Liberal free for all coming to an end

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit includes $1.5 trillion in new taxes. He had his chance to lead before. The democrats and republicans left deficit reduction strategies up to the deficit super committee, which from what I've heard were not going to depend on new taxes. Did he forget about that?

There is no way on earth this massive deficit is going to get paid off without severe cuts to government spending and a reestablishment of an equable tax system that treats everybody fairly. We can start with the capital gains tax, make it progressive based on income. Yes, that would mean I would have to pay more taxes.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

There is no way on earth this massive deficit is going to get paid off without severe cuts to government spending and a reestablishment of an equable tax system that treats everybody fairly. We can start with the capital gains tax, make it progressive based on income.

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

Personally, I am very adverse to debt, I have seen how destructive it can be. I see no justification for social spending based on debt. Social spending should be based on productivity of the economy.
As governor of California, Earl Warren used to say, we pay as we go. that's the only way an economy can be sustainable. California was thriving in those days.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Personally, I am very adverse to debt, I have seen how destructive it can be. I see no justification for social spending based on debt. Social spending should be based on productivity of the economy.
As governor of California, Earl Warren used to say, we pay as we go. that's the only way an economy can be sustainable. California was thriving in those days.

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

Hey you lucky SOB why are you concerned about my comments when you are off with a couple of hotties. Damn!!!

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

1- Debt is debt, regardless of who owns it. Government is different in being able to print money and inflate it's way out of debt, which is devastating to people on fixed incomes.
2- Social spending, ie. social security, medicare, etc, must be based on long term sustainable government income(taxes). Otherwise it contributes to inflation.
WPA and CCC were temporary measures to relieve human suffering during a severe depression. They did little to get us out of the depression, however.
The massive Keynesian spending during WWII (for manufacturing war materials) got us out of the depression. That created a huge amount of debt but it was resolved by economic expansion after the war.

I may sound Teapartyish here, but I am not. I am a progressive in that government must play a role in human services. That role must be based on sound economic policy, however.

[TracyCoxx]

Buffett Says He Stands By 'Buffett Rule'
"Warren Buffett says he's absolutely "fine" with President Obama calling the new plan to establish a minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year the "Buffett Rule."

Buffett has long argued that the wealthiest Americans tend to pay a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes than middle-income earners because some millionaires and billionaires often get much of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than basic wages.

Buffett has argued that the "billionaire-friendly Congress" has coddled the wealthy and that that practice should end."

In other news:
Warren Buffett Arrested For Tax Evasion
"In a surprising development, Warren Buffett was reportedly arrested this morning at his Berkshire Hathaway offices in Omaha. Allegedly, he has not only paid less than his secretary in taxes, he hasn?t paid ANY taxes in last ten years. Or maybe it was just an IRS error. It?s not clear.

The IRS has supposedly been going over Bufftett?s tax returns with extra care because President Obama is about to present the the nation with ?the Buffett tax?, which raises taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

What they reportedly found was that Buffett?s company has been paying taxes but it?s Chariman, Warren B., has not filed taxes in ten years and before that he was only paying taxes on a rate of 7%, thanks to some very creative accounting and some help from the IRS."

At least these democrats are entertaining

[randolph]

Some fun with Warren

The Oracle of Omaha told WWN that he must have ?forgot? to pay his taxes over the last ten years and blamed the lack of tax payments on his new accountant ? Scott Dude. When Buffett was told that ?Scott Dude? sounds like a fictitious name, Buffett said, ?do you have any oatmeal??
Buffett was reportedly playing Angry Birds at the time of his arrest. The IRS agents sat down and played for an hour themselves. They all had a grand time.
Buffett can only be blamed for bringing this on himself. Over the last few months he has been publicly making the case for the government to raise taxes on billionaires like himself. Unfortunately, he didn?t think that the IRS would actually audit him ? ?audit, me?!? But, the Obama Administration wanted to tell the public exactly what Buffett paid over the last few years and had him audited and? they discovered he has not filed taxes. But, again, it could have been an IRS error because as the IRS said, ?we?re buried in paperwork over here!?
Sources say Buffett was held in a Federal jail in Washington DC for seventeen minutes. President Obama pardoned Buffett so he could hold a press conference about The Buffett Tax.
?President Obama can now make the case that billionaires are dodging their taxes and that the government should confiscate most of their earnings. After all, most fortunes are made because of a crime,? said Jay Carney, The White House Press Secretary.
Warren Buffet sure was happy to be free:

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.

The United States carried the top credit rating throughout the entire period of running deficits, regardless of whether it was under a Republican or Democratic administration. The rating was downgraded because, as Standard & Poor's made clear, there is no ability in Washington to get anything done.

The statement read that the downgrade was based on the "current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook."

Had the shenanigans been otherwise, the rating would have stayed the same. S&P expected adult behavior, not necessarily a total solution.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The United States carried the top credit rating throughout the entire period of running deficits, regardless of whether it was under a Republican or Democratic administration.

My statement was in response to you wondering why a "massive deficit" is an earth-shattering problem. It was not in response to you merely stating that we have just any deficit or that a certain party is in power.

Originally Posted by smc

The rating was downgraded because, as Standard & Poor's made clear, there is no ability in Washington to get anything done.

The statement read that the downgrade was based on the "current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook."

Agreed

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

My statement was in response to you wondering why a "massive deficit" is an earth-shattering problem. It was not in response to you merely stating that we have just any deficit or that a certain party is in power.

Yes, I realize that. But the original context of my statement about the massive deficit, which was a bit longer, still holds.

And I'm glad we can agree on something.

[GRH]

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

Tracy, given the data at this link is a little bit dated, but more contemporary studies suggest that in recent decades, wealth has become even more concentrated in the hands of the elite few. The "poor" rich folks in the top ten percent of earners pay 70% of income taxes in the US. Well guess what, that same top ten percent owns over 70% of the income and wealth in America. So from where I stand, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the people who own most of America to in turn pay the bulk of the taxes. To suggest the rich are "overtaxed" is to ignore just how much of America the top few percent of earners actually own.