hey republicans

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Yeah, and the Earth could be said to be the center of the universe, but that doesn't make it true. When you say that our current tax structure discourages people from becoming rich, you are actively affirming that paying 20% of $500,000 is worse than paying 0% of $50,000. Furthermore you're completely ignoring the fact that our society does in fact contain rich people and businesses and that taxes on the rich are much less than they used to be 50 years ago, but back then our economy was much stronger. That seems to imply the exact opposite logic you are using.

If you were to take what I said in context, instead of chopping out everything but that one sentence, you would realize I was disagreeing with the idea of discouraging spending. The part of what I said, that you conveniently left out, was: "Im not at all sure I believe in discouraged spending. People will always want and need things."

As for the 'paying 20% of $500,000 is worse than paying 0% of $50,000', you are ignoring one entire side of the argument. You concentrate only on the fact that the guy making $500k still takes home more money than the guy earning $50k. But in your usual way, you marginalize the higher income earner's work that earns him that increased income. Let me spell it out for you. One side of the argument claims the richer guy should pay more, because he can better afford it (I believe you once characterized this as he will own one less ferrari than he otherwise would). The other side of the argument says that the richer guy pays less % of his income, but over all pays more in taxes when you look at actual dollars. The 'fair truth' lies somewhere in between these two extremist views. Your continuing to completely ignore the validity of the other side of the argument is why Ive called you an extremist in the past.

Furthermore, the chart you always post in these threads, and the same argument you always fall back on, that the economy was stronger back when we had higher tax rates for the richest citizens, implies that the only contributing factor to the strength of an economy is its tax rates. This completely ignores other factors such as a housing or dot-com bubble, or wall street catastrophe.

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I don't see why a 10 yr projection is a bad thing....if the budget wont balance in 10 yrs with those higher tax rates then its not going to balance in 5 yrs either....

The problem with the 10 year plans is, they (almost) always work the same, the majority of money saved is projected to occur in the last years of its existence. Politicians know that by then the political climate will have changed (new president, probably a shift in congress) and a new 10 year plan will be drawn up. It would be interesting to see our policy makers be forced to draw up plans that would expire within their term limits, and see how much more effective their plans would become.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

That makes sense......thank you.......now do you agree about the spending cuts and that they never seem to happen and that adds to the deficit......43 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed......

My common sense meter is telling me if you raise taxes and spending you wind up in the same position regardless of how many years you do it.....

Yes, spending cuts are a crucial element. The problem is, politicians dont want to cut spending (no, not even republicans imo). The US govt is the largest employer in the country (by far), who would vote for someone running on a campaign of ending their cushy job? So, when any discussion of cutting spending occurs, they always portray it in hack 'n slash terms to scare us like removing medicare so our grandparents will die, taking X number of thousands of cops off the street so our mothers will get *****, or removing X number of teachers so our children will grow up ignorant. Where's the discussion about making govt spending more transparent, competent, and efficient? Its no secret working for a govt agency (be it local, state, or federal) means you generally get much better benefits and salary than a comparable private sector job. Like the old joke, how many DOT employees does it take to dig a hole... 4, one to dig it, and 3 to lean against their shovels and watch. Bridges built to nowhere (to satisfy some politicians constituency and get him re-elected), $1200 crescent wrenches for the military, and pork barrel spending... no powerful politician and neither party will truly address those spending issues.

 

[husker77 10+ year member]

Everything that the government spends needs to be put into percentages of revenue. 30% goes to the DOD, 20% goes to epa, 10% goes to HHS, you only spend the money you get.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Furthermore, the chart you always post in these threads, and the same argument you always fall back on, that the economy was stronger back when we had higher tax rates for the richest citizens, implies that the only contributing factor to the strength of an economy is its tax rates. This completely ignores other factors such as a housing or dot-com bubble, or wall street catastrophe.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Or the largest contributing factor is that the rest of the world was destroyed or undeveloped and the US used it's already large manufacturing based to produce goods for the entire world.

I assure you as well as anyone else that if we go to war and destroy 1/2 of Asia, manufacturing will return to the US and good times will be had.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Everything that the government spends needs to be put into percentages of revenue. 30% goes to the DOD, 20% goes to epa, 10% goes to HHS, you only spend the money you get.

How do you plan when you have no idea what your share will be until the next year? Do you realize how long lead some government projects are? I am not sure how old you are, but there are some projects ongoing that are older than you.

