|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Feb 16, 2011 10:26:52 GMT -5
Cuts in basic tax rates are not expenditures, but any special exemption, deduction, or loophole is by its very nature an expenditure, or perhaps to be more precise, a subsidy.
(And like other expenditures, some can be more easily justified than others).
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2011 10:53:13 GMT -5
I think it may be a waste of time to debate what we should call tax cuts. I know "spending" carries extra baggage with it and there are reasons why the government will not define tax cuts as spending. There are reasons for Republicans to not call them spending so as to perpetuate this notion that it is "their money."
Regardless, the bottom line is that the Bush tax cuts eliminated trillions of dollars from the economy, and the various Luntzian poetics can't get around that fact. If you want to talk about why we're running a huge deficit, it might be wise to include this in the discussion.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 16, 2011 12:30:34 GMT -5
Only a liberal/progressive would call tax cuts spending. Then please explain, Ed, why the Republicans keep screaming about the huge, $780 billion Obama/Pelosi Stimulus SPENDING plan - when we all know that 30% of that was tax cuts?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 16, 2011 13:44:19 GMT -5
"Regardless, the bottom line is that the Bush tax cuts eliminated trillions of dollars from the economy, and the various Luntzian poetics can't get around that fact. If you want to talk about why we're running a huge deficit, it might be wise to include this in the discussion."
Wrong! The Bush tax cuts (now also the Obama tax cuts) allowed trillions of dollars to remain in the economy for use by individuals and corporations as they saw fit. It did this instead of sending the money to the federal government to spend as it saw fit.
"Then please explain, Ed, why the Republicans keep screaming about the huge, $780 billion Obama/Pelosi Stimulus SPENDING plan - when we all know that 30% of that was tax cuts?"
OK, they overstated their case. They should have said the $780 Billion Obama/Pelosi Stimulus plan was a 70% SPENDING plan.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2011 15:27:14 GMT -5
It is thinking like this that confirms why the collapse occurred in 2008. I am not pleased that Obama bought in but was hoping that maybe folks in certain circles would keep quiet having received their reparations.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 16, 2011 15:38:03 GMT -5
It is thinking like this that confirms why the collapse occurred in 2008. I am not pleased that Obama bought in but was hoping that maybe folks in certain circles would keep quiet having received their reparations. Can you expand on why you think people are wrong to think of the money they earn as income from their jobs as "theirs"? I think most people understand that taxes are a necessary evil, although obviously people disagree on how high the tax rates should be. But if the money a worker takes home as pay isn't theirs, who's is it?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2011 15:44:44 GMT -5
Once a person turns money over to the government, it is no longer their money. So, this notion that tax cuts are to "give me my money back" or the like is Luntzian garbage. To the extent that it is viewed as earned money, I think people are just not being honest with themselves - Social Security, withholdings, etc. have been built into the system - hence the notion of "take home pay." They adjust their expectations accordingly and would be well-advised to not plan as if that money is their's. At least in my opinion, it is also unpatriotic, particularly in light of sacrifices that our elders made in the form of taxes (90ish% under Eisenhower).
To the extent that this is about getting money back that is one's own, perhaps we should tax it like a dividend or profit distribution at 15% so the government could run more like a business.
The way you frame the debate defines out the problem. The problem I spoke of is that people think they turn over too much money to the government in taxes, not withholdings/Social Security particularly, although they tend to complain about that too.
I don't doubt that my position will not poll well, and I am beyond the point of caring about that, particularly after the experience of the last decade.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 16, 2011 16:10:31 GMT -5
Once a person turns money over to the government, it is no longer their money. So, this notion that tax cuts are to "give me my money back" or the like is Luntzian garbage. To the extent that it is viewed as earned money, I think people are just not being honest with themselves - Social Security, withholdings, etc. have been built into the system - hence the notion of "take home pay." They adjust their expectations accordingly and would be well-advised to not plan as if that money is their's. At least in my opinion, it is also unpatriotic, particularly in light of sacrifices that our elders made in the form of taxes (90ish% under Eisenhower). To the extent that this is about getting money back that is one's own, perhaps we should tax it like a dividend or profit distribution at 15% so the government could run more like a business. The way you frame the debate defines out the problem. The problem I spoke of is that people think they turn over too much money to the government, not withholdings/Social Security particularly, although they tend to complain about that too. I don't doubt that my position will not poll well, and I am beyond the point of caring about that, particularly after the experience of the last decade. I don't think tax cuts are about giving people money back though. They're about lowering how much people have to give to the government in the future. So I'm still not sure why you think the debate about what the tax rate should be is about giving people money back. Even determining the Social Security tax rate is about determining how much of people's pay will have to be given to the government in the future. It's still their pay going to the gov't. It' doesn't m when / how it is given to gov't--the debate is how much has to be given to the government to pay for gov't services like Social Security, infrastructure, defense, Medicare, etc If you want to talk about tax refunds, well, that's another thing, since that's about money that has already been paid to the government. I'm not a big fan of tax refunds though, except maybe if the gov't had no deficit and was running a surplus--that seems like a different conversation.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Feb 16, 2011 16:48:11 GMT -5
If you want to talk about tax refunds, well, that's another thing, since that's about money that has already been paid to the government. I'm not a big fan of tax refunds though, except maybe if the gov't had no deficit and was running a surplus--that seems like a different conversation. So in other words, you'd never be in favor of paying off principal on the national debt? I know it's not ever likely to be a real world scenario where we do pay off principal on the debt, but that sort of thinking that low tax rate always comes first over every other part of of the balance sheet, including deficit or debt is why I can never wrap my head around the idea that conservatives are fiscally conservative.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 16, 2011 17:04:27 GMT -5
If you want to talk about tax refunds, well, that's another thing, since that's about money that has already been paid to the government. I'm not a big fan of tax refunds though, except maybe if the gov't had no deficit and was running a surplus--that seems like a different conversation. So in other words, you'd never be in favor of paying off principal on the national debt? I know it's not ever likely to be a real world scenario where we do pay off principal on the debt, but that sort of thinking that low tax rate always comes first over every other part of of the balance sheet, including deficit or debt is why I can never wrap my head around the idea that conservatives are fiscally conservative. To clarify, I meant if the government had little to no debt, and was running a surplus. Deficit was the wrong word. So yeah, what you said about it not being a real world scenario. I also never said that low tax rates come first before paying off the debt.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 16, 2011 18:09:58 GMT -5
I also never said that low tax rates come first before paying off the debt. But that is what the Republicans have said and done for years. I don't know if you're old enough to remember T-bird, but Bill Clinton had the US running surpluses for four years - the first time in 50 years the US was able to do that. Unfortunately, Edited Cheney told us all that "Deficits don't matter". What would Palin, Bachman, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republican/tea party intellectuals think of that? The Republicans did enact trillions of $$ in tax cuts, largely weighted to the wealthiest Americans -- who, as everyone knows, are the real power behind the Republican party. Too bad for the Country, they didn't enact budget cuts to compensate for the lower tax revenues that resulted -- but then, they knew that "deficits don't matter". OF course, on top of that Bush ran up the biggest increases in discretionary spending AND started two wars.... and NONE of that was paid for by increasing taxes or lowering spending elsewhere to compensate. Why? Because -- all together now.... " DEFICITS DON'T MATTER"!At the end of 8 years of this nonsense, the US and Global economies collapsed. In that case, when both consumers and businesses are cutting their own spending as rapidly and drastically as they can due to the failing economy, the ONLY entity that is capable of increasing spending to try to stop the downward spiral of reduced consumer and business spending, which leads to even more reduced consumer and business spending, is the Federal Government -- as we learned very clearly during the first Great Depression. TARP was enacted under Bush/Pelosi and implemented under OBama and has been an enormous success. The Stimulus plan, though not large enough for the scope of the catastrophic economic collapse, did enough to stem the tide. But the Republicans - who never met a deficit they didn't like when they were in office and were directing money to wars and fat cats, suddenly DON'T like deficits when they are crucial to reviving the economy. Go figure.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 16, 2011 23:57:47 GMT -5
I also never said that low tax rates come first before paying off the debt. But that is what the Republicans have said and done for years. I don't know if you're old enough to remember T-bird, but Bill Clinton had the US running surpluses for four years - the first time in 50 years the US was able to do that. Unfortunately, Edited Cheney told us all that "Deficits don't matter". What would Palin, Bachman, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republican/tea party intellectuals think of that? The Republicans did enact trillions of $$ in tax cuts, largely weighted to the wealthiest Americans -- who, as everyone knows, are the real power behind the Republican party. Too bad for the Country, they didn't enact budget cuts to compensate for the lower tax revenues that resulted -- but then, they knew that "deficits don't matter". OF course, on top of that Bush ran up the biggest increases in discretionary spending AND started two wars.... and NONE of that was paid for by increasing taxes or lowering spending elsewhere to compensate. Why? Because -- all together now.... " DEFICITS DON'T MATTER"!At the end of 8 years of this nonsense, the US and Global economies collapsed. In that case, when both consumers and businesses are cutting their own spending as rapidly and drastically as they can due to the failing economy, the ONLY entity that is capable of increasing spending to try to stop the downward spiral of reduced consumer and business spending, which leads to even more reduced consumer and business spending, is the Federal Government -- as we learned very clearly during the first Great Depression. TARP was enacted under Bush/Pelosi and implemented under OBama and has been an enormous success. The Stimulus plan, though not large enough for the scope of the catastrophic economic collapse, did enough to stem the tide. But the Republicans - who never met a deficit they didn't like when they were in office and were directing money to wars and fat cats, suddenly DON'T like deficits when they are crucial to reviving the economy. Go figure. First--I find it pretty funny that Dick Cheney's name gets edited. Secondly--I'm pretty sure that the Tea Party wing of the Republican party exists partly as a response to the fact that the Bush era was out of control spending wise. Not as out of control as the Obama administration has been, but I don't think either party can claim they were focused on fiscal responsibility in the 2000-2010 era. I think the Republicans are trying to get back to being more fiscally responsible. We shall see if they can change. Signs are good, but obviously actions speak louder than words. Ideally, we can see this Democratic President and Republican Congress be as fiscally smart as the last Democratic President and Republican Congress. If Obama can be as successful working with Republicans to get balanced budgets as Clinton was, I think we will all be better off. There is one problem though. Obama doesn't have a Georgetown degree. I'd be a lot more confident if he did (and if he didn't have a VP w/ a degree from Syracuse )
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 17, 2011 8:52:49 GMT -5
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 17, 2011 9:11:56 GMT -5
I also never said that low tax rates come first before paying off the debt. But that is what the Republicans have said and done for years. I don't know if you're old enough to remember T-bird, but Bill Clinton had the US running surpluses for four years - the first time in 50 years the US was able to do that. Unfortunately, Edited Cheney told us all that "Deficits don't matter". What would Palin, Bachman, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republican/tea party intellectuals think of that? The Republicans did enact trillions of $$ in tax cuts, largely weighted to the wealthiest Americans -- who, as everyone knows, are the real power behind the Republican party. Too bad for the Country, they didn't enact budget cuts to compensate for the lower tax revenues that resulted -- but then, they knew that "deficits don't matter". OF course, on top of that Bush ran up the biggest increases in discretionary spending AND started two wars.... and NONE of that was paid for by increasing taxes or lowering spending elsewhere to compensate. Why? Because -- all together now.... " DEFICITS DON'T MATTER"!At the end of 8 years of this nonsense, the US and Global economies collapsed. In that case, when both consumers and businesses are cutting their own spending as rapidly and drastically as they can due to the failing economy, the ONLY entity that is capable of increasing spending to try to stop the downward spiral of reduced consumer and business spending, which leads to even more reduced consumer and business spending, is the Federal Government -- as we learned very clearly during the first Great Depression. TARP was enacted under Bush/Pelosi and implemented under OBama and has been an enormous success. The Stimulus plan, though not large enough for the scope of the catastrophic economic collapse, did enough to stem the tide. But the Republicans - who never met a deficit they didn't like when they were in office and were directing money to wars and fat cats, suddenly DON'T like deficits when they are crucial to reviving the economy. Go figure. 1. Deficits had no relation to the global economy collapsing. None. 2. The federal government tried and failed for ten years to get the US out of the Great Depression via increased spending. This is like singing Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" in the shower every single day for a decade and then, the day you meet Steve Perry by random chance in an elevator, saying that singing in the shower led to you meeting him. I can kind of see the justification, but it doesn't really work.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 17, 2011 10:20:46 GMT -5
You may want to check the history books on the second point, as it seems revisionist. If you look at a graph of spending during the depression, it is fairly clear that it was steady, but the increases seem minimal. www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?chart=F0-xfer_F0-fed_F0-state_F0-local&year=1902_2015&units=pIt was not until they could really sink their teeth into serious wartime spending that the economy improved. Still, it seems that the party of personal responsibility only takes responsibility for finding someone else to take responsibility. I know folks talked about how a Republican government would show us how to create jobs. Still waiting... Certainly after the Bush years, this kind of bluster about economic prowess seems problematic.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Feb 17, 2011 12:52:41 GMT -5
Interesting. For someone who gets all in a tizzy whenever someone doesn't put the "ic" at the end of "Democratic Party," you sure seem to hurl around a lot of epithets and insults. Fairly childish ones too. Republican leadership has made a commitment today. We'll see if they follow through on it: www.speaker.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=225191 "Our budget will lead where the President has failed, and it will include real entitlement reforms so that we can have a conversation with the American people about the challenges we face and the need to chart a new path to prosperity""House Republican aides were leery that the Senate negotiations would coax or trap them into producing their own plan to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits, which Democrats would then use against them in the 2012 elections."Why can't somebody just be honest and say that until we reach a tipping point where Baby Boomers are old enough and have their benefits preserved that entitlement reform is going to be impossible? The Roadmap at least admits as much -- "preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today)" -- but don't call doing nothing for the next decade "real entitlement reform."
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 17, 2011 12:56:27 GMT -5
Interesting. For someone who gets all in a tizzy whenever someone doesn't put the "ic" at the end of "Democratic Party," you sure seem to hurl around a lot of epithets and insults. Fairly childish ones too. Republican leadership has made a commitment today. We'll see if they follow through on it: www.speaker.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=225191 "Our budget will lead where the President has failed, and it will include real entitlement reforms so that we can have a conversation with the American people about the challenges we face and the need to chart a new path to prosperity""House Republican aides were leery that the Senate negotiations would coax or trap them into producing their own plan to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits, which Democrats would then use against them in the 2012 elections."Why can't somebody just be honest and say that until we reach a tipping point where Baby Boomers are old enough and have their benefits preserved that entitlement reform is going to be impossible? The Roadmap at least admits as much -- "preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today)" -- but don't call doing nothing for the next decade "real entitlement reform." Because AARP is the most powerful lobbying organization in Washington. I hate and despise it.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 17, 2011 13:55:14 GMT -5
The primary purpose of AARP is to sell insurance and to use its lobbying to further that purpose. It does not represent its membership.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 18, 2011 16:21:09 GMT -5
In the mail today a notice from Assurance Wireless, associated with Virgin Mobile, saying they will give me a free cell phone and free 250 minutes a month of air time if I qualify for Medicaid, Food Stamps/SNAP or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It also says that "Supporting Documentation WILL NOT be Required" The caps as in their notice. Your tax dollars at work.
Actually there were two notices included, the second being in Spanish.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Feb 18, 2011 18:24:13 GMT -5
In the mail today a notice from Assurance Wireless, associated with Virgin Mobile, saying they will give me a free cell phone and free 250 minutes a month of air time if I qualify for Medicaid, Food Stamps/SNAP or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It also says that "Supporting Documentation WILL NOT be Required" The caps as in their notice. Your tax dollars at work. Actually there were two notices included, the second being in Spanish. The program isn't being paid for with tax dollars. The Universal Service Fund is paid for by the telecommunications industry.
|
|