Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    30,919
    vCash
    1500

    Tax Cuts and Wars Will Make Up Half of Debt by 2019

    http://i.imgur.com/by7kL.jpg

    Rather comical all the blame that got placed on Obama for the current debt situation.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,195
    vCash
    1500
    Rachel Maddow has been saying this for three years but she is a whacko liberal that just wants to give rich peoples money to lazy minorities and drug addicts and gays so you cant trust anything she says.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDV-b...eature=related

    I dont really care what side of a debate someone is on..as long as they know what the hell hey are talking about...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    http://i.imgur.com/by7kL.jpg

    Rather comical all the blame that got placed on Obama for the current debt situation.
    Though Obama is not completely at fault for the origins of the debt, he is responsible for allowing the debt to be a political issue when in reality the debt is NOT an issue at all.

    The issue that should be front and center should be unemployment. Right now we're at ~7.8-7.9, which for a country like the United States should be embarrassing to economic planners. The fact the the media (with private interests behind them of course) allows this false story that the big economic problem in the country is the debt shows how pathetic and mediocre the "mainstream" media is.

    We should be in full employment. All these problems were caused by a housing bubble from the 2000s (not Obama's fault but it was Alan Greenspans fault). There is a ton of false belief that the current economic woes are a result of "careless spending" when in fact that is NOT the case. The housing bubble is the cause for all the woes of the last 5 years, along with the gambling by the financial sector.

    Obama's job back in 2009 was to stop the negative affects of the housing bubble. He did right to introduce a stimulus, and the stimulus did successfully achieve its goals, but the stimulus wasn't big enough. At the time, many economists said that the stimulus needed to be bigger in order to recover the lost demand from the housing bubble. Obama didn't listen, partially because wall street influence (see Larry Summers and Tim Geithner) didn't want to inflate rich people's wealth in order to help the majority of the population. A bit of inflation was needed, but the big banks don't like that (I can explain why). So as a result, the stimulus wasn't big enough, and though the intended effects of the stimulus worked out great, we still lacked more.

    There have been serious attempts by others to fix the employment issue. Take this excellent bill by Denis Kucinich and John Conyers to get the country to full employment:

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text

    Obama completely ignored this jobs bill that would have been excellent for the population, but it would have taken power away from some of the bankers that plague the Obama administration.

    So while Obama isn't responsible for the origin of the woes right now, he is responsible in how he tries to fix it, and he hasn't done the greatest job in that. The idea of a stimulus was the right idea, but it wasn't big enough. Obama has allowed wall street to run the economy. We will eventually get back to pre-housing bubble employment by most estimates, but that won't be until after Obama finishes his second term, and that is assuming that a whackjob doesn't take control of the White House after and makes cuts that will kill the slow recovery and harm the population.

    EDIT: Oh and I'll add that ending the wars and many military bases around the world, and ending the Bush tax cuts helps the country and the world big time.
    Last edited by bootleg42; 11-27-2012 at 05:23 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    I Can't imagine any valid argument where we've gotten close to ANYTHING of value back as a country back from these investments...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The Schmooze View Post
    I Can't imagine any valid argument where we've gotten close to ANYTHING of value back as a country back from these investments...

    Even if the country (which is too abstract of a word in this case) got something back, invading countries and trying to dominate the world is wrong. War should be opposed on moral grounds.

    We can still spend plenty of money on the military (since it does create jobs), but the military can be used for more local and peaceful uses, not for war. I would have been nice to see troops help people and aid in the recovery to Hurrican Sandy in NY (and future disasters for that matter). The point is to stop the wars and violence.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,033
    vCash
    1500
    I do have a problem that they say tax cuts are responsible as tax cuts aren't an expense. Expense's are what's doing the debt. There are cuts to budgets everywhere. It'd be like me going to anyone of you running a division for me and give you a cut, and you don't meet it and you say well it's because it's a cut it's not that I didn't trim expenses like I was supposed too. It's not accurate at all to say tax cuts are whats' driving this. And it's def not ok to just say it's only Bush's tax cuts. He's not the first to tax cut. It's more accurate to say budgets weren't realligned to meet the cut in funding, that and wars. The wars def got me there, and I agree we need to cut.


    Come to psd where admitted dupes who do nothing but troll the gd and fs forum are free. But man don't you dare mention trolling on someone's wall.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,182
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    I do have a problem that they say tax cuts are responsible as tax cuts aren't an expense. Expense's are what's doing the debt. There are cuts to budgets everywhere. It'd be like me going to anyone of you running a division for me and give you a cut, and you don't meet it and you say well it's because it's a cut it's not that I didn't trim expenses like I was supposed too. It's not accurate at all to say tax cuts are whats' driving this. And it's def not ok to just say it's only Bush's tax cuts. He's not the first to tax cut. It's more accurate to say budgets weren't realligned to meet the cut in funding, that and wars. The wars def got me there, and I agree we need to cut.
    No one is saying that it is "only" the Bush tax cuts that caused the debt. So, to me, then is a straw man argument.

    However, when looking at your tortured explanation that it was a failure to align expenses from the war with income from taxes makes me feel compassion for you trying to hold up the idea that tax cuts had nothing to do with the debt. This is not about an auto that is out of alignment. This was about a policy of cutting taxes as we entered a war of choice for the first time.

    As a side issue, some tax deductions (and even more so, tax credits), are in fact disguised expenditures.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,033
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    No one is saying that it is "only" the Bush tax cuts that caused the debt. So, to me, then is a straw man argument.

    However, when looking at your tortured explanation that it was a failure to align expenses from the war with income from taxes makes me feel compassion for you trying to hold up the idea that tax cuts had nothing to do with the debt. This is not about an auto that is out of alignment. This was about a policy of cutting taxes as we entered a war of choice for the first time.

    As a side issue, some tax deductions (and even more so, tax credits), are in fact disguised expenditures.
    The tax cuts came before 9/11 and did you just call 9/11 a war of choice? Or you talking about Iraq?

    But Bush wasn't the first to lower taxes. No one ever says anything other then Bush tax cuts for it. Tax cuts have been going down since the 30's so if Bush's tax cuts caused this deficit so is everyone elses tax cuts.


    Come to psd where admitted dupes who do nothing but troll the gd and fs forum are free. But man don't you dare mention trolling on someone's wall.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,182
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    The tax cuts came before 9/11 and did you just call 9/11 a war of choice? Or you talking about Iraq?

    But Bush wasn't the first to lower taxes. No one ever says anything other then Bush tax cuts for it. Tax cuts have been going down since the 30's so if Bush's tax cuts caused this deficit so is everyone elses tax cuts.
    Iraq was a war of choice. I am glad you asked me to be specific. Sometimes (most of the time?) I fail in making myself clear. Tax cuts came before and after 9/11. 2003 President Bush signed into law the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, which accelerated the timeline of the earlier cuts and benefits.

    Bush was the first President not to raise taxes at a time of armed conflict the level of Iraq. It was in fact a unique tax policy during armed conflict at that level. So, it is not at all logical to look back at all tax policies that preceded this unprecedented action, when his predecessors all raised taxes to pay for their military.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,367
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    I do have a problem that they say tax cuts are responsible as tax cuts aren't an expense. Expense's are what's doing the debt. There are cuts to budgets everywhere. It'd be like me going to anyone of you running a division for me and give you a cut, and you don't meet it and you say well it's because it's a cut it's not that I didn't trim expenses like I was supposed too. It's not accurate at all to say tax cuts are whats' driving this. And it's def not ok to just say it's only Bush's tax cuts. He's not the first to tax cut. It's more accurate to say budgets weren't realligned to meet the cut in funding, that and wars. The wars def got me there, and I agree we need to cut.
    As Cabernetluver said, we went to war with Iraq (and were at war with Afghanistan). It's hard to "realign" the budgets to meet the impending tax cuts when you are spending Billions a month on wars.

    I think you can absolutely blame the Tax Cuts in the sense that someone who knows you are about to incur a large expense shouldn't sharply decrease revenue...
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,195
    vCash
    1500
    ^ what BMD is saying and he is right is that when the cuts were proposed everyone was "yeah ! sure! great!" giving tax payers money back makes everyone happy.
    Now cutting spending to match new projected lower revenues?.....Now we have a problem....who ever gives up funding for ANYTHING that affects their constituents is gonna be on a quick trip out of town...I mean can you imagine THAT conversation?


    "let me get this straight Mr senator, we had to pay for some tax cuts and of all the places to cut you let it come out of _________ (you can put anything you want in the blank)...hmmm, we see,....Your fired.

    No one was going to agree to any cuts, and at the time they could get away with it. then the recession hit, then the wars came and NOW everyone sees what the consequence of not planning for the worst case scenario does to deficets and budgets.
    so.
    we absolutely need the higher tax rate for the wealthy....sorry fellas the party is over.
    and we absolutely need to cut across the board in every spending program we have including our largest expenditure ...Military.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    30,919
    vCash
    1500
    Mince it as much as you want; excessive tax cuts had a direct impact on the country's surplus and current debt situation.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,033
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Iraq was a war of choice. I am glad you asked me to be specific. Sometimes (most of the time?) I fail in making myself clear. Tax cuts came before and after 9/11. 2003 President Bush signed into law the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, which accelerated the timeline of the earlier cuts and benefits.

    Bush was the first President not to raise taxes at a time of armed conflict the level of Iraq. It was in fact a unique tax policy during armed conflict at that level. So, it is not at all logical to look back at all tax policies that preceded this unprecedented action, when his predecessors all raised taxes to pay for their military.
    So in fantasy land we would have no problem in your mind if 9/11 didn't happen and thus we never went to either war? Because we'd still have accelerated debt, because we never reduced our expenditures.


    Come to psd where admitted dupes who do nothing but troll the gd and fs forum are free. But man don't you dare mention trolling on someone's wall.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,033
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Mince it as much as you want; excessive tax cuts had a direct impact on the country's surplus and current debt situation.
    But now you are deciding what is excessive, again why isn't the previous presidents and their previous tax cuts an issue. Maybe it's because I support tax cuts by why is it always tax cuts as the issue or war and not spending else where. To me it's mostly saying there is no way no how to ever get a balanced budget without getting rid of the tax cuts and taking them back. Then if it doesn't work we do what raise taxes again?


    Come to psd where admitted dupes who do nothing but troll the gd and fs forum are free. But man don't you dare mention trolling on someone's wall.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    14,839
    vCash
    1500
    A Gold Standard could not be as screwed up as this... fiat money has made this mess possible.
    Last edited by whitesoxfan83; 11-27-2012 at 10:14 PM.
    Son, you just don't get it, i'm talking bout TWTW!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •