Tax cuts: close-mindedness from the left

JasperL · Nov 18, 2017

Moderate Right said:
Here is your chance to flat out deny. If you could add 2 trillion dollars to the debt to help poor people would you do it?

I just answered that question.

I'll just add as stated it's an incredibly stupid question. Basically, the relevant question is whether or not adding $2 trillion to the debt over an unknown period of time can ever be justified. The answer is of course it can be. We'll add far more than $2 trillion to the debt in the next decade to help the "poor", fund the military, roads, FBI, CIA, the elderly through Medicare and SS and more! Trying to cut a $trillion per year from spending overnight would crash the economy. So, no, I don't favor that.

Beyond that, what you're asking is if, given some unknown fiscal and economic and national security conditions as a starting point, which you don't specify because it's a fantasy, would I support an unknown NEW program to do unknown things but with the vague purpose to help some unknown part of the "poor" if the downside was to add $2 trillion in debt over some unknown period of years. I don't know. Would I support an unknown tax reform package that added $2 trillion to the debt over some unknown period of time? Don't know. Would I support an increase in military spending for unknown reasons that over time adds $2T to debt. Don't know. Etc......

And the reason is I'm not a robot and so generally use my brain to weigh positives and negatives in a world where nearly every decision has positives and negatives and deciding what is the best of bad or imperfect choices in a given situation is difficult, and simple rules (Yes or no without regard to any unknown details!) to determine those choices is what stupid people would do.

Fraggle Rock · Nov 18, 2017

Moderate Right said:
Finally, an admission that you don't give a damn if 2 trillion dollars is added to the debt. So, don't hypocritically blast the Republican tax plan tor adding 2 trillion dollars to the debt.

???? Does that not represent your beliefs in the reverse. I think the poster you are referring means they rather have the money go to the needy rather than the Wealthy. If you are blowing a hole in the deficit anyway it seems more appropriate to give the lower taxpayers relief rather than corporations and wealthy individuals.

Critter7r · Nov 18, 2017

Moderate Right said:
I just want the left to be honest. Why do they have to lie? They are complaining about the Republican's tax plan adding 2 trillion dollars onto the debt but the left could care less about the 2 trillion dollars in the first place. This is why the left could care less about the national debt. They will spend untold trillions of dollars as long as they believe they are helping someone, even if many of them are involved in laziness and fraud.

Adding $2T to the debt while claiming to be "fiscally responsible" is just ONE of the problems with this bill. Adding 1% to the middle class's take home pay (about $500 on $75,000 gross income) while adding 4% to the wealthy's take home pay ($30,000 on $1M gross) is another. If those percentages were reversed, I'd be this bill's biggest cheerleader, even though the wealthy would still get a larger dollar amount.

Moderate Right · Nov 18, 2017

JasperL said:
I just answered that question.

I'll just add as stated it's an incredibly stupid question. Basically, the relevant question is whether or not adding $2 trillion to the debt over an unknown period of time can ever be justified. The answer is of course it can be. We'll add far more than $2 trillion to the debt in the next decade to help the "poor", fund the military, roads, FBI, CIA, the elderly through Medicare and SS and more! Trying to cut a $trillion per year from spending overnight would crash the economy. So, no, I don't favor that.

Beyond that, what you're asking is if, given some unknown fiscal and economic and national security conditions as a starting point, which you don't specify because it's a fantasy, would I support an unknown NEW program to do unknown things but with the vague purpose to help some unknown part of the "poor" if the downside was to add $2 trillion in debt over some unknown period of years. I don't know. Would I support an unknown tax reform package that added $2 trillion to the debt over some unknown period of time? Don't know. Would I support an increase in military spending for unknown reasons that over time adds $2T to debt. Don't know. Etc......

And the reason is I'm not a robot and so generally use my brain to weigh positives and negatives in a world where nearly every decision has positives and negatives and deciding what is the best of bad or imperfect choices in a given situation is difficult, and simple rules (Yes or no without regard to any unknown details!) to determine those choices is what stupid people would do.

