| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sarg338
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 5143
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I got to hear Steve Forbes speak tonight, and he pretty much talked about how our government can turn this economy around. Although I can't say I understood most of it, he was a really good speaker to listen to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lazor
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 1079
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like how the Republican budget proposal actually adds to the defense budget, because it really needs to be bigger than it already is.
Eisenhower is spinning in his grave. Or rather, laughing at us for not heeding his warnings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CloudFuel
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 1030
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't agree with either side, they don't agree with each other, and Obama won't allow a temporary extension to get more time to figure it out. Looks like the shutdown's a'coming.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
googleimage
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 1229
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | googleimage wrote: | Not that the Democrats are any prize, but this "let's stop the blame game" thing is bullshit. It's crystal clear that this is pure Republican strategizing and posturing, mostly to make a Democratic administration look bad. It's all they ever do.
There are 2 parties in the system, and one is devoted to making the rich richer and the poor poorer. They've made it clear that their budget proposal is to pay for tax cuts for rich people by cutting every conceivable program that might benefit people below the upper 0.1%. And apparently the 2nd party is supposed to cooperate with this garbage. |
Smoke and mirrors. Lost tax revenue is not a cost that the government pays for, that's a misconception that politicians try to ingrain into people. Giving everybody an equally proportionate tax (equal hikes and cuts for all) is fair. Cutting the out of control entitlement spending is one of the most feasible ways to get out of debt, because the government can't permanently borrow money to pay for peoples' needs. Bill collectors do come back to resolve debts at some point. |
Ooookaaay... see, I normally try to see an issue from every possible vantage point, and I try to be as civil as I can when discussing politics. But arguments this delusional are just beyond my capability to do so. So let me put this in terms a 9-year-old child would understand:
You get a pay cheque for $500, which you promptly use to pay a $500 bill. You incurred no debt through this bill. Next pay cheque, you got only $400, but you still have a $500 bill to pay. You therefore have to put the $100 difference on your credit card to pay for that bill. It's simple grade 3 math, or is this another case of that "liberal bias" in education?
Oh, and when a metric fuckton of the budget is spent on gambling money for pig-rich asshole bankers, and for bombing brown people, it astonishes me that anybody could make the case that item A on the budget is that if only we just reformed "entitlements" (which is just code word for all those cool little programs that actually help ordinary citizens instead of the Owners). What are these entitlements that we're so eager to gut? Health care for people who have already worked a full life of service, and social security benefits, after people have spent their lives paying into them? Lemme tell you, that multi-trillion dollar shortfall ain't from buying caviar and lobster for welfare recipients; oh, and everybody gets a gastric bypass! This is such a red herring it's embarrassing that anybody falls for it. Is there money to save from these programs? Sure. But the waste in these programs is a drop in the bucket compared to the real culprits to the deficit.
Of course, it's so much easier to steal from people who can't afford their own Senator, than it is to ask those people who can afford it to pay a little extra into the system that gave them a little extra. The upper tier are ones getting the tax break, so since they're covering so much less of the bill, we should cut the programs that go straight to them, instead of those things that blue-collar people need and continue to pay for. Seems fair to me.
_________________
Hey, Lindsay Lohan - "drink Canada Dry" is a slogan, not a dare! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| googleimage wrote: | | You get a pay cheque for $500, which you promptly use to pay a $500 bill. You incurred no debt through this bill. Next pay cheque, you got only $400, but you still have a $500 bill to pay. You therefore have to put the $100 difference on your credit card to pay for that bill. It's simple grade 3 math, or is this another case of that "liberal bias" in education? |
Your remark about what makes Republicans different from Democrats is just as delusional as any of your perceptions about what I said. Taxes are revenue, and the expenses are what money is spent on (global charity, domestic charity, defense, regulation programs, etc). Lowering taxes has a direct effect of lowering revenue, and spending should be lowered to compensate as necessary. However indirectly, lowered taxes could increase economic activity which yields a higher tax collection despite the lower tax rate. If they eventually got it right, the Federal government could get the debt resolved. You'll need to think above the level of a 9 year old child to come up with a real solution to this problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Twang
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 2848
Location: The Frost Giant's Cavern
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | However indirectly, lowered taxes could increase economic activity which yields a higher tax collection despite the lower tax rate. |
The real delusion here is that you still buy in to trickle-down economics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
googleimage
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 1229
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | googleimage wrote: | | You get a pay cheque for $500, which you promptly use to pay a $500 bill. You incurred no debt through this bill. Next pay cheque, you got only $400, but you still have a $500 bill to pay. You therefore have to put the $100 difference on your credit card to pay for that bill. It's simple grade 3 math, or is this another case of that "liberal bias" in education? |
Your remark about what makes Republicans different from Democrats is just as delusional as any of your perceptions about what I said. Taxes are revenue, and the expenses are what money is spent on (global charity, domestic charity, defense, regulation programs, etc). Lowering taxes has a direct effect of lowering revenue, and spending should be lowered to compensate as necessary. However indirectly, lowered taxes could increase economic activity which yields a higher tax collection despite the lower tax rate. If they eventually got it right, the Federal government could get the debt resolved. You'll need to think above the level of a 9 year old child to come up with a real solution to this problem. |
Tax Donald Trump.
Next question?
_________________
Hey, Lindsay Lohan - "drink Canada Dry" is a slogan, not a dare! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I didn't say give rich people exclusive tax breaks, that's one of the left's favorite claims. I'm saying cut spending, which will in turn allow a lower budget and lower taxes across all income brackets. Increasing the federal debt hundreds of billions of dollars every year is a horrible practice. This is what people get for arguing about politics on a ScoreHero forum, of all places. Political websites are full of zealots, and other websites are no different. Have fun with your fact-less bashing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
googleimage
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 1229
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | I didn't say give rich people exclusive tax breaks, that's one of the left's favorite claims. I'm saying cut spending, which will in turn allow a lower budget and lower taxes across all income brackets. Increasing the federal debt hundreds of billions of dollars every year is a horrible practice. This is what people get for arguing about politics on a ScoreHero forum, of all places. Political websites are full of zealots, and other websites are no different. Have fun with your fact-less bashing. |
Way to shit on a claim I never made. That's a couple of those gems for you now. Care to explain how you managed to turn my 3-word budget proposal into "don't give rich people exclusive tax breaks"?
Since you've stated your burning desire to have a grade A intellectual discussion despite evidence to the contrary, maybe we can get something more than discredited Republican theory and straw man tactics out of you. Anyways, reinstating the Clinton level of tax cuts as per my budget proposal above restores $400-450 billion per year in revenue. The deficit is roughly $1.5 trillion (projections vary, but most fall near this number). So assuming that we're only going to raise those taxes from 36% to 39%, I have just shed up to 30% of the deficit, or 10% per word. Raising that marginal tax bracket to 49% would shed the deficit completely, but even I would have trouble being that vindictive. Anything beyond that would start paying off the debt.
Since you think cutting spending is the solution, I guess the burden is on you to figure out what it is that needs to be cut. Remember, the magic number is 1.5 trillion,, just to keep the debt flat. I'm guessing you're not all that eager to cheapen/forfeit your old-age health care and social safety net in order to solve a problem that you personally had no part in creating.
_________________
Hey, Lindsay Lohan - "drink Canada Dry" is a slogan, not a dare! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joekickass1234
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 1436
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why doesn't the US just pillage Canada? I mean, it would pay off a lot of the debt, and I don't think Canada would mind.
_________________
Stone Head <----My Band, Check us out (Look us up on facebook and myspace too)
Bass Shredding?
If any one want to play some Left 4 Dead 1 or 2 on the PC, add me: joekickass1234
3926 0220 0199 1364 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
googleimage
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 1229
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joekickass1234 wrote: | | Why doesn't the US just pillage Canada? I mean, it would pay off a lot of the debt, and I don't think Canada would mind. |
Too many white people.
_________________
Hey, Lindsay Lohan - "drink Canada Dry" is a slogan, not a dare! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| googleimage wrote: | | Way to shit on a claim I never made. That's a couple of those gems for you now. Care to explain how you managed to turn my 3-word budget proposal into "don't give rich people exclusive tax breaks"? |
Twang seemed to be implying that was what I was arguing, and I was referencing his post. So much for your assumed "straw man." I'm not going to get into an online argument about specifically how to create a balanced Federal budget. That's not my job, and I don't want to waste everybody's time because I'm not an economics or political sciences major. My thoughts are that they can go ahead and raise taxes if they're claiming it's necessary to balance the deficit and pay off debt, but they better proportionately lower spending or else the government will just fritter away all the extra money. The Federal debt shouldn't be allowed to increase any more, the damn debt ceiling doesn't mean anything if they just keep raising it every time they near the limit. I don't give a damn about Social Security. The government wasn't founded with the intention of managing everybody's health and retirement, let me worry about my own future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianBAM19 
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 2804
Location: San Antonio, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Welp; if what I'm reading is correct, a deal's been struck. Woo. Still gives the whole government a big black eye IMO. In total, there will be a budget cut of $39 billion, and Planned Parenthood, apparently the focal point of the shutdown from what I'm reading, will still get its funding. The Republicans couldn't get it axed like they wanted.
EDIT: Grammar fail.
_________________
| KoE wrote: | | <KoE> she wanted to put the BAM in brianbam. |
Last edited by BrianBAM19 on Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joekickass1234
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 1436
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| googleimage wrote: | | joekickass1234 wrote: | | Why doesn't the US just pillage Canada? I mean, it would pay off a lot of the debt, and I don't think Canada would mind. |
Too many white people. |
but they're Canadians. No one cares about Canadians. *sarcasm* Canada is awesome.
_________________
Stone Head <----My Band, Check us out (Look us up on facebook and myspace too)
Bass Shredding?
If any one want to play some Left 4 Dead 1 or 2 on the PC, add me: joekickass1234
3926 0220 0199 1364 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
googleimage
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 1229
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | googleimage wrote: | | Way to shit on a claim I never made. That's a couple of those gems for you now. Care to explain how you managed to turn my 3-word budget proposal into "don't give rich people exclusive tax breaks"? |
Twang seemed to be implying that was what I was arguing, and I was referencing his post. So much for your assumed "straw man." |
Not even close to what Twang stated.
| Quote: | | I don't give a damn about Social Security. The government wasn't founded with the intention of managing everybody's health and retirement, let me worry about my own future. |
I guess this then means you're completely unreachable.
| JoeKickass1234 wrote: | | but they're Canadians. No one cares about Canadians. |
Well, maybe if Americans were able to find it on a map, they'd care a bit more!
_________________
Hey, Lindsay Lohan - "drink Canada Dry" is a slogan, not a dare! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
