventing us from saving enough for our own retirement.

After WW2 the "Greatest Generation" through massive self sacrifice and commitment to God and Country defeated National Socialism in Europe, Japanese Imperialism in Asia and set up a work and personal saving effort that catapulted the USA to the worlds only superpower. Boomers then decided to fuck and smoke their way through the entire cookie jar and then set up a system that the broken home kids they did have or missed aborting would be stuck for the bill of their old age at the expense of their own old age savings.

Sorry Gramps, but my Generation doesn't like the deal. It is time to create a newer fairer system. Enough with the Leftist attitude of ordering whatever you want and sticking your neighbor with the Bill. Time to go back to the way it was for thousands of years. Save for your own retirement, work hard, live frugally, and Granny is just going to have to move into the downstairs room in her twilight years just like she always did.

As for the "Bush tax cuts" I find your bleating just boring for a number of reasons. Number one, being that they ended in 2010 more than 2 years ago. Obama decided to continue the tax RATES and as such, are basically just the default bipartisan tax rates we have had this entire century.

Number two, your premise that tax cuts "cost" anything is absurd on a variety of levels. First decreased taxes actually creates MORE revenue as the full drive and productivity of the American spirit is unleashed. A man who is allowed to keep more of the fruits of his labor will actually strive even harder to better himself and his society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Investigate "The Laffer curve" to see how taxes have an effect on motivation and a mans economic output. Unfortunately most of this is common sense for most people as is the fact that if you pay a man to sit at home on the couch to smoke bongs or promise him that his children will pay for his future at the expense of their own, well, then that is what they will do. Get up at 11 and get baked Maaaan.

Finally your premise that tax cuts "cost" anything is just plain offensive to the free thinking man of liberty. To even get to that phrase one has to start with the assumption that ALL of a mans economic output in fact is the property of the government and it is only by the grace of the government that "we" are allowed to keep ANY of it!

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Quote Calperson:

Quote Pierpont:

Like I said before… if you value SS… then STOP SUPPORTING THOSE DETERMINED TO UNDERMINE IT!!!

BTW... I await your actually responding to the topic of this thread... if we could never afford the Bush tax cuts... why should they be extended when we're now $10 TRILLION more in debt.

I don't value SS at all, the sooner it is crushed and drowned the better for me and my generation. Like I was trying to explain before, Social Security will be bankrupt long before me or any of my friends will retire so we look at the amount that is being "confiscated" from our paychecks and just weep.

Moving the goal post? You complained the "trust fund" would be gone... as if that "proved" SS was unsustainable. When I explained it was SUPPOSED to disappear... you predictably change the topic. And that's your MO… you maintain your delusional state by evading anything that threatens it.

Now do you FINALLY have anything to say about whether we could ever afford the Bush tax cuts back in 2001 when we were already 6 TRILLION in debt... and the Clinton Surplus was gone? How about how we can pay down debt with spending cuts alone when debt can only be paid back with SURPLUS REVENUE!

Sorry Fluffy, your rabid Right rhetoric and evasions just don't cut it in the world of hard numbers.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Calperson:

...the "Greatest Generation" ...defeated National Socialism in Europe, Japanese Imperialism in Asia and set up... the USA to the worlds only superpower.

Did they have a choice?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Calperson:

Investigate "The Laffer curve" to see how taxes have an effect on motivation and a mans economic output.

How much does your dividend from Exxon decrease when your personal income tax rate is raised?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Quote Calperson:Investigate "The Laffer curve" to see how taxes have an effect on motivation and a mans economic output.

There you go again, pulling something out of your butt that you don't even understand, and you're convinced whatever you spew was handed down on a slab. First, despite the dire predictions from the Right, the Clinton tax rates did NOT cut into economic growth… AND he got us to a Surplus even without Newt's spending cuts... a surplus the GOP could not tolerate and rushed to sabotage it before it even materialized. Yet the lower Bush rates showed no spectacular growth despite the $5 trillion in deficit spending.

There's a SECOND half to Laffer's theory you tax cut psychos sweep under the table… and it's simple enough, perhaps, for even you to understand. The Orwellian Right has bastardized Laffer's theory to claim ALL tax cuts are desirable. But according to Laffer, if tax rates are too LOW, they fail to capture optimum revenue. And the proof is in… the Bush tax cuts were SO irresponsible, that in constant dollars Bush revenues only exceeded Clinton's last year for 2 of the past 11 years… and then only a paltry 140 billion in 2005 dollars. But then in the mind of the Orwellian Right… LOWER revenue = a revenue BOOM.

Are there ANY intelligent Right wingers out there? Didn't think so.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

To set the stage for Social Security going bankrupt reality.

Three assumptions that go in to SS is going broke scenario:

1- GDP grows at 1.7% or less for the next 4 decades.

2- Immigration shrivels up to less than 300,000 a year, which is already less than the present legal limit.

3- Wages and job growth stagnate permanently for 80% of the workforce.

Issue #1, that means we get 40 years of an economy worse than the Great Depression, including the Dust Bowl. If this happens, we have much larger problems than the social security issue. Things like the first Mad Max movie, or Stephen King's The Stand kind of scenarios.4 decades of depression and decay will be economic armageddon.

#2 will only happen if assumption 1 is true.

and #3 is moot, because wages for those still alive in the wasteland will depend on one's ability to loot.

In the Social Security trustees report, if you merely raise the long term growth rate up to the level that was the Great Depression, and assume historic levels of immigration, the whole problem is solved. If you accept historic levels of growth then years the trust fund pays out more than it takes in are far fewer, and by about 2045 we could go back to the lower pre- Reagan tax rate for SSI.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

The laffer curve is just that, a curve. It does not say lowering taxes will always lead to more revenue. Given how low collections are there is enough room to moderately raise collections. With that said when you look at the rise of government spending over the last 30 years there is a lot of fat to be cut.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am
Quote WorkerBee:

The laffer curve is just that, a curve. It does not say lowering taxes will always lead to more revenue. Given how low collections are there is enough room to moderately raise collections. With that said when you look at the rise of government spending over the last 30 years there is a lot of fat to be cut.

No one's saying there's no fat. The question the GOP is determined to deny.... the despite the absymal revenue numbers since 2001... is whether revenue isn't also a problem. Clearly it is. And of course the OTHER question the GOP and right wingers here REFUSE to deal with is how a huge tax cut while we were 6 TRILLION in debt, justified then by the Clinton Surplus that was disappearing, wasn't a bad idea.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

You can start to see and hear the propaganda drumbeat for extension of the Bush tax cuts for ALL. News stories and pundits are starting to 'doubt' the wisdom of raising taxes in these bad times. The rich will piggyback off the lower classes with tax cuts and the rich get wealthier from less taxes even more.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am
Quote Calperson:... Investigate "The Laffer curve" to see how taxes have an effect on motivation and a mans economic output.

It's been done from time to time. The latest study I saw is that the tax rate should be higher than 75% before it starts effecting effort.

They have studied the Reagan years extensively. There was no labor or supply response to the tax cut. It was all demand. Look it up - I know you don't believe me.

It should be obvious to even the casual observer of US Economic History that we have had times of high taxes and high growth, low taxes and low growth, and yes - even periods of low taxes and high growth. I mean, we have had 90% top rates during economic boom times after the war.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote lovecraft:

You can start to see and hear the propaganda drumbeat for extension of the Bush tax cuts for ALL. News stories and pundits are starting to 'doubt' the wisdom of raising taxes in these bad times. The rich will piggyback off the lower classes with tax cuts and the rich get wealthier from less taxes even more.

This was my thought when Obama and Buffet were making all the noise about "30% minimum rate for investment income." If they just let Bush's tax cuts expire dividends and interest and short-term capital gains would be taxed at 39.6%.

Oh yeah taxes aren't going up. Bet on it.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:Oh yeah taxes aren't going up. Bet on it.

We should be careful about buying into the Right's framing of the issue. Since the Bush tax rates we DESIGNED by the GOP to expire... and the Obama extension was only for two years... it's more accurate to say the tax rates are REVERTING to previous levels. And it should be noted that only the Orwellian Right would claim that if a tax cut doesn't last forever... then it doesn't count. Perhaps 3 TRILLION in revenue was lost the past 12 years to tax cuts we could not afford back in 2001... and with a bigger deficit AND $10 trillion more in debt... we surely can't now.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:It should be obvious to even the casual observer of US Economic History that we have had times of high taxes and high growth, low taxes and low growth, and yes - even periods of low taxes and high growth. I mean, we have had 90% top rates during economic boom times after the war.

The Orwellian Right has constructed a religion around irresponsible tax cuts and they'll use every trick in the book to "prove" that the Clinton tax hike was NOT responsible for the Surplus, but some small tax cut in 1997 "unleashed" the economy. You see the True Believers here spouting their studies... where they remove all context from revenue, then claim revenue poured in in 2004 etc even if it was BELOW Clinton's last year in constant dollars. To explain why there could be deficits while there was a "revenue boom" they blame the Dems for spending it all. The Orwellian Right is shamless... and yet this investment in systemmatic disinformation DOES pay off. We see the Right wing media and GOP politicians now all spouting the same lies. It's just as how the Gun Nuts reinvented the Second Amendment to become divorced from the Milltia Clause. Repeat those Big Lies often enough and many will believe them.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

History has proven that a surplus is only an escrow account for the next administration. I for one don't feel like contributing to the next war chest.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

History has proven that a surplus is only an escrow account for the next administration. I for one don't feel like contributing to the next war chest.

Not sure where you get your ideas on debt. You're now talking like the far Right was in 1999, 2000, and 2001... that despite being 6 trillion in debt, the Surplus MUST be sabotaged otherwise the Dems (note they exclude themselves) might spend it. In reality, any surplus goes to paying down debt... and since we know Starve The Beast depends on increasing debt... the GOP was never going to let that happen.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

I'm talking recent history. George W. spent the surplus like it was his birthday money. Democrats will try to accumulate a surplus and as soon as a republican gets control it ends up going to pay for their agenda. It doesn't make much sense to me to want to fund the opposing party.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote chilidog:Oh yeah taxes aren't going up. Bet on it.

... it's more accurate to say the tax rates are REVERTING to previous levels.

Oh yeah taxes aren't going to revert to previous levels. Bet on it.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I'm talking recent history. George W. spent the surplus like it was his birthday money. Democrats will try to accumulate a surplus and as soon as a republican gets control it ends up going to pay for their agenda. It doesn't make much sense to me to want to fund the opposing party.

What surplus did Bush spend? The only true surplus is the on-budget surplus. The unified surplus can conceal internal borrowing. The On-budget surplus was gone by FY2001. Bush had to BORROW every cent for all of his deficit spending.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

History has proven that a surplus is only an escrow account for the next administration. I for one don't feel like contributing to the next war chest.

There is always room to borrow for another war. I mean we have always been at war with Oceania, or Iran or Freedonia...

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

Eastasia.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

None of this is going to do any good unless we bring jobs back to the United States. You can tax the rich at 90% if you want, but none of it helps the middle class if they don't have jobs. You can't have a country that lives on handouts alone, as we've seen with Greece.

patchthrough's picture
patchthrough
Joined:
Sep. 7, 2011 2:45 pm

Quote patchthrough:

None of this is going to do any good unless we bring jobs back to the United States. You can tax the rich at 90% if you want, but none of it helps the middle class if they don't have jobs. You can't have a country that lives on handouts alone, as we've seen with Greece.

It was unfortunate Corporate Dems like Clinton drank the Free Trade Kool Aid. The Right can rationalize this away saying those cheap sweatshop imports allow us to live a better lifestyle for less, and I assume they think cheap imports will compensate for the loss of good paying domestic jobs. Like with tax cuts, they think this is a free lunch. But losing good paying jobs also has implications for our own tax base, paying down debt, and keeping up special funds like Social Security.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

The question posed in this thread has been up now for SIX days and every Right winger has evaded it. Simply the question is this: if we could not afford the Bush tax cuts back in 2001 because we were SIX TRILLION in debt and the justification for them, the Clinton Surplus, was gone by 2001... why do Right wingers now believe these tax cuts MUST be extended when revenues have been depressed for a decade, we have trillion dollar deficits, and we have a $10 TRILLION more debt?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Pierpont:

Your original point about separating the rich from the middle class in the Bush Tax Cut debate seems to have been glossed over by not just the Righties. Isn't your point, that increased revenue is necessary to bring down our debt and playing politics with which end of the economic spectrum pays more just keeps the very simple act of increasing revenue from taking place.

Nobody wants to pay more taxes. Righties will fiight to the death to protect the tax cuts for the "job creators". Trying to extract the middle class portion of the Bush Tax Cuts is a battle that the Righties will ultimately win because they are on the side of "fairness" for all Americans and will abuse the class warfare argument to the extreme.

Let the Bush Tax Cuts expire across the board. It's not that hard to do. In fact it takes far more effort to extend them in any configuration. Let's hope Obama will ultimately arrive at that conclusion only after granstanding for middle class tax relief and leading the GOP down the primrose path of protecting the completely unnecessary tax cuts for those who need it least.

Increased revenue is mandatory for debt reduction and we ALL will have to kick in. The debate over tax fairness cannot be held within the context of the Bush Tax Cuts, because those cuts are by definition unfair to the treasury department. When congress gets a few more adults in it's ranks, we can take on the tax code. Until then, we need some additional revenue coming into the treasury that is NOT created by cutting services.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

The Greatest Generation will ultimately be remembered as the last generation to lynch black Americans.

If it wasn't for the " Greatest Generation " chances are everyone east of the Mississippi would have a German accent and still be lynching black Americans.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Come on admit it: y'all are still pissed off at FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and LBJ. States' rights, ya know.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:

The question posed in this thread has been up now for SIX days and every Right winger has evaded it. Simply the question is this: if we could not afford the Bush tax cuts back in 2001 because we were SIX TRILLION in debt and the justification for them, the Clinton Surplus, was gone by 2001... why do Right wingers now believe these tax cuts MUST be extended when revenues have been depressed for a decade, we have trillion dollar deficits, and we have a $10 TRILLION more debt?

I agreed with you on the first day, see post #4.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am

Quote Laborisgood:

Pierpont: Your original point about separating the rich from the middle class in the Bush Tax Cut debate seems to have been glossed over by not just the Righties. Isn't your point, that increased revenue is necessary to bring down our debt and playing politics with which end of the economic spectrum pays more just keeps the very simple act of increasing revenue from taking place.

My point is pretty simple... back in 2001 we were 6 Trillion in debt and the surplus was fragile. It was the result of 20 years of turning around the irresponsible Reagan tax cuts and a record long economic boom. The Clinton and Newt/Clinton spending cuts also helped. But by 2000 only about 90 billion of the total debt had actually been paid down. The public debt was shrinking but the intragovernmental debt was still increasing. The last thing we needed were ANY tax cuts... Dem or GOP, since surplus projections weren't reliable. Bush's idea was about 3-4 times that of the Dem's tax cut and really designed to sabotage it. Even back in 98/99 the Right was fearful of the surplus... that it might be used for some new Dem program. Newt tried to sabotage it with tax cut proposals in both those years... with the 99 proposal a whopping $800 billion.

By 2001 the on-budget surplus was gone yet Bush pushed though his tax cut originally justified BY that surplus. It was repackaged as stimulus... as if we needed a 10 year stimulus. In 2000 he promised the tax cut would leave money for debt paydown to strengthen SS... now the tax cut existed for its own sake. The GOP COULD have made the tax cut contingent on the surplus returning, but that wasn't the intent. It was to create more debt... along with the GOP's irresponsible spending, it was Starve the Beast on Steroids. If paying down debt would strengthen SS, what would MORE debt do?

We've now had a $15 TRILLION free lunch the past 30 years where we lavished spending on ourselves and refused to tax ourselves for it. Yet the Right has convinced its base that even with low taxes and this free lunch, we're OVERTAXED!

We need to undo the damage the GOP has caused trying to sabotage the fiscal health of government. It's traitorous. We need BOTH spending cuts AND the end of the Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE. I'd go further and try and recoup money lost to the rich with a return of the 1981 ERTA top tax rate of 50% for 10-15 years.

Righties will fight to the death to protect the tax cuts for the "job creators".
When the Right's answer to everything is tax cuts... and they only repackage the rationale for it depending on circumstances, you know they have a hidden agenda... or they are insane and tax cuts have become a religion. Good economy? Tax cuts! Bad economy? Tax cuts! Can't afford them? "Job creators" need "certainty"! Any proof tax cuts do what the Right claims? No. But the Orwellian Right propaganda industry will concoct "proof" for the braindead dittoheads using smoke and mirrors. It's time for this insanity to end... but it's really too well entrenched... as we see with True Believers here.

