U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-06-2009, 10:34 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,357,998 times
Reputation: 9358

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
If you actually read and comprehend everything sag has written, you might find out that these are not assumptions but rational points well made. But then, I have yet to see you carry the discussion by taking Sag's points and debunking them. All you've resorted to is personal attack, and not contributing anything productive to a thread YOU started.
If you actually ready my replies, I did not call sag incorrect, I would assume that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I only questioned how he could call someone a lier that neither one of us knows..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2009, 10:47 AM
 
Location: New York, New York
4,861 posts, read 6,065,770 times
Reputation: 1019
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
If you actually read and comprehend everything sag has written, you might find out that these are not assumptions but rational points well made. But then, I have yet to see you carry the discussion by taking Sag's points and debunking them. All you've resorted to is personal attack, and not contributing anything productive to a thread YOU started.

Stop listening to media rhetoric, and propagating them on teh internets. Use your own logic and arguments to have a conversation.

BTW, did you know Reagan was far more pragmatic with taxes than Bush was?
Sag owned the op..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2009, 10:50 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 19,266,232 times
Reputation: 2499
LOL....it is a contest now to ignore and make up stuff.

Leftists would definitely win THAT contest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2009, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,830,503 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
If you actually ready my replies, I did not call sag incorrect, I would assume that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I only questioned how he could call someone a lier that neither one of us knows..
I don't see him calling anybody a liar. That woul be your assumption, perhaps an escape from having to respond to him intellectually. Saganista's point is that the quality of questions spews propaganda and emotions as opposed to legitimate questions to come from "an expert" (if I may assume the tax consultant to be one).

Let us take a look at #3: "Why do government revenue estimators continue to assume that taxpayers will not change their behavior in response to tax increases when everyone with half a brain knows that this is not true?"

I call it a propaganda because it questions only one side and not the other. For example, why couldn't this "expert" pose this same question against low taxes? Or, does he/she believe that taxpayer behavior is predictable? Anybody with even a pea-sized brain should have seen that coming.

To put that in perspective, Bush's last spending budget amounted to $3.1T, with a projected revenue of $2.7T for "only" $400 billion in deficit. It turns out, the deficit ended up being $1.3T. Why does this your so-called "tax consultant" sound so one-legged that he/she doesn't question this situation, instead sounds like using one of those sound bites to be heard on hate radio.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2009, 10:58 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,357,998 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I don't see him calling anybody a liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Seen these questions posed in a local newspaper from a tax consultant, they make very good points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
None of these questions comes from an actual, qualified tax consultant.
i.e. LIAR...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2009, 11:01 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,357,998 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
To put that in perspective, Bush's last spending budget amounted to $3.1T, with a projected revenue of $2.7T for "only" $400 billion in deficit. It turns out, the deficit ended up being $1.3T. Why does this your so-called "tax consultant" sound so one-legged that he/she doesn't question this situation, instead sounds like using one of those sound bites to be heard on hate radio.
"so called" tax consultant

Where your figures are incorrect is that the budget amounted to $3.1T but the spending was more. Yes, deficits were higher than anticipated, but thats due to expenses, not a lack of income..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2009, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,830,503 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
"so called" tax consultant

Where your figures are incorrect is that the budget amounted to $3.1T but the spending was more. Yes, deficits were higher than anticipated, but thats due to expenses, not a lack of income..
Well, given that many scheduled expenses were conveniently left out of every Bush budget to project smaller deficits (war expenses, for example), it would be hard to argue against "spent more than planned".

But, that wasn't the point of bringing up the numbers, but that anybody with a functioning brain would see unpredictability of taxpayer revenue regardless of taxes being high or low, unlike the so called "expert". His/her argument is nothing but a one-legged rhetoric, not something to be taken seriously.

Even as you work with assumption that $1.3T deficit was a result of increased spending, do you really believe that the revenue amounted to $2.7T as projected by the tax experts during low tax era? Having said that, we're still in low tax era, so, any projections done for now should be fine, right?

PS. No, challenging someone's intellect is not the same as calling him a liar. Some of us find the rhetoric from the person (whoever that is) is questionable, to come from an expert. That doesn't make the person a liar, a conniving personality is more likely who is more about politics than for fact based arguments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2009, 11:34 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,357,998 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Well, given that many scheduled expenses were conveniently left out of every Bush budget to project smaller deficits (war expenses, for example), it would be hard to argue against "spent more than planned".

But, that wasn't the point of bringing up the numbers, but that anybody with a functioning brain would see unpredictability of taxpayer revenue regardless of taxes being high or low, unlike the so called "expert". His/her argument is nothing but a one-legged rhetoric, not something to be taken seriously.

Even as you work with assumption that $1.3T deficit was a result of increased spending, do you really believe that the revenue amounted to $2.7T as projected by the tax experts during low tax era?

PS. We're still in low tax era, so, any projections done for now should be fine, right?
Well your posting is an oxymoron in the fact that
If we're in such a low tax era, then why are we further cutting taxes rather than emphasising balancing the budgets?

If increased spending under Bush was "bad" then why is it so good under Obama? Same with the deficits? Why was Bushs' bailout of the banks bad, but Obamas, who did the EXACT same thing, good?

If its bad for one administration, then its equally bad for the other. I find the hypocracy totally amazing because this country is so full of "me me me" that they dont mind selling the country and putting our children in debt so they can get their $7 a week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2009, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,830,503 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Well your posting is an oxymoron in the fact that
If we're in such a low tax era, then why are we further cutting taxes rather than emphasising balancing the budgets?
Tax rates haven't changed since Jan 20, have they? Then, what are you complaining about?

This also demonstrates you took very little from Saganista's responses. The opportunity to balance budget and in fact, pay off some of that debt was gone when Bush and the republicans went about redistributing the budget surplus in 2001 (and again in 2003) via major tax cuts. As an added bonus, here's how some "experts" saw things in 2001.

[quoteIf increased spending under Bush was "bad" then why is it so good under Obama? Same with the deficits? Why was Bushs' bailout of the banks bad, but Obamas, who did the EXACT same thing, good?[/quote]
I know it won't get thru this time either, but anybody who doesn't stick with a "no matter what but spending is always bad" ideology can see what you don't. Instead of repeating things I (and many others) have said over and over, let me ask you something:
The national debt increased 280% under Reagan. Do you believe it could be attributed mostly to increased spending? Was that the right way to go about doing business?

I will respond to your question(s) soon after I get your response to my question, since it will help establish a baseline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2009, 11:55 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,357,998 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Tax rates haven't changed since Jan 20, have they? Then, what are you complaining about?

This also demonstrates you took very little from Saganista's responses. The opportunity to balance budget and in fact, pay off some of that debt was gone when Bush and the republicans went about redistributing the budget surplus in 2001 (and again in 2003) via major tax cuts. As an added bonus, here's how some "experts" saw things in 2001.
Quote:
If increased spending under Bush was "bad" then why is it so good under Obama? Same with the deficits? Why was Bushs' bailout of the banks bad, but Obamas, who did the EXACT same thing, good?
Quote:
I know it won't get thru this time either, but anybody who doesn't stick with a "no matter what but spending is always bad" ideology can see what you don't. Instead of repeating things I (and many others) have said over and over, let me ask you something:
The national debt increased 280% under Reagan. Do you believe it could be attributed mostly to increased spending? Was that the right way to go about doing business?

I will respond to your question(s) soon after I get your response to my question, since it will help establish a baseline.
Income taxes have not gone up since Jan 20th, but other taxes have, (cigarette taxes for example).

As for debt under Reagan etc, why do you continue to ask me if I think the increased deficits are due to spending? I have already stated comments similar to this

Where your figures are incorrect is that the budget amounted to $3.1T but the spending was more. Yes, deficits were higher than anticipated, but thats due to expenses, not a lack of income..

expenses = spending

Where in the world did I EVER support increased spending by Reagan or ANY other president. If the money isnt there, its not there, be it Reagan, Bush, or Obama..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:59 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top