Page 37 of 37 FirstFirst ... 27353637
Results 361 to 367 of 367

Thread: Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108 mill

  1. #361
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,492

    Re: Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108

    Quote Originally Posted by WmLambert View Post
    Actually, if this is meant to be sardonic and an attempt to deflect the message - I see a great deal of truth to the claim that Scott Walker is drawing fire, when Obama is orders of magnitude more guilty of the same accusation, yet is not covered with nearly the same vehemence.

    What I took from the original story is that Walker cut $541 million in wasteful spending not just the $1.1 million default payment. That there is still a $283 million budget shortfall is what is driving this decision - not some great quid pro quo to donors. The erroneous claim that "privatizing everything" would lead to rewarding wealthy patrons and hurting the populace is diametrically opposite to truth. History always proves the opposite - despite heavy revisionist blathering by pseudo-intellectuals.

    The Left loves to describe successful entrepreneurs as "Robber Barons" - but history actually shows the opposite. Look at the facts that we learned in the early Nineteenth century:
    government monopolies were uncontested failures - Failures so severe that the populace rose up in anger, ended the political forces that fed them, and turned them over to successful entrepreneurs. The books all preached to the young that big government was the savior and Robber Barons the nemesis, when in all actuality, it was the opposite that held true.

    What caused this was a reliance on the historical works of John L. and Barbara Hammond, who influenced all the school books that followed. They relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Charles Dickens' novels helped to codify this image.

    Would modern day Liberals feel less secure promoting big government to solve social and economic problems, if they knew in their hearts that what they learned as children was a lie? An historical review by Dr. Burton W. Folsom points out that

    The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat.

    What we know today is that privatization works. It is crony capitalism that doesn't. Obama's new paradigm is resurrecting the old British failure of a "Dispensation bureaucracy" based on his executive decisions. It is not the initial Executive Order that will do the damage - but his administration's ability to offer waivers and exemptions to his sycophantic compatriots and letting their better competitors whither on the vine. Yesterday - Rush Limbaugh made a major effort to explain this.
    Excellent post!

    See bold...In many if not most instances. Not all.

    The left fails to understand the concept of "free" in free enterprise. We are dealing with a hundred year old defective concept of business, one somewhat true of the days when this failed philosophy/religion was conceived out of blatant class envy.

    Because the entire ideology is based on a controlled economy, from setting minimum wages to "human engineering taxation" like Obamacare, they have no concept of the results of competition. Because they see government as a place to reward friends - see Obama's appointments - they do not 'get' how the private sector works. They, in fact, have not figured out that the US is mostly a service based economy, that a service based company is easy to start. In one year of Business administration they would learn that the key to profits is not screwing workers, but paying them well enough they stay with you, and the profit center is based entirely on being better than the other guys who are, in fact, attempting to hijack your customers on a daily basis.
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  2. #362
    Sage


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,380

    Re: Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You can't have it both ways. You can't claim out of one side of your mouth that the Bush tax cuts were irrelevant because the housing boom increased revenue and out of the other side ignore that the housing bubble began in the latter stages of Clinton's first term, increasing into the Bush years, and increases in revenue on the Clinton side came out of the tech bubble which crashed in 2000 and saddled Bush with an economy that saw stock market losses surpassing $1 trillion and a significant downturn that coupled with 9/11 cratered the economy. The Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth and resulting increases in government revenue - believe it or not.
    I guess you missed the point that I was making. You were contending that the Bush tax-cuts increased revenue. I showed how two other factors, inflation and population gains, were the cause of higher revenue, not the tax-cuts. When I factored out the effects of those two other factors, revenue in real, population adjusted terms, was still lower than 2000, the pre-tax-cut year. My only reference to the housing bubble was that even with the taxes on swapping houses during that period, revenue was still below 2000.

    The overall point was that claiming that those tax-cuts made revenue grow is a zombie lie -- no matter how many times that assertion is killed, someone will get up and repeat it again.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

  3. #363
    Sage


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,380

    Re: Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    Excellent post!

    See bold...In many if not most instances. Not all.

    The left fails to understand the concept of "free" in free enterprise. We are dealing with a hundred year old defective concept of business, one somewhat true of the days when this failed philosophy/religion was conceived out of blatant class envy.

    Because the entire ideology is based on a controlled economy, from setting minimum wages to "human engineering taxation" like Obamacare, they have no concept of the results of competition. Because they see government as a place to reward friends - see Obama's appointments - they do not 'get' how the private sector works. They, in fact, have not figured out that the US is mostly a service based economy, that a service based company is easy to start. In one year of Business administration they would learn that the key to profits is not screwing workers, but paying them well enough they stay with you, and the profit center is based entirely on being better than the other guys who are, in fact, attempting to hijack your customers on a daily basis.
    While the right-wing pontificates about free enterprise (I guess they only believe the only businesses that should be regulated are abortion clinics) the idea that government shouldn't do anything to control business flies in the face of centuries of debate on the value of regulation.

    Should restaurants be forced to comply with fire codes? Should drugs be tested for safety? Should food be inspected by the government? Government has the legitimate right to regulate the rules of the road for businesses. To think that anarchy is best for free enterprise is idiotic. Even Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations, recognized that government should regulate business.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

  4. #364
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,492

    Re: Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    While the right-wing pontificates about free enterprise (I guess they only believe the only businesses that should be regulated are abortion clinics) the idea that government shouldn't do anything to control business flies in the face of centuries of debate on the value of regulation.

    Should restaurants be forced to comply with fire codes? Should drugs be tested for safety? Should food be inspected by the government? Government has the legitimate right to regulate the rules of the road for businesses. To think that anarchy is best for free enterprise is idiotic. Even Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations, recognized that government should regulate business.
    Well now we've left the debate entirely to focus one line.

    Ahem, how do I put this.

    A controlled economy is not mere regulation. Regulation is not a controlled economy

    NO ONE and certainly not me has ever said there should be NO regulation.

    And, abortion has nothing to do with this, that is neither, bur that sir is a social issue, but nice try on introducing a flame issue into economics, a typical socialist tactics.
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  5. #365
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Once again, someone who thinks that tax cuts have no effect on the economy.
    I didn't say that, not at all. It just depends on where the cuts are made and how the revenue (or profits) is (are) used.

    These don't happen in a vacuum, they have an effect on the overall economy and it is a positive one, albeit a long term one. People ignore the long term effects of tax cuts only focus on one side of the equation CHOOSING to ignore the rest of the economic impact of cutting taxes.
    What you're really arguing here is macro-economics (long-term economic outlook/impact) versus micro-economics (short-term economic outlook/impact).

    Now, I'll probably be accused of saying that I think that taxes should be eliminated altogether (that's what usually happens in these kind of discussions), and that's not what I or almost any other person who supports tax cuts believe. Our tax base should be wide and shallow instead of the narrow and tall model that tax increase supporters want to see. We need the money in the economy, creating jobs, increasing the number of taxpayers and driving tax revenue through having a lot of taxpayers, instead of taxing fewer taxpayers even more.
    I would agree with you. However, when we DON'T have that "increased number of taxpayers driving up tax revenue" through the labor force and yet what few laborers we do have continue to be squeezed even with a slow up-tic in inflationary cost on the one hand and made to bear the burden of heavier taxation as a percentage of their low wages on the other, it's difficult for the tax revenue to come in via the "multiplier effect" that is lamented by conservatives especially if the "trickle-down affect" that has been preached since the 80's never really comes to fruition. This "wide and shallow" net of taxation/tax collection you speak of is just another way of saying "catch as many tax payers you can" from the labor force to generate tax revenue, but "tax a few corporations and business owners as possible" so as not to adversely affect economic growth. In theory, it works only because our tax code is largely based on consumption on the "wide" end and keeping the U.S. dollar vibrant and strong on the "narrow" end. I'd be in full agreement with you if we had a vibrate labor force, but we don't. Ours has largely become a service-sector/finance-sector driven economy, not an industrial economy as it once was.

