Extending Bush Tax Cuts

Yes, it does. No doubt about that.

I'd rather my child be a valedictorian (or close to it) at a decent school than a decent student at a great school. Also, there's no reason to keep up with the joneses but I realize I'm talking to someone that just realizes that I live in "Indy". You do realize that the Indianapolis area has great schools and neighborhoods right? This isn't just flyover country right? Oh, that's right. You haven't left yo momma's basement in years. Oh, I forgot. Indy is just one neighborhood.... Keep going, tivo.
 
[quote name='tivo']Nation building is crap, especially for the dogs in the middle east. But we will see what you say about joining the Monterrey Consensus, pushing Global Poverty Act, or being a part of the soon to be proposed Global Taxes on financial markets mislabeled as “innovative financing mechanisms” by the UN. *


* Basically, if you don't know what these programs are, they are the taxing of US to offer even more aid to people around the world, effectively "nation-building" by the fed. gov. - the exact same thing you just condemned but will probably support because Obama likes them.[/QUOTE]

Stop giving billions to Egypt & Israel. You on board with this?
 
I laugh every time I hear about our allies the Saudis. All the shit we claim to condemn, they do. Yet we look the other way because we need them.
 
[quote name='depascal22']So can we stop going back to the founders "mindframe" every time you hear about a Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution?[/QUOTE]

Im not sure I would go that far. Back then I am not sure they believed America would be a global superpower that has its hand in alot of things. I haven't really studied on this aspect though, but it is hard for me to believe they anticipated our responsibilities as a global power. If they did however, someone should let me know, that would be very interesting to read about.
 
Most of them wanted us to be a neutral country without any political ties to other countries. They realized that political ties led to un-necessary wars.
 
You need a balance really. Being xenophobic is no way to act either, yet being tied up in the politics of other countries is a slippery slope.
 
I don't know about giving more money to Egypt, but Israel is ok by me as long as they take out the nuclear facilities in Iran and then continue to prevent nuclear proliferation in the middle east.


PS. Smut77: your link described the assumed financial situation of a professor and his family which was disorderly and hard to follow not knowing the previous dialogue you omitted. The numbers presented lacked reason or explanation and the final conclusion, that the expiration of the bush tax cuts would not affect his taxes, can therefore only be assumed a pretense. The only redeemable aspect of that article was a comment which defended the bush tax cuts and ridiculed individuals like yourself, who support the expiration saying:

"Why do you care whether I am commanded to pay the extra $10k [in taxes] or not? It is not likely that you will make even a penny more if I am commanded to pay it..... you are going out of your way to suggest a loss for me when it benefits you not a whit. I didn’t come here suggesting loss for you!"
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point which I have failed to verbalize. The "Liberal' left wants to forcibly tax more out of the "rich" even though it will not affect them personally one bit. They are emotionally driven, labeling "parasitic greed!" on people they do not know and then ironically demand that the other's money be submitted unto the public treasury. This does not sound like the broad-minded, freedom loving, left they/you all self-identify as. Instead, this misguided malevolence mimics monetarist (or maybe marxist) mendicants marauding with malignity for mandatory misappropriations of many moderate men's money by misusing the mantra that maintains man's material and monetary miserliness as a maxim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/...ne-who-might-be-professor-todd-henderson.html[/QUOTE]

Is taxing the rich that little bit more really going to improve the way things are for the middle class? I mean what is the government not taking with those tax cuts? $830 billion over ten years? So if we take that money and even just give it directly (which will hardly be the case) to the rest of Americans thats approximately $260 dollars a year they are giving back to me (the poor guy), for a grand total of $2600 dollars over ten years. But wait theres more! We (the poor guys) won't even see a dime of that $2600 dollars over ten years because it will be absorbed into the grand scheme of government spending. The arguement that these taxes will help the middle class is disingenious at best, does anyone really believe life will be better if the rich pay just this little bit more? Now maybe, JUST MAYBE if they were going to take that $830 billion and apply it to the deficit over the next ten years then fine whatever. The problem with that is that they won't, just like a kid with a limitless credit card, they will see that money as money to spend.

So I guess the question is what the government wants to do with that $84 billion a year to better things for the middle/lower classes? Is it going to change anything at all?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Is taxing the rich that little bit more really going to improve the way things are for the middle class?[/quote]

Yes.

Although your use of "little bit" here is interesting since you have pretty much stated you would sooner immolate yourself than see higher tax brackets brought back.
 
[quote name='tivo']misguided malevolence mimics monetarist (or maybe marxist) mendicants marauding with malignity for mandatory misappropriations of many moderate men's money by misusing the mantra that maintains man's material and monetary miserliness as a maxim.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
[quote name='Msut77']Yes.
[/QUOTE]

How so? What can the government do with that money that is so dire that we need to take it from other people? Is there even a plan in motion on what to do with it? Or is it simply once you cross a line you become rich, and deserve to pay for it out of spite, while everyone else continues to receive the tax cut? The deficit might be a worthy goal, but do you really believe that is what it will be used for? Of course we will never know because it will get mixed in with the entirety of the budget, but I want to know if this money will be used for something worthy, or am I desperately needing to take additional money out of peoples pockets to fund some other nonsense?
 
How does Israel prevent nuclear proliferation in the middle east? They have nukes themselves supposedly. Having nuclear weapons makes other countries want them too. The only reason we're ok with Israel having them is that they're our "allies".
 
[quote name='Msut77']Put it towards direct job creation for one.

Also Knoell, can you at least try to construct an argument rather than just a series of questions?[/QUOTE]

...I'm asking you to construct an argument besides "they are rich, they can handle it". Tell me why we need this money, we both know it won't go towards the deficit, so what will they use it for? Will it just disappear into the budget never to be seen again?

Jobs may be a worthy goal, but given quite a bit more money, they aren't seeming too effective at that right about now.
 
Hey Knoell,

The deficit might be a worthy goal
Click to expand...

Why is it cons would throw children and the elderly to the wolves in the name of deficit reduction but when it comes to raising taxes a wee bit on the rich it becomes "well maybe...".
 
[quote name='Msut77']Hey Knoell,



Why is it cons would throw children and the elderly to the wolves in the name of deficit reduction but when it comes to raising taxes a wee bit on the rich it becomes "well maybe...".[/QUOTE]

its a well maybe because I don't believe the current administration will attempt to decrease the deficit.
 
[quote name='IRHari']We need the money to pay for the $3 trillion wars.[/QUOTE]

I think your silence was confirmation that this money will not go towards the deficit, unless you are talking about future expenditures for the wars?
 
[quote name='Knoell']its a well maybe because I don't believe the current administration will attempt to decrease the deficit.[/QUOTE]

That isn't how you phrased it before and now quite frankly it sounds like you are trying to cover your ass, anyway tax cuts not counting is uniformly the con position.

As for deficit reduction many economists view job creation as deficit reduction in the long term Knoell and so do I.

I think your silence was confirmation that this money will not go towards the deficit, unless you are talking about future expenditures for the wars?
Click to expand...

Money spent on wars doesn't count as deficit increasing in con fairy land.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not even just wars or foreign allies, look at the billions upon billions of dollars wasted on useless crap like the F22 or the Osprey. Both parties are more than happy to fund outrageous defense contracts, some of which the military themselves don't even want, as long as the money goes to people who contribute to their campaigns or to bases/factories in their district.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That isn't how you phrased it before and now quite frankly it sounds like you are trying to cover your ass, anyway tax cuts not counting is uniformly the con position.

As for deficit reduction many economists view job creation as deficit reduction in the long term Knoell and so do I.



Money spent on wars doesn't count as deficit increasing in con fairy land.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm an honest guy so I'll clear it up for you plain and simple, don't have any misconceptions about my belief that the deficit has to be controlled. I wholeheartedly believe we have to make cuts across the board, and that we are living beyond our means. Tax cuts are not the government spending money, you have it backwards and therein lies the thought process of Msut.

Are you saying job creation in the public sector will lead to deficit reduction, or are you saying the private sector? I don't believe job creation in the public sector will lead to deficit reduction. How could it possibly? And if you are saying job creation in the private sector what are you suggesting?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Well I'm an honest guy[/quote]

You are many things knoell but I wouldn't call you honest.

so I'll clear it up for you plain and simple, don't have any misconceptions about my belief that the deficit has to be controlled.
Click to expand...

I have zero misconceptions mostly because there is zero doubt about what 'baggers and cons in general believe, the care when it is politically expedient to do so and blow it up whenever they get a chance.

I wholeheartedly believe we have to make cuts across the board
Click to expand...

Saying "everything" is the same as saying nothing.

Tax cuts are not the government spending money
Click to expand...

I don't dwell in con fairy land knoell so just say tax cuts financed through deficit spending are like fairy dust to you and we can move on.

Are you saying job creation in the public sector will lead to deficit reduction
Click to expand...

In the long term yes.

or are you saying the private sector?
Click to expand...

For some reason you seem to think that someone spending money they got directly from the government for work spends differently than money someone got through a private company.

I don't believe job creation in the public sector will lead to deficit reduction. How could it possibly?
Click to expand...

See the above.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I think your silence was confirmation that this money will not go towards the deficit, unless you are talking about future expenditures for the wars?[/QUOTE]

What? What do you mean my silence? I'm talking about the deficit spending we had to do because of the wars. Ramping up spending while reducing revenue.
 
Can you not do any thinking by yourself. The stimulus bill is an example of crappy Keynesian economics with no proof of it working ever, even now. Christina Romer, (Obama's chairman of the council of Economic Advisors) has agrees that there is little evidence that fiscal stimulus have ever ended recessions. The last thing we need is another pork filled monstrosity.

Here, from an earlier post:
[quote name='tivo']
ask, 'where did the stimulus money come from?'

-If it was from taxing the rich, expect level of employment and output to be below what it should be.

-If from borrowing from the rich, ask how might the rich have used the money otherwise? probably in a better, more in-tuned way.

-If borrowed from foreign governments, it better be invested in a way that generates a reliable stream of income to eventually repay the debt. Otherwise, we will be reducing future demand and basically shifting a more serious recession forward in time.

- If it is financed by printing money, expect short-term employment gains followed by inflation and economic destruction later.

Are any of these ways a good idea to restore economic growth?

The solution:

As Jason Furman (Deputy Director of the White House National Economic Council) said, "The Key to economic growth is higher saving and investment to increase the capital stock and thus the productive capacity of the economy."
[/quote]


And that is the opposite of what keynes preached and what his modern nut job followers like the guy in your link want.


P.S. I've lost all respect for noble prizes. From Al Gore, to Obama, to this guy, the prize is a scarlet letter.
 
I don't trust anyone who has won a Noble prize either, they have all turned out to be frauds impersonating actual Nobel prize winners.

P.s. You already let the cat out of the bag when you named Thomas Friedman as your favorite Economist.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I don't trust anyone who has won a Noble prize either, they have all turned out to be frauds impersonating actual Nobel prize winners.

P.s. You already let the cat out of the bag when you named Thomas Friedman as your favorite Economist.[/QUOTE]

That might be the first time we agreed on something. :hot:

P.S. Thomas Friedman is not my favorite economist. I never said that. I only referenced his work.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Thomas Friedman is an economist?[/QUOTE]

thanks for the double post. and no, he is not classified as an economist, I never said that. I think I said something about globalization a long time ago which smut or someone referenced to as one of Friedman's views which isn't insulting to me at all. In any respect, Smut called Friedman an economist probably because he's misinformed and never read one of his books. Why don't you get on his back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top