Liberal free for all coming to an end

[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]

This is insane and the administration is an embarrassment to this country. Buffett and Obama are pushing for higher taxes for the rich while Buffet pays little, if any tax. Not because of the tax rate for his tax bracket, but because he chooses to take advantage of loopholes at best, and at worst, perhaps just doesn't even pay the taxes (while saying the government should raise taxes). When Buffett is arrested for tax evasion Obama, who complains that the rich pay too little in taxes - PARDONS HIM?

What kind of example does this set? How are we to view Obama's proposal as anything other than politics and pandering to his base. His proposal is deal on arrival.

And about the evil rich, barring people like Warren Buffet who simply don't pay their taxes...
From the AP:

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

...

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

So let's cut the crap. To tell the segment of the population that not only drives the country's economy, but funds 70% of the government's income that they need to pay more is an insult. If Obama had any interest in really attacking the problem, he'd have the IRS go after tax dodgers like Warren Buffett and collect.

Then there's the Solyndra thing. BO props up this train-wreck of a company with a half billion $, everyone who knew the company knew it wasn't viable. Naturally it goes bankrupt and the half billion $ is gone. The company will be investigated... by Obama's goon Eric Holder. Solyndra has been advised to plead the 5th. The injustice department will ensure that congress never sees that data. I think Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg. How many other non-viable companies have been propped up by Obama's stimulus packages?

This coming presidential race is the republican's to loose. Not that that's encouraging to me...