Tax insanity.....

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by revstriker Yes, yes and yes. Please rationalize all of these for us, and explain how these tax hikes during a deep recession will help the economy recover. 1. I've explained the rationale for NYC's (and virtually every other municipality's and state's) situtation -- budgets based on unsustainable revenue levels. Spending should have been curbed years ago, with surpluses held for rainy day funds or rebated to taxpayers. There are political and social realities associated with program cuts, though, and it's rarely a simple black and white decision to do so. IMO, these nuances are lost among some of the members here. 2. Progressive taxation. This has been discussed before and is a dead horse issue with the conservatives on this board, so there's no purpose to arguing its rationale yet again. 3. Rolling back tax cuts. OK, I get it -- the conservatives here are supply-siders who believe tax cuts are the panacea for every stage of the economic cycle. It's worthwhile to note that there are many, many well-respected Keynesians out there, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. I can't prove to you that Obama's stimulus plan is working - nobody can, because there's no alternative to compare it to, only hypotheticals. The reality might be that the economy is less worse than it could be, and that there's no magic pill to quickly reverse the downturn. But there are historical examples of stimulus spending helping to dig economies out of major recessions. If the feds aren't going to spend money for the next few years, who will? Certainly not private industry, because access to capital has been all but shut off for anyone below investment-grade.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[tuscanraider]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

1. I've explained the rationale for NYC's (and virtually every other municipality's and state's) situtation -- budgets based on unsustainable revenue levels. Spending should have been curbed years ago, with surpluses held for rainy day funds or rebated to taxpayers. There are political and social realities associated with program cuts, though, and it's rarely a simple black and white decision to do so. IMO, these nuances are lost among some of the members here.

2. Progressive taxation. This has been discussed before and is a dead horse issue with the conservatives on this board, so there's no purpose to arguing its rationale yet again.

3. Rolling back tax cuts. OK, I get it -- the conservatives here are supply-siders who believe tax cuts are the panacea for every stage of the economic cycle. It's worthwhile to note that there are many, many well-respected Keynesians out there, and the truth is probably somewhere in between.

I can't prove to you that Obama's stimulus plan is working - nobody can, because there's no alternative to compare it to, only hypotheticals. The reality might be that the economy is less worse than it could be, and that there's no magic pill to quickly reverse the downturn. But there are historical examples of stimulus spending helping to dig economies out of major recessions. If the feds aren't going to spend money for the next few years, who will? Certainly not private industry, because access to capital has been all but shut off for anyone below investment-grade.

Forget your bullet point mumbo jumbo. Can you at least admit this is outrageous robbery and a jackass designed scheme?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

1. I've explained the rationale for NYC's (and virtually every other municipality's and state's) situtation -- budgets based on unsustainable revenue levels. Spending should have been curbed years ago, with surpluses held for rainy day funds or rebated to taxpayers. There are political and social realities associated with program cuts, though, and it's rarely a simple black and white decision to do so. IMO, these nuances are lost among some of the members here.

Yes, this is the underlying reason that they need to raise the taxes on the people. But the rationale I was looking for was the basis of the support of policies which spend first and worry about paying later. You know, the same kind of policies Obama is trying to enact.

2. Progressive taxation. This has been discussed before and is a dead horse issue with the conservatives on this board, so there's no purpose to arguing its rationale yet again.

But it's not just about progressive taxation. It's also about increasing the progression at a time when the economy is in the toilet, unemployment is at a high, and consumer confidence is not getting any better. What the rationale behind that?

3. Rolling back tax cuts. OK, I get it -- the conservatives here are supply-siders who believe tax cuts are the panacea for every stage of the economic cycle. It's worthwhile to note that there are many, many well-respected Keynesians out there, and the truth is probably somewhere in between.

Could be. But no respected economist believes that tax increases in this economy will help improve the economy. In a nutshell, the economy's improvement is tied to people having more money and spending it, and companies profit margins growing. Taking money out of the hands of the people and businesses, as Obama is proposing, will surely do nothing to help, and will most likely either make things worse, or retard any improvement.

I can't prove to you that Obama's stimulus plan is working - nobody can, because there's no alternative to compare it to, only hypotheticals.

Not sure I follow here. Growth along with decreasing unemployment rates (more people working) would certainly be simple indications of the economy improving. This is not rocket science. You can't prove that Obama's plan is working simply because it is not working, not because you have nothing to compare it to.

The reality might be that the economy is less worse than it could be, and that there's no magic pill to quickly reverse the downturn. But there are historical examples of stimulus spending helping to dig economies out of major recessions. If the feds aren't going to spend money for the next few years, who will? Certainly not private industry, because access to capital has been all but shut off for anyone below investment-grade.

If you can't point to any spending that the government has done to help the economy, then how can you possibly credit the government with a statement that it is "less worse than it could be". You might be right, but I really doubt that Obama had much to do with this. I'm also not entirely against the Feds spending money in an attempt to stimulate the economy. But for some silly reason, I think that the spending should be targeted to stimulating the economy, not pushing left wing agenda items with no measurable effect on the economy. I am also wise enough to know that the government can't spend its way out of this problem (but I'd love to see some examples of this happening) and that the private industry who you seem to have no respect for, is the ONLY answer to this problem.

[MTI]

Originally Posted by Gullwing

Today Glenn Beck said he wanted to rip Minnesota's star off the flag.
Good idea

I don't know much about the man, but what are Glenn Beck's actual accomplishments?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by MTI

I don't know much about the man, but what are Glenn Beck's actual accomplishments?

Personally, I think Beck is an idiot. As to his accomplishments, he has hosted a very popular radio program, and his TV programs seem to be popular as well.

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Yes, this is the underlying reason that they need to raise the taxes on the people. But the rationale I was looking for was the basis of the support of policies which spend first and worry about paying later. You know, the same kind of policies Obama is trying to enact.

The underlying rationale is that human beings in our society want to have things before they can afford to pay for them. Our economic growth has historically been driven by credit, even more so in this recent bubble. I'm not saying it's right, but it's reality.

Originally Posted by revstriker

But it's not just about progressive taxation. It's also about increasing the progression at a time when the economy is in the toilet, unemployment is at a high, and consumer confidence is not getting any better. What the rationale behind that?

That they can best afford to carry the burden, coupled with the unlikelihood that much of this capital would be re-invested in the next 12-24 months. Most businesses and wealthy individuals are hoarding capital these days as they've watched their earnings and balance sheets eroded by the post-Lehman economy.

Originally Posted by revstriker

Could be. But no respected economist believes that tax increases in this economy will help improve the economy. In a nutshell, the economy's improvement is tied to people having more money and spending it, and companies profit margins growing. Taking money out of the hands of the people and businesses, as Obama is proposing, will surely do nothing to help, and will most likely either make things worse, or retard any improvement.

Generally, I would agree with you. But with the meltdown of overheated credit markets, tax cuts are unlikely to be spent - more likely saved or used to de-lever.

Originally Posted by revstriker

Not sure I follow here. Growth along with decreasing unemployment rates (more people working) would certainly be simple indications of the economy improving. This is not rocket science. You can't prove that Obama's plan is working simply because it is not working, not because you have nothing to compare it to.

If you can't point to any spending that the government has done to help the economy, then how can you possibly credit the government with a statement that it is "less worse than it could be". You might be right, but I really doubt that Obama had much to do with this. I'm also not entirely against the Feds spending money in an attempt to stimulate the economy. But for some silly reason, I think that the spending should be targeted to stimulating the economy, not pushing left wing agenda items with no measurable effect on the economy. I am also wise enough to know that the government can't spend its way out of this problem (but I'd love to see some examples of this happening) and that the private industry who you seem to have no respect for, is the ONLY answer to this problem.

