Jump to content

Wacky Socialist Bill Gross


TPS

Recommended Posts

Maybe you should explain it for those of us who have long ago pegged you as just a pompous ass, all in on theory rather than practicality.

Cool. Does that put me in DC territory? Are the liberals supposed to be polite here? Talk about an ass...

 

People keeping what they've earned is a terribly colored description of a "give away", which assumes an absolute lack of property rights. And no, social security is no longer in surplus, it's payed out more than it's taken in for several years now.

Only during the time of the payroll tax cut; it is back in surplus now that the rate is back as of Jan 1.

Do you not want to pay for the 2/3 of the on-budget expense from defense? Which, btw, generates an awful lot of private sector profits (as does all government spending).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Only during the time of the payroll tax cut; it is back in surplus now that the rate is back as of Jan 1.

Indexed to inflation, it runs at a hefty deficit.

 

Do you not want to pay for the 2/3 of the on-budget expense from defense? Which, btw, generates an awful lot of private sector profits (as does all government spending).

Quite frankly, our military could stand some hefty cuts. Like all government endeavors, it's bloated, heavey on middle management, politicized, and beauracratic.

 

And no, it doesn't "generate an awful lot of private sector jobs". It simply artificially shifts what money would actually be spent of from peacful private sector ventures into the military industrial complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we need to cut spending; but we also need to stop the giveaways to the top 1% in the name of voodoo economics--that's really what Gross is saying.

if I robbed you at gun point (since I don't have the power of the IRS at my disposal) and decided to only take 75% of your cash, would you say that you received a 'giveaway' of 25%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 80% of what our military, Intelligence agencies, and State Dept does is strictly in support of corporate interest and is of zero benefit to the average Joe in the street - it is not unfair for the people who benefit most from empire to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 80% of what our military, Intelligence agencies, and State Dept does is strictly in support of corporate interest and is of zero benefit to the average Joe in the street - it is not unfair for the people who benefit most from empire to pay for it.

This post is not lacking for absurdity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

****, no. It takes more than just thinking you're smarter than everyone else. You have to BE smarter than everyone else.

and that intelligence has to never show up in your posts which is why you fail the DC Tom test TPS........ in fact remember intelligence should always be claimed not demonstrated you've been doing things backwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indexed to inflation, it runs at a hefty deficit.

Show me the data, because that's total BS.

 

 

Quite frankly, our military could stand some hefty cuts. Like all government endeavors, it's bloated, heavey on middle management, politicized, and beauracratic.

We agree.

 

And no, it doesn't "generate an awful lot of private sector jobs". It simply artificially shifts what money would actually be spent of from peacful private sector ventures into the military industrial complex.

I said spending and deficits create a lot of profits. Deficit spending creates additional profits (and jobs). Though I'd be willing to bet that if all of that defense money went back to the private sector, fewer US jobs would be created (net).

 

if I robbed you at gun point (since I don't have the power of the IRS at my disposal) and decided to only take 75% of your cash, would you say that you received a 'giveaway' of 25%?

I agree. It wasn't really a giveaway in the first place. The top 1% (esp hedge fund managers) had to "invest" in enough congresspeople to get the tax cuts passed. The investment up front has paid off handsomely though.

Does the government not provide you with benefits in some form? What did OW HOlmes say? "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." I'd like to level the playing field again with taxes, as Gross states, let capital income be charged the same rate as labor income.

Edited by TPS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the government not provide you with benefits in some form? What did OW HOlmes say? "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." I'd like to level the playing field again with taxes, as Gross states, let capital income be charged the same rate as labor income.

I recognize and understand the need for taxation....I'm not trying to argue against taxes in general. my beef is with the notion that to compensate for the insane over spending by continually increasing taxes is somehow okay. at some point or another, the feds need to get a grip on their expenditures and quit tossing around so much money that they don't have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognize and understand the need for taxation....I'm not trying to argue against taxes in general. my beef is with the notion that to compensate for the insane over spending by continually increasing taxes is somehow okay. at some point or another, the feds need to get a grip on their expenditures and quit tossing around so much money that they don't have.

If you check out that last link, you'll see that expenditures as a % of GDP are back near their historical norm; it's the revenues that are still below norm.

I'be happy to see the deficit fixed by bringing the expenditure % down to the revenue %, as long as it comes out of the spending that supports the "security state" they've created.

 

So why stop at 1% if the effect is so benign?

It's not really. He's arguing to restore cap gains taxes equivalent to income taxes and eliminate the carried interest benefit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And no, it doesn't "generate an awful lot of private sector jobs". It simply artificially shifts what money would actually be spent of from peacful private sector ventures into the military industrial complex.

 

I think this is wrong. If the government didn't create/ expand the money supply to spend on this then there would simply be less money, less military and less jobs. Right? You make it out as a zero sum game, which it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not really. He's arguing to restore cap gains taxes equivalent to income taxes and eliminate the carried interest benefit.

 

Have you stopped to ask why a big bonds guy would favor higher call gains taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is wrong. If the government didn't create/ expand the money supply to spend on this then there would simply be less money, less military and less jobs. Right? You make it out as a zero sum game, which it isn't.

Are resources finite?

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...