In the end our generation has a moral obligation to pay for what WE spent on ourselves and debt paydown can NOT be done with spending cuts alone. At best spending cuts can only get us to a balanced budget then what? We need a SURPLUS to pay down debt. But the Right can NOT be trusted with a surplus… they proved that in 2001. They'll just again claim the surplus "proves" we're overtaxed even if then we're 25-30 trillion in debt.

The Right created the Starve The Beast strategy and the religion to justify the insanity. It created an ideological Frankenstein that it will have to work to dismantle. But the dynamics in the GOP are now to go more insane, not get in touch with reality. The Dems are little better. They refuse to educate the people on the budget, the implications of the growing debt, and refuse to expose the insanity on the Right. Obama's attempt at class warfare separating the tax hike for the rich from everyone else is just more denial. With BOTH our parties engaged in this insanity, we SHOULD fear for our nation.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote mjolnir:If it wasn't for the " Greatest Generation " chances are everyone east of the Mississippi would have a German accent and still be lynching black Americans.

The idea that Germany could invade the US is amusing. They couldn't even invade the UK. But we stray. But on the topic of the so-called "greatest generation", it's foolish to impart to the People things that their context permitted. Leaving aside the FDR war effort, it was the New Deal reforms and safety net, a strong union movement, with Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ and even Nixon protecting, even EXPANDING, this new system that is the forgotten economic context.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Perhaps no subject has caused more controversy than the federal debt and deficit. The deficit includes interest payments, which this year are projected to be $440 billion, a substantial amount, even with today’s low interest rates. Interest payments will continue to grow as the debt and interest rates rise.

So we deal with three related worries: We worry about paying for the large and growing federal debt. We worry about our creditors buying our debt. And we worry about the growing amount of interest the government must pay.

Every one of these issues could be solved with one stroke of the pen.

The federal government borrows by creating Treasury securities (T-bills, T-notes and T-bonds) from thin air, backed only by “full faith and credit.” It then trades these securities for dollars it previously created. When the securities mature, the government trades them back, plus interest.

“Full faith and credit” is an intangible collateral. The government has an unlimited supply. This gives the government the power to create unlimited amounts of T-securities. Finding buyers for these T-securities is addressed by offering interest rates high enough to attract investors.

While the government currently creates T-securities from thin air, it just as easily creates dollars from thin air – similarly backed only by full faith and credit – and can eliminate the borrowing step. No longer would we be troubled by federal debt, federal deficits, concerns about China et al or interest payments. The same controls over T-security creation would apply to money creation. We merely would eliminate the one step that causes so much controversy.

Why does the U.S. government create T-securities ostensibly to obtain U.S. dollars? Borrowing is a RELIC from the gold-standard days, which ended in 1971. Prior to that, U.S. dollars were backed in part by gold, a tangible product in limited supply. This limit prevented the government from creating as many U.S. dollars as it needed, so it had to borrow these dollars.

When you think about it, the notion of the U.S. government “borrowing” U.S. dollars – dollars it alone has the power to create – is ironic. The government can eliminate debt, along with all the controversy these subjects cause.

The federal debt has risen $3600% in the past 40 years. Would you consider that to be a large amount? During that same period, there has been no relationship between federal deficits (aka “money printing”) and inflation.

In the event inflation did appear, the Fed would increase the demand for money by raising interest rates.

bambi60's picture
bambi60
Joined:
Jun. 11, 2012 6:43 pm

I think the OP is unaware that all of the Bush tax cuts expired already EXCEPT for the rich because the Republicans used the unemployment benefit extensions last Xmas as leverage to keep those specific cuts going. All the other cuts expired right?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

Quote ah2:

I think the OP is unaware that all of the Bush tax cuts expired already EXCEPT for the rich because the Republicans used the unemployment benefit extensions last Xmas as leverage to keep those specific cuts going. All the other cuts expired right?

Uh? Am I the OP? Obama signed on to a 2 year extension of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts back in Dec 2010. He probably thought it would be a great election issue in 2012. The GOP was so separate to keep these tax cuts they were throwing tantrums. Obama didn't get much for this extension. He should have let them expire THEN bargained. These tax cuts are scheduled to expire in Dec of this year.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Currently Chatting

The other way we're subsidizing Walmart...

Most of us know how taxpayers subsidize Walmart's low wages with billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, and other financial assistance for workers. But, did you know that we're also subsidizing the retail giant by paying the cost of their environmental destruction.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system