 

[husker77 10+ year member]

I'm guessing older than you. The blank check mentality has to stop, it's called budgeting, you spend what you have not more. If you have a long term project you figure how much of your budget you want to go to that and then spend less in other places if you don't have enough. It's actually pretty simple, American families do it every day.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I'm guessing older than you. The blank check mentality has to stop, it's called budgeting, you spend what you have not more. If you have a long term project you figure how much of your budget you want to go to that and then spend less in other places if you don't have enough. It's actually pretty simple, American families do it every day.

I hope //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif. You have to realize it's the Congress that determines what the agencies spend and what they spend it on, not the agencies.

 

[husker77 10+ year member]

They decide the amount of money but a lot of the specific spending decisions are made by the agencies themselves. I understand not all the decisions but some. Maybe if they were limited to only x amount of dollars they would be a little more careful how they spend.

 

[av83 10+ year member]

a couple years old, but still relevant.

So-called "conservatives" are outraged over Democrats wanting to cut the defense budget to help reduce the budget deficet....

Seems legit.

 

[husker77 10+ year member]

Most of those countries rely on us to protect them. It is cheaper to steal new technology then to develop it, and that is pretty much what china is doing. Plus their soldiers make a fraction of what ours do. And if you say our soldiers make to much then you are a scourge on this great nation!

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

They decide the amount of money but a lot of the specific spending decisions are made by the agencies themselves. I understand not all the decisions but some. Maybe if they were limited to only x amount of dollars they would be a little more careful how they spend.

How many airplanes to buy? - Congress. How many missilies - Congress. Blue or Black Pens - Agencies. For some budgetary line items, it's very specific. For others, an agency can SPEND NO LESS THAN $XXXM on XYZs. You should pick an agency and read it's budget...just on a top level. It's craziness.

Regulations in federal procurement make many otherwise ordinary purchases far more expenses than they should be. There is not enough trust in the employee to do the right thing so there are tons of regulations. Plus, you have to award contract to the disabled Indian woman veteran, who marks up the price 20% and asks Lockheed to do it.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

There is no doubt that increased government spending creates growth in the short run. I don't think you'll find anyone to argue with you there.

Um, check out the James Bond Fanatic.

As for permanent growth, no, the government couldn't keep up forever. But at some point, had the war never happened, the employment would pick up to the point where the government could ease off on it's spending and the private sector would pick up the "slack" left by the government. It is exactly what happened during WWII, except at a much more rapid pace because of the enormous demand the government created for goods of war. Do we agree on that?

And, as ****** as it sounds, we lend ourselves money the majority of our dept. That's not to belittle or debt or make it seem unimportant, but it's secondary to reviving our economy. It's also the best deficit reducer, actually. Because a large part of our deficit is due to lower revenues because of the recession.

It wouldn't be true for an American family so why is it true for government.

I don't buy that comparison. American families don't govern 300 million people. If the government couldn't do anything a family couldn't do, we wouldn't be a nation.

implies that the only contributing factor to the strength of an economy is its tax rates.

Oh, no! My argument is just that conservatives like to argue that lower taxes on the rich will be good for the economy and higher taxes on them will be bad. History clearly proves this wrong.

However, I will say that they both (the "both" being higher taxes & stronger economy) fall back to use of liberal economics.

And we've talked about the progressive tax rate thing for so much and gotten nowhere, I won't start down that road again, but I will mention one thing. You talk about truths being in the center of two extremes. I agree completely. However, my views aren't extreme. (I am kind of a hot head, I base my opinions off of facts, but I won't deny that.) The Democrats and Republicans don't represent two extremes. Pure socialism and pure capitalism are the two extremes. The Republicans are a lot closer to being extremists, but the Democrats are in the center. They want a mix of socialism and capitalism, which is the way to succeed. Just something to think about.

 

[av83 10+ year member]

Most of those countries rely on us to protect them. It is cheaper to steal new technology then to develop it, and that is pretty much what china is doing. Plus their soldiers make a fraction of what ours do. And if you say our soldiers make to much then you are a scourge on this great nation!

You are not going to put me on the defensive by putting words in my mouth. Soldiers, especially active-duty personnel should make more. However, I do think that the amount of personnel we need should be part of the discussion. Anyways, in the 2012 fiscal year D.O.D. personnel were paid $141,818,404 (and that includes plenty of civilians). Compare that to the total budget. Lots of room for cuts elsewhere.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

[/color]

Um, check out the James Bond Fanatic.

James Bond fanatic?