Liberal emotion vs. Conservative logic

[Fluffybunny]

Is it such a big secret that we are going to be screwed one way or the other?

Unless of course you are already wealthy or a member of congress or the senate; they take care of their own...

[Unlimited]

Unless of course you are already wealthy or a member of congress or the senate; they take care of their own...

Its like a club...i call them the beltway gang...anyone know where all the gold in fort knox is?....

[Fluffybunny]

Its like a club...i call them the beltway gang...anyone know where all the gold in fort knox is?....

Is that like a knock-knock joke? OK, I'll play along... "So limited where is all the gold in fort Knox?" >drumroll<

[Unlimited]

I heard it was in beijing...

[Caesar]

ARCOCES expects us the believe that just because Enron -- run by George W.s close friend (George called Mr. Lay "Kenny Boy") was cooking it's books, and that a few hundred DOT.Coms were floating on credit -- that this somehow explains 23 million jobs in an economy that grew across the board and in every sector, from manufacturing to housing ... to infinity ...

Enron gave money to both parties, Jessie Jackson got alot, I can recall. lets take a look at Arthur Anderson who actually helped cook the books, what party did they donate too?

So get this straight: Cutting taxes almost always = Less money in your pocket

.

Yeah and 1 plus 1 is uhhhhh 10, right? this is fuzzy math to me! please tell me either you wasn't sober or wasn't being serious when you posted that!

Edited February 19, 2007 by Caesar

[IronGhost]

Enron gave money to both parties, Jessie Jackson got alot, I can recall. lets take a look at Arthur Anderson who actually helped cook the books, what party did they donate too?

.

Yeah and 1 plus 1 is uhhhhh 10, right? this is fuzzy math to me! please tell me either you wasn't sober or wasn't being serious when you posted that!

Go re-read my comment Caesar -- I outlined several ways in which tax cutting actually results in costing people a lot more money. It's very easy to understand. I could easily come up with 50 scenarios to show how cutting taxes directly results in taking money out of people's pockets -- basically because they then have to pay a lot more for the services that the tax-supported services used to provide.

I'm not saying cutting taxes is always bad. It's just that the whole concept is drastically oversimplified when you look at an entire economic system.

Making the simple assumption that just cutting taxes is always a good thing is the true fuzzy math -- because cutting taxes very often ends up in costing people way, way more in many ways.

[Caesar]

I reread it twice, I agree that cutting taxes doesn't always work I always said they usually help, there are other factors that must be looked at also, I just don't understand why so many people think that cutting taxes is a bad thing when looking threw history it has more often then not, helped the economy. looking at the stats and quotes of our U.S. Treasury all threw history, shows you this. to come out with a statement "So get this straight: Cutting taxes almost always = Less money in your pocket" is utter nonsense. when you give people more money to spend, they spend it -- that means more jobs because more people are needed to make the stuff that we're all buying. It also means more people who now pay taxes. and on and on.

[Caesar]

Someone needs to tell that to our media. So many people think this is the worst economy ever and there has never been more suffering. Telling them to "open their eyes" doesn't work becuase they're usually screaming the same thing about greedy, heartless capitalists.

I just don't get how people can even compare those two presidencies just look what Bush had his first term.

1) were had signs of our economy slowing down

2) all the fraud that was going on like Enron and worldcom (and others) that made people sell stocks

3) the unions on the california ports all went on strike

4) the terror attacks

5) anthrax attacks

6) avation industry bailout package

7) other world economies were lagging and getting worst

8) terrorist attacking abroad, like the attack in Spain hurt the stock market

Anyone that thinks Clinton would have made all these events not effect our economy is fooling themselves

[Aztec Warrior]

My great friend Iron......oh boy.....nhh

ARCOCES expects us the believe that just because Enron -- run by George W.s close friend (George called Mr. Lay "Kenny Boy") was cooking it's books, and that a few hundred DOT.Coms were floating on credit -- that this somehow explains 23 million jobs in an economy that grew across the board and in every sector, from manufacturing to housing ... to infinity ...

But he also assumes that by simply lowering taxes people will have more money. Lowering taxes can easily mean that everyone will have LESS money, not more. It's easy to see why. In Minnesota, they slashed taxes -- and college tuition went up 21% per year. So if you had a kid in college, you got a few hundred dollars in tax breaks -- but had to pay thousands more for tuition.

The roads in Minnesota in the metro areas are crumbling. No one wants to pay an extra 5 cents in gas tax -- yet they sit on the freeways in traffic jams, burning expensive gas, degrading vehicles, and losing hours of their time each week -- no gas tax means a lot of costs for individual up front -- more than they would pay in taxes. More money out of your pocket.

Also, poorer roads means fewer businesses wil locate here because of poor infrastructure -- lower taxes, but lost jobs, economic growth and tax revenue.

They lowered taxes in Minnesota -- but then everyone had to pay way more for hunting licenses, car registration fees, park stickers -- a lot more than they ever would have paid in taxes.

They lowered taxes - -but local cities still had to maintain streets, plow roads, keep their schools funded -- so local proerpty taxes went up more than 60% -- it never would have happened if the state government hadn't slashed state tax rates.

Lowering taxes mean higher deficites -- that means the prime rate will go higher -- your mortgage will cost more, your credit card interest rate goes up -- lower taxes, but less money in your pocket.

I could go on and on -- but lowering taxes on a state and national level almost always means that you will pay more, and have less money in your pocket because everything will just bleed into fees, lost infrastructure, higher tuition -- higher everything on the ground.

So get this straight: Cutting taxes almost always = Less money in your pocket.

Cutting taxes for the middle class ALWAYS means more money for the squezzed middle class. They might have inheritance....and it is heavily taxed......same as any capital gaines taxes on simple stocks or real estate transfers. Lowering property taxes may hurt local public schools and roads, but the general population will have more money in their pocket for their kids eductation and property inprovements. That creates jobs.

Go re-read my comment Caesar -- I outlined several ways in which tax cutting actually results in costing people a lot more money. It's very easy to understand. I could easily come up with 50 scenarios to show how cutting taxes directly results in taking money out of people's pockets -- basically because they then have to pay a lot more for the services that the tax-supported services used to provide.

I'm not saying cutting taxes is always bad. It's just that the whole concept is drastically oversimplified when you look at an entire economic system.

Making the simple assumption that just cutting taxes is always a good thing is the true fuzzy math -- because cutting taxes very often ends up in costing people way, way more in many ways.

A certain amount of taxes is necessary. " outlined several ways in which tax cutting actually results in costing people a lot more money"....yes the middle class may pay more in tuition. The rich nor the poor ever pay more.

[AROCES]

ARCOCES expects us the believe that just because Enron -- run by George W.s close friend (George called Mr. Lay "Kenny Boy") was cooking it's books, and that a few hundred DOT.Coms were floating on credit -- that this somehow explains 23 million jobs in an economy that grew across the board and in every sector, from manufacturing to housing ... to infinity ...

Tell me then where did the 23 million job go that disappeared together with the DOT COM burst, coincidence?

But he also assumes that by simply lowering taxes people will have more money. Lowering taxes can easily mean that everyone will have LESS money, not more. It's easy to see why. In Minnesota, they slashed taxes -- and college tuition went up 21% per year. So if you had a kid in college, you got a few hundred dollars in tax breaks -- but had to pay thousands more for tuition.

So, you are telling me now to make things affordable and so we can have more money, government should be paying for some of our expenses and help us pay for our desired living standard? How much of those Taxes for each dollar do you think goes to the actual tuition after it passes to bureaucracy, 25 cents?

The roads in Minnesota in the metro areas are crumbling. No one wants to pay an extra 5 cents in gas tax -- yet they sit on the freeways in traffic jams, burning expensive gas, degrading vehicles, and losing hours of their time each week -- no gas tax means a lot of costs for individual up front -- more than they would pay in taxes. More money out of your pocket.

The government tax on Gasoline per gallon now is already between 40-70 cents. Now, why can't Minnesota fix the road with that money and need 5 cents more? Because the money is being redirected to other Government PORK spending that you are so in favor of.

