dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Nothing. Its a "religion" for them now. call it "faith-based" budgeting It really is a religion. I mean...I've known about this whole thing just like everybody else for a long time...and I used to think it worked. Now I've looked at what is going on with debate about it, facts from the past, and have concluded...that in fact tax decreases do not simply pay for themselves. I still would entertain the idea that really oppressive tax tax regime that is clearly stifling growth could be lowered and revenues could go up under certain circumstances...but that's not the reality we're living in....and the simple truth that "cut taxes, and all will be well" is in fact a lie to cover what Lofgren claims is the GOP's main purpose...to protect the donor class no matter what...faux-populist movements angry about the debt? Great! What a way to sell more tax cuts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 Other related point when it comes to taxes and wars, not only do they want the cost burden skewed away from them, they know they won't be fighting the wars either, since the rank and file come from the lower financial ranks. Basically it's: we start it, we benefit from it, you pay for it, you fight it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Another thing this guy pointed out...the GOP fascination with Reagan...a man who raised taxes a few times b/c he knew he had to...a man who had some political flexibility...and most of all a man who if you ask anyone "what was he" the answer is "the great communicator" as he sold himself in that friendly way w/ that trademark smile. Then you look at the modern GOP messaging...compromise is bad, no taxes raised period...and of course an angry, scare tactic approach to messaging. The GOP could learn a lot from Reagan if they cared to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Another thing this guy pointed out...the GOP fascination with Reagan...a man who raised taxes a few times b/c he knew he had to...a man who had some political flexibility...and most of all a man who if you ask anyone "what was he" the answer is "the great communicator" as he sold himself in that friendly way w/ that trademark smile. Then you look at the modern GOP messaging...compromise is bad, no taxes raised period...and of course an angry, scare tactic approach to messaging. The GOP could learn a lot from Reagan if they cared to. As though Reagan was a real person, and not just a convenient meme they trot out when it's politically convenient. I was twelve when Reagan was elected...even I know the current GOP isn't Reagan's GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) Well, there's sales tax....gee, everyone pays the same percentage on that, the more you buy - the more you pay. there's property taxes....gee I think that somehow, the folks in the richer neighberhoods pay more...............but thats only fair. . Haven't read thru, but has anyone pointed out that sales tax is local? So, no. Not everyone pays the same %. No parity in property tax either. Just look at the tax code in the counties near me in Pensacola and you'll see three distinct rates for each county. And then, there are states like Delaware that have ZERO sales tax. Federal income tax is the only way to compare. Edited September 12, 2012 by Oxrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Haven't read thru, but has anyone pointed out that sales tax is local? So, no. Not everyone pays the same %. No parity in property tax either. Just look at the tax code in the counties near me in Pensacola and you'll see three distinct rates for each county. And then, there are states like Delaware that have ZERO sales tax. Federal income tax is the only way to compare. And even that's not a completely accurate comparison, when people can't even define "income" or "tax" when they're discussing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 And even that's not a completely accurate comparison, when people can't even define "income" or "tax" when they're discussing it. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 My only point was that the blanket statement "half of Americans pay no taxes!" doesn't take into account "loopholes" for the rich, payroll taxes lower income people do pay into, state and local sales tax, etc...a person making $50K can easily "pay taxes" at the same rate as someone like Romney. But to say "federal income tax is the only way to look at it" in terms of Americans "paying taxes"...that's not an approach that makes very much sense unless you are hell bent on just reaching the conclusion that all things point to a group of moochers sucking the teet of the top 10% of Americans. And the entire debate is framed in an environment that is (as linked in posts on previous pages) subject to an unhealthy inequality level in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Good point. You want to solve a lot of the revenue problems? Don't touch income tax rates...instead...raise the income cap on social security. That'll get you a lot more revenue that !@#$ing around with the woefully over-complicated income tax code. My only point was that the blanket statement "half of Americans pay no taxes!" doesn't take into account "loopholes" for the rich, payroll taxes lower income people do pay into, state and local sales tax, etc...a person making $50K can easily "pay taxes" at the same rate as someone like Romney. But to say "federal income tax is the only way to look at it" in terms of Americans "paying taxes"...that's not an approach that makes very much sense unless you are hell bent on just reaching the conclusion that all things point to a group of moochers sucking the teet of the top 10% of Americans. And the entire debate is framed in an environment that is (as linked in posts on previous pages) subject to an unhealthy inequality level in this country. While this is true, when you're talking about federal revenue, you shouldn't be including state and local taxes of any kind. Which, again, gets back to my point: people don't even argue the same thing twice. Hell, now we're mixing the "tax burden on the middle class" argument with the "federal deficit is too large" argument this started out as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) You want to solve a lot of the revenue problems? Don't touch income tax rates...instead...raise the income cap on social security. That'll get you a lot more revenue that !@#$ing around with the woefully over-complicated income tax code. While that is necessary (by a lot it should jump closer to $200K), that all goes into trust funds to pay out SS benefits. It's not going to solve the deficit...although it will help the short term borrowing to fund SS now that it looks to run red for the first time either this year or next (and since the t-bonds it holds would effect the bottom line if it came time to dip into those more heavily). Edited September 12, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I'm with you on the SS cap. Also need a method of means testing (or is it meens?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 While that is necessary (by a lot it should jump closer to $200K), that all goes into trust funds to pay out SS benefits. It's not going to solve the deficit...although it will help the short term borrowing to fund SS now that it looks to run red for the first time either this year or next (and since the t-bonds it holds would effect the bottom line). Actually, it goes into federal debt holdings. There is no "trust fund" beyond a shitload of a special class of Treasury bonds in a building in West Virginia. Which is also why Clinton's "surplus" wasn't truly a surplus - most of that surplus was FICA, not actual tax revenue. The government's not allowed to hoard cash, basically. Same reason the Bush tax cuts were necessary at the time...with a budget surplus, that was cash laying around the government had to use. (The fact that they didn't roll back the cuts to pay for Afghanistan or - dumber - Iraq is another argument.) Of course, the even BIGGER problem is: why the hell does the government run on a cash accounting basis? I don't even do that in my personal finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Actually, it goes into federal debt holdings. There is no "trust fund" beyond a shitload of a special class of Treasury bonds in a building in West Virginia. Which is also why Clinton's "surplus" wasn't truly a surplus - most of that surplus was FICA, not actual tax revenue. The government's not allowed to hoard cash, basically. Same reason the Bush tax cuts were necessary at the time...with a budget surplus, that was cash laying around the government had to use. (The fact that they didn't roll back the cuts to pay for Afghanistan or - dumber - Iraq is another argument.) Of course, the even BIGGER problem is: why the hell does the government run on a cash accounting basis? I don't even do that in my personal finances. You sure it doesn't fund the trust? Also...is there a rule that says they can't hoard cash or was the Greenspans view...that it was somehow bad b/c it would then invest it and !@#$ up markets? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/07/992184/-Greenspan-in-2001-We-re-paying-down-the-debt-too-fast-VIDEO This is what I was referring to w/ the Greenspan comment: TEXT: The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade. This is in marked contrast to the perspective of a year ago when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. TEXT: But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 What a pretty chart. What color are the entitlement programs? Also, it does seem somewhat arbitrary. Where do the waterway toll booth collectors fit in here? Those would fit under "other debt". Is there any other information that you need to have spoon fed to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) Lofgren's point is not that the religious right forced him out. His main point was the plutocracy forced him out. And he acknowledges the Dems are conflicted and ultimately very bad about it, but his experience in military budget and tax code analysis over time just led him to conclude after 30 years that the GOP exists almost exclusively at it's core to protect the wealthy contributors that keep them in power. Being a budget man at his core he concluded that the budget rhetoric spouted by the GOP is merely political manipulation as the Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars are more responsible for our debt explosion than anything else...and given that the GOP (notably Ryan himself) fought to kill Simpson-Bowles (which many Dems didn't mind) which lowered rates, broadened the base, eliminated loopholes and slashed trillions in spending (the same principles they claim to advocate) ... this could not happen if it resulted in revenue increase at the expense of their wealthy donors. He also talks about the war culture and the anti-intellectual thrust of the political advertising and that did irk him...but his primary concerns were clear hypocrisy on issues of money and war. it was interesting how he pointed out how passifying the masses with religion is a way to sell the military industrial complex agenda. And how that's turned into a "good vs evil" perspective on anyone opposed to their foreign policy. You see it play out on this board: yóu're a Dem who concedes issues with both parties, Im an Independant (former Repub) who has openly called out both parties, including Romney and Obama. But the Repubs in here completely one-sided - "we're good, they're evil" Edited September 12, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Those would fit under "other debt". Is there any other information that you need to have spoon fed to you? Everytime you post, you display your ignorance. Did you at all understand how I was pointing out the absurd premise of his post and chart? To completely ignore entitlements and focus on military and stimulus spending is diingenuous in the least. Whenever you quote me and post you make an ass out of yourself, and I'm not even trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Everytime you post, you display your ignorance. Did you at all understand how I was pointing out the absurd premise of his post and chart? To completely ignore entitlements and focus on military and stimulus spending is diingenuous in the least. Whenever you quote me and post you make an ass out of yourself, and I'm not even trying. Don't lie, we all know you can't read charts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Don't lie, we all know you can't read charts. Thank God I'm not a sea captain, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts