DC Tom Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 It's a lifestyle that I've worked hard for and Obama wants to give it to someone else. I don't like that end of story. But then again I have the brains and drive to go out and make $30k a month to make up for the taxes that Obama is taking. But that's not the issue of these taxes that I have a problem with. It's that it's not going to hurt the rich people as much as it's going to hurt the economy. Do you really think that for every $1 that is taken out of my pocket is actually going to make it someone elses pocket? Are you really niave to think that there is no waste in Washinton. Every $1 that hits my pocket is spent, saved or invested all of wich are good for the economy. In the infamous words of Judge Schmales "the world needs ditch diggers too Danny." For every dollar that Washington gets, I'd guess that two cents are spent collecting it, twenty cents are misplaced, ten cents are spent either looking for the misplaced twenty cents or looking for someone to blame for misplacing it, twenty cents are spent managing programs to distribute two cents to people who paid five cents on the dollar in taxes, and five cents are spent on productive pursuits such as habitat protection for the Great Rocky Mountain Spotted Gopher. And then the government adds that all up and says "We've still got $1.50 left!" And I'm probably being optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Fine, look at the graph 1/3rd of the page down given by the Dept of Commerce. It shows the rise of duties on imports. You are smart enough to understand our policies on tariffs so you will know how that translated into production and consumption. http://www.freetrade.org/new/buch1.html When you are finished you will realize, once again, you're an ass who can't think straight. Let's ignore the fact that the article you're referencing disagrees with you ("It is also important to note that the adverse effects of tariffs in 19th century America were more than offset by the economic activity that constituted the western expansion...") In your shallow and immature understanding of economics, you completely forget that THERE WAS A WAR GOING ON. The tarrif acts that generated that rise in duties (e.g. the Morrill Tarrif Act) weren't a protectionist policy to increas economic growth, it was a fiscal policy to pay for the war. Now maybe, if the tarriff acts had paid for a very substantial portion of the war, you'd have a point...but their actual revenue generated was very low, and most of the war was paid by borrowing, which created a further drag on economic growth in the immediate post-war years. But if, as you so eponymously claim, the tarriffs of the Civil War era cause real growth in wealth...perhaps you can also explain why the American consumer experience a 20% reduction in real purchasing power over the same time? What? You can't? Didn't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Let's ignore the fact that the article you're referencing disagrees with you ("It is also important to note that the adverse effects of tariffs in 19th century America were more than offset by the economic activity that constituted the western expansion...") In your shallow and immature understanding of economics, you completely forget that THERE WAS A WAR GOING ON. The tarrif acts that generated that rise in duties (e.g. the Morrill Tarrif Act) weren't a protectionist policy to increas economic growth, it was a fiscal policy to pay for the war. Now maybe, if the tarriff acts had paid for a very substantial portion of the war, you'd have a point...but their actual revenue generated was very low, and most of the war was paid by borrowing, which created a further drag on economic growth in the immediate post-war years. But if, as you so eponymously claim, the tarriffs of the Civil War era cause real growth in wealth...perhaps you can also explain why the American consumer experience a 20% reduction in real purchasing power over the same time? What? You can't? Didn't think so. Who knows, maybe he's giving a hand to the Cat in how government programs expand economic growth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 But if, as you so eponymously claim... I gotta wonder how long you've been waiting to use the word eponymously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 It's a lifestyle that I've worked hard for and Obama wants to give it to someone else. I don't like that end of story. But then again I have the brains and drive to go out and make $30k a month to make up for the taxes that Obama is taking. But that's not the issue of these taxes that I have a problem with. It's that it's not going to hurt the rich people as much as it's going to hurt the economy. Do you really think that for every $1 that is taken out of my pocket is actually going to make it someone elses pocket? Are you really niave to think that there is no waste in Washinton. Every $1 that hits my pocket is spent, saved or invested all of wich are good for the economy. In the infamous words of Judge Schmales "the world needs ditch diggers too Danny." The enlarged text represents where we fundamentally disagree, and in my opinion, it's a lousy answer to my question. Give it to someone else? You mean give a 25k/month lifestyle to someone else? Surely you can't. I am 100% in agreement about the government's inability to manage money. But that's nothing new, and it's certainly not a an ineptitude that Obama, or any other politician in 2009 can be credited for inventing or in even reigniting. You must have been livid with how big the government grew to be between 2000-2008. But to address the enlarged text, and the nexus of your answer to my original question, having people PAY less does not equal GIVING out money. I am not RECEIVING any more benefits than I was six months ago, I'm simply paying less. Dare I say I represent the majority of Americans? I'm still light years away from a 25k/month lifestyle, and I don't believe it was ever anyone's intention to raise me to that status. But if I have a few extra bucks for groceries, while a wealthier person as a few less bucks for things in his life he could live without, it seems to me that the positive repercussions far out weigh the negative ones. Note: I didn't