U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 01-08-2014, 06:49 AM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
9,256 posts, read 6,522,823 times
Reputation: 9575

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
I know, reading the title you're saying "no thats the liberals!"

But heres the thing, we're starting to see more and more socialist ideas take root and become popular. The cause of this is that increasingly our system is failing the young. The jobs for the young are being taken by the older generation as good jobs become less common. Our growing inequality is felt more by our younger generations. So of course they look for solutions.

The conservative solutions being presented are "less taxes for the rich", "trickle down economics", and "less regulation"

Heres the problem. Those arent solutions, most of them are slogans. Less taxes on the rich does not reduce inequality. We've tried that. Trickle down economics despite its many defenders here, is generally derided and mocked as a complete failure. And less regulation is great, but rarely specific. These don't go towards reducing the economic problems.

Even worse from some views is that the word "socialism" doesn't freak out the younger generations. It is not seen as a bogeyman, its seen as more and more providing a solution.

So until reasonable solutions are suggested by conservatives, we're going to look towards socialist solutions presented by people. This is a failure by conservatives to produce ideas, and solutions. the is a failure to lead. Being known as "the party of no" means more and more as of late as "the party of no solutions". And we need solutions. medical care wasn't working, so now we have Obamacare. Our economic solution isn't working, what will we do?

What will conservatives suggest that hasn't been tried already and demonstrably fail? That isn't a slogan? That will solve the problems for all of us, not just benefit the rich?

We need conservative ideas that aren't these slogans, that are concrete solutions. Otherwise we will go with the socialist ideas, the left wing ideas, heck we even risk worse!

So what ideas do the conservatives have?
This is essentially what I have been saying for years. But I think a clarification is in order.

Conservatism in the US has devolved into the "right-wing" - a group of one-dimensional sociopaths. Intellectual conservatism has been abandoned....in favor of a zest for pure anarchy at the point of a gun and a quest for restoration of slave labor.

It was this group - more than any other - who elected Barack Obama, twice. Because the people have their number and are done listening to them or taking them seriously. The result is the worst case scenario that is unfolding before our eyes....the country is fast being handed over to the looney left.

The feet of the right wing are already riddled with holes, but they just keep on shooting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2014, 07:22 AM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,706,973 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
Can we have 1990s tax levels, too?
Sure, it would far more honest to have people pay the taxes directly and not hide them inside such ridiculous things like ACA which have an adverse effect on society..

Some of you guys on the left utterly astound me. You think because they build the tax into products, that you arent paying for it..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 09:11 AM
 
8,075 posts, read 2,834,243 times
Reputation: 4452
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Tell you what, look at all the tax cuts that have occurred in the last 30 years. Tell me how many benefited the poor more then the rich.
A tax cut will always help the person paying the most tax. Since our tax code is progressive, across the board cuts will have a magnified benefit for those near the more punitive levels of taxation.

But the tax cuts did help the poor, because the 1982 and 2003 tax cuts lowered the rate paid by the lowest incomes, and the 2003 tax cuts increased the percentage of people who pay no tax at all or actually get paid by the government. So the poor were helped in each case, just not as much as the people at the top who get hammered a lot harder with the tax code.

As far as overall revenue....you can keep ignoring the history of tax revenue as percent of GDP REGARDLESS OF THE TAX RATES, and I will keep pointing out that as percent of AGI and as percent of GDP, if the top marginal rate is 35, 70 or 90%, nothing changes where revenue is concerned. The top 10% will pay around 22% of AGI, and overall revenue will be around 17-18% of GDP...NO MATTER WHAT THE FREAKING RATES ARE. Keep disbelieving your lying eyes as they look at the historical tables at Office of Management and Budget | The White House, but the facts are the facts.

People change their behavior with changes in the tax code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
All the while we are spending less on a % of GDP then average, in fact FAR less.
Absolute lie. As a percentage of GDP, federal outlays since 2007 (when Pelosi took the House) are higher than any period since the last 3 years of WW II. As a percentage of GDP, the first three years of the Obama administration are the three highest spending years in the last century except for the last 3 years of WW II.

We are spending more of a % of GDP on average than anytime besides 1943-45. That's a verifiable concrete fact from Obama's own Office of Management and Budget.

In the meantime, 2009-2013 are the lowest amount of overall revenue as a % of GDP since 1950. Obama has yet to break 16% of GDP in revenue. Now, you may try to blame tax cuts, but let's look at that...

Kennedy signed the 1964 tax cut package before he died. As a share of GDP, revenue never dropped below 17%.

Reagan signed the 1981 tax cut package. As a share of GDP, revenue never dropped below 17%.

Bush signed successive cuts from 2001-2003. As a share of GDP, revenue never dropped below 16%, and when he left office, revenue had averaged 17.9% for his entire second term.

Since Obama took office in 2009, as a share of GDP, revenue has never been above 15.8%. Reagan's largest deficit as a % of GDP was 6% in 1983. Obama has tied or exceeded that 6% every year he has been in office.

You may want to brush up on actual facts before you start spewing this nonsense. There's simply too much data available for anyone with an internet connection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 09:35 AM
 
8,075 posts, read 2,834,243 times
Reputation: 4452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
The problems we have in this country have been building for years and years and I know it is a shock to some that they did not begin with Obama. And those same problems will not magically disappear with a {R} president. Take social security as a example, we all know that down the line social security was going to be a problem because of population demographics- less workers supporting more recipients. We all know that congress spent every penny of the surplus and one day that money would come out of the general fund causing more debt.

Did the people try to stop their leaders from raiding the trust fund? no they voted same leaders right back in office from both parties. So here we are many years later looking for a solution and we have the {D}s stating that raising the retirement age is off the table. On the other side the {R}s stating taxing those above a certain limit more is off the table. So someone tell us how our political system is going to fix this problem?

Our biggest problem is we can not compete in a global economy, need proof just look at our trade deficits year after year. What are the solutions to that problem? Stop trading with China and have the shelves of Walmart bare and thus putting millions of low wage workers out of a job? No, that won't work. How about taxes on imports? and make prices jump up and peoples money buying less? Nope that won't work, so what is the solution?

I can go on and on but the bottom line is most of our problems have been kicked down the road for many years and there is no political will to fix them. Do not mean to sound like a gloom and doomer but the U S best days are behind them.
This.

Every American who has voted since the Wilson administration has a hand in this. One bit at a time, we have allowed this to happen, sacrificing a secure future for a more comfortable present. Year after year, we kick the hard decision down the road, figuring that at some magical date in the future, someone with more political courage than has been shown by any Congress for the last 100 years will just make everything better. And really, this goes back the end of the first Cleveland administration, which was the last time the government was reduced in size and cost across the board. So it's more like 120-130 years since we've actually considered any sort of long term future. Since then, it is one more loaf of bread and one more circus for the masses year in and year out, with occasional lucky bursts of GDP growth to cover it all up.

The inevitable math is catching up with us. Nobody has a positive solution because there isn't one, except maybe wait & hope. The real "solution" if you want to call it that is the inevitable national reset. It's coming, and it can't be stopped. Will it get here before I check out? Maybe, maybe not, but it is coming. All empires fall, ours will be no different.

People don't understand a few things.
  • No Congress must adhere to budget promises made by prior Congresses. This is why all 10-20 year deficit reduction plans are nonsense and packs of lies.
  • We accumulate debt so fast, that within 15-20 years, if we keep all other spending growth constant to last 20 year history, just servicing the interest on the debt will exceed total defense spending as a percent of the federal budget.
  • The growth of SS and Medicare is exponential, and right now they represent 42% of the total money spent by the government, and neither is replacing funds as fast as they spend, and the trust funds are being depleted. When the trust funds go away, payment of these two entitlements must be covered from the general fund.
And every year, we say "we'll fix that after the next election."

There is no solution other than "let it burn." Not that can win a plurality in the most ignorant nation in the 1st World. So we are going to sit back, do nothing, and watch it burn. We have national cancer, and because chemotherapy and radiation treatment sucks, we are saying nay to all that and just hoping it cures itself at some future date. Maybe a miracle will happen. Maybe another global conflict will leave America as the only totally intact global industrial power again. Heck, maybe Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster will come save us. But believing in maybe miracles is about all we have left.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 09:41 AM
 
26,533 posts, read 12,947,324 times
Reputation: 11613
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
I know, reading the title you're saying "no thats the liberals!"

But heres the thing, we're starting to see more and more socialist ideas take root and become popular. The cause of this is that increasingly our system is failing the young. The jobs for the young are being taken by the older generation as good jobs become less common. Our growing inequality is felt more by our younger generations. So of course they look for solutions.

The conservative solutions being presented are "less taxes for the rich", "trickle down economics", and "less regulation"

Heres the problem. Those arent solutions, most of them are slogans. Less taxes on the rich does not reduce inequality. We've tried that. Trickle down economics despite its many defenders here, is generally derided and mocked as a complete failure. And less regulation is great, but rarely specific. These don't go towards reducing the economic problems.

Even worse from some views is that the word "socialism" doesn't freak out the younger generations. It is not seen as a bogeyman, its seen as more and more providing a solution.

So until reasonable solutions are suggested by conservatives, we're going to look towards socialist solutions presented by people. This is a failure by conservatives to produce ideas, and solutions. the is a failure to lead. Being known as "the party of no" means more and more as of late as "the party of no solutions". And we need solutions. medical care wasn't working, so now we have Obamacare. Our economic solution isn't working, what will we do?

What will conservatives suggest that hasn't been tried already and demonstrably fail? That isn't a slogan? That will solve the problems for all of us, not just benefit the rich?

We need conservative ideas that aren't these slogans, that are concrete solutions. Otherwise we will go with the socialist ideas, the left wing ideas, heck we even risk worse!

So what ideas do the conservatives have?
First thing you have to come to grips with are; its not about equality. Capitalism is inherently unfair and when you try to manipulate capitalism to make it more "fair" you get the economy in the shape its in today. Something LSD's can't understand. You can't legislate the economy to be fair. That's the crux of your entire argument. The opportunities are there, you have to physically go out there and make it happen, not wait for opportunity to come knocking at the door. Something LSD's don't get either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 02:00 PM
 
26,332 posts, read 13,416,598 times
Reputation: 12576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
A tax cut will always help the person paying the most tax. Since our tax code is progressive, across the board cuts will have a magnified benefit for those near the more punitive levels of taxation.

But the tax cuts did help the poor, because the 1982 and 2003 tax cuts lowered the rate paid by the lowest incomes, and the 2003 tax cuts increased the percentage of people who pay no tax at all or actually get paid by the government. So the poor were helped in each case, just not as much as the people at the top who get hammered a lot harder with the tax code.

As far as overall revenue....you can keep ignoring the history of tax revenue as percent of GDP REGARDLESS OF THE TAX RATES, and I will keep pointing out that as percent of AGI and as percent of GDP, if the top marginal rate is 35, 70 or 90%, nothing changes where revenue is concerned. The top 10% will pay around 22% of AGI, and overall revenue will be around 17-18% of GDP...NO MATTER WHAT THE FREAKING RATES ARE. Keep disbelieving your lying eyes as they look at the historical tables at Office of Management and Budget | The White House, but the facts are the facts.

People change their behavior with changes in the tax code.

Absolute lie. As a percentage of GDP, federal outlays since 2007 (when Pelosi took the House) are higher than any period since the last 3 years of WW II. As a percentage of GDP, the first three years of the Obama administration are the three highest spending years in the last century except for the last 3 years of WW II.

We are spending more of a % of GDP on average than anytime besides 1943-45. That's a verifiable concrete fact from Obama's own Office of Management and Budget.

In the meantime, 2009-2013 are the lowest amount of overall revenue as a % of GDP since 1950. Obama has yet to break 16% of GDP in revenue. Now, you may try to blame tax cuts, but let's look at that...

Kennedy signed the 1964 tax cut package before he died. As a share of GDP, revenue never dropped below 17%.

Reagan signed the 1981 tax cut package. As a share of GDP, revenue never dropped below 17%.

Bush signed successive cuts from 2001-2003. As a share of GDP, revenue never dropped below 16%, and when he left office, revenue had averaged 17.9% for his entire second term.

Since Obama took office in 2009, as a share of GDP, revenue has never been above 15.8%. Reagan's largest deficit as a % of GDP was 6% in 1983. Obama has tied or exceeded that 6% every year he has been in office.

You may want to brush up on actual facts before you start spewing this nonsense. There's simply too much data available for anyone with an internet connection.
Notice I talk about spending as a % of GDP, and he tells me I am wrong and discusses revenues as a % of GDP......wonder why he would do that.....

And then he cherry picks a bunch of dates.

Wow. You sir are amazingly dishonest.

Why is revenue as a % of GDP important? Because the highest income folks take a big hit in income, and can use carried interest and other methods to move their tax liabilities around, and during a massive depression they have losses. because of that we DO get revenue as a % of gdp down to 15.1%, ignoring of course this last year where its closer to historical norms as the rich have recovered.

But more importantly, this has NOTHING to do with any new ideas, again its a meaningless attack. When you use revenue as % of gdp the right claims its a meaningless statistic, but now suddenly it has deep meaning?
Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP: A Flawed Metric | Policy Interns

OK.

So no matter what according to the prior poster the richest will never pay at a progressive rate?

and in the 1950's were almost all of the richest rich because they moved money around, or because they owned and operated actual industries?

And Reagen cut taxes, and went on a massive spending spree, but hey lets just say those tax cuts were what made the economy better. not the massive deficit spending. Or the actions Volcker took.

Its very simplistic to point at a tax decrease, and a growth in GDP, while ignoring the other factors....like deficit spending, and the volker rules. One could even argue that its the reduction of taxes on the poor rather then any of the rich that led to it.

But lets be real, you're pointing out that right now we have really low revenue as a % of GDP, and its a bad thing....at the same time we have historically low EFFECTIVE tax rates. So are you saying we need more taxes?

But again...in the end...notice something here. no new ideas, no solutions to poverty. Just attack the messenger, and repeat the same old tired non-solutions.

Guess what? I WANT good republican ideas that are better then the socialistic ones. I dont care who suggests a solution, just that they be good ones that actually solve the problems of poverty and extreme inequality. But instead....its the same old rhetoric yet again.

Cut taxes on the rich that solves EVERYTHING!

No, as you point out we've done that a lot, and it hasn't helped the problems i am discussing. This thread is exactly what I am discussing, and unless you folks on the right step up and create solutions that aren't laughable, you WILL have solutions chosen for you that you really hate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 02:11 PM
 
26,332 posts, read 13,416,598 times
Reputation: 12576
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
First thing you have to come to grips with are; its not about equality. Capitalism is inherently unfair and when you try to manipulate capitalism to make it more "fair" you get the economy in the shape its in today. Something LSD's can't understand. You can't legislate the economy to be fair. That's the crux of your entire argument. The opportunities are there, you have to physically go out there and make it happen, not wait for opportunity to come knocking at the door. Something LSD's don't get either.
I always love this, at the same time the RWNJ's scream about how "unfair" non-flat taxes are etc, they go out of their way to remind you that capitalism is inherently unfair. The irony is amazing.

Then they point out that LSD's (in all honesty this acronym I don't know, but I assume its something insulting to the left as RWNJ is to the right-thus my use of RWNJ. "can't understand". that by making something fair we make it worse. Actually guess what? many of us believe that capitalism is awesome.....but not always. just like water is awesome....but not always. We have a more nuanced view, we dont think in black and white. We recognize life is a bunch of grays. Unbridled extreme capitalism is both unfair and horrifying. The assumption is that LSD's dont "go out and make it happen" completely ignores the fact that many of us do.

FACT: There are more democrats in the high income bracket then there are republicans.

Now to be fair this is a new one, its only this year that this has occurred, but its a result of a lot of Republicans leaving the party and going independent I think.

But as usual...notice something? no new ideas, just more attacks on the messenger. This is another person who wont understand why socialist ideas get moved forward.

PS-source for the above FACT:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...d-independents
yes I know NPR, but the underlying data is from Pew. Ignore the text as it may be politically biased as I am sure some will screen. look at the charts, and see the data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 02:21 PM
 
8,075 posts, read 2,834,243 times
Reputation: 4452
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Notice I talk about spending as a % of GDP, and he tells me I am wrong and discusses revenues as a % of GDP......wonder why he would do that.....
Uhm, what? From my post that you quoted in its entirety:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
As a percentage of GDP, federal outlays since 2007 (when Pelosi took the House) are higher than any period since the last 3 years of WW II. As a percentage of GDP, the first three years of the Obama administration are the three highest spending years in the last century except for the last 3 years of WW II.

We are spending more of a % of GDP on average than anytime besides 1943-45. That's a verifiable concrete fact from Obama's own Office of Management and Budget.
Besides 1943-45, the federal government has never spent more as a % of GDP than the 5 years of the Obama administration. I added the revenue portion to show how dramatically bad it really is when net balance is considered as well. But I covered spending thoroughly, and why would I include my source of data if I am cherry picking?

So once more, look at the data from Obama's own OMB....besides 1943-45, the federal government has not spent more as a % of GDP than we have in the 5 years of the Obama admin. Should I type it once more for it to sink in? I can if you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 02:39 PM
 
4,197 posts, read 4,516,421 times
Reputation: 2239
Obama and the Democrats have endorsed trickle down economics..just so it is the government that gets the money and passes it out first...so what is wrong with letting the people that actually create wealth keep more of it? We have a 3.5 trillion dollar budget, massive welfare programs, but little job growth and huge inequality in wages. There is no success in this massive government trickle down economy and all we see is more trickle up poverty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 02:47 PM
 
26,332 posts, read 13,416,598 times
Reputation: 12576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Uhm, what? From my post that you quoted in its entirety:

Besides 1943-45, the federal government has never spent more as a % of GDP than the 5 years of the Obama administration. I added the revenue portion to show how dramatically bad it really is when net balance is considered as well. But I covered spending thoroughly, and why would I include my source of data if I am cherry picking?

So once more, look at the data from Obama's own OMB....besides 1943-45, the federal government has not spent more as a % of GDP than we have in the 5 years of the Obama admin. Should I type it once more for it to sink in? I can if you want.
OK spending on social security and medicare is NOT exponential You write intelligently enough that I suspect you know this, and are saying it that way for dramatic effect. You want to solve social security? Remove the cap on the amount social security can be taxed on. Right now its 110K or so. Just remove it. voila a flat tax for social security.

So now back to spending as a % of GDP. Spending goes up during depressions. everyone holds that up like its some horrible things. ts how we manage to weaken the impact of depressions. Funny that. But wait! I mentioned cherry picking data didn't I? And thats exactly what you did.

So spending as % of GDP, certainly if you ONLY use data thats 3 years old or so your statements true, but federal spending has been dropping rapidly, last years data is very comparable to the mid 1980's or 1990's. Imagine that, as the economy improves, and the depression spending slows suddenly the budget numbers look more normal. Are the budget numbers good?

Now thats another question. You know whats kicking our butts really hard still? I mean, in all honesty. Its the cost of medical care. Thats a major major thing. You know who does it far cheaper then us? Everyone. Mostly with better results as well, and almost always with socialized health care. Its horrible. I mean we are REALLY getting our butts handed to us. Obamacare is a horrible program because it doesn't go far enough. It DOES help us...but not enough.

If we spent like other countries on healthcare our deficit would be gone, and we'd be able to pay it down. healthcare and how difficult it is is a fiasco of epic proportions.

Anyways yes screaming about spending during a major depression is crazy. its exactly what I would expect. Its STILL not a solution.
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:17 AM.

© 2005-2020, 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