• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I'm disgusted - stimulus package

Meadmaker said:
Walter Mondale was honest about what he would do, and he won one state.
Click to expand...
That sums it all up right there.

I doubt I will live to see the day that a presidential candidate says, "We need to start paying this down now, by raising taxes, drastically cutting spending, or both!," and wins. (Maybe I hope I DON'T live to see that day, because it might take another great depression to make it happen.)

When one looks at how horribly people manage their own finances and how they don't seem to care enough to drastically change their habits, one understands why they continue to encourage presidents to run the country the same way.
 
Puppycow said:
OK, what do you want to cut?
Click to expand...

Honestly? Nothing. I don't think there's any significant fat in the budget. There's a few things, of course. Probably the biggest area is farm subsidies. There's pork barrel stuff, of course, but most of it is nickel and dime stuff. I think the '90s welfare reform was the last big area where big cuts could be made without really cutting into things the government ought to do.

Also, there's the Iraq war. I'm for pulling out, quickly, but it's not like the DoD budget can be stricken out. Getting out of Iraq would save a noticeable amount, but not nearly enough to eliminate the deficit.

No, I think taxes should go up to cover the spending. Of course, some people disagree. Some people think that education subsidies are unnecessary. Some people think scientific research is useless, or not the goverenment's domain. Great. Come out and say that, and try to ram the bills through.

My objection is to two sorts of people in Congresss. There are the people who say we ought to spend, but we shouldn't tax. That's awful. A related group is the supply siders who say that if we cut taxes we are actually raising taxes. George H. W. Bush correctly called that voodoo economics 30 years ago, and his assessment has been confirmed by 30 years of experimental data.
 
Last edited:
Snide said:
That sums it all up right there.

I doubt I will live to see the day that a presidential candidate says, "We need to start paying this down now, by raising taxes, drastically cutting spending, or both!," and wins. (Maybe I hope I DON'T live to see that day, because it might take another great depression to make it happen.)
Click to expand...

The best you can hope for is someone with a mandate to raise taxes who for some reason guts stuck with flatlineing spending (say a dem trying to fend off a fiscal conservative republican challange).
 
Meadmaker said:
Of course, the last line was a lie. He does have to pay it back. That's why I'm disgusted. With deficits of a gazillion dollars a year, first Bush and now Obama want to buy votes, and the nine year olds of the US will have to pay for it when they finally get jobs. Disgusting. I'm sure McCain will go along with this, too, probably offering an even bigger stimulus package.
Click to expand...

This crap all started way before W and Obama/McCain. This is just the latest manifestation.

Meadmaker said:
...but it would be nice to vote for someone who actually promised to pay the bills, instead of borrowing more money.
Click to expand...

Then you will never vote.
 
Obama is behaving like any Poltician running for high office.
Big Surprise.
You can make a case that Obama is a better choice then McCain or the third party losers,but please do not try to sell me that is some kind of a political messiah who will save us all.
 
dudalb said:
You can make a case that Obama is a better choice then McCain or the third party losers,but please do not try to sell me that is some kind of a political messiah who will save us all.
Click to expand...

Hard not to... only because of what's immediately gone before... :(
 
Puppycow said:
Dishonest it ain't
The cicada's drone reveals
more than your weak claim
Click to expand...

Epic-misunderstanding-taxes-fail

Say the government continually runs surpluses (yeah, right, laff). Now, obviously tax rates are too high.

A reasonable person determines that we can safely lower taxes by 1 percent and still have surplus left over for rainy day.

A dishonest or unreasonable person (a politician) says the guy who pays 100 dollars in taxes gets back 1 dollar. The person who pays 1000000 in taxes gets back more. This isn't "fair". Moreover, if you disagree with my analysis, you support tax cuts for the wealthy since their 1 percent results in more dollars back. HOW CAN YOU GUIVE THE RICH BACK MORE MONNEY THAN DE POORE?

The question isn't whether the wealthy can pax the tax puppycow. Your chart was used as evidence to back up that opinion. However, there were no tax cuts for the wealthy until the politicians agreed to only renew the cuts to the lower brackets. Thus, renewing the rest of the brackets really does only affect the wealthy now. Its a forced situation created to make people look bad and its just silly and wrong headed.
 
kallsop said:
Obama the Tax Cutter. I'm convinced.

Change you might believe in, and whatnot.
Click to expand...

I thought Obama was for the United Nations Tax?

Its sickens me that he would even consider making U.S. citizens pay a tax to the UN, that would be at their disposal to help in times of sever catastrophe.

Im going to actually do some more reading no this now....
 
mr rosewater said:
These people are suggesting the U.S. is some 56 trillion in debt, maybe we should cut something.

http://www.truthin2008.org/
Click to expand...

For those who didn't click on the link, it's pretty good. It's a bit misleading to say that the government is 56 trillion dollars in debt, though.

I'll try to explain what it means. If you look forward at how much we have promised to pay in Social Security and other taxes over the next 70 years, and you compare that to what we expect to collect in taxes over the next 70 years, the net present value of the difference is about 47 trillion. If you add that to our current national debt of 9 trillion, you get 56 trillion.

Other than that bit of funky accounting, which is legitimate, just easily misunderstood, it's a great site. They were spot on about the totally misleading Social Security "trust fund". It isn't there.
 
Meadmaker said:
Honestly? Nothing. I don't think there's any significant fat in the budget. There's a few things, of course. Probably the biggest area is farm subsidies. There's pork barrel stuff, of course, but most of it is nickel and dime stuff. I think the '90s welfare reform was the last big area where big cuts could be made without really cutting into things the government ought to do.
Click to expand...
Agreed about most kinds of farm subsidies. Especially sugar and cotton protectionism. Biofuel mandates should also be eliminated, although funding for research on alternative fuels and rational infrastracture seems like a reasonable alternative use of the money.

Also, there's the Iraq war. I'm for pulling out, quickly, but it's not like the DoD budget can be stricken out. Getting out of Iraq would save a noticeable amount, but not nearly enough to eliminate the deficit.
Click to expand...
Again, we agree. Obama's proposal is to gradually withdraw over 19 months, which gives a reasonable chance for a soft landing, if the Iraqi army can get up to speed. A majority of the Iraqis say they want us to leave within 2 years, and so does a majority of Americans. We can't wait indefinitely.

No, I think taxes should go up to cover the spending. Of course, some people disagree. Some people think that education subsidies are unnecessary. Some people think scientific research is useless, or not the goverenment's domain. Great. Come out and say that, and try to ram the bills through.

My objection is to two sorts of people in Congresss. There are the people who say we ought to spend, but we shouldn't tax. That's awful. A related group is the supply siders who say that if we cut taxes we are actually raising taxes. George H. W. Bush correctly called that voodoo economics 30 years ago, and his assessment has been confirmed by 30 years of experimental data.
Click to expand...

I think a small deficit is acceptable. 50 billion sounds like a lot, but compared to what we're spending in Iraq and the GDP, it's not really. The fiscal choice as I see it is between a smaller deficit and a larger one. And also between money spent in the US and money spent in Iraq. Even so-called "pork-barrel" spending isn't necessarily completely worthless. It may be less efficient to varying degrees, but it often does provide some infrastructure.
 
corplinx said:
Epic-misunderstanding-taxes-fail

Say the government continually runs surpluses (yeah, right, laff). Now, obviously tax rates are too high.

A reasonable person determines that we can safely lower taxes by 1 percent and still have surplus left over for rainy day.

A dishonest or unreasonable person (a politician) says the guy who pays 100 dollars in taxes gets back 1 dollar. The person who pays 1000000 in taxes gets back more. This isn't "fair". Moreover, if you disagree with my analysis, you support tax cuts for the wealthy since their 1 percent results in more dollars back. HOW CAN YOU GUIVE THE RICH BACK MORE MONNEY THAN DE POORE?

The question isn't whether the wealthy can pax the tax puppycow. Your chart was used as evidence to back up that opinion. However, there were no tax cuts for the wealthy until the politicians agreed to only renew the cuts to the lower brackets. Thus, renewing the rest of the brackets really does only affect the wealthy now. Its a forced situation created to make people look bad and its just silly and wrong headed.
Click to expand...

I understand your point but I think it is pedantic.
The larger point is that globalization is good for everyone, but right now almost all the benefits of it are accruing to the wealthy, whereas those in the lower income brackets are finding their wages come under pressure from more competition. Bush temporarily cut taxes and now the deficit is growing. If the lower economic brackets can't get some of the benefits from globalization, there will be a backlash and political pressure for protectionism.
So yes, if we were in your imaginary world where the government was running a surplus, and all the programs that ought to be funded were funded, the people who pay the most should get the most back. But we are in a situation where the rich are making big gains while the middle class and poor are struggling.

The top tax rate is now much lower than it was in the 50s and 60s, and letting the tax cuts expire would not kill anyone who would be affected, but the effects of a giant budget deficit (such as inflation) or major program cuts would be much more painful for the poor and middle-class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom