The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

[Rover]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

A little quick Googling found that in 2009, 51% of households paid no federal income tax, but that was during the economic crises. In 2007, it was 40% of households, which is probably why the number 40% was in my mind - a more typical proportion over the years. Not sure if the households which pay no income tax have more or less people per household on average - a lot of them are probably low-income because they're single-parent families or elderly with no dependents (smaller), but some are probably not paying tax because they have a lot of dependents (larger).

And sure, unemployed, retirees, disabled, etc probably make up a decent amount of that 40%, but I'm not sure where you're going with that line of thinking. 5MM's point is that high income people should pay more than low income people, because high earners use a disproportionate share of government services. For that argument, I'm not sure that it matters WHY someone is a low income person - 5MM would argue that low income people use fewer government services whether they're unemployed, disabled, retired, or just working at a low paying job. He's right, but whatever government services they DO consume are paid for by someone else - they're riding on someone else's dime.

I'm NOT arguing that they shouldn't get those services or that they should have to pay for those services - just pointing out the fact that they are getting something that is paid for by someone else. Conversely, the rich are paying proportionately far more than the government services that they do consume - they're paying for their own government services PLUS the services that go to those who pay no income tax. I'm also definitely not arguing that they should pay less tax - again, just pointing out the reality. The rich do subsidize the poor's services. We can discuss whether they should be subsidizing even more than they are now, or perhaps less - but it's not correct to say that they are not already doing so.

I wasn't going anywhere with it on this subject or 5MM's point, I was merely curious what base that was calculated off of because I see it a lot but wasn't sure of its origins.

Regarding taxes, I take a much less philosophical view. Taxes should go back to Clinton era rates for everyone, rich or poor. Why? Because that President and that Congress balanced the budget under those rates without hurting the economy. Go back to what worked previously and there's no excuses. Live within whatever revenues those tax rates produce.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I wasn't going anywhere with it on this subject or 5MM's point, I was merely curious what base that was calculated off of because I see it a lot but wasn't sure of its origins.

Regarding taxes, I take a much less philosophical view. Taxes should go back to Clinton era rates for everyone, rich or poor. Why? Because that President and that Congress balanced the budget under those rates without hurting the economy. Go back to what worked previously and there's no excuses. Live within whatever revenues those tax rates produce.

And what productivity will be playing the role of the dot-com boom?

 

[walrus]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

And what productivity will be playing the role of the dot-com boom?

General Motors?

 

[Rover]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

And what productivity will be playing the role of the dot-com boom?

No need. The myth of the dot.com boom balancing the budget is generally a dodge by weasily politicians who don't want to be held accountable by a recent success in the area of fiscal stewardship. If you can argue it was all a mirage, all the more easy to get away with not balancing the budget now. I'm a bit curious why you'd choose to buy into that crock hook, line, and sinker as it gives people a free pass to be irresponsible but you've got your reasons I guess...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

No need. The myth of the dot.com boom balancing the budget is generally a dodge by weasily politicians who don't want to be held accountable by a recent success in the area of fiscal stewardship. If you can argue it was all a mirage, all the more easy to get away with not balancing the budget now. I'm a bit curious why you'd choose to buy into that crock hook, line, and sinker as it gives people a free pass to be irresponsible but you've got your reasons I guess...

The dot-com boom created the wealth for the businesses and individuals (through self-employment) that actually paid the taxes. You could get away with high taxes then because, taxes or not, it was the way to make money. During the tax cuts of 2003, sure in the first year we saw a decline in aggregate revenue, but as time went on, we saw even more revenue come in because people saw more benefit in long-term investments, eventually to the point where, had it not been for socialist policy from Congress, we would have had a balanced budget. If we were to go over the fiscal cliff, sure you might see more revenue in the first year, but in the long-term, less people will want to do things that force them to contribute more, you'll see more holding of capital (i.e. back to the cash-is-king policies of the early 90's), less productivity, and less aggregate revenue.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

No need. The myth of the dot.com boom balancing the budget is generally a dodge by weasily politicians who don't want to be held accountable by a recent success in the area of fiscal stewardship. If you can argue it was all a mirage, all the more easy to get away with not balancing the budget now. I'm a bit curious why you'd choose to buy into that crock hook, line, and sinker as it gives people a free pass to be irresponsible but you've got your reasons I guess...

Ah, now rewriting history to pretend the dot com book didn't happen. Haven't seen anyone try that one before. You really can be quite entertaining.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Ah, now rewriting history to pretend the dot com book didn't happen. Haven't seen anyone try that one before. You really can be quite entertaining.

I think the rewriting of history is that the Clinton economy was completely due to the dot coms.

Once Newt said the world would end if Clinton's budget was passed we knew the right would never accept the facts of what happened afterwards. It's a lot like the revisionism that FDR somehow "prolonged" the Great Depression. Or that Reagan didn't really explode the debt.

There's always an excuse.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I think the rewriting of history is that the Clinton economy was completely due to the dot coms.

Once Newt said the world would end if Clinton's budget was passed we knew the right would never accept the facts of what happened afterwards. It's a lot like the revisionism that FDR somehow "prolonged" the Great Depression. Or that Reagan didn't really explode the debt.

There's always an excuse.

And who exactly has ever said that the "Clinton economy" (nice partisan phrase there) was completely due to the dot coms? I guess you buy into Rover's fantasy that the dot com bubble never existed.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

And who exactly has ever said that the "Clinton economy" (nice partisan phrase there) was completely due to the dot coms? I guess you buy into Rover's fantasy that the dot com bubble never existed.

???

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

And who exactly has ever said that the "Clinton economy" (nice partisan phrase there) was completely due to the dot coms? I guess you buy into Rover's fantasy that the dot com bubble never existed.

Don't be so quick to assume the negative case. Also remember that with the Cold War in the past, many military bases were closed, though I don't think I have to remind college hockey fans of that happening.

The only thing that changed between Bush Sr. and Clinton, in terms of taxes, was the addition of the two highest brackets.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

???

Glad you admit your confused. I thought you really were buying into Rover's imagination that the dot com bubble didn't happen.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Don't be so quick to assume the negative case. Also remember that with the Cold War in the past, many military bases were closed, though I don't think I have to remind college hockey fans of that happening.

The only thing that changed between Bush Sr. and Clinton, in terms of taxes, was the addition of the two highest brackets.

I don't know what you think I'm assuming. All I'm saying is the dot com bubble played a role in the economy of the 1990s, unlike Rover who thinks it's a myth.

 

[Rover]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

The dot-com boom created the wealth for the businesses and individuals (through self-employment) that actually paid the taxes. You could get away with high taxes then because, taxes or not, it was the way to make money. During the tax cuts of 2003, sure in the first year we saw a decline in aggregate revenue, but as time went on, we saw even more revenue come in because people saw more benefit in long-term investments, eventually to the point where, had it not been for socialist policy from Congress, we would have had a balanced budget. If we were to go over the fiscal cliff, sure you might see more revenue in the first year, but in the long-term, less people will want to do things that force them to contribute more, you'll see more holding of capital (i.e. back to the cash-is-king policies of the early 90's), less productivity, and less aggregate revenue.

I think you're having a neo-con wet dream again and typing in your sleep. Come back when you're awake!

Following your dumb logic, a self employment dot com boom would have resulted in a huge amount of job losses from the 22M net gain during the Clinton administration as the dot.com bubble busted. While perhaps all jobs wouldn't have been lost, certainly a great deal would have. Funny, because that didn't end up happening. So, I guess your logic doesn't end up making much sense, no?

PS - How was the trillion dollars we spent in Iraq Congressional Socialist policy? You lost me a little on that one....

Kep - Bob's clearly off his meds or upset there hasn't been a groundswell of support for Rep. Akin. Lets give his wife a few hours to get home and medicate him properly before we start blasting him for his comments.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I think you're having a neo-con wet dream again and typing in your sleep. Come back when you're awake!

Following your dumb logic, a self employment dot com boom would have resulted in a huge amount of job losses from the 22M net gain during the Clinton administration as the dot.com bubble busted. While perhaps all jobs wouldn't have been lost, certainly a great deal would have. Funny, because that didn't end up happening. So, I guess your logic doesn't end up making much sense, no?

PS - How was the trillion dollars we spent in Iraq Congressional Socialist policy? You lost me a little on that one....

Kep - Bob's clearly off his meds or upset there hasn't been a groundswell of support for Rep. Akin. Lets give his wife a few hours to get home and medicate him properly before we start blasting him for his comments.

Once again, you're making outlandish assumptions, this time believing that all of these businesses and individuals gained wealth exclusively through and only started the business because of internet, instead of using it as a tool to better the business they already had. Also, riddle me this: Where is there any indication that the country covered 9% unemployment? Also, how many of those 22M do you think were permanent jobs, and how many, do you think, were temporary jobs that had actual citizens in common? Which do you think were "lost"?

 

[Rover]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Once again, you're making outlandish assumptions, this time believing that all of these businesses and individuals gained wealth exclusively through and only started the business because of internet, instead of using it as a tool to better the business they already had. Also, riddle me this: Where is there any indication that the country covered 9% unemployment? Also, how many of those 22M do you think were permanent jobs, and how many, do you think, were temporary jobs that had actual citizens in common? Which do you think were "lost"?

Flag, this is all nonsense. As I didn't say anything about people gaining wealth exclusively through starting internet related business, I'm not going to defend a statement I didn't make. Next, what are you talking about with the 9% unemployment comment? Are you saying that was the real rate back then? This is all gibberish. Post back when you're fully awake and can also answer why the 1T spent in Iraq was part of a socialist policy from Congress.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Regarding taxes, I take a much less philosophical view. Taxes should go back to Clinton era rates for everyone, rich or poor. Why? Because that President and that Congress balanced the budget under those rates without hurting the economy. Go back to what worked previously and there's no excuses. Live within whatever revenues those tax rates produce.

There's a deal I would take in a heartbeat.

In fact, i would take any deal that ended with "Live within whatever revenues those tax rates produce." Bringing back the FDR rates would be fine with me if you could actually get the Congress Critters to live within those means.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Long range weather forecasts for next week have the possibility of a hurricane infesting Tampa during the GOP convention.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Long range weather forecasts for next week have the possibility of a hurricane infesting Tampa during the GOP convention.

No one wants that.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Flag, this is all nonsense. As I didn't say anything about people gaining wealth exclusively through starting internet related business, I'm not going to defend a statement I didn't make.

Following your dumb logic, a self employment dot com boom would have resulted in a huge amount of job losses from the 22M net gain during the Clinton administration as the dot.com bubble busted.

Nice try.

Next, what are you talking about with the 9% unemployment comment?

Once again...

Following your dumb logic, a self employment dot com boom would have resulted in a huge amount of job losses from the 22M net gain during the Clinton administration as the dot.com bubble busted.

And given the estimated population of the USA was about 250 million people at the time, that equates to 9%.

You gotta do better than that, libtard.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

There's a deal I would take in a heartbeat.

In fact, i would take any deal that ended with "Live within whatever revenues those tax rates produce." Bringing back the FDR rates would be fine with me if you could actually get the Congress Critters to live within those means.

Just what we need, an even more complex system with about 30 brackets and a 94% top rate for people making over $200,000.