227 replies to this topic

[MiskatonicGrad]

RavenHawk, on 19 December 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Getting back to the op.  Raising taxes on the top 2% (those making $250K or more) will only collect between $75B to $80B.  In the "deal" making going on you're hearing the Socialists are compromising on raising taxes on those making $400K (~ the top ½ of 1%) or even those making $1M or more.  So here are the simple, logical questions.  If 2% gives you $80B, what good is reducing that to .5% or less?  That would probably be between $10B and $20B.  What does raising taxes on the top 2% gives us?  That $80B does nothing to help with the deficit or the multi-trillion debt.  So why do it?  What is the reasoning behind doing it?  Is there anyone willing to give a logical, rational, non Socialist propaganda answer?

RavenHawk you will never get an logical answer to that question simply because it does not exist. There is not one liberal that can give an answer to the simply question "How can raising taxes on anybody help the economy?". Ive asked the question myself several times on other threads and all I get is the sound of crickets. their utter lack of understanding the economy is evident when they preach how much damage Reaganomics did to this country.?!
even though america was living high on the hog for 2 decades because of it they still say he had it wrong. lowering taxes bad. getting people to work for a living bad. raising taxes good. putting everbody on welfare good.?

[MiskatonicGrad]

DieChecker, on 20 December 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

Like I posted in one of these threads... it will quickly get those who are super rich to Move somewhere where the expense is less. Barbados, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Panama.... They simply take their money and go establish a residence elsewhere, but then continue to run their businesses remotely. Or through "Business Trips" that last months at a time. There are ways around these things...

It is like cigarettes... there is a tax on cigs to pay for anti-cig programs, but as cig use decreases, the tax has gone higher and higher, because the anti-cig programs do not cut back at the same rate. Thus causing the expense of cigs to go up and causing more people to quit. Thus causing the tax to have to be raised... The same could happen with wealth. Tax the rich so that many go elsewhere, then escalate the tax to keep Revenue level, which forces more of the rich to leave. Which causes the tax to be escalated again...

what is going to happen when everbody stops smoking? how is the goverment going to get the revenue for the anti-cig campaign? because you know just because there isn't a problem doesn't mean the goverment won't make it in to one.

[ninjadude]

MiskatonicGrad, on 20 December 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

RavenHawk you will never get an logical answer to that question simply because it does not exist. There is not one liberal that can give an answer to the simply question "How can raising taxes on anybody help the economy?". Ive asked the question myself several times on other threads and all I get is the sound of crickets.

Answered many times. Cut military spending by 50%

[AsteroidX]

You get much taxes without jobs

[F3SS]

MiskatonicGrad, on 20 December 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

How can raising taxes on anybody help the economy?"

ninjadude, on 20 December 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

Cut military spending by 50%

That is not a logical answer to the question.

[RavenHawk]

ninjadude, on 20 December 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

Answered many times. Cut military spending by 50%

I said logical.  This is insane.  But let’s look at your proposal.  That would be about $300B.  Again $300B alone doesn’t help, although it is closer and it you add the $80B with the rich tax, you have $380B, but you need more.  But the danger to that is that it weakens us and enables our enemies, but let’s continue.  I would give you the $380B if you gave a proportional cut across the board.  That would add an additional $600B from Entitlements and welfare.  That’s almost $1T.  But that won’t work on several levels.

But let’s do something a little better.  Entitlements and welfare are obligations this government owes to the people.  That’s the reason the government needs to get out of the business.  They need to be phased out and replaced with the private sector.  Nullify Obamacare and replace it with more free market friendly regulations (many of the GOP ideas removed in the first place).  Keep the Bush tax cuts and cut corp taxes to stimulate growth.  Trim active troops to under 200,000 with a guard and reserve force of 1,000,000.  Mothball about 3 carrier groups.  Increase R&D a bit and trim and or consolidate the number of overseas bases.

The first year, you could perhaps see about $500B and then it would initially drop to say $200B but then as obligations become fulfilled, that would rise back up.  As more business starts and jobs are added, the tax base would broaden and $500B a year to pay down the debt could be maintained.  We don’t need to cut the entire debt in one fell swoop but $500B a year would show that we are serious.  This is just a rough idea but this is what needs to be done in a recession.  What Obama should have been doing in the first place.

[Yamato]

$300 billion doesn't help?   Uhh yeah it does.   With attitudes like that, nothing will help.   We need spending cuts everywhere, a million dollars at a time and every million helps.

Military spending should be capped at the next largest spender on military, China, plus $100 billion.  That's my bill for Congress to mull on.  That would cap us at what, $200-300 billion in military spending this year?   Sounds like ENOUGH to keep all our paranoids and ingrates "safe".

[AsteroidX]

The House is doing the Process Right. They are following there commitment to proper government. They will send the Fiscal Cliff too the Senate. I congradulate them on proper government when they could act just as incapable of administering this government as the rest of them and noone would of noticed. I am speaking of the general public would not have noticed.

[Yamato]

The fact that there is a "fiscal cliff" at all shows there is no commitment to proper government.

When our lovely Congress proves itself capable of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment, they'll meet my definition of "proper government".

Ya know, the same thing I have to do --> pay my bills.  Imagine that.

[AsteroidX]

There still is no tgaxes without jobs

[Yamato]

The only sustainable job that the government can create is war, and as a country, we've grown far too complacent in allowing that racket to continue.

Jobs come from the private sector where all the productivity is.   Government has no business investing in the private sector, controlling the private sector, fixing prices in the private sector, or picking winners and losers in the private sector.    Government taxes productivity, by taking money away from the productive centers where it would otherwise be reinvested to create even more productivity.   Let's keep government's place where it belongs but we must first understand and agree on what the role of government ought to be.