    In any case, the dollar still remains relatively strong, but the amount of revenue collected can't keep up with the amount of spending, discretionary or otherwise. It's just not possible when there aren't enough jobs to go around, low-wage or otherwise.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  6. #366
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108

    Quote Originally Posted by WmLambert View Post
    Actually, if this is meant to be sardonic and an attempt to deflect the message - I see a great deal of truth to the claim that Scott Walker is drawing fire, when Obama is orders of magnitude more guilty of the same accusation, yet is not covered with nearly the same vehemence.

    What I took from the original story is that Walker cut $541 million in wasteful spending not just the $1.1 million default payment. That there is still a $283 million budget shortfall is what is driving this decision - not some great quid pro quo to donors. The erroneous claim that "privatizing everything" would lead to rewarding wealthy patrons and hurting the populace is diametrically opposite to truth. History always proves the opposite - despite heavy revisionist blathering by pseudo-intellectuals.

    The Left loves to describe successful entrepreneurs as "Robber Barons" - but history actually shows the opposite. Look at the facts that we learned in the early Nineteenth century:
    government monopolies were uncontested failures - Failures so severe that the populace rose up in anger, ended the political forces that fed them, and turned them over to successful entrepreneurs. The books all preached to the young that big government was the savior and Robber Barons the nemesis, when in all actuality, it was the opposite that held true.

    What caused this was a reliance on the historical works of John L. and Barbara Hammond, who influenced all the school books that followed. They relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Charles Dickens' novels helped to codify this image.

    Would modern day Liberals feel less secure promoting big government to solve social and economic problems, if they knew in their hearts that what they learned as children was a lie? An historical review by Dr. Burton W. Folsom points out that

    The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat.

    What we know today is that privatization works. It is crony capitalism that doesn't. Obama's new paradigm is resurrecting the old British failure of a "Dispensation bureaucracy" based on his executive decisions. It is not the initial Executive Order that will do the damage - but his administration's ability to offer waivers and exemptions to his sycophantic compatriots and letting their better competitors whither on the vine. Yesterday - Rush Limbaugh made a major effort to explain this.
    Yours is an argument for pure capitalism. I recognize it for what it is - greed, not economic stability nor shared prosperity.

    I'm in no way suggesting that every man should have the same equal share of the economic pie. Any man who works hard, is innovative and has demonstrated an ability to bring new ideas to the marketplace or even improve upon old ones to enriches the lives of his fellow man should be rewarded for doing so. That falls right in line with "work hard to fill a need". But the other side to this equation IS "shared sacrifice", not so much as in the sense that you give to everyone equally or that you reward those who are lazy and shiftless, but rather that you understand that those at the bottom (i.e., laborers) are sacrificing their time, their energy to produce a product or provide a service just as much as those who are using their minds and influence to keep the wheels of economic progress moving. Squeeze them too hard for profit's sake and you turn order into chaos. But re-enforce the ideal that their work is part of something bigger than themselves and people will work hard for you with the knowledge that their reward is both "shared profits" through fair wages and personal satisfaction for a job well done and a product or service well made or provided.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 02-27-15 at 01:17 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  7. #367
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    ...
    A controlled economy is not mere regulation. Regulation is not a controlled economy

    NO ONE and certainly not me has ever said there should be NO regulation....
    So everyone is in an agreement then. It's just a matter of degree.

    I think part of the disconnect is that many libertarians will tend make up hypothetical examples of how an ideal libertarian world would work (if it existed), and forget to point out that they are just talking about theory and that they recognize that there is some need for some regulation. Others then look at the hypothetical examples, recognize that they don't work like that in the real world, and then assume that the libertarian was actually arguing against all regulations.

    It's a communication issue for the most part.
    Last edited by imagep; 02-27-15 at 02:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

Page 37 of 37 FirstFirst ... 27353637

Posting Permissions

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