OK. Sounds like the bottom line is you blast Republicans for a tax policy which adds about 2 trillion dollars to the debt and then when I ask you if you would be fine adding 2 trillion dollars to the debt if it helped the poor you can't say no and the best you can say is, "I don't know".

Moderate Right · Nov 18, 2017

Fraggle Rock said:
???? Does that not represent your beliefs in the reverse. I think the poster you are referring means they rather have the money go to the needy rather than the Wealthy. If you are blowing a hole in the deficit anyway it seems more appropriate to give the lower taxpayers relief rather than corporations and wealthy individuals.

But, they blast the Republican plan for adding 2 trillion dollars to the debt when they themselves are perfectly fine with adding 2 trillion dollars to the debt. Their argument should be that they would rather have the 2 trillion go to the poor than to the rich but that's not what they have been saying. They are criticizing the Republican plan because it adds 2 trillion dollars to the debt. Hypocritical.

Moderate Right · Nov 18, 2017

Critter7r said:
Adding $2T to the debt while claiming to be "fiscally responsible" is just ONE of the problems with this bill. Adding 1% to the middle class's take home pay (about $500 on $75,000 gross income) while adding 4% to the wealthy's take home pay ($30,000 on $1M gross) is another. If those percentages were reversed, I'd be this bill's biggest cheerleader, even though the wealthy would still get a larger dollar amount.

I'll mostly agree with that but I am a big believer that everyone over the poverty level should be paying some sort of federal income taxes (please spare me the BS that these people still pay other taxes because the rich pay other taxes too and much more of them than the poor do). I personally think there should be a minimum tax per various income levels. No matter how many deductions and credits you have, you still have to pay X amount of dollars in taxes. The poverty level is around 15% so only that percentage should be paying zero. Let's say someone earning 25k per year has to pay a minimum tax of $100 and so on and so on up the income levels, including the rich who, like I said, no matter how many deductions and tax credits they have, they still have to pay the minimum tax for that income level. However, I do believe that corporate tax rates are too high and lowering them would create jobs and bring jobs back to the US as well as keeping some jobs in the US.

cpwill · Nov 18, 2017

radcen said:
Tax cuts: close-mindedness from the left

Just perception, based on observation, but... I suspect that the right could come up with the most awesome tax cut and reform that would be of great benefit to the middle class and the poor, give them virtually everything they want and need, and yet the left would still complain if by chance the wealthy someone got some small benefit, too.

Lower/middle class get what it needs, left's response is: " :2mad: ZOMG! More tax cuts for the wealthy! This is so unfair!"

Well, given that that's the people we tax, it's sort of hard to cut taxes without benefiting them.

But yeah, it's kind of a dishonest thing they do.

JasperL · Nov 18, 2017

Moderate Right said:
OK. Sounds like the bottom line is you blast Republicans for a tax policy which adds about 2 trillion dollars to the debt and then when I ask you if you would be fine adding 2 trillion dollars to the debt if it helped the poor you can't say no and the best you can say is, "I don't know".

That's correct! All the details of your proposal are "unknown" except the amount added to debt, but over an unknown period of time. Why would anyone commit to supporting OR opposing any proposal ahead of time when nothing about it is known?

The flip side of your "principle" is that if you're OK with a tax plan that adds $trillions to the debt, then you cannot object in principle to a welfare program that adds $trillions to debt. Well, that's a dumb principle. I don't subscribe to it and I'm sure you don't either, or shouldn't.

JasperL · Nov 18, 2017

cpwill said:
Well, given that that's the people we tax, it's sort of hard to cut taxes without benefiting them.

But yeah, it's kind of a dishonest thing they do.

That's true, but when we're facing $10 trillion in deficits for the next 10 years, and the wealthy are doing pretty well actually, including corporations earning near record shares of GDP in after-tax profits, what's the benefit to the middle class and poor in making the $10 trillion deficit hole $2 trillion bigger? Those tax cuts plus the existing projected deficits will inevitably force spending cuts that must in some way reduce benefits to the middle class, poor and old, because that's where the federal government spends most of its money.

So what's "dishonest" about opposing tax cuts in those circumstances? You might have a different opinion about the wisdom of those tax cuts, believe the story line that cutting taxes on the wealthy trickles down to the poor with higher wages, etc. but that doesn't make those who disagree dishonest.

Moderate Right · Nov 18, 2017

JasperL said:
That's correct! All the details of your proposal are "unknown" except the amount added to debt, but over an unknown period of time. Why would anyone commit to supporting OR opposing any proposal ahead of time when nothing about it is known?

The flip side of your "principle" is that if you're OK with a tax plan that adds $trillions to the debt, then you cannot object in principle to a welfare program that adds $trillions to debt. Well, that's a dumb principle. I don't subscribe to it and I'm sure you don't either, or shouldn't.

The period of time would be identical to the Republican plan. But, if you can't say no then you are saying yes. For the record though, I am against the Republican plan as is but I'm not against it due to liberal reasons. I'm sick of the poor paying for nothing and the rich expected to take care of them and then the left turning right around and yet still saying that the rich aren't paying their fair share after they are already paying the lion's share. I am against the new plan for conservative reasons and I really hate it when both parties put crap in a bill that has nothing to do with the bill itself (taxes). I am going to call out liberals though for supposedly being against it because it adds 2 trillion dollars to the debt when liberals would actually be fine with adding 2 trillion dollars to the debt.

JasperL · Nov 18, 2017

Moderate Right said:
The period of time would be identical to the Republican plan. But, if you can't say no then you are saying yes. For the record though, I am against the Republican plan as is but I'm not against it due to liberal reasons. I'm sick of the poor paying for nothing and the rich expected to take care of them and then the left turning right around and yet still saying that the rich aren't paying their fair share after they are already paying the lion's share. I am against the new plan for conservative reasons and I really hate it when both parties put crap in a bill that has nothing to do with the bill itself (taxes). I am going to call out liberals though for supposedly being against it because it adds 2 trillion dollars to the debt when liberals would actually be fine with adding 2 trillion dollars to the debt.

You're demonstrating what I've been saying all along. You're against the plan but because you don't like this particular plan. So the details matter, the facts and circumstances matter. You'd be stupid to pledge blind support to a plan that increases the deficit, and you're not doing that here. Well, turn that around and that's my position on a mythical program to help the unknown poor in some unknown way.

Moderate Right · Nov 18, 2017

JasperL said:
You're demonstrating what I've been saying all along. You're against the plan but because you don't like this particular plan. So the details matter, the facts and circumstances matter. You'd be stupid to pledge blind support to a plan that increases the deficit, and you're not doing that here. Well, turn that around and that's my position on a mythical program to help the unknown poor in some unknown way.

There you go again, criticizing the Republican plan for adding to the deficit when you can't even say that you wouldn't add to the deficit either with your plan. Can you say broken record? Can you say hypocrite?

MTAtech · Nov 18, 2017

Moderate Right said:
There you go again, criticizing the Republican plan for adding to the deficit when you can't even say that you wouldn't add to the deficit either with your plan. Can you say broken record? Can you say hypocrite?

News flash: JasperL doesn’t have a plan and since he’s not in Congress doesn’t have to defend his plan. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to knock an indefensible plan that is poised to slash taxes on the rich; raise them on the middle class; raise the debt and lower, not increase economic growth.

The bottom line is that doing nothing is far better than either the House or Senate plan. As such, there is no serious reason to implement it, except that Republican donors demand it.

cpwill · Nov 18, 2017

JasperL said:
That's true, but when we're facing $10 trillion in deficits for the next 10 years

We'll stop here and I'll wait while you go back and find your posts castigating Obama for his massive spending and doubling of the debt (not the deficit. the debt).

Unitedwestand13 · Nov 18, 2017

cpwill said:
We'll stop here and I'll wait while you go back and find your posts castigating Obama for his massive spending and doubling of the debt (not the deficit. the debt).

The spending was not the problem, the problem was that taxes rates were not increased to match the level of spending.

cpwill · Nov 18, 2017

Unitedwestand13 said:
The spending was not the problem, the problem was that taxes rates were not increased to match the level of spending.

We collected more in revenues on an annual basis than at any time in our history, but exploded out outlays. Spending was the problem.

But I'll wait for him to come up with those posts where he was So-o-o-o upset about the deficit.

JasperL · Nov 19, 2017

cpwill said:
We'll stop here and I'll wait while you go back and find your posts castigating Obama for his massive spending and doubling of the debt (not the deficit. the debt).

Keep waiting. The GOP had the House after 2010. My civics is a little rusty, but I recall that spending bills originate in the House and Obama can't spend a penny not approved by them.

And I thought the GOP cared about those awful deficits and debt. It's so awful they can't wait to add $2 Trillion to it!

JasperL · Nov 19, 2017

cpwill said:
We collected more in revenues on an annual basis than at any time in our history

Of course. Except for years like, say, after a Great Recession handed off by some idiot Republican POTUS, revenues go up every single year. Inflation, population growth, and normal economic growth sort of guarantee that result, so saying "we collected more" is to say nothing you can't say after EVERY President's last year. So far you're doing great - pointed out the obvious!

but exploded out outlays. Spending was the problem.

Really? Exploded? Compared to what? During the Bush II years spending increased by 60% (31% adjusted for inflation). See Table 1.3

For the Obama years spending increased by 29% (16% inflation adjusted) and I even started the Obama clock during the last Bush year even though Republicans have been telling me Trump's budget didn't start until Sept 2017.

During the Reagan years, spending increased by 18% (inflation adjusted). Clinton only 11%.

Where's that explosion of spending?

Maybe you blame Obama for the spending in the early years to keep the country from running completely off the f'ing rails after inheriting the Republican Bush II Great Recession. I guess you could do that, but most of the time it's Republican hacks who make that argument and I thought you were more intellectually honest that most of them.... :roll:

JasperL · Nov 19, 2017

Moderate Right said:
There you go again, criticizing the Republican plan for adding to the deficit when you can't even say that you wouldn't add to the deficit either with your plan. Can you say broken record? Can you say hypocrite?

What I said was I'm not dumb enough to commit to support or oppose your unknown plan to do unknown things for the unknown poor, etc.

I'll just leave this topic with a quote from Emerson that for some reason comes to mind here.....

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

JasperL · Nov 19, 2017

MTAtech said:
News flash: JasperL doesn’t have a plan and since he’s not in Congress doesn’t have to defend his plan. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to knock an indefensible plan that is poised to slash taxes on the rich; raise them on the middle class; raise the debt and lower, not increase economic growth.

The bottom line is that doing nothing is far better than either the House or Senate plan. As such, there is no serious reason to implement it, except that Republican donors demand it.

Helpfully a few GOPers are even honest about that!

Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) had been describing the flurry of lobbying from special interests seeking to protect favored tax provisions when a reporter asked if donors are happy with the tax-reform proposal.

“My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again,’ ” Collins replied.

cpwill · Nov 19, 2017

JasperL said:
Of course. Except for years like, say, ...

Ah. So. IOW, no, you cannot demonstrate that you ever were upset with Obama over his massive deficits, indicating you don't actually care about them, and your complaint is disingenuous. Okedoke.

Fletch · Nov 19, 2017

JasperL said:
Keep waiting. The GOP had the House after 2010. My civics is a little rusty, but I recall that spending bills originate in the House and Obama can't spend a penny not approved by them.

And I thought the GOP cared about those awful deficits and debt. It's so awful they can't wait to add $2 Trillion to it!

Wait, I thought Obamas deficits saved us from the great recession. Now you are saying that those deficits were the republicans doing. So does that mean the republicans saved us from the great recession and not Obama?

Obama added $10 trillion to the US debt over his term and not only did liberals not complain, many said he didn't spend enough. Now, all of the sudden, we are expected to believe that liberals are all concerned over a $2 trillion debt over the next ten years. Sorry, not buying it. The deficit for Obamas final year in office was $666 billion. Was there a single peep out of anyone on the left about how historically high that number was considering how deep into an economic recovery we were? Not that I heard.

MTAtech · Nov 19, 2017

JasperL said:
That's true, but when we're facing $10 trillion in deficits for the next 10 years

cpwill said:

We'll stop here and I'll wait while you go back and find your posts castigating Obama for his massive spending and doubling of the debt (not the deficit. the debt).

Click to expand...

I've responded to that meme, namely, 'you now complain about deficits but when Obama was president you didn't care about deficits.'
We can start with the fact that Obama wasn't even president when this article below was published about the 2009 deficit. It's hard to be the cause of a deficit if you weren't even in power yet:

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

Of course, the major difference between then and now is that in 2009, the nation was in a near-depression, causing revenues to fall by $500 billion a year. Did Obama make revenue fall? No. Should Obama have responded to that deficit by asking Congress to raise taxes? Should he have asked Congress to cut Food Stamps; Unemployment Insurance; Medicaid and Medicare, just when Americans -- and unemployed Americans, need those programs the most?

No, blaming Obama for deficits isn't designed to have a serious discussion about handling deficits. It's purpose is for partisans to extract political advantage, by bringing up false hypocrisy (e.g. 'Obama did it too') while ignoring the stark differences in times. It's one thing to add huge amounts to the debt when unemployment is a low 4%. It's quite another not worry about deficits when unemployment is 10% and the country is in a sharp recession. In fact, economists tell us that running deficits during hard times is exactly what government is supposed to do. Context matters.

Then, when the Great Recession was over, what did Obama do? He lowered the deficit by 75%.

JasperL · Nov 19, 2017

cpwill said:
Ah. So. IOW, no, you cannot demonstrate that you ever were upset with Obama over his massive deficits, indicating you don't actually care about them, and your complaint is disingenuous. Okedoke.

Just so we're clear, if someone accepts deficits in Situation A or favors deficit-increasing Spending Bill X, or Tax Bill Y, the only "honest" position for that person in the future is to support deficits in all cases, and to support every spending and tax proposal, if those proposals increase the deficit! It is in fact "disingenuous" to use the brain God gave us to judge individual bills on the merits, and the only honest approach to evaluating policy is to adopt black and white rules, such as "I will oppose any budget, any tax or spending proposal, that adds $1 to the deficit."

That. Is. BRILLIANT!

And I'm sure you've incorporated this simple yet effectively brain dead strategy throughout your own life as well as in your approach to politics. So if you oppose going into debt to 1) pay for an Alaskan cruise, then you must therefore oppose going into debt to 2) buy a house, or 3) pay for college to get an advanced degree necessary for your career. If going into debt is bad in situation 1, it is, therefore, bad in ALL situations. Q.E.D.!

Of course the flip side applies here as well. So if you borrow money to start a business, then you are a hypocrite and disingenuous if you oppose your daughter's desire to buy a new BMW merely because the family would have to incur debt, but as she might point out, less debt than you assumed to buy the business! The rule must be more debt is ALWAYS good.

Moderate Right · Nov 19, 2017

MTAtech said:
News flash: JasperL doesn’t have a plan and since he’s not in Congress doesn’t have to defend his plan. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to knock an indefensible plan that is poised to slash taxes on the rich; raise them on the middle class; raise the debt and lower, not increase economic growth.

The bottom line is that doing nothing is far better than either the House or Senate plan. As such, there is no serious reason to implement it, except that Republican donors demand it.

So, you are also admitting that as long as the 2 trillion dollars would help the poor, you're perfectly fine with adding 2 trillion dollars to the national debt. That's all I'm asking. Don't hypocritically blame Republicans for adding 2 trillion dollars onto the national debt when you would be perfectly fine with doing it yourself. You need to make it a rich vs poor thing instead of complaining about adding 2 trillion dollars onto the debt, which you would be OK with.

Tax cuts: close-mindedness from the left

Well-known member