Page 14 of 54 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 538

Thread: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

  1. #131
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    He doesn't ignore them. He dismisses them. And no one has suggested raising taxes to 70%. That's a straw man
    For someone saying "try reading" you should really look up the addage about glass houses.

    I didn't say anyone suggested we raise taxes 70%. I said we'd need to increase tax revenue by nearly 70% to cover our current spending deficit to a point where we'd come out neutral.

    Maybe??
    Yes, many things should maybe be on the table. But all of them are secondary to reforming entitlements and cutting military spending.

    And the SS portion of entitlements, which make up the largest share, are fully funded by any reasonable projection.
    No, they're not. They ran a deficit this year and are set up in such a way that a deficit is likely to be ran for years to come. And, regardless of which, all other entitlements still make up the largest percentage of federal spending and still would require reform even if you ignored social security.

    There is no need to balance the budget. We can run deficits far into the future. The problem is the size of the deficits. Your argument is based on a fallacy.
    A concept that works perhaps when you have a relatively small and managable debt so running an occasional deficit isn't a big deal. We've got a MASSIVE debt that is ever increasing with no hope in sight anytime soon of running a true and honest surplus. Small occasional deficits aren't a bad thing when you're not TRILLIONS in debt.

  2. #132
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    You are cherry picking projections, which Walker has never predicted accurately

    There Is No Social Security Crisis
    Were the CBO projections of a 547 billion dollar deficit cherry picking too ??

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  3. #133
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    It is a strawman argument. No one is suggesting that we maintain the current level of spending. What the Democrats are suggesting is that we need to address the deficits through both spending cuts and tax increases.

    Republicans, OTOH, want to address the situation strictly through spending cuts.

  4. #134
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You also seem to be banking on this economic malaise continuing indefinitely, along with the attendant low revenue and high spending on social services.

    Socia Security is a small problem relative to military spending, Medicare/aid, and too low tax rates.
    Actually, it is Sangha whose focusing primarily on Social Security. If you'll actually go back and check my original post you'll notice my comment was about Entitlements as a whole, not just social security. Even when you take out Social Security, entitlements account for more spending than defense by more than 10% and still make up 1/3rd of our spending.

    Now, I think its ridiculous to ignore 10 to 30 year trends of lower birth rates, lower death rates, increased life expectency combined with nearly doubling the number of people drawing from Social Security and expect that its not going to run into funding issues pretty quickly as was evident even THIS year when we ran a deficit which is why I think SS needs to be looked at...along with all other entitlements...to be reformed.

    And I agree, the military is a major issue as well.

    But I disagree with you regarding tax rates. As I stated, and you can look at the federal budget and do the numbers yourself or I can check another one of my posts and show you it if need be, we'd need to raise revenues by 67% over what we currently pull in to account for our current spending levels. Even nixing all of the military we'd need to raise revenues by 35% and I think you can agree that bringing Defense Spending from over 20% to 0% is unrealistic. Tax Rates, while perhaps a problem, are no where near the size of an issue as Entitlements and Defense spending.

    If you want to make an argument with them being #3, sure...I could possibly expect that. But its #3 by a good ways.

  5. #135
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    It is a strawman argument. No one is suggesting that we maintain the current level of spending. What the Democrats are suggesting is that we need to address the deficits through both spending cuts and tax increases.

    Republicans, OTOH, want to address the situation strictly through spending cuts.
    The cuts the Democrats are suggesting, like the cuts the Republicans are suggesting, are largely focused either on 1) a small percentage of the pie that will have little to no effect 2) only ONE of the two big elephants in the room.

    Furthermore, a large amount of the Democratic parties suggested spending cuts with the military is suggesting we "stop" things that we were already planning to stop and were in line to stop anyways regardless of their "cuts" or not. Unless one is unrealistic enough to believe the surge in Afghanistan was going to occur indefinitely over the next 3 or 4 decades.

    Even if we reduced spending by 3 Trillion over the next 10 years, which would roughly average to 300 Billion a year (ignoring that Obama tried to Daniel Snyder it and backload it all)...we'd still need to increase revenues by roughly 53%

  6. #136
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Actually, it is Sangha whose focusing primarily on Social Security. If you'll actually go back and check my original post you'll notice my comment was about Entitlements as a whole, not just social security. Even when you take out Social Security, entitlements account for more spending than defense by more than 10% and still make up 1/3rd of our spending.

    Now, I think its ridiculous to ignore 10 to 30 year trends of lower birth rates, lower death rates, increased life expectency combined with nearly doubling the number of people drawing from Social Security and expect that its not going to run into funding issues pretty quickly as was evident even THIS year when we ran a deficit which is why I think SS needs to be looked at...along with all other entitlements...to be reformed.

    And I agree, the military is a major issue as well.

    But I disagree with you regarding tax rates. As I stated, and you can look at the federal budget and do the numbers yourself or I can check another one of my posts and show you it if need be, we'd need to raise revenues by 67% over what we currently pull in to account for our current spending levels. Even nixing all of the military we'd need to raise revenues by 35% and I think you can agree that bringing Defense Spending from over 20% to 0% is unrealistic. Tax Rates, while perhaps a problem, are no where near the size of an issue as Entitlements and Defense spending.

    If you want to make an argument with them being #3, sure...I could possibly expect that. But its #3 by a good ways.
    Hmm, I don't know how many ways I can say this or if it will ever sink in, but no one is suggesting that we address the situation solely through increased tax revenue. The situation can only be handled in a credible manner by cutting spending AND raising taxes.

    If you pull out extraordinary spending like TARP and the stimulus package, it's clear that long-term expenditures like war spending and the Bush tax cuts are what's driving long-term deficits.