Also, poorer roads means fewer businesses wil locate here because of poor infrastructure -- lower taxes, but lost jobs, economic growth and tax revenue.

They lowered taxes in Minnesota -- but then everyone had to pay way more for hunting licenses, car registration fees, park stickers -- a lot more than they ever would have paid in taxes.

They lowered taxes - -but local cities still had to maintain streets, plow roads, keep their schools funded -- so local proerpty taxes went up more than 60% -- it never would have happened if the state government hadn't slashed state tax rates.

Lowering taxes mean higher deficites -- that means the prime rate will go higher -- your mortgage will cost more, your credit card interest rate goes up -- lower taxes, but less money in your pocket.

I could go on and on -- but lowering taxes on a state and national level almost always means that you will pay more, and have less money in your pocket because everything will just bleed into fees, lost infrastructure, higher tuition -- higher everything on the ground.

So get this straight: Cutting taxes almost always = Less money in your pocket.

Nope, cutting taxes means the governement have less control of your life and will just do what it is suppose to do in the first place.

Baby sitting and making sure you get your desired standard of living is not why the governement is there, unless you are a socialist or a communist.

Edited February 20, 2007 by AROCES

[Avinash_Tyagi]

The truth is it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, the stark truth is government spending especially entitlements are going to have to be scaled back, and taxes are going to have to go up a good deal, and this will have to happen in the next few years.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/events/fis...ake-up-call.htm

Edited February 20, 2007 by Avinash_Tyagi

[Caesar]

Well you cant spend and cut taxes at the same time. we'll see if they raise our taxes. one thing for sure though, we need to really cut spending!

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Well you cant spend and cut taxes at the same time. we'll see if they raise our taxes. one thing for sure though, we need to really cut spending!

At this point we need a combination of scaling back spending and raising taxes, even the Concord Coalition is saying that the tax cuts have not paid for themselves and have to be rolled back

[Caesar]

The tax cuts created a positive environment for income growth, while helping make the 2001 recession better than it otherwise could have been. I beleive if the recession probly could have been much worst if it wasn't for the tax cuts.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

The tax cuts created a positive environment for income growth, while helping make the 2001 recession better than it otherwise could have been. I beleive if the recession probly could have been much worst if it wasn't for the tax cuts.

Except it contributed to us adding trillions to the debt, good job, coming up with ta few hundred billion in exchange for a few trillion, they didn't come close to paying for themselves, tell you what, i'll give you 3 dollars if you give me three hundred dollars, it'll help create income growth for you.

Face it the tax cuts have helped to put us in very dangerous territory, better some taxes back then and a moderate recession than the potential fiscal nightmare we now face, taxes in the future may end up being much higher than they were before because of this. Hopefully they'll be some wisdom and they'll not extend them once they expire in 2011.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Avinash_Tyagi

[Caesar]

Except it contributed to us adding trillions to the debt, good job, coming up with ta few hundred billion in exchange for a few trillion, they didn't come close to paying for themselves

This is so missleading I really don't know where to begin!!!

Face it the tax cuts have helped to put us in very dangerous territory, better some taxes back then and a moderate recession than the potential fiscal nightmare we now face, taxes in the future may end up being much higher than they were before because of this. Hopefully they'll be some wisdom and they'll not extend them once they expire in 2011.

So your blaming everything on tax cuts, not bad, liberalism at its best!

[explorer]

Well you cant spend and cut taxes at the same time. we'll see if they raise our taxes. one thing for sure though, we need to really cut spending!

Here's a question, has there ever been such tax cuts and yet such an increase in spending as there has been under Bush?

Is the US borrowing for dominance?

[Avinash_Tyagi]

This is so missleading I really don't know where to begin!!!

So your blaming everything on tax cuts, not bad, liberalism at its best!

No its not misleading, we have piut ourselves into massive debt partly due to the tax cuts and the revenue we lost, they still haven't payed for themselves.

And no I'm not balming it all on the tax cuts, but they are a big part of it.

[Dr Morbius]

Tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the wealthy are part of the problem, but the biggest part is waste and inefficiency. Let's face it: one party calls for reducing taxes, the other calls for fiscal discipline, but when it is all said and done a quarter if not more of every dollar we pay in taxes gets wasted. It isn't about bigger government: liberals want better government!

Government needs to be as big as it has to be to meet our expectations of our government. It shouldn't be any bigger or any smaller. We've learned through hard experience that the best disinfectant is electric light; we must have an open government. Everyone should have a fair opportunity to make something of themselves if they live in America. Everyone should be free to worship or not at the place of their choosing. No one should receive unfair treatment, and everyone should pay taxes. Peaceful means are the preferred way to achieve our national goals. The rights ensured by the Bill of Rights are sacred. Capitalism is the most successful economy format ever, and everyone should be entitled to work their way towards a seat at the table.

Those are the tenets of a real liberal, myself. Beyond that, I believe in a strong defense, particularly a strong navy. I can defend all of my beliefs, so I consider them logical. If it helps conservatives sleep at night, and I can imagine some conservatives would have difficulty there, you can call me emotional if you want.

[Celumnaz]

This is so missleading I really don't know where to begin!!!

that's my problem half the time. So much wrong in a 15 word writeup it takes Hours to go over everything that's wrong with what can be spit out in 5 seconds. Sure, I do have more time than many out there... but not That much.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html

Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates.

Already, the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged since 1970

It's tough finding where to begin, and then, goal posts start moving.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

that's my problem half the time. So much wrong in a 15 word writeup it takes Hours to go over everything that's wrong with what can be spit out in 5 seconds. Sure, I do have more time than many out there... but not That much.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html

It's tough finding where to begin, and then, goal posts start moving.

Celumnaz, please read the entire article

The CBO's annual outlook assumes that President Bush's tax cuts phase out in 2010 as scheduled, thus adding new tax revenues.

Even they want the tax cuts gone.

So they're hoping that the current revenue trends continue, that the tax cuts expire, and that the AMT isn't scaled, back, etc., etc., in fact they are hoping for the same things that the Concord Coalition is saying is the best case scenario

Edited February 21, 2007 by Avinash_Tyagi

[AROCES]

Celumnaz, please read the entire article

The CBO's annual outlook assumes that President Bush's tax cuts phase out in 2010 as scheduled, thus adding new tax revenues.

Even they want the tax cuts gone.

So they're hoping that the current revenue trends continue, that the tax cuts expire, and that the AMT isn't scaled, back, etc., etc., in fact they are hoping for the same things that the Concord Coalition is saying is the best case scenario

They had it as temporary for it to pass, and then now the GOP wants it permanent. It was all political manueuvering.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

They had it as temporary for it to pass, and then now the GOP wants it permanent. It was all political manueuvering.

Yeah, but the fact is the tax cuts should not be permanent, its time to let them expire, especially with the baby boomers set to retire, and who knows how long we're going to keep on spending money in Iraq, we also need to scale back the entitlements and trim the defense budget.

[Caesar]

No its not misleading, we have piut ourselves into massive debt partly due to the tax cuts and the revenue we lost, they still haven't payed for themselves.

This is nonsense, I dissagree with the massive dept do partly tax cuts in the trillions you say. thats what in twelve years or so based on the taxes collected today ?

the tax cuts havent paid for theselve yet but they will in about 2011

"If Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, the major economic benefits begin in 2011. For example,

Total employment will rise by 1,087,000 jobs per year, on average;

Annual GDP will be over $111 billion higher, after inflation;

Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year, on average, after inflation; and

After-tax household income will grow by an annual average of $274 billion per year, after inflation."

heritage.org

Edited February 22, 2007 by Caesar

[Caesar]

that's my problem half the time. So much wrong in a 15 word writeup it takes Hours to go over everything that's wrong with what can be spit out in 5 seconds. Sure, I do have more time than many out there... but not That much.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html

It's tough finding where to begin, and then, goal posts start moving.

Well there is so much nonsens its hard to find fact from fugged numbers. just look threw history at the effects of tax cuts. the spending though must stop!