suggest there WEREN'T negative repercussions, nor did I suggest that wealthier people for whatever reason are now receiving the economic comeuppance they deserve, so please don't put those words into my mouth. The bottom line being--I understand why people would be pissy about having to pay higher taxes. But they're not historically high taxes, nor do they even cross a threshold that hasn't already been breached within the past decade. But if it was me who had a ton of money, while a far greater portion of folks are struggling to make ends meet, and after 8 years of being ball washed because of my bank account, I wouldn't show even a fraction of the spite some of the folks here are putting forth, especially considering the highly unlikely circumstances under which the tax increases would bring my financial life to a sudden halt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Who knows, maybe he's giving a hand to the Cat in how government programs expand economic growth? And what do you consider the New Deal? How bout Bush's tax cuts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 And what do you consider the New Deal? How bout Bush's tax cuts? The New Deal stifled private development and FDR's economic engine was "saved" by a major war that devastated every single industrialized country, except the US. His and LBJ's great society programs can work only if you have a demographic trend where more workers are entering the workforce than exiting. Otherwise, you face financial ruin. I wonder where the demographic trends are pointing in the US now. Bush's tax cuts did stimulate the economy. The problem is that they worked a little too well because they contributed to stoking an asset bubble, but only an idiot would claim that they didn't stimulate the economy - and did so faster and more efficiently than waiting for the government works to provide its negligible push. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The enlarged text represents where we fundamentally disagree, and in my opinion, it's a lousy answer to my question. Give it to someone else? You mean give a 25k/month lifestyle to someone else? Surely you can't. I am 100% in agreement about the government's inability to manage money. But that's nothing new, and it's certainly not a an ineptitude that Obama, or any other politician in 2009 can be credited for inventing or in even reigniting. You must have been livid with how big the government grew to be between 2000-2008. But to address the enlarged text, and the nexus of your answer to my original question, having people PAY less does not equal GIVING out money. I am not RECEIVING any more benefits than I was six months ago, I'm simply paying less. Dare I say I represent the majority of Americans? I'm still light years away from a 25k/month lifestyle, and I don't believe it was ever anyone's intention to raise me to that status. But if I have a few extra bucks for groceries, while a wealthier person as a few less bucks for things in his life he could live without, it seems to me that the positive repercussions far out weigh the negative ones. Note: I didn't suggest there WEREN'T negative repercussions, nor did I suggest that wealthier people for whatever reason are now receiving the economic comeuppance they deserve, so please don't put those words into my mouth. The bottom line being--I understand why people would be pissy about having to pay higher taxes. But they're not historically high taxes, nor do they even cross a threshold that hasn't already been breached within the past decade. But if it was me who had a ton of money, while a far greater portion of folks are struggling to make ends meet, and after 8 years of being ball washed because of my bank account, I wouldn't show even a fraction of the spite some of the folks here are putting forth, especially considering the highly unlikely circumstances under which the tax increases would bring my financial life to a sudden halt. I didn't mean take my full $25k and give it away just part of it. But to address the bolded part above. It's so easy when the shoe is on the other foot, when you're talking about someone else's money. What if my fixed expenses where $15k a month and that's exactly what I brought home. That seems like a lot of money to you but to me it's just getting by. Why on earth should I give you money for groceries? Buy your own damn groceries. Now if there is someone who can't buy groceries because they lost their job due to the economy or health reasons..I'm all for that. But to just give you some of mine because you don't make as much as me, where's your incentive? I've been where you are, young not making a lot of money but I made it through and the fact that I did that on my own it the most rewarding thing in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I gotta wonder how long you've been waiting to use the word eponymously? About as long as he's been working on his cat condo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I didn't mean take my full $25k and give it away just part of it. But to address the bolded part above. It's so easy when the shoe is on the other foot, when you're talking about someone else's money. What if my fixed expenses where $15k a month and that's exactly what I brought home. That seems like a lot of money to you but to me it's just getting by. Why on earth should I give you money for groceries? Buy your own damn groceries. Now if there is someone who can't buy groceries because they lost their job due to the economy or health reasons..I'm all for that. But to just give you some of mine because you don't make as much as me, where's your incentive? I've been where you are, young not making a lot of money but I made it through and the fact that I did that on my own it the most rewarding thing in the world. Look, I completely understand that shoe-on-the-other foot mentality, so clearly I"m speaking directly from my ass when I say how I would feel about raising MY taxes. But you won't get me to agree that paying less is the equivalent of receiving. Nobody is giving me anything, not you, not Obama, my parents, yes, but that's because I'm the only child of parents who worked 2.5 jobs for 35 years! EDIT: Furthermore, I'd say that I'd say that if your cash flow = your expenses then you're living a borderline reckless/irresponsible lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Look, I completely understand that shoe-on-the-other foot mentality, so clearly I"m speaking directly from my ass when I say how I would feel about raising MY taxes. But you won't get me to agree that paying less is the equivalent of receiving. Nobody is giving me anything, not you, not Obama, my parents, yes, but that's because I'm the only child of parents who worked 2.5 jobs for 35 years! Paying less is not the equivalent of receiving? If you're paying less in taxes you're receiving more in your paycheck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I gotta wonder how long you've been waiting to use the word eponymously? Ever since he got that REM album... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Paying less is not the equivalent of receiving? If you're paying less in taxes you're receiving more in your paycheck. The paycheck that I EARNED, not that the government GIVES me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The paycheck that I EARNED, not that the government GIVES me. The government is giving you more money by allowing you to keep more by reducing your taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The enlarged text represents where we fundamentally disagree, and in my opinion, it's a lousy answer to my question. Give it to someone else? You mean give a 25k/month lifestyle to someone else? Surely you can't. I am 100% in agreement about the government's inability to manage money. But that's nothing new, and it's certainly not a an ineptitude that Obama, or any other politician in 2009 can be credited for inventing or in even reigniting. You must have been livid with how big the government grew to be between 2000-2008. But to address the enlarged text, and the nexus of your answer to my original question, having people PAY less does not equal GIVING out money. I am not RECEIVING any more benefits than I was six months ago, I'm simply paying less. Dare I say I represent the majority of Americans? I'm still light years away from a 25k/month lifestyle, and I don't believe it was ever anyone's intention to raise me to that status. But if I have a few extra bucks for groceries, while a wealthier person as a few less bucks for things in his life he could live without, it seems to me that the positive repercussions far out weigh the negative ones. Note: I didn't suggest there WEREN'T negative repercussions, nor did I suggest that wealthier people for whatever reason are now receiving the economic comeuppance they deserve, so please don't put those words into my mouth. The bottom line being--I understand why people would be pissy about having to pay higher taxes. But they're not historically high taxes, nor do they even cross a threshold that hasn't already been breached within the past decade. But if it was me who had a ton of money, while a far greater portion of folks are struggling to make ends meet, and after 8 years of being ball washed because of my bank account, I wouldn't show even a fraction of the spite some of the folks here are putting forth, especially considering the highly unlikely circumstances under which the tax increases would bring my financial life to a sudden halt. How old are you? I'm just curious as I've waded through this thread and have pretty much found that only your responses are incredibly naive. I'm not out of my 20's yet, but I certainly don't think like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 The paycheck that I EARNED, not that the government GIVES me. I guess you don't really care if part of that paycheck that you EARNED is taken away. I do. I'm happy to donate time and money to worthy causes. I don't deem ACORN a worthy cause and get resentful if they get some of my money via a stimulus bill that is followed by a massive, ill-conceived tax hike. I mean, dropped the deduction for chairties by $.07 on the dollar....WTF? Chairities will be hurting enough due to corporate cutbacks/bankruptcies, no need to futher encumber them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I'm really starting to warm up to this administration. Yeah, I know. It's Fox News. Obviously it's slanted. But a $50 BILLION PLACEHOLDER? Hey, a billion here. A billion there. Who's really paying attention to this hocus-pocus anyway, right? Wait. Let me guess. Obama made reference during his campaign that he would create a budget based on "guestimates." Wait. Let me guess. Bush sucks, so this is his fault, anyway, so shut up. I'll say it again; be careful what you wish for, as you will surely get it. Somebody tell the fat lady she's on in five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 EDIT: Furthermore, I'd say that I'd say that if your cash flow = your expenses then you're living a borderline reckless/irresponsible lifestyle. Yes, and these are the people who are going to benefit the most from these tax increases. The people who were RECKLESS / IRRESPONSIBLE. The ones buying big houses they couldn't afford, big screen tv's they shouldn't be buying and driving new cars they shouldn't be driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I gotta wonder how long you've been waiting to use the word eponymously? It honestly just came to me at the moment. Although I will confess to having to look up the correct spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I'm really starting to warm up to this administration. Yeah, I know. It's Fox News. Obviously it's slanted. But a $50 BILLION PLACEHOLDER? Hey, a billion here. A billion there. Who's really paying attention to this hocus-pocus anyway, right? Wait. Let me guess. Obama made reference during his campaign that he would create a budget based on "guestimates." Wait. Let me guess. Bush sucks, so this is his fault, anyway, so shut up. I'll say it again; be careful what you wish for, as you will surely get it. Somebody tell the fat lady she's on in five. Given that the Bush Administration funded Iraq with supplemental funding bills until 2008, actually having budget items for the war, even inaccurate guesses, is an improvement. Not much of one, I'll grant you. I'm basically saying the current administration is less irresponsible in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts