(08-15-2012 11:47 AM)Max Power Wrote: 1. And I'm responding to your comment. I'm saying you're being selective about your outrage.
No you're not. You're saying I'm not in any position to know what a "slave" would think of Biden's comment.
Quote:2. I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant to my point. Millions of beneficiaries facing cuts are descendants of slaves. That not everyone fits the mold isn't a rebuttal to that point at all.
That they are descendants of slaves is similarly immaterial to the comment.... Unless you are Joe Biden and want to make a racially charged comment. It MIGHT be SLIGHTLY different if the vast majority of those impacted WERE descendants of slaves... but they aren't.
I suspect I can find threads where you argued that minorities and their homes weren't really part of the sub-prime problem, so by "unshackling wall street", assuming the problem happens again, minorities aren't going to be hurt, by YOUR sides contention.
Quote:3. What a joke. Yes, Republicans know how to grow the economy. That's why we were losing 800k jobs/month and contracting GDP at negative 9% when Bush left office.
I'm not "Republicans". I find it interesting that you can't respond to comments like mine without pulling out your "Bush" card. Nothing in my comments praised Bush or even downgraded Obama's policies. I "attacked" people like you for failing to engage in intelligent discussions towards actual solutions. And you responded with this?
Quote:I've never said we should just raise taxes on the rich alone, and I've never said we need to balance the budget completely; so long as we slow the rate of debt growth under the rate of GDP growth we're gaining with debt-as-a-percentage of GDP. I've said we can make cuts to defense. I've also said we need to get the economy growing near its productive capacity before we make spending cuts and raise taxes.
I didn't say you did. Obama and company certainly have. "The rich" really don't care what YOU think should be done, unless you are actually Obama. He said he Won't raise taxes one dime on those making less than 250k... and now he wonders why they aren't investing in long-term projects.
Quote:On what basis are you arguing that all of Ryan's cuts to food stamps and Medicaid are "duplicative" and just targeting "waste"?
I've made no such argument. I'm not Ryan, and he isn't VP, and even if he were, CONGRESS must pass the bill. I believe there is waste and duplication that can be cut out. Rather than start by suggesting that we raise revenue by raising rates, which arguably HURTS some portion of the population, I suggest we start by suggesting that we cut waste... which arguably hurts nobody... and EXPAND the size of the pie, which arguably benefits everyone. That certainly won't get us all the way to where we need to be, but it SHOULD be something that the left AND the right can agree on.
Quote:So we can't raise capital gains because even the mention of it will cause the rich to buy stocks and hold them until we lower the rates? What if we don't lower the rates, and they need the liquidity? They'll just keep the money in stocks and bypass better opportunities because they hate paying that extra 2-3% on capital gains? So we should just never raise capital gains rates because the rich will act like petulent children and never liquidate their capital? I don't think so. They'll liquidate when it benefits them to liquidate.
No... what a comical response. We SHOULDN"T raise capital gains because it DISCOURAGES investment in the US and ENCOURAGES investment elsewhere. Outsourcing/Offshoring. The holding period is relatively short as compared to investing in plant and equipment. Banks will loan them enough against their positions to float them for that long. They don't NEED the liquidity... UNLESS there is a new opportunity to make MORE money. You act like a typical consumer of goods, rather than an investor. These people claim virtually NO income (hence their rate). Liquidity is NOT a problem. If you take it from 15 to 20, which is what I basically suggested for your opinion, there will be SOME movement away from the US and towards other countries. Not because they are children, but because tax rates is part of their equation for determining where to allocate capital. I would generally agree that it wouldn't hurt much... but I'm trying to help the economy, and not "not hurt it much". As to liquidating capital... there are much easier ways they are already using... like putting it in a trust. You don't pay taxes for (potentially) generations. At THAT point, they generally don't care what the tax rate is because the tax free compounding MORE than made up for whatever rate you want to impose. No, this isn't ALL or perhaps even a MAJORITY of their money. But as you won't see the revenue in your lifetime, why would you ENCOURAGE them to do MORE of it?
Quote:Can you point to a study on your hypothetical flat 20% rate raising effective rates on the rich? You'd be raising capital gains by 5%, which I have no problem with, but reducing earned income rates by 16%. It might indeed raise their effective rates. But you'd be eliminating many deductions that help the poor and middle class, so I'm not sold that it would be "a tax cut for those making less than 500k." On the whole it would probably raise more revenue, but regressively.
What? You don't think your side is intelligent enough to avoid being ramrodded?? It's not a study. It's a simple question. If I raise their effective rate to 20% from what is currently less than that, that is more money, ANY way you look at it, despite being a cut in the top income rate. As far as the poor are concerned... I just completely exempted them from all taxes up to 50k. I've eliminated NOTHING in terms of exemptions and deductions or credits but their tax burden. between 50 and 500k... I lowered their effective rate as well. I am simply about effective rates... which includes all of these credits and deductions. I took your argument out of the conversation when I said "effective". If someone loses a credit but pays the same tax, then their effective rate goes up.
Your response shows what I suspected, and that is that you are more concerned with appearances than with reality. I give you a simple reality, and you can't imagine that it could be done exactly as I described.
Quote:It's time to wake up and realize that all these tax cuts the rich have been getting for the last 40 years have to be reversed. They had their fun and look where it got us. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THIS! You can't keep saying "deficit is high, better cut spending by 90%" and ignore the fact that on the other side of the ledger, the Republicans have been giving away the money that would cut that deficit in tax breaks. You cannot just keep gutting spending to pay for Mitt Romney's dancing horse or car elevator. Those tax breaks are direct negatives on the deficit. They DO NOT stimulate the economy because they don't f---ing spend the money. They do not put that money back into the economy.
Where were all you spending hawks when George W. Bush was bankrupting us and putting us in this ******* mess? Nowhere. Now, you crawl back out so you can put George W. Bush on steroids back into power so he can finish destroying the place. I honestly don't think they have any idea how our economy actually works. Someone has to create demand, and supply cannot create demand itself. If it could, businesses wouldn't be sitting on huge stockpiles of cash. The government has to create that spending in this economy, otherwise no one will. Paul Ryan's plan is going to amount to more unemployment and reduce demand, which is not going to help anything.
Once again, you resort to Bush. Why don't you just waive the white flag? I don't think I was on this board, but I didn't favor his expansion either. Yeah, DAMN that JFK who massively lowered rates for the wealthy. That damn capitalist pig!! /sarcasm
Im an "old school" Republican and believe that the government shouldn't be doing half of what it does. I've ALWAYS believed that. I have no problem with tax deductions for charitable organizations including things like "art". People can vote with their dollars to avoid the less philanthropic (high overhead) charities. My problem comes with the government administering a foundation through involuntary contributions. The government should monitor charities to ensure that they are efficient and actual charities. Do you have a problem with that compromise?
You seem very worried about tax breaks that don't stimulate, but seem to care little about spending that doesn't stimulate. EVen less with tax hikes that retard growth. Take the taxes on the rich to 100% and you STILL can't pay for our current spending. the "Bush" tax cuts on the rich amount to $80byn/yr iirc. That's a drop in the bucket. If 3.6% is $80byn, then 36% (taking us to almost 70%) is (assuming no reaction at all which is stupid) $800byn. That doesn't cover our increased spending, much less pay back any deficit... and would make us globally uncompetitive.
Try and pay attention and stay on topic.
The TOPIC is an expansion of the revenue base from which we are drawing, because nominal changes to our tax rates, like 15-20% on cap gains and the expiring "tax cuts for the rich" don't get us anywhere NEAR where we want to be.
I have espoused methods to increase the size of the economy, and raising effective rates on the wealthy while cutting them for everyone else. I favor cutting waste in ALL programs, including defense and everything else. I favor getting the government out of doing many of the things they do, but overseeing banks is not one of them. I merely draw a distinction between accomplishing social directives and actual regulation. All I asked you to do was agree to avoid hyperbole in your responses... and you can't. You are TRULY the party of "no" and the definition of obstruction.
Have a nice day