Government isn't the world's police officer, for starters.  Every cheerleader of the Military Industrial Complex will take immediate exception to that, and based on where all the money's going they're winning that argument.

[AsteroidX]

I agree with everything you say you should try being out west. its a wonderful gig

Edited by AsteroidX, 20 December 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[RavenHawk]

Yamato, on 20 December 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

$300 billion doesn't help?   Uhh yeah it does.   With attitudes like that, nothing will help.   We need spending cuts everywhere, a million dollars at a time and every million helps.

Yes, we need cuts everywhere but a million dollars at a time will not help.  We need hundreds of billions across the board but that alone is not helpful.  When you cut something, it creates a void.  Cutting defense too much and you create a void that our enemies will just waltz right in.  That is a given, just simple physics.  Cutting Entitlements and welfare is a little more complicated, because as a part of phasing out, Entitlements are obligations that need to be met.  For the individual, it’s weaning off the government.  For the government it is cutting.  And faith based charities should be utilized for welfare.  Besides, Entitlements and welfare are not a charge of this government.

Quote

Military spending should be capped at the next largest spender on military, China, plus $100 billion.  That's my bill for Congress to mull on.  That would cap us at what, $200-300 billion in military spending this year?   Sounds like ENOUGH to keep all our paranoids and ingrates "safe".

So that’s about $250B.  Do you really understand what you are saying there?  The minute we reduce that much will enable all our enemies to start making plans.  You know who David was?  We slew Goliath.  There will be a line of Davids taking their turn.  Spending $100B more than your next competitor is a poor guarantee.  When I think of $250B being spent, I envision the state of our military in the 1930s.  Using trucks for tanks, soup cans for shells, and broom sticks for rifles.  I know the American people can make the wrong choices from time to time, but I wouldn’t call them ingrates.

[RavenHawk]

Yamato, on 20 December 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

The fact that there is a "fiscal cliff" at all shows there is no commitment to proper government.

But there is no fiscal cliff or at least what we are facing now is not the fiscal cliff that we need to worry about.  Even if the Bush tax cuts are repealed for everyone, that’s $300 per person.  That $300 would be nice to have but this is all politics.  This is all show to hide the fact that taxes will be going up by a whole lot more than just $300 bucks on everyone.  There is no proper government and the American people voted it back in, so we deserve everything we are about to receive.

Quote

When our lovely Congress proves itself capable of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment, they'll meet my definition of "proper government".

Well, that is my 28th Amendment…

Quote

Ya know, the same thing I have to do --> pay my bills.  Imagine that.

Absolutely!

[RavenHawk]

Yamato, on 20 December 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

The only sustainable job that the government can create is war, and as a country, we've grown far too complacent in allowing that racket to continue.

Well, we are a warring people among a planet of warring people.  Do you realize as someone had done the research, that in the last 5500 years, there have only been 6 days totally conflict free.  Given that track record, it would be foolish to not stay as strong as we possibly can.  This government is charged will five purposes. One of them is defense; I would expect to see at least 20% of the budget devoted to defense.  Right now we are below that, so that tells me that we are right where it needs to be.

Quote

Jobs come from the private sector where all the productivity is.   Government has no business investing in the private sector, controlling the private sector, fixing prices in the private sector, or picking winners and losers in the private sector.    Government taxes productivity, by taking money away from the productive centers where it would otherwise be reinvested to create even more productivity.   Let's keep government's place where it belongs but we must first understand and agree on what the role of government ought to be.

I whole heartedly agree.  Government tends to approach 100% control over the people when left unchecked.  It has been left unchecked for far too long, now we have a Socialist for President.  This is not Europe.  Yes, without government there can be no freedom but government must be put in its proper place, that of non infringement on the people.  Dealing in Entitlements and dole is infringement.  Dealing in maintaining justice, defense, roads, and infrastructure is not.

Quote

Government isn't the world's police officer, for starters.  Every cheerleader of the Military Industrial Complex will take immediate exception to that, and based on where all the money's going they're winning that argument.

And here is where we disagree.  It is not the government that is the world’s policeman.  It is that military industrial complex.  It is an expenditure of the government, under the defense budget.  It has formed a very profitable relationship with the private sector.  It is nothing to fear, it hasn’t breached the limits that Eisenhower warned us of.  I should know, I am part of this military industrial complex and we don’t make $20,000 hammers.  But being the world’s policeman has paid a peace dividend that has lasted for some 70 years.  It hasn’t prevented all conflict, but American Hegemony has provided stability across the globe.  That has been the best return on investment this government has made.  Why end that?  I think we have no right to refuse or renege on being the world’s police force.  No one else is capable.  Can we cut back a little?  I think so.  You can stick your head in the sand but that won’t make the barbarian disappear.  There will always be the barbarian at the gate and he has to come through us first.  If we cut our budget by more than half, that won’t give pause to the barbarian; he will just redouble his effort to bring us down.

But the external danger is not the only danger.  The internal danger comes if we let Socialism take more control of our government.  All that has to happen is repeal the 22nd Amendment, then we are just one step from dictatorship and the Socialists have shown that they can manipulate the Electorate by controlling the low information voter.  Once that happens, then we no longer become a benevolent force for good and will end up as any other Empire and we should all fear the military industrial complex then.  But by the same token, we are under so much debt that this Empire will collapse faster than Rome did and that will bring on a new Dark Age.  If that happens, then the Socialists will have won.  The Barbarian will have won and conflict will increase and we will return to a point in history several hundred years earlier where individual liberty is always threatened.