Since there have been no interesting threads (at least for me) in WEPR lately, I think I'll start one.
So I was reading Obama's Plan to reduce the deficit over the next 12 years, and basically he decided to take out tax cuts, eliminate loopholes for taxes, raise taxes, and cut government spending.
I fully support his plan because that is what I think should happen. I am 100% behind him and I will (try to) debate this until there is no more blood to squeeze from this rock.
One quarter of the deficit reduction to be achieved through tax increases...
So they plan to fix the economy by squeezing the life out of US's citizens? Taxes are high enough right now, and this is what they come up with? I mean, what do they take, over 25% of what we make already? To me, it doesn't seem to help to increase taxes this much.
So they plan to fix the economy by squeezing the life out of US's citizens? Taxes are high enough right now, and this is what they come up with? I mean, what do they take, over 25% of what we make already? To me, it doesn't seem to help to increase taxes this much.
Isn't this just for the people making a butt load of money who can afford it?
So they plan to fix the economy by squeezing the life out of US's citizens? Taxes are high enough right now, and this is what they come up with? I mean, what do they take, over 25% of what we make already? To me, it doesn't seem to help to increase taxes this much.
Isn't this just for the people making a butt load of money who can afford it?
This reminds me a lot about the carbon tax in Australia. It's set out brilliantly with only people who earn above fifty thousand a year paying it. And it's higher for you the richer you are. But the opposition are being morons as usual. Is that basically what's going on over there?
I read the article, and it doesn't seem to bad. It sounds like it may be a big money saver. And hey, maybe the big guys will learn a little about streamlined budget use. Those were some big numbas I saw O_o
This is a question I always ask conservatives and they can never give me an answer. How does LOWERING taxes DECREASE the deficit?
Only an idiot thinks that that's the whole solution to the problem.
Conservatives are idiots, so I'll give you the libertarian version: Lowering taxes doesn't do anything. There's your answer. It makes things worse, actually, for the government.
Of course, I'm just answering your question to the T.
The truth is, and this might be a shocker, few people actually believe that's all we need to do. Lower taxes AND lower spending (to a lower level than income, so as to produce a sort of 'rofit' [scary word alert!]) at the same time, and you fix the debt problem. Of course to do that, you need to cut such inessentials as medicare, welfare, and useless pet projects. Terrifying prospect, I know, but you'll live. Hell, maybe those poor people on welfare might get a job!
Only an idiot thinks that that's the whole solution to the problem.
Conservatives are idiots, so I'll give you the libertarian version: Lowering taxes doesn't do anything. There's your answer. It makes things worse, actually, for the government.
Unfortunately, the conservative and liberal viewpoints have huge psychological advantages and political advantages over the libertarian viewpoint:
Conservatives have the promise - you don't have to lower spending, AND look at all this extra money you have!
Liberals have the psychological advantage - look at all this stuff with government spending. But they hide the fact that all this was created with tax money. Had they not taken the tax money to do this, it could have been spent in a variety of other ways, and spent the way people WANTED it to be spent rather than what some bureaucrat wanted.
Thank the purty war that killed 400,000 Americans.
So?
Um, does he realize his presidency would be lucky to survive its first term? 12 years is impossible for any president, let alone a president whose rating fluctuates so wildly.?
So? He can just put a sunset provision that makes it impossible to repeal until a certain point.
The truth is, and this might be a shocker, few people actually believe that's all we need to do. Lower taxes AND lower spending (to a lower level than income, so as to produce a sort of 'rofit' [scary word alert!]) at the same time, and you fix the debt problem. Of course to do that, you need to cut such inessentials as medicare, welfare, and useless pet projects. Terrifying prospect, I know, but you'll live. Hell, maybe those poor people on welfare might get a job!
If not, fewer stupids on the planet.
I just can't find it in me to believe that having no regulation can be good for the country. Trickle down economics is retarded, like E1337 said. We saw in 2008 that when we give the wealthy more wealthy, it doesn't trickle down and employ people, but slashing spending in the companies they own, and they put that money in their own pocket.
I recently saw on Real Time with Bill Maher that trickle down theory is a fantasy because the rich aren't going to get so wealthy that they will explode and money will just pour out of them. They aren't a pinata that just gives out candy when it is full. A pinata is a toy that gives out candy when you force it out of them with a stick.
I think that basically destroys the idea of money trickling down to the poor.
Also, please answer the last part of my post. I'd like to think I don't write these things out in vain.
So? He can just put a sunset provision that makes it impossible to repeal until a certain point.
Except by a future president's executive order. Yes, the executive branch can check itself.
I just can't find it in me to believe that having no regulation can be good for the country. Trickle down economics is retarded, like E1337 said. We saw in 2008 that when we give the wealthy more wealthy, it doesn't trickle down and employ people, but slashing spending in the companies they own, and they put that money in their own pocket.
Funny. I never said no regulation anywhere, ever.
Orion's top three for a successful small government: Military, Police, and Effective Workplace Regulation.
However, regulations taking money from companies just take money that would otherwise be in other people's pocket. Call me crazy, but I can't find it in me to believe the government is anything but a large corporation that's impossible to shut down. I'd trust my life in Humana and Allstate before the US government.
Right, because it wasn't the shutting down of the failed banks, started an emergency fund, and tons of regulations to prevent this.
If only it wasn't for Reagan to get rid of all the regulations that FDR put to prevent the banks from being "too big to fail."
See: That proves nothing.
Once again: Prove it.
You're too lazy to do what he says, actually.
Except by a future president's executive order. Yes, the executive branch can check itself.
Then why hasn't Obama done that yet on Bush's tax cuts?
Funny. I never said no regulation anywhere, ever.
Funny. I didn't mean to say say no regulation anywhere.
What I meant, was limited regulation.
Orion's top three for a successful small government: Military, Police, and Effective Workplace Regulation.
k.
However, regulations taking money from companies just take money that would otherwise be in other people's pocket. Call me crazy, but I can't find it in me to believe the government is anything but a large corporation that's impossible to shut down. I'd trust my life in Humana and Allstate before the US government.
You would trust an organization that you elect rather than a company that you choose and have no control over?
Politicians like power, not you.
Politicians job is to get reelected. A job to get reelected to your job. That is what a politician does.
Also, please answer the last part of my post. I'd like to think I don't write these things out in vain.
I suggest you do the same for me, instead of just arguing against certain parts of my argument.
Right, because it wasn't the shutting down of the failed banks, started an emergency fund, and tons of regulations to prevent this.
If only it wasn't for Reagan to get rid of all the regulations that FDR put to prevent the banks from being "too big to fail."
Well, those don't stimulate economies, do they?
You're too lazy to do what he says, actually.
He didn't say anything but a name. I didn't ask for a name, I asked for proof.
Prove why the name should have any relevance, because I'm not the one reading your mind.
Then why hasn't Obama done that yet on Bush's tax cuts?
Because that was a bill enacted by congress.
Funny. I didn't mean to say say no regulation anywhere.
What I meant, was limited regulation.
A free market is not hindered by the government. If it is, then it's not truly free.
The government is the parent company of everyone, and make one squeal and one succeed. It loves favoritism.
You would trust an organization that you elect rather than a company that you choose and have no control over?
Trusting the US government is like trusting a thief with your money.
Politicians job is to get reelected. A job to get reelected to your job. That is what a politician does.
By lying, stealing, tricking, bribery, corruption, and all sorts of manners that are morally and ethically wrong. No, I don't trust a person like that, and I wouldn't recommend anyone to.
I suggest you do the same for me, instead of just arguing against certain parts of my argument
I could "rove" that women voting causes nuclear weapons to be created just as easily. Just because there's a correlation between the recession and the "whole trickle down thing" does not mean that that is the causation. There was also increased government debt, more government spending, and other things as well.
