Tax Cuts For The Rich Are Dead
Tweet
Well, I’m glad to see Democrats are going to hold the line on something.
President Obama on Wednesday will make clear that he opposes any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year, officials said, adding a populist twist to an election-season economic package that is otherwise designed to entice support from big businesses and their Republican allies.
67 Responses to “Tax Cuts For The Rich Are Dead”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Raising taxes. That will get the economy rolling again!
Well, ten years of tax breaks for the rich hasn’t worked, so I’m ready to try something new.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will raise the top marginal rate to what it was in the 1990s, when IIRC we had exceptional economic growth where for once the lower classes actually benefitted. It’s more than past time to do this.
Obama is TRYING to lose the House and Senate just so he’ll have someone to blame, isn’t he?
Raising taxes. That will get the economy rolling again!
It sure did when we were recovering from the first Bush recession. Though I’m glad you are conceding that you don’t really give a damn about the deficit.
Oh look, Dumb and then Dummer.
The US economy was doing a hell of a lot better during the 90′s and Clinton’s top marginal rates.
Sorry, but tax-cut Jesus is also dead.
Chickenhawks like yourself Jay who wanted two wars should be willing to pay for them.
Jay,
Prove that tax cuts for the rich does not contribute to the deficit and adds to the economy. While you’re at it, explain why Obama’s latest jobs plan which includes significant tax cuts for businesses, is not suitable for Republicans.
“explain why Obama’s latest jobs plan which includes significant tax cuts for businesses, is not suitable for Republicans.”
That’s easy: Obama proposed them, so regardless of merit or underlying ideology, it’s not suitable for Republicans.
Also, HE WAS BORN IN KENYA.
Here ya go, timmy:
“I have several inventions in my mother’s basement. I could be a billionaire someday”-Teabagger
Hee hee hee. Townhall.com. Farris is so precious, isn’t he?
Yes, Rheinhard. Like a nugget that just won’t flush.
It sure did when we were recovering from the first Bush recession.
Actually, we had already recovered from the recession when Clinton’s tax increases took effect in 1994 so it didn’t do any harm. The tax increases in 1990 helped plunge the economy into a recession however. Look it up. Look at avg GDP growth growth from June of 1991 through December of 1993.
Prove that tax cuts for the rich does not contribute to the deficit and adds to the economy.
Deficits are the result of over spending, not under taxing. If increasing taxes is such a good thing, as you and others are advocating why not return to rates as they were in the 40′s and 50′s? If top marginal rates of 39% are great, why not 90%?
While you’re at it, explain why Obama’s latest jobs plan which includes significant tax cuts for businesses, is not suitable for Republicans.
Well for starters that $30 billion ‘small business fund’ is nothing but TARP-light and we know how well that worked out. It also encourages lenders to make risky loans because of absurd requirements tied to interest rates.
Haven’t you people learned yet that the government cannot spend the country out of a recession?
Hee hee hee. Townhall.com. Farris is so precious, isn’t he?
Yes, Rheinhard. Like a nugget that just won’t flush.
Gee that’s real grown up. You don’t like the source of the information, therefore the information must be wrong.
Response to SaveFarris:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26314.html
Deficits are the result of over spending, not under taxing.
If you want to be taken seriously, Jay, you should not write such stupid things.
If increasing taxes is such a good thing, as you and others are advocating why not return to rates as they were in the 40′s and 50′s? If top marginal rates of 39% are great, why not 90%?
Durrrr. Hey Jay, if lowering taxes is such a good thing, as you and other conservatives are advocating, why not just eliminate taxes altogether? If top marginal rates of 39% are too much, why not just make it 0%?
Haven’t you people learned yet that the government cannot spend the country out of a recession?
What pulled us out of the Depression? Did government spending have anything to do with it?
Oh, jay. So many logical fallacies, so little time.
While some of that growth was naturally occurring, the sudden and dramatic turnaround in the economy began at the exact moment those pro-growth policies were enacted.
By this “reasoning”, you will admit that Clinton’s presidency was great for the economy. After all, the economy did better under Clinton than Bush I, didn’t it? Therefore, ipso facto, ergo, hence, Clinton was great for the U.S. economy.
Just because events are contiguous does not mean that there is a causal link between them. Don’t be stupid.
What pulled us out of the Depression?
Hitler. And noone (save an ex-Enron employee) is advocating a Nazi return to power.
Shorter Rheinhardt: I can’t argue on the facts, so I’m going with ad hominem.
you will admit that Clinton’s presidency was great for the economy.
The first 2 years kinda sucked. The last 6 years were awesome.
So, something must have happened between in late 1994-early 1995 that changed things. Hmmm … I wonder what it could have possibly been…
So, something must have happened between in late 1994-early 1995 that changed things.
Do I really have to repeat myself? Are you just this dense that you don’t understand the point, even when it’s spelled out for you in bright neon letters?
Just because events are contiguous does not mean that there is a causal link between them. Don’t be stupid.
Tell me if this time, you get it. Otherwise I will have to dumb it down for you.
SaveFarris, is “spending” on bombs, tanks and planes somehow different than “spending” on roads, schools, and health care? If we’d spent the same amount that we did during WW II on hospitals, schools, and roads, it would’ve led to the same amount of growth.
hey, it’s farris! you can tell because the change during clinton’s presidency wasn’t the result of new policies taking time to pull us out of Bush I’s recession, they were the result of a republican congress, just like how bush’s late-term shittiness was exactly not his fault, but now everything that happens is exactly the president’s fault again, 100%, and will continue to be regardless of the makeup of congress unless things start to go well, at which point it will all be congress —
now with no facts, and 120% of your daily recommended allowance of simplistic blanket assertions!
If cutting taxes is such a good thing, why aren’t you advocating eliminating all taxes? (“We’ll make it up on volume!”)
There are boundary conditions; 39.6% is not one of those boundaries.
Farris is calling for the Magical Tax Fairy again?
Farris, let’s go over it again. Federal revenues have gone up almost every single year since the end of WWII. Revenue increased after tax cuts. Revenue increased after tax hikes. Revenue increased when taxes remained unchanged.
Revenues go up because the population, worker productivity, and the overall size of the economy all increase!
Lowering taxes does not…say it with me now, does NOT cause revenue to go up. Lowering taxes means the government collects less money in a given year than it would collect at a higher tax rate.
Does tax policy affect the calculation of investors? Yes, but only slightly, and only when changes in tax policy are sweeping. Tinkering with changing marginal rates by a percentage point or two isn’t going to drive investors away from seeking a reasonable return on investment.
Tinkering with changing marginal rates by a percentage point or two isn’t going to drive investors away from seeking a reasonable return on investment.
But… but… socialism! Tyranny! Oppressed rich white guys!
Don’t have a comeback for that, do ya, Quaker? Haha, cons rool, liberalz drool.
/wingnut
There are boundary conditions; 39.6% is not one of those boundaries.
Didn’t we already have this discussion on a different thread here, not too long ago? I seem to recall the citation of a number of economists that put the maximum revenue for the federal government at a top marginal tax rate of between 60-80%.
But I guess 39.6% is probably high enough to destroy the economy though.
Don’t have a comeback for that, do ya, Quaker?
Oh, I do!
But that comeback usually diverts the discussion to one of civility, so let it pass.
I was wondering how long it would take to descend into, “You’re just a dummy poopyhead Jay!” and Mambochicken brings. it. Wonderful.
If you want to be taken seriously, Jay, you should not write such stupid things.
Great comeback. If debt goes up despite revenue going up, you have a SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE problem. I know that might be hard for you to figure out, but try. It’s not that hard.
Durrrr. Hey Jay, if lowering taxes is such a good thing, as you and other conservatives are advocating, why not just eliminate taxes altogether? If top marginal rates of 39% are too much, why not just make it 0%?
Answering a question with another question is a logical fallacy and indicative of a person that cannot defend their own position. I’ve never advocated for zero taxation as I know it’s not possible. But left wingers such as you advocate higher and higher tax rates on “the rich.” So if not, 39%, why not 50% or 70%? The left are the ones telling us the rich can afford to pay such taxes and they should be paying most of the taxes (which they already are) so why jerk around? Why not advocate a top marginal rate of 70% for anything over $250K?
There are boundary conditions; 39.6% is not one of those boundaries.
Right, but 35% is going to plunge us into economic ruin. Give me a break.
Actually, *this* is a perfect example of the Ad Hominem fallacy. “You did X; therefore we can disregard your statements, because You Are An X-doer!”
However, you were the one who first brought up boundary conditions; I pointed out that boundary conditions work both ways.
This is another logical fallacy, known as the “straw man”. “Left wingers” do not universally advocate “higher and higher taxes on ‘the rich’” But you attack that argument rather than the one that’s been presented.
Please quote someone saying (and intending to be taken seriously – i.e. no using irony or sarcasm) that 35% is “going to plunge us into economic ruin”.
You’re not using sound reasoning to establish your claims.
If debt goes up despite revenue going up, you have a SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE problem. I know that might be hard for you to figure out, but try. It’s not that hard.
My god, Jay, you’re a tool. We are talking about two sides of the same damned coin. They are not separable in the way that you are suggesting. If revenue can be increased to a greater extent with higher taxes, then you will reduce or slow down the accumulation of debt. It’s not that fucking hard. You want to declare the deficit as merely a product of spending, but not a combination of spending and revenue; though this is convenient for you to do, it’s dishonest and wrong. Why?
Money In + Money Out = Deficit Size
If Money In = Money Out, you have a balanced budget.
If Money In > Money Out, you have a surplus.
If Money In < Money Out, you have a deficit.
Now, there are two general ways to push from a deficit to a balanced budget, or even a surplus. 1) You can decrease the Money Out factor. This is what you're advocating.
2) You can increase the Money In factor. If higher taxes will accomplish this, then they will contribute towards a reduction in the deficit.
Does it make sense now, dipshit? There’s very little I despise more than a tool with an agenda and an ill-deserved sense of smugness.
Actually, *this* is a perfect example of the Ad Hominem fallacy. “You did X; therefore we can disregard your statements, because You Are An X-doer!”
He didn’t make a statement. He answered a question with a question. My original question still stands.
This is another logical fallacy, known as the “straw man”. “Left wingers” do not universally advocate “higher and higher taxes on ‘the rich’” But you attack that argument rather than the one that’s been presented.
Amazing. He (nor you for that matter) have answered my original question but yet you’re complaining about me.
Please quote someone saying (and intending to be taken seriously – i.e. no using irony or sarcasm) that 35% is “going to plunge us into economic ruin”.
You’re not using sound reasoning to establish your claims.
I’m using sarcasm. Look it up. On a more serious note, it doesn’t take much of an effort to find left wing arguments (many here on this site) claiming Bush tax cuts were a large part of the economic collapse in 2008. One of their band-aids for this problem is the support for allowing the marginal rate cuts to increase again at the end of this year.
Now, perhaps somebody will get around to answering my question. If raising marginal rates on the rich doesn’t have an impact on the economy, why stop at 39.6? Who not advocate a top rate of 50, 60 or 70% above $250K?
Answering a question with another question is a logical fallacy and indicative of a person that cannot defend their own position. I’ve never advocated for zero taxation as I know it’s not possible. But left wingers such as you advocate higher and higher tax rates on “the rich.” So if not, 39%, why not 50% or 70%? The left are the ones telling us the rich can afford to pay such taxes and they should be paying most of the taxes (which they already are) so why jerk around? Why not advocate a top marginal rate of 70% for anything over $250K?
First off, my initial question was not serious, but served to demonstrate the point that your “argument” was lame and not worthy of serious discussion. Slippery-slope arguments are usually just weak, and yours is no exception. It boils down to, “Well, a tax rate of 99.6% would be bad, and no one would like that, so therefore an increase to 39.6% is also bad.” It’s fucking stupid, and you know it.
Second off, yes, the rich should be paying most of the taxes. The current marginal tax rate is at historically low levels. The country has done fine in the past with higher levels of taxation. Economists agree that a slight increase in tax rates would increase revenue to the federal government. Therefore, it seems like it might be a good idea to raise them slightly.
But left wingers such as you advocate higher and higher tax rates on “the rich.”
Yes, the poor, oppressed rich people in this country. An increase of 4% in their marginal tax rate is going to ruin them! Not to mention that we left wingers won’t be satisfied until we have every cent of their income in our government coffers, ahahahaha!
Do you even read the words you type? You cannot be serious.
Right, but 35% is going to plunge us into economic ruin. Give me a break.
Where did I say that? Where did anyone here say that? Besides, it has been demonstrated that the Bush-era tax cuts are significantly contributing to the deficit. You want to close the deficit? Roll back the tax cuts. This isn’t rocket surgery.
If raising marginal rates on the rich doesn’t have an impact on the economy, why stop at 39.6? Who not advocate a top rate of 50, 60 or 70% above $250K?
First off, what’s with you and your fondness for slippery-slope type arguments? “OMG, bringing the proposed plan of action to its ridiculously extreme seems like a bad idea as a complete hypothetical! Therefore, the plan of action is a bad idea, in actuality!” It’s fucking lazy. Example:
Q: Should we eat animals?
A: Well, if you think it’s okay and nutritious to eat animals, what’s to stop you there? Why not eat people, too? Do you advocate eating PEOPLE? No? Therefore, eating animals is wrong.
Also, personally, I actually wouldn’t mind a top marginal rate closer to what economists point to as the point of maximal revenue. But if you’re asking why we shouldn’t, or why Democrats/liberals generally don’t advocate that, it’s probably because it’s not politically expedient to do so.
No one can answer that question. An “If” statement with a false predicate can imply any result.
“If Monday is Tuesday, then e and pi are equal.”
e and pi aren’t equal, but then, Monday isn’t Tuesday, either.
So, you’re asking a nonsense question, and demanding an answer or, or, or… or you’ll complain that no one is treating you seriously when all you’re doing is spouting nonsense!
Fine. Complain. You don’t deserve to be taken seriously, because you’re spouting nonsense.
(NB: You wouldn’t be spouting nonsense if someone was claiming that “raising marginal rates on the rich doesn’t have an impact on the economy”. Got anyone making that specific claim? Of course not. But don’t worry – you can still whine and spout more nonsense!)
If revenue can be increased to a greater extent with higher taxes, then you will reduce or slow down the accumulation of debt. It’s not that fucking hard.
No shit Sherlock.
The problem with your scenario is that the US has never had a revenue issue that has lasted for too long while increased spending has been constant (in particular the level of spending OVER revenue). Look at the chart below (and please people. No whining that it’s from Heritage. It’s just a freaking chart). Despite marginal tax rate decreases in the 80′s and in the early 2000′s, tax revenues increased but could not keep pace with spending.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue
If you want me to make it more specific, I won’t say “Deficits are the result of over spending, not under taxing.” I’ll say, “United States deficits are the result of over spending, not under taxing.”
No shit Sherlock.
Despite marginal tax rate decreases in the 80′s and in the early 2000′s, tax revenues increased but could not keep pace with spending.
“United States deficits are the result of over spending, not under taxing.”
Again with the ill-deserved sense of smugness. You really are a fool.
My point is that I do not give a shit whether tax revenues increased. It’s immaterial. The raw value of tax revenue is completely unimportant with respect to this issue. I can just as easily claim that the deficits are the product of a lack of tax revenue. My response to your argument would be that although the raw values of revenue went up, they did not increase enough; therefore, we need to increase tax rates, to increase revenue, and therefore close the deficit.
But I’m not making that argument. I am not going to be the simplistic fool that says, “The problem is that taxes aren’t high enough, not that the federal government spends too much!” I am not going to be your mirror image, Jay. Fool.
If you want to make the argument that spending should be reined in, by all means, I’ll listen. But if you want to do so in the absence of acknowledging that tax increases could be instrumental in reducing the deficit, then you are either being dumb or dishonest, and you are not to be taken seriously.
“If Monday is Tuesday, then e and pi are equal.”
LHW, I really like that. Can I steal it?
And how does one get the overall size of the economy to increase? Is it by increasing the amount of capital taken away from revenue producers?
And hey, look who else agrees with me that raising taxes will kill job growth: Obama’s own budget director!
Claim it all you want, doesn’t make it true. The Bush tax rates were just as in place from 2003-2007, when the deficit shrunk to less than $300 billion, as they are today. The reason the deficit supernovaed to previously unexplored heights is because of one reason and one reason only: spending.
The Bush tax rates were just as in place from 2003-2007, when the deficit shrunk to less than $300 billion, as they are today. The reason the deficit supernovaed to previously unexplored heights is because of one reason and one reason only: spending.
I cannot explain it any clearer to you guys than I did in the posts above. It’s not as simple as “Spending is the problem, spending spending spending!” It’s a combination of spending + tax revenue, at the absolute most basic level. If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to stop being simple-minded fools.
Also, you’re making the contiguity = causation mistake again. Are you not reading my posts? Or maybe you don’t know what the word “contiguity” means?
The system that you guys are talking about is much, much more complicated than you guys will acknowledge. You simply want to shout about spending, and point to “evidence” that is tangential (or at best, less than completely honest) with respect to the main discussion. You demonstrate a complete lack of an ability to discuss a complex issue with any kind of reasonableness. You’re like children.
Regarding overall taxation (which was NOT my original question but I’ll comment anyways):
1. A liquidity trap is where interest rates are at zero. Under such conditions, if you’re trying to encourage more flow of capital, the option of reducing interest rates is now dead.
2. Our federal income tax rates are the lowest they’ve been since the Depression.
Half of our federal spending is for the military alone. We do not have much more wiggle room to encourage more flow of capital via reduced taxes.
What do the conservatives propose when interest rates reach zero, taxes reach absolute minimum above “anarchy”, labor is still much cheaper offshore, people cannot tap into their devalued personal assets, and the economy is still weak?
Suck up the New Great Depression is all I can figure.
And, of course, Look Over There at the Muslims/dhimmis/brownies/Democrats…
What other options will Conservatives have?
—————
Regarding taxing the rich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_CxKt1VqR0
The CBO, Alan Greenspan, and many others, have stated clearly that Bush’s cuts FOR THE TOP 2% contributes greatly to the federal deficit. Yet conservative leaders cannot get their heads out of their own mantras. Why?
Would you agree that “spending, spending, spending” is most of the problem? At the absolute most basic level?
Would you agree that “spending, spending, spending” is most of the problem? At the absolute most basic level?
First off, I need to know what you mean by “the problem.” If you’re referring to the deficit, then my short answer is no, I do not agree. In fact, I think that the question itself is silly. It’s like the old “nature vs. nurture” question when it comes to organismal development – so entwined are these two items, that it is often unintelligible to say that one trait or behavioral tendency is itself the product of nature, and not nurture (or vice versa). The same applies with taxes and spending, especially when you’re talking about non-ceiling and non-floor levels of taxation.
The CBO, Alan Greenspan, and many others, have stated clearly that Bush’s cuts FOR THE TOP 2% contributes greatly to the federal deficit. Yet conservative leaders cannot get their heads out of their own mantras. Why?
For the same ultimate reason that they don’t trust scientists (i.e., global warming, evolutionary theory). Because being educated and informed and an expert in your area is elitist snobbery. This is the same kind of mindset that gives us FEMA Head Mike Brown, Senator Michelle Bachmann, respected media figure Glenn Beck, and Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin.
Again with the ill-deserved sense of smugness. You really are a fool.
Smugness? No. I’m just tired of dealing with a person who can’t see the forest for the trees. But go ahead with the “dummy” responses if that gives you some kind of half-assed sense of relevance.
My point is that I do not give a shit whether tax revenues increased. It’s immaterial.
Oh so now it’s immaterial? When I claimed our deficits were the result of spending more than we take in (despite increasing revenues) you whipped out your “stupid” card. But now it’s immaterial. Sure.
My response to your argument would be that although the raw values of revenue went up, they did not increase enough; therefore, we need to increase tax rates, to increase revenue, and therefore close the deficit.
Except your response to my argument is one of opinion and not fact. The fact is, revenues have gone up. Another fact is, spending has outpaced revenue increases. Whether or not revenue increased “enough” doesn’t change the fact that our deficits are the result of us spending more than we have taken in.
I am not going to be the simplistic fool that says, “The problem is that taxes aren’t high enough, not that the federal government spends too much!” I am not going to be your mirror image, Jay. Fool.
No you’re just going to continue to be an asshat that thinks saying, “You’re a dumb dumb” is some kind of worthy argument. If you feel it has to be made complicated, go ahead and be my guest. Complicate things all you want, but the reason we’re $13 trillion in debt is not because tax cuts. It’s because of rampant government spending. We’ve bitten off more than we can chew. Call it simplistic if you want. It is a fact.
But if you want to do so in the absence of acknowledging that tax increases could be instrumental in reducing the deficit, then you are either being dumb or dishonest, and you are not to be taken seriously.
My statements dealt purely with our issue with deficits and why we have them. Tax increases could only be beneficial in combination with reductions in spending, but we have over 40 years of history to show that is unlikely to happen.
Democrats and liberals are always yapping about conservatives and Republicans not being “serious” about the debt and the deficit. The problem with their approach however is, the magic elixir of tax increases and playing see/speak/hear no evil with regard to entitlement programs is not going to solve the problem.
The same applies with taxes and spending, especially when you’re talking about non-ceiling and non-floor levels of taxation.
I should explain this a little bit. When you’re talking a moderate level of taxation (i.e., conditions right now), you can easily make the case that an increase in revenue brought on by a slight increase in taxation would be useful in reducing the deficit.
Let’s imagine a world where taxes were at a floor level. I’m going to go with 0%, because I truly don’t know what the minimum practical floor level of taxation could possibly be. Any spending whatsoever by the government is going to cause a deficit. You’d be hard-pressed to argue that spending is the problem in this case – rather, the problem is that the government is not pulling in ANY money by way of taxes, and therefore simply cannot afford to pay for necessary items. So in this world, too-low taxation is the problem.
Let’s imagine a second scenario, where taxes are at ceiling. I’m going to go with 100%, because I truly don’t know what the maximum practical ceiling could be. You can just as easily substitute 90% or some other figure, it doesn’t matter for the purposes of the exercise. Let’s say the government still runs up large deficits despite the fact that taxation is at it’s highest possible point. Clearly, in this case, the issue would be spending, and not taxation levels.
However, we are at neither of these extremes. Therefore, deficits can be addressed using either method (i.e., increasing tax revenue, reducing spending). Ideally, you could use both.
But when individuals try to claim that one (i.e., spending) is a problem while another is not (i.e., low taxes on the rich), they are being dishonest or stupid.
So which is it, Jay & Ferris? Dishonest or dumb?
You know all this talk of spending cuts would be a lot more believable if Defense wasn’t off limits- I mean social security I get- its largely self-sufficent, but Defense and Medicaid/Medicare should be subject to reciprocal cuts- why can’t any dollar cut from entitlements be matched by a dollar from the bloated defense budget?
Oh so now it’s immaterial? When I claimed our deficits were the result of spending more than we take in (despite increasing revenues) you whipped out your “stupid” card. But now it’s immaterial. Sure.
You might re-read the thread. I don’t think that this is what happened at all. Of course deficits are the result of the government spending more money than it takes in – by definition, that’s the case. My point is that there are two means to reduce said deficit, where you are taking pains to deny one of the two methods.
Specific, but like a four-legged-table-with-three-missing-legs – completely unsupported, even if you point to the single leg that exists.
Just for grins: how much would you cut defense spending?
My point is that there are two means to reduce said deficit, where you are taking pains to deny one of the two methods.
I never did any such thing. I merely pointed out what is a pretty well established fact which is that our debt is not the result of low taxes on wealthy Americans, but runaway spending by our government. And yes, that includes President Bush and the GOP Congress who did nothing to rein in spending.
Specific, but like a four-legged-table-with-three-missing-legs – completely unsupported, even if you point to the single leg that exists.
Actually, my position is quite supported, thanks. The numbers do not lie.
Except your response to my argument is one of opinion and not fact. The fact is, revenues have gone up.
Jesus Christ, Jay! You make the claim, “United States deficits are the result of over spending, not under taxing.” You make this claim on the primary basis that while revenues have increased, spending has outpaced revenue.
This does not matter. I can point to the same data and say, which just as much authority, that the deficit is caused by under-taxing, which is contributing toward sluggish increases in revenue, such that spending outstrips the revenue of the government. I’m not MAKING this claim, mind you – I’m saying that your claim is bullshit and not indicative of reality.
You cannot be this stupid, can you really?
Complicate things all you want, but the reason we’re $13 trillion in debt is not because tax cuts. It’s because of rampant government spending. We’ve bitten off more than we can chew. Call it simplistic if you want. It is a fact.
Dude, I’m saying there are two factors that contribute to government debt. I’m making it as simple as it can be and still be accurate in reality. You’re the one that wants to simplify it down to one factor (i.e., spending). This is just fucking stupid, for reasons that I have enumerated above in several different ways.
My statements dealt purely with our issue with deficits and why we have them. Tax increases could only be beneficial in combination with reductions in spending, but we have over 40 years of history to show that is unlikely to happen.
Democrats and liberals are always yapping about conservatives and Republicans not being “serious” about the debt and the deficit. The problem with their approach however is, the magic elixir of tax increases and playing see/speak/hear no evil with regard to entitlement programs is not going to solve the problem.
Hmm, what’s this I wrote earlier…
If you want to make the argument that spending should be reined in, by all means, I’ll listen. But if you want to do so in the absence of acknowledging that tax increases could be instrumental in reducing the deficit, then you are either being dumb or dishonest, and you are not to be taken seriously.
The numbers do not lie.
It’s true that number do not lie. But a fool’s interpretation of the numbers can be a lie.
The United States Treasury disagrees with you.
Revenues dropped 400 billion over the last 2 years (200 billion of which was Individual Income Taxes) while Expenditures increased 800 billion, resulting in the growth of the deficit from 161 billion (FY 2007) to 1.45 Trillion (FY 2009).
Therefore, if you’re TRULY interested in decreasing the deficit, you’d spend 4X the effort cutting spending as you would increasing taxes.
Therefore, if you’re TRULY interested in decreasing the deficit, you’d spend 4X the effort cutting spending as you would increasing taxes.
I have trained rhesus monkeys to have better understanding of mathematics and logic than you and Jay have.
Logic? Thus far, the only thing conservative evangelicals have achieved is greater concentrated wealth and power for eye-of-needle camel jockeys.
Shorter mambo: “I have lost this argument. Badly. So, let the name-calling commence!”
Okay Save.
You couldn’t pick out a loser if you were alone surrounded by mirrors.
There is no factual evidence that Bush’s tax cuts for the rich currently provides more revenue.
Shorter mambo: “I have lost this argument. Badly. So, let the name-calling commence!”
1) I commenced name-calling from the very beginning.
2) Regarding the argument…
a. I have not lost this argument – you and Jay are just flat-out wrong, and haven’t refuted my point. In fact, you’ve barely tried.
b. Your latest post was so fucking ridiculous it did not warrant a response other than to call you a monkey. Actually, worse than a monkey. I respect monkeys.
3) But okay, if you want it, if you’re going to have an undeserved sense of self-worth and accomplishment because your feeble brain believes that it has bested me in this argument… okay, here it goes…
The United States Treasury disagrees with you.
First, I would like to see a link for your numbers. Second, with respect to the argument* we are having, I already know that the link doesn’t say what you think it says.
Revenues dropped 400 billion over the last 2 years (200 billion of which was Individual Income Taxes) while Expenditures increased 800 billion, resulting in the growth of the deficit from 161 billion (FY 2007) to 1.45 Trillion (FY 2009).
Even if these numbers are correct, so what? It has absolutely no bearing on my argument. I could interpret those numbers to mean that we need to dramatically increase taxes to offset the increased spending. Here’s the response: “Low tax rates have finally come to hurt our economy and caused the deficit to skyrocket. The government spent far, far more than it took in last year, and that’s simply because of low marginal tax rates! We need to tax, tax, tax more!”
You morons are behaving as though you can explain the deficit with only half the equation. “The reason for the deficit is because of too much spending, not because of low tax rates!”, you cry. But this is horseshit – the deficit is comprised of both components, and you can’t just sweep that under the rug. You’re coming at it from an ideological bent (Waaaah! Taxes bad!) and it’s coloring your interpretation of the situation.
Therefore, if you’re TRULY interested in decreasing the deficit, you’d spend 4X the effort cutting spending as you would increasing taxes.
And this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Who decided that FY2007 was the appropriate baseline to start from? Oh, that’s right, you did. And you put it in terms of “effort”, which is weird. Raising marginal tax rates is simpler and requires less “effort” than slashing spending. In terms of effort per dollar saved, raising taxes would likely be a far more efficient solution.
* By the way, this is an argument in the same way that a man talking to his dog is a conversation.
By the way, both you idiots should revisit my little thought experiment regarding the hypothetical worlds of maximal and minimal taxation before you post here again. Otherwise, the chances are very good that you’ll just continue looking like a fool.
The intellectual bankruptcy of the Teabaggers is on display here. Unbelievable.
If you want to argue that WWII got us out of the Great Depression and not FDR’s policies, fine. You’re wrong, but OK, let’s go there.
What was WWII but a massive government jobs program for the military, but also for the industrial and service sectors?
And chickenhawk Jay has yet to answer my initial question: Why did the US economy do so much better under Clinton, when tax rates were higher than they were under Bush and Obama? Hmm?
They won’t answer any questions Jaim. All they know how to do is spout right-wing talking points. Critical analysis is beyond them.
A. NAFTA and GAAT, things I give Bill Clinton full credit for getting passed. IMHO, it’s the highlight of his presidency.
B. Cutting the Capital Gains tax rate.
C. Republicans in Congress slowing the growth of spending.
D. The Clinton economy was not as good as you thought it was. A lot of the Clinton boom was built on the tech bubble and accounting shenanigans (Enron, WorldCom).
You know who else thinks raising taxes during a bad economy is a terrible idea?
– Barack H. Obama
I guess this explains why the White House was so desperate to sell the “Summer of Recovery”.
Except he isn’t doing anything to raise taxes, but thanks for playing “Look Over There!”.
This is why it’s so fucking impossible to have a real conversation with you guys. You bring an argument to the table, it is subsequently obliterated, and then you just throw more shit on the wall rather than address the previous point. Rinse and repeat. Rather than a conversation, it’s more like dealing with a really obnoxious 8-year-old.
That, or you flee the scene once you realize you can’t win.
You never even consider that your views, on anything, might be wrong. And therefore, you dig yourself into this ideological bunker, an impervious structure that prevents any argument against your beliefs from disturbing your political homeostasis. And if that means resorting to shit-slinging, if that means abandoning arguments that might make your views look foolish, if that means turning a blind eye to simple logic, if that means denying facts, then so be it.
This is why you have the global warming deniers, the evolution deniers, the ID advocates, and the fervently religious on your side. Because your side, on balance, just doesn’t give a shit about reality. At best, it’s annoying as fuck. At worst, it leads to disastrous consequences.
There is no factual evidence that Bush’s tax cuts for the rich currently provides more revenue.