THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

Moderators: Ron, Jim Price

Locked
User avatar
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6249
Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
Location: Anywhere, Earth
Contact:

Post by lonewolf »

songsmith wrote:Wellllll... we could always increase revenue by calling capital gains "income" and taxing them at normal income tax rates. We could increase revenues by returning to Reagan-era income-tax rates (Reagan was the best president ever, according to a Rockpage thread). We could increase revenues by eliminating tax breaks for favored industy and business concerns. We could criminalize lobbying by those concerns, and save the end-consumer lots of money, which would result in the middle-class buying goods again, increasing revenues overall. We could tax offshore profits at a much higher rate, keeping jobs in America, resulting in much higher revenue. We could tie a tariff rate to the rate that China props up it's currency, which would discourage exchange-rate profiteering, and bring JOBS back here, resulting in substantially higher revenue. If corporations are "people," we could tax them like people, by taxing their gross income at personal income rates, instead of what they CLAIM as profit, after the giant perks and bonuses... increasing revenue. We could do ALL these things, and more, and it wouldn't burden the working-class one bit, in fact, it would return the American worker to the status he enjoyed in the post-WWII era.
No, on second thought, let's bring the US workingman's wages down to pre-Depression-era levels, and compete with Third-World labor from their perspective. That way, we can have robber-barons and company stores again. Let's deregulate child-labor laws, break all the unions, and return to the "good old days" of wage-slavery and 7-day work-weeks. Then tax the workers more, not the "job-creators."
The right NEEDS that apocalyptic debt. Without it, they would have no platform for election. Why do you think you hear more about the debt than about JOBS from the right? Why do think they follow the insane assumption that making rich people richer will make us all richer, even when it's never happened before, and even as the rest of us shoulder the burden alone. Without the doom and gloom from the rightwingers, we'd all be doing the right thing: putting our economy back on track, not further enriching the elite class.
As is typical, there are a lot of words there, but no substance. Show me some numbers.

I have looked at nearly all those means of revenue and it doesn't amount to much when compared to the deficit. It has been shown that if you raise capital gains tax too high, it will actually result in a drop in revenues.

When asked whether he would support a raise in capital gains taxes even if it resulted in fewer revenues, IdiotObama replied "yes." Brilliant.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

lonewolf wrote: [As is typical, there are a lot of words there, but no substance. Show me some numbers.

I have looked at nearly all those means of revenue and it doesn't amount to much when compared to the deficit. It has been shown that if you raise capital gains tax too high, it will actually result in a drop in revenues.

When asked whether he would support a raise in capital gains taxes even if it resulted in fewer revenues, IdiotObama replied "yes." Brilliant.
I'd like to see some numbers, as well. Voodoo Reaganomics has NEVER worked for anyone but the top wage-earners, it's only resulted in bubbles, wherein elite investors (newly flush with money) gamble on the internet, or real estate, or tie onto Madoff-type schemes, etc. The elite do NOT create jobs here (remember jobs?), they gamble on the high-stakes, or invest in overseas slave-labor. Reaganomics is in it's highest gear right NOW, how's that working out?
How high is "too high" for capital gains? I think the standard answer from the right is "Zero is too high." Right now, the elite are paid off in monies that are taxed at a lower rate than the working man, and that is simply CHEATING the rest of us. Don't like that assessment? Tough. We know whose side you took on Bastille Day.
"I have looked at nearly all those means of revenue and it doesn't amount to much when compared to the deficit." It sounds like, since it wouldn't pay down the deficit immediately, the elite should continue with receiving their favored treatment. Even though that obviously does not work. Class warfare defined.
Now, for Obama supporting a raise in the capital gains tax, even if it meant lower revenues (which it wouldn't)... BRILLIANT. The ultimate goal is to take money being hoarded in shelters, foreign countries, and investment bubbles, and get it into the hands of working-class Americans, who happen to NEED IT TO SURVIVE. Do you understand that? That means: money now tied up in the hands of people who are hoarding it in the name of extreme self-profit, and putting it in the paychecks of Americans who then spend it on goods and services (because they have to), and thereby stimulating the American economy. Hoarded money tied up in offshore accounts and yachts is no longer part of the economy. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, except that it doesn't square with what the con-media drills into your head day after day. Point: Obama.
User avatar
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6249
Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
Location: Anywhere, Earth
Contact:

Post by lonewolf »

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I thought you'd write.

Here, I'll help you a little. According to the CBO, the Obama tax cut extension law will cost the budget $316 billion of revenues in 2012. Thats not tax cuts for the rich, thats tax cuts for EVERYBODY and covers a lot of territory in your post. So where is the other $trillion$ going to come from?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12020/sa4753.pdf

When I post numbers on the debt, that's just simple elementary school math:

When your interest rate quadruples, you pay four times as much interest.

Unfortunately, with short term rates near zero, the government has been borrowing mostly short term paper...and why not? Its free money. The problem is that you can't lock-in that rate when rates go up. The fed sees the problem and that's why they started QE3 with 30 year treasuries. This may soften the blow a bit, but only for a short time.

Everybody better pray that the fed doesn't have to raise short term rates from 0.25% to an historically normal 5%.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

lonewolf wrote:Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I thought you'd write.

Here, I'll help you a little. According to the CBO, the Obama tax cut extension law will cost the budget $316 billion of revenues in 2012. .
Sorry, after the words, "Obama tax cut extension law..." there was no longer any reason to keep reading.
We've covered that, and if you keep rewriting history, as conservatives so often do, the discussion has no purpose. If you want to continue under the assumption that Obama had a choice to end the Bush Tax Cuts, and ignore that the Bush Tax Cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy and raise revenues, but failed, I'm sure joe has some blogsites you can post to. TTYL, buddy. :)
f.sciarrillo
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
Location: Not here ..

Post by f.sciarrillo »

Music Rocks!
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

The War on Christmas is over. Of course, there never was a War on Christmas, but don't let that stop anyone from congratulating me on my victory. :lol:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sci ... -christmas
Merge
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tuesday Jan 02, 2007
Location: Frostburg, Md.

Post by Merge »

I still think that the govt has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Recently, my wife and I saw that we could save money on some bills by getting rid of a few things. This, in turn, put more money in our savings account. We spend less, and save more. I think the govt would be wise to try something like this.
Pour me another one, cause I'll never find the silver lining in this cloud.
User avatar
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6249
Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
Location: Anywhere, Earth
Contact:

Post by lonewolf »

songsmith wrote:
lonewolf wrote:Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what I thought you'd write.

Here, I'll help you a little. According to the CBO, the Obama tax cut extension law will cost the budget $316 billion of revenues in 2012. .
Sorry, after the words, "Obama tax cut extension law..." there was no longer any reason to keep reading.
We've covered that, and if you keep rewriting history, as conservatives so often do, the discussion has no purpose. If you want to continue under the assumption that Obama had a choice to end the Bush Tax Cuts, and ignore that the Bush Tax Cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy and raise revenues, but failed, I'm sure joe has some blogsites you can post to. TTYL, buddy. :)
I don't know what you've been discussing, but I have been discussing balancing the budget before the country goes bankrupt. I suppose that all you are concerned with is defending your false messiah.

You gave the typical ultra-left-wingnut rant about raising revenues, so I basically said that if its part of a balanced budget, go for it.

You are only about a $trillion per year short, so I ask you again:

Where do you get the other $trillion each year?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

Merge wrote:I still think that the govt has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Recently, my wife and I saw that we could save money on some bills by getting rid of a few things. This, in turn, put more money in our savings account. We spend less, and save more. I think the govt would be wise to try something like this.
Obviously, that's part of it. BUT... the Rockpage contingent thinks either A) if you stopped buying food for your kids, you could pay off your summer home alot faster, or B) government is the reason your kids eat food, if you didn't give it to them, they'd go find their own food. There's only so much you can save, if you stopped paying for all necessities, the need does not go away.
There is a debt problem, nobody denies that. The argument comes when one side believes the people who caused the problem should pay to fix what they've done, and the other side believes the people who caused the problem should profit from it even more. It's just that simple. Do we penalize those who hurt us, or clear the way for them to hurt us even more?
The working class, to repeat myself, did not cause the debt "crisis." The executive class did it. It's indisputable that tax cuts for the top wage-earners, incorrectly referred to as "job-creators" did not lead to more jobs, as was promised. Regulation and oversight have decreased as well, and still, unemployment stays high and tax revenue stays low. Union-busting has also failed to create jobs.
Now is not the time to starve the voter-enabled government of a free nation. Now is the time to starve the elite who upset the apple-cart.
User avatar
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6249
Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
Location: Anywhere, Earth
Contact:

Post by lonewolf »

songsmith wrote:
Merge wrote:I still think that the govt has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Recently, my wife and I saw that we could save money on some bills by getting rid of a few things. This, in turn, put more money in our savings account. We spend less, and save more. I think the govt would be wise to try something like this.
Obviously, that's part of it. BUT... the Rockpage contingent thinks either A) if you stopped buying food for your kids, you could pay off your summer home alot faster, or B) government is the reason your kids eat food, if you didn't give it to them, they'd go find their own food. There's only so much you can save, if you stopped paying for all necessities, the need does not go away.
There is a debt problem, nobody denies that. The argument comes when one side believes the people who caused the problem should pay to fix what they've done, and the other side believes the people who caused the problem should profit from it even more. It's just that simple. Do we penalize those who hurt us, or clear the way for them to hurt us even more?
The working class, to repeat myself, did not cause the debt "crisis." The executive class did it. It's indisputable that tax cuts for the top wage-earners, incorrectly referred to as "job-creators" did not lead to more jobs, as was promised. Regulation and oversight have decreased as well, and still, unemployment stays high and tax revenue stays low. Union-busting has also failed to create jobs.
Now is not the time to starve the voter-enabled government of a free nation. Now is the time to starve the elite who upset the apple-cart.
The Bush Tax Cuts, including all income brackets, only accounted for 16% of the debt accumulated over the past 10 years. The other 84% came from way, way, way, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY,
WAY TOO MUCH SPENDING
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

lonewolf wrote: The Bush Tax Cuts, including all income brackets, only accounted for 16% of the debt accumulated over the past 10 years. The other 84% came from way, way, way, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY,
WAY TOO MUCH SPENDING
...And the solution is to starve grannies, not tax the people who crashed the economy? If you believe that increasing revenue via higher tax rates for the 1% who own 40% of the economic wealth WON'T HELP, you are way, way, way, way, WAY WRONG. I simply cannot understand why otherwise-intelligent people ignore half of the solution to debt, just because they're told to. Increase revenue, reduce spending. Not pipe-dream revenue increases, like "making rich people even richer will make poor people rich, too!" or "If we stop enforcing the rules, everyone will make more money, then the govt will have more!"
Repeat after me: "Increase revenue, decrease spending."
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

lonewolf wrote:[
The Bush Tax Cuts, including all income brackets, only accounted for 16% of the debt accumulated over the past 10 years. The other 84% came from way, way, way, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY,
WAY TOO MUCH SPENDING
But then how could liberals act as a nanny to all with their their omnipresent, all powerful, all regulating, all taxing government??

Liberals need to feel good by spending someone other person's money. When that other person says something about their money being stolen to make liberals feel good, out come the starving grandmother litanies. How lame.
User avatar
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6249
Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
Location: Anywhere, Earth
Contact:

Post by lonewolf »

songsmith wrote:
lonewolf wrote: The Bush Tax Cuts, including all income brackets, only accounted for 16% of the debt accumulated over the past 10 years. The other 84% came from way, way, way, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY,
WAY TOO MUCH SPENDING
...And the solution is to starve grannies, not tax the people who crashed the economy? If you believe that increasing revenue via higher tax rates for the 1% who own 40% of the economic wealth WON'T HELP, you are way, way, way, way, WAY WRONG. I simply cannot understand why otherwise-intelligent people ignore half of the solution to debt, just because they're told to. Increase revenue, reduce spending. Not pipe-dream revenue increases, like "making rich people even richer will make poor people rich, too!" or "If we stop enforcing the rules, everyone will make more money, then the govt will have more!"
Repeat after me: "Increase revenue, decrease spending."
Reading comprehension FAIL there Johnny. Try reading my posts again.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Blue Reality
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 281
Joined: Friday May 06, 2005
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Lonewolf

Post by Blue Reality »

Hey Lonewolf this stuff is really gonna hit the fan and soon isn't it.... I can't see that this will be avoided given the present mindset with in politics and society.
Chuck Mason and Blue Reality
User avatar
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6249
Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
Location: Anywhere, Earth
Contact:

Re: Lonewolf

Post by lonewolf »

Blue Reality wrote:Hey Lonewolf this stuff is really gonna hit the fan and soon isn't it.... I can't see that this will be avoided given the present mindset with in politics and society.
The next election will be the most critical one since 1932. At this point, there could be several different outcomes, but very few that will solve the problem.

The federal reserve will end QE3 in June and that should have a negative effect on both equity and bond markets leading into the election--not good for the incumbent or 401Ks. The fed says they won't raise rates until 2013, but to keep such a foolish promise, they may have to intervene with yet more fiscal meddling.

It doesn't look good.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

British embassy in Iran overrun.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/ ... X720111129

This is not good news. Might be just the excuse some are looking for another war in the Mideast.
f.sciarrillo
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
Location: Not here ..

Post by f.sciarrillo »

Music Rocks!
User avatar
bassist_25
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6815
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: Indiana

Post by bassist_25 »

songsmith wrote:The War on Christmas is over. Of course, there never was a War on Christmas, but don't let that stop anyone from congratulating me on my victory. :lol:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sci ... -christmas
I always find the "Happy Holidays" outrage hilarious, considering Christmas was originally based upon a pagan holiday.
"He's the electric horseman, you better back off!" - old sKool making a reference to the culturally relevant 1979 film.
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

What is Obama and his Justice Department hiding?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oba ... 10783.html

What happened to the most transparent administration in history?
User avatar
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6249
Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
Location: Anywhere, Earth
Contact:

Post by lonewolf »

Barney Frank, the chief architect of the mortgage crisis that led to our present economic woes, is calling it quits:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 52394.html
Last edited by lonewolf on Wednesday Nov 30, 2011, edited 1 time in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

lonewolf wrote:Barney Frank, the chief architect of the mortgage crises that led to our present economic woes, is calling it quits:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 52394.html
Barney Frank, 2005, what housing bubble?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YtqVIKTTE
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

Times are REALLY tough.

http://money.msn.com/investing/latest.a ... ce887ef3e1

What are we going to do?
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

songsmith wrote:Times are REALLY tough.

http://money.msn.com/investing/latest.a ... ce887ef3e1

What are we going to do?
Like the problem with Jon Corzine, where only $1.2 BILLION was swindled from investors. He was going to be Obama's Sect. of Treasury, until tax cheat Timmy was selected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-g ... 17006.html

The national debt is over $15 TRILLION and in the next 19 years over 77 million people will be starting their Social Security and Medicare (there is no money to cover this). What tough times?
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

User avatar
Naga
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 1160
Joined: Monday Dec 25, 2006
Location: 'Toona Town, PA

Post by Naga »

But does she play an instrument?

(Yes, I had to. Most other threads tend to be hijacked and turned to something political, so I felt this was justified ;))
Locked