Let's be honest about the Tax Cuts

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by mn311601

I'll support going back to Clinton tax levels if we can go back to Clinton spending levels. Anyone who thinks that rolling back the tax levels to pre Bush levels is going to magically balance the budget needs their head examined. The spending is 3.6 Trillion plus, the highest tax receipts from Clinton levels didn't come close to 3 Trillion.

I'm assuming here that your going back to Clinton spending levels includes deep cuts in the military. If so, I agree.

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

I'm a democrat, and I would support it. I don't think taxes should be as low as they are for upper or lower earners. They just don't square with historical spending levels.

Obviously, when we do this depends upon the economy actually being out of intensive care. I think we are out of the deepest crisis already, but the slow unemployment recovery does not make anyone happy. Ironically, government layoffs are a major cause of our elevated employment rate. If the GOP in congress had not stalled the jobs bill or federal transfer funds to states and municipalities, UE would probably be below 8% by now. Like any tax hike it needs to be done by second term president and who actually cares about doing his/her job.

All very true and the complete explanation as to why the GOP made sure those job saving bills didn't happen. They wanted the unemployment rate to go up, they knew the higher it gets the better it is for their election chances, so they deliberately have been blocking bills (like the two you mentioned) specifically to make the economy worse. That is the Republicans goal.

I can't vote for people who deliberately make the country worse because they think it is in their partisan interests. That's just unAmerican.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by mn311601

I'll support going back to Clinton tax levels if we can go back to Clinton spending levels. Anyone who thinks that rolling back the tax levels to pre Bush levels is going to magically balance the budget needs their head examined. The spending is 3.6 Trillion plus, the highest tax receipts from Clinton levels didn't come close to 3 Trillion.

I'd also insist amongst all the Clinton nostalgia, EITC subsidies be reduced to 1/20/1993 levels.

[RCCCB]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

Let's be honest for a minute. Even if all the Bush II tax cuts were relaxed, we would only be going back the the Clinton era tax levels. This was not the end of the world. I understand the logic of extending the cuts a bit because of the recession and constrained demand. But it is only a defibrillator treatment for the economy, not a sustainable tax policy.

Notice you NEVER here these people talking about massively shrinking the size of the costly government that has grown like the tax payers money sucking black hole. Always about taking the citizens tax money to feed the government. WOW!~

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

I never indicated it went to a select few, but the individuals at the top are the largest beneficiaries, cashing in a few million shares of a stock at 15% is a great advantage.

And those "few million shares" of stock, what did that do?

That provided working Capital for a corporation in the form of cash, to effect repairs (creating jobs), to engage in research and development (creating jobs), to increase marketing and advertising (creating jobs), to train employees (creating jobs), to purchase or upgrade equipment and machinery (creating jobs).....

Shall I continue?

And you didn't benefit from that? Yes you did.

Originally Posted by Goodnight

This is the largest depression since the 1930's...

Says who? Based on what evidence?

Originally Posted by Goodnight

.., why wouldn't you expect those at the bottom to receive more than they pay, isn't that the purpose of government social support programs.

Because they do not deserve it.

You have 47+ Million households on Food Stamps, yet you have 99 Million households with cable or satellite or both.

Am I buying food so families can eat, or am I paying their cable bill so they can watch 435 channels of **** on the TV?

Is that the purpose of government social support programs? To make sure everyone has cable or satellite or both?

Originally Posted by Goodnight

Since 2008 we have around 10% unemployment, more people on food stamps, welfare, disability, of course they will require more funding.

But they don't require more funding. I just proved they don't.

You got any facts or evidence to back up your claim?

Originally Posted by Goodnight

The war created jobs, factories, seems like overspending got us out of the last depression.

Who many people did you kill during that war?

And what happened when the war ended? You went right back into a depression.

The only reason you came out of that depression is due to the fact that Europe had been wiped out, with its manufacturing and agricultural base damaged severely or destroyed, it's infrastructure heavily damaged or destroyed, its ports, highways, railroads all damaged or destroyed, and millions of workers were dead and millions more injured.

You were the only game in town with an intact agricultural, industrial and infrastructure base.

So you just choose to ignore that minor detail? I can see why.

Your claim of "over-spending" is an outrageous lie as well. The government did not spend, rather the government invested.

The government bought tanks, trucks, jeeps, all manner of military vehicles, aircraft, parts for vehicles and aircraft and ships, plus all manner of weapons.

See the difference? The government bought something -- a cold hard commodity -- it didn't just toss money out into the wind.

And then what did the government do with the things they bought? They sold them to foreign countries for money.

Right? A Democrat President, namely Harry Truman and a Democrat-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate over-threw the Greek governments and installed a puppet-dictator and then sold hundreds of Sherman tanks to the Greeks, and then, later, when a Democrat President, namely Johnson, and a Democrat-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate over-threw the Greek government again in 1967, they sold hundreds of M48 Patton tanks to the Greeks.

Any of this ringing a bell?

What happened to all of the destroyers you sold to Pakistan? Well, India put PNS Khaibar and PNS Shahjahan (along with a US minesweeper and two fast frigates) at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, but fortunately. Pakistan had already paid the US for them.

See the difference? Giving away $1 in tax-payer money and getting nothing in return is spending; allocating $1 in tax-payer money and getting $3.18 in return is investing.

Also, you don't seem to understand that recessions are about eliminating inefficiency and waste, while depressions are about eliminating grotesque inefficiency and waste. That is accomplished through a shift in Capital to more efficient uses --- if such efficient uses exist.

Capital includes Labor. If there is no efficient use of Labor, then it does not get used.

In the 1970s, you had gross inefficiency and waste. The result was a recession where there was a regional shift in Capital -- the textile mills in the New England States moved to the Southeast, and manufacturing in the Midwest moved to the South and Southwest (creating the Rust Belt in the Midwest).

What happened in the 1990s? You had excess Capital in the defense industry. The end of the Cold War caused that inefficient use of Capital, including Labor, to be shifted elsewhere to be used more efficiently --- but there was an outlet for the excess Labor.

You had another recession again in 2000, due to inefficient use of Capital, and in particular Labor as everyone was preparing for Y2K and Millennium Fever and Apocalypse Nonsense. You never actually recovered from that. Labor was shifted, but you still had great inefficiency and that's why you had another recession.

The difference here, is that there is no outlet for your Labor. It is excess Labor. And it will be excess for a long time, so does it make sense to pay unemployment benefits to people who will never work again?

No, it doesn't. That's a waste of Capital; a waste of money; a waste of time; a waste of resources.

What you're doing is painting a car and filling up the tank with gasoline when it has no engine and no tires and you can't use it. So what happened to the money you spent on gasoline and an Earl Schreib paint job?

You threw that money away, and you'll never get that money back.

Historically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Let me see if you have ANY clue about it.

Like you do?

Don't worry, your title and position as Least Competent Economist is secure.

Cluing...

Mircea

[sacredgrooves]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

All very true and the complete explanation as to why the GOP made sure those job saving bills didn't happen. They wanted the unemployment rate to go up, they knew the higher it gets the better it is for their election chances, so they deliberately have been blocking bills (like the two you mentioned) specifically to make the economy worse. That is the Republicans goal.

I can't vote for people who deliberately make the country worse because they think it is in their partisan interests. That's just unAmerican.

Then I would assume you have never voted, including for the democrats in 2004, 2006, and 2008? The American form of politics is to prevent the other side from achieving anything. It has always been that way, and likely always will.