Did you really expect to see growth and decreasing unemployment in the first 2 quarters of 2009? I certainly didn't. I'm surmising, without any concrete evidence, that without stimulus spending, the numbers could be incrementally worse -- based on the logic that consumption is going to be down significantly in the next year or two no matter what you do with taxes (within reason), and that government projects are better than nothing. Yes, the dollars haven't gotten out as quickly as needed, a significant and justified criticism of government bureaucracy. And, there's going to be disagreement about what programs get the $$. But similar to TARP, swift action was needed to try to cushion the landing.

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by Gullwing

I have been/am doing several speaches on Crap and tax for COM101.

Shouldn't you be able to spell "speeches" if you're taking Communications?

[Gullwing]

Originally Posted by MTI

I don't know much about the man, but what are Glenn Beck's actual accomplishments?

He hasn't spent trillions of dollars.

CNN and Obama blame him for the Tea Parties even if he spoke out against them when the were first starting to grow.

He eats a lot on his show.

He sell dashborad Obamas so you can pray to the massiah on your way to work (if you still have a job).

What accomplishments is he supposed to have?

[Gullwing]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Shouldn't you be able to spell "speeches" if you're taking Communications?

No I took Engrish last year.
My keyboard has not been working correctly the past few days so I will blame it on that

[MTI]

Originally Posted by Gullwing

What accomplishments is he supposed to have?

I guess that sets the bar for punditry resumes.

[hellcat]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Generally, I would agree with you. But with the meltdown of overheated credit markets, tax cuts are unlikely to be spent - more likely saved or used to de-lever.

So because people who earn their money by working for it choose to save it for their own use and well-being instead of spending it the government should steal it from them and waste it instead? Your logic is so incomprehensible I really hesitate to even call it logic at all.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by MTI

I don't know much about the man, but what are Glenn Beck's actual accomplishments?

What are Al Franken's?

[MTI]

He ran for office and was elected by citizens of his state to represent them.

[M1M2M3]

no rational argument can be made in support of this legislation. period.

[markopolo]

All of you...

Just cool down, step back, reread your posts and admit:

All libs are PRO tax insanity

All the rest............are against.

No bullsh!ting now

[Gullwing]

Originally Posted by MTI

I guess that sets the bar for punditry resumes.

Keith Olbermann your hero must have great accomplishments.

[MTI]

Originally Posted by Gullwing

Keith Olbermann your hero must have great accomplishments.

See, there's that presumption that I'm a fan of the punditry on MSNBC or CNN or CNBC, or whatever if there's a criticism of Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly. There should be plenty of room for "none of the above"

[alewifebp]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Yes, yes and yes. Please rationalize all of these for us, and explain how these tax hikes during a deep recession will help the economy recover.

Exactly. And explain to me how people with large disposable incomes, the "rich", how taxing them, thereby giving them less disposable income is supposed to help the economy.

Quite frankly, one of the things I see in Obama is not willing to do any "change" of his own. He had these policies in his mind that he wanted to get done before the economy tanked. Instead of adapting to the circumstances, he just wants to do what he always wanted to do, reality be damned.

And anyone who actually thinks that $250,000 will remain the upper limit for no tax increases will be sorely disappointed come next April.

Additionally, wasn't one of his promises that 95% would get a tax cut? So, where is it? In this economy, shouldn't he be talking that up more?

And why do we need a second stimulus when we've barely even spent any of the first?

Absolute madness.

i am surprised there isn't more anger.

It's out there, it just isn't being reported by our liberal media.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/17...e-cap-and-tax/

[Chucky300]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Personally, I think Beck is an idiot. As to his accomplishments, he has hosted a very popular radio program, and his TV programs seem to be popular as well.

Just wonderin, why do you think he's an idiot? Are you referring to the way he gets his opinion across? Or are his ideas without concrete foundation? I've been listening to him for quite a while now and have enjoyed his show on Fox News. I will admit he gets very loud, and sometimes has a sillyness to him when he does the voices - but it is something different from what others are doing, and I think his logic and points are right on the money.

[Chucky300]

Originally Posted by MTI

He ran for office and was elected by citizens of his state to represent them.

LOL...dude, he cheated.

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by hellcat

So because people who earn their money by working for it choose to save it for their own use and well-being instead of spending it the government should steal it from them and waste it instead? Your logic is so incomprehensible I really hesitate to even call it logic at all.

Your basic premise is that government spending (aside from the handful of programs you personally support) is wasteful, with no room for discussion or disparity in ohers' values. And that taxation to pay for any of these programs is stealing. I'd argue that it's your logic that's incomprehensible.

[Chucky300]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Your basic premise is that government spending (aside from the handful of programs you personally support) is wasteful, with no room for discussion or disparity in ohers' values. And that taxation to pay for any of these programs is stealing. I'd argue that it's your logic that's incomprehensible.

2 Parts to your post.

a) Govt Spending - Do you think the government is the best at deciding the way for people to spend the majority of their money, or should the novel idea prevail where working Americans are given this duty?

b) Burden - Why is it that the so called "rich" be targeted? Forget that they provide the most jobs in their small businesses. We all know that - even the president. My question is simple American persuit of happiness and wealth. Small businesses did not go from $0 - $1,000,000 in a night. Many years of heartache, worry, personal sacrifice in family life as well as luxuries were realized...in the process of living out the dream. With elevated taxation and penalizations - is the reward of owning your own small business really as great? Is the incentive still there?

Regardless, any business with a clever accountant will be able to find ways of dispersing of the annual income - so no matter what the President does is not going to entirely fix the current issues at hand.

The one thing he SHOULD be doing is halting the anti business rhetoric. Government is NOT the answer. It IS stealing. From you, me, and anyone else - if not our money, then our dream to one day make a success of ourselves.

So in effect, he is robbing people of the American Dream because we are now living in a false reality - and no matter where you stand in your politics - you can't sit there and type to me with a straight face, telling me that what I am saying is not true.

[M1M2M3]

I agree 100% Chucky. I know I can get around the other taxes, but I don't think you can hide from the employment tax they want to tack on if your aren't providing HC.

[hellcat]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

Your basic premise is that government spending (aside from the handful of programs you personally support) is wasteful, with no room for discussion or disparity in ohers' values. And that taxation to pay for any of these programs is stealing. I'd argue that it's your logic that's incomprehensible.

Ok so answer me this. If the government is better at spending our money than we are, as the democrats claim, why did the democrats support TWO bills in which they gave money BACK to citizens in order to stimulate the economy? If they truly believed their own drivel they shouldn't ever give tax cuts or give any money back to the taxpayers to stimulate spending.

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

well-respected Keynesians

Oxymoron.

I can't prove to you that Obama's stimulus plan is working - nobody can, because there's no alternative to compare it to, only hypotheticals.

Incorrect, there are major, and real economic historical examples to compare lots of different actions against.

The reality might be that the economy is less worse than it could be, and that there's no magic pill to quickly reverse the downturn. But there are historical examples of stimulus spending helping to dig economies out of major recessions.

Name one. (Hint- The 1860s and 1930's is not the right answer, the only right answer, ever, is named after a US Army General, and his plan was supply side based).

If the feds aren't going to spend money for the next few years, who will? Certainly not private industry, because access to capital has been all but shut off for anyone below investment-grade.

That is because of two things

1) Federal actions against the better interests of the economy have created huge market uncertainty, and no corporation is going to make an investment into the teeth of that gale wind

2) Federal deficit spending has sucked up all available credit and has squeezed out all chance of corporate investment.

If Pelosi would just shut the hell up, stop trying to spend 4 generations worth of money in 2 years, and admit that the Federal government is the worst possible place to run an economy, things would turn around quite quickly.