  7. #137
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post

    And I agree, the military is a major issue as well..
    Military Offense budget is over 700 billion dollars. Let's cut it by two thirds. If "Corporatism" needs to hire someone to steal more OIL, pipelines, exploration, government and other rights, etc. They can call Blackwater (Z) and pay the going rate.

  8. #138
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,237

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    So? He is still not right on everything... he totally ignores the Bush tax cuts and the two unfunded wars Bush started. Both of these have had a massive impact on the deficit and the debt load we have today. All he is blaming is the usual suspects of the US right while ignoring the "favourites" of the US right.
    Your buddy shows a graph starting in 2009 with Bush Era tax cuts out to 2019, see anything wrong with that? He also tries to refute something Z says about the history of supluses with this:

    Z: Where did I say it didn't?


    Z: It however destroys the notion that its a TWELVE Trillion dollar surplus, not to mention destroys the implications you attempt to make that suggest that somehow that surplus is something to be counted on in the future rather than a trend that is set to become extinct.
    ^^ This is where he falls over his own feet and fails. No where in that statement does Z say there wasn't a history of surpluses (since he said this history/trend will end).
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #139
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The cuts the Democrats are suggesting, like the cuts the Republicans are suggesting, are largely focused either on 1) a small percentage of the pie that will have little to no effect 2) only ONE of the two big elephants in the room.

    Furthermore, a large amount of the Democratic parties suggested spending cuts with the military is suggesting we "stop" things that we were already planning to stop and were in line to stop anyways regardless of their "cuts" or not. Unless one is unrealistic enough to believe the surge in Afghanistan was going to occur indefinitely over the next 3 or 4 decades.

    Even if we reduced spending by 3 Trillion over the next 10 years, which would roughly average to 300 Billion a year (ignoring that Obama tried to Daniel Snyder it and backload it all)...we'd still need to increase revenues by roughly 53%
    I agree -- the cuts in the debt ceiling bill are wholly inadequate to address the problem. Medicare is the 500 lbs gorilla in the room, and there's a another 500 lbs. gorilla that no one is even talking about -- federal and state pensions.

  10. #140
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    TARP I, not TARP II, and if you want to play the hyper partisan game the spending on TARP was authorized under the Democratic Congress which is who controls spending. Obama didn't expand on Iraq, he drew down in line with Bush's time table. On the flip side he surged in Afghanistan and engaged in Libya. You can keep trying to make this into a partisan bitch fest, but you're doing it one sided. I made no comments in any way shape or form to the legitimacy, success, or necessity of the wars...simply that they occured, and that they were continued and/or expanded. I'm speaking about FACTS, what I just said is a FACT, what you're trying to focus on is opinion and partisan rhetoric. You're doing it in attempts to bait me into playing that game, and I'm not interested, I've dealt with hyper partisan hacks before...you're nothing new.
    1) TARP I & II were signed by bush* and required due to the economic policies of bush* and the republicans.

    2) You repeated what I said about Iraq and Afghanistan, but you left out the part about how Obama had to surge in Af because bush* dropped the ball, in order to go after Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 and has cost more than $1T

    3) I oppose the Libya intervention but it's cost is minimal in comparison to our problems, and I never said every bit of spending is bush*'s

    4) Keep whining about partisanship, but the facts show that bush* and the republican in congress turned a surplus into a deficit and nearly doubled the national debt


    Irrelevant to the fact it was pointing out your idiotic statements regarding the deficit and the effects cuts to the military would have on it.
    No, it's not irrelevant. And you're raising a straw man because I have never suggested that the only thing we can do is cut the military

    No, you stated singularly that the reason for our deficit is "on budget" expenditures, not off budget, and proceeded to post up pictures focusing on "bush" tax cuts, tarp, and wars accounting for all the deficit. This is, of course, all fictional hyper partisan bull****. Cutting all "on budget" expenditures would still leave us with a deficit. Cutting all relics of the Bush era would still leave us with a deficit.
    No, I didn't. I pointed out that your chart only included on budget expenditures. You're distorting what I said. Again

    And it's not my fault that the facts have a partisan bias. The FACT is that bush* turned a surplus into a deficit with tax cuts and runaway spending.

    Ah, so generic "billions" which could mean anything from $3 billion to $999 billion is something grant and to be applauded, something specific like $48 billion is "nothing" then.
    No, but keep on pretending I said that.

    Please, indicate where the cut off in "billions" is for what's "nothing" and what's something to gloat about? I'm eager to be enlgihtened.
    When you mention specific #'s I'll comment. You mentioned a deficit of $48 billion. That would not be a problem. We could easily service that debt with economic growth

    Yes, you've masterfuly posted biased sources that don't actually have the information about the things they're referencing all throughout this thread.
    Yes, you have masterfully ignored the facts included and the sources of those facts. You dismissed a projection of a $22T surplus for SS because it came from a leftwing source. What you don't seem to realize, because you don't seem to have read the piece, is that the # came from an ecomonist deom BusinessWeek using govt published #'s.

    When you dismiss facts without even reading them, it is you who is revealing a political bias.


    Your posts say it, not me.
    Nope, you said it.


    I did, it came from a random economist at Bloomberg who was speaking about a graph he had on a television show, and reported it with a typically hyper partisan left wing slant that is known for the Daily KOS while providing absolutely 0 information concerning how he came to that number, what that number meant, etc save for calling it a "projection". Meanwhile, I've posted not a projection but the actual, official, REAL numbers by the agency itself.
    No, he was making the same exact argument that you are - we have to cut entitlements in order to get the deficit under control.

    And I have explained why that one projection you cherry picked is flawed. You have yet to show how my refutation is flawed. In fact, you haven't even tried
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 14 of 54 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •