(12-04-2017 09:42 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:03 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Hey UCF, from the democrats platform "We will also ensure that new spending and tax cuts are offset so that they **do not add to the nation’s debt over time.** "

Ready to call them hypocrites yet?

I must have missed the Democratic tax tax proposal being worked on in Congress right now.

Once again... Are you going to call Obama a hypocrite for raising the debt despite the dems platform and his own words?

Quote:But of course Dems are hypocritical about all sorts of things, you keep thinking that you'll get some gotcha moment from me but you don't realize I don't treat this like a team sport.

And when I see you actually upset about the dems being hypocritical, then I'll be impressed.

Lol of course he was a hypocrite about all sorts of things. It's hilarious watching you think you've got some gotcha moment when the only people who view Obama as some deity is the right.

Point me to some Dems right now passing legislation which hurts me and I will be very upset.

(12-04-2017 11:17 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Probably just the lobbyists who wrote much of it. Congress certainly hasn't.

Gotta pass it to know what was in it... When it was pointed out that it was mathematically near impossible for the dems to have read O-care before voting on it all we got from guys like you was

Much like Obama's massive increases in the debt were OK and a slight increase under Trump isn't it was OK for a dim congress to not read bills before passing them.

It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite. It's the GOP who harp on the deficit, holding them accountable for a subject they claim is very important is logically consistent, and entirely defensible.

So, you know, try again.

There is a difference in reducing tax rates that have a good chance at restarting the economy, creating jobs, letting folks keep more money in the wallet than the Dems adding more and more taxes that help nothing but being another burden on Taxpayers while increasing social programs the benefit only Their supporters. We had 8 years of nothing in return. Time to move forward with growth.

Do you really need me to desconstruct this statement, line by line, or are you willing to retract it before making me go through the trouble?

So I guess what I have to accept is that UCF08 is completely non partisan, non tribal, and balance..

But he only brings up problems when it's the right..

I'm not a huge fan of this plan because IMO it does not go far enough.

Bottom line, do the math, we are not going to balance the budget without a consumption tax. That's the only way to raise the revenues needed. We do need to cut spending, but we can't cut it enough to get to where we could raise enough revenues to balance it without imposing tax rates that would simply ruin the economy.

We do need corporate tax rates that are competitive with the rest of the world. We have everything else we need to have an incredibly robust economy, why keep shooting ourselves in the foot with tax rates that are confiscatory compared to the available options? Particularly considering that the corporate tax doesn't really generate enough revenues to make a huge impact anyway.

So a consumption tax is regressive? Guess what, countries that have consumption taxes have more equal dispersions of income and wealth than we do. So there's obviously a way to make it work. How so? Revise the welfare system to provide a true safety net instead of a means to redistribute income to people in exchange for their votes. Do universal private health care on the Bismarck model. Do a universal minimum income using Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund. Eliminate the "welfare trap" that penalizes anyone trying to go from welfare to the middle class. Let the consumption tax pay for that (and the costs are not that high, compared to what it would replace), along with generating enough to lower and flatten and broaden the base for income taxes, and still balance the budget. Then go after worthless expenditures, reducing taxes as you cut expenditures. Going forward, every wonderful new idea would have to be measured against cost and resulting taxing requirements.

(12-05-2017 10:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not a huge fan of this plan because IMO it does not go far enough.

Bottom line, do the math, we are not going to balance the budget without a consumption tax. That's the only way to raise the revenues needed. We do need to cut spending, but we can't cut it enough to get to where we could raise enough revenues to balance it without imposing tax rates that would simply ruin the economy.

We do need corporate tax rates that are competitive with the rest of the world. We have everything else we need to have an incredibly robust economy, why keep shooting ourselves in the foot with tax rates that are confiscatory compared to the available options? Particularly considering that the corporate tax doesn't really generate enough revenues to make a huge impact anyway.

So a consumption tax is regressive? Guess what, countries that have consumption taxes have more equal dispersions of income and wealth than we do. So there's obviously a way to make it work. How so? Revise the welfare system to provide a true safety net instead of a means to redistribute income to people in exchange for their votes. Do universal private health care on the Bismarck model. Do a universal minimum income using Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund. Eliminate the "welfare trap" that penalizes anyone trying to go from welfare to the middle class. Let the consumption tax pay for that (and the costs are not that high, compared to what it would replace), along with generating enough to lower and flatten and broaden the base for income taxes, and still balance the budget. Then go after worthless expenditures, reducing taxes as you cut expenditures. Going forward, every wonderful new idea would have to be measured against cost and resulting taxing requirements.

I agree, BUT - Congress (either side) will never go this route. Why, they garner their power (the money follows) by being able to decide what loopholes get written into the tax code. The big corporate lobbyists funnel money to their campaigns, etc. It's how they all get rich. The more money raised via consumption, the less power they hold.......and they never want to give up any power...