dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 They are the only ones paying taxes, so they are the only ones that can have their taxes can be lowered. In your warped universe federal income tax is the only tax in existence. And the top few percent are the only people paying it. I call bull **** on any graph that shows the Afghanistan war's contribution to the deficits started a year after the war started. I don't feel like searching for one data point all through is work...the point is that the bush tax cuts were huge drivers of debt. And they came when we were at war and Bush told us then to go shopping. The bottom line is regardless of what anybody has said in public THE most out of control spending that we have in the country is military. According to Lofgren...30 year military budget man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) In your warped universe federal income tax is the only tax in existence. And the top few percent are the only people paying it. Where did I say that? Tell me oh enlightened one, what other federal taxes are middle and lower income people paying? Edited September 11, 2012 by Gary M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) In your warped universe federal income tax is the only tax in existence. And the top few percent are the only people paying it. 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. . Edited September 11, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Some glowing remarks he had about military spending: By a process of self-selection, acculturation, and groupthink, a majority of members of Congress currently sitting on teh defense committees of both House and Senate have become rigid advocates of ever higher military spending... .... As the cold war drew to a close the defense establishment had evolved into a rigid, bureaucratic institution strangely emulating the defunct Soviet system it believed it had vanquished. Its real mission had become inwardly focused: to preserve the status, privileges, and prerogatives it had enjoyed. The Pentagon developed a whole vocabulary to enable this. There is no such thing in the military as a problem; there are only "issues" or "challenges." Mistakes and errors never occur. I recall watching one prototype missile test launch that blew up perhaps three seconds after liftoff. A general pronounced it a "nominal success." ... There are many people active in politics who claim they would man the barricades to fight to the death against socialism. But these are the same people who also say they adore the US military, which is probably the largest - certainly the most lavishly funded - socialist institution remaining on Earth... .... Despite what secretary Gates and Panetta have claimed, the DOD budget has been, next to the Bush tax cuts, the single greatest contributor to the drastic swing from surplus to deficit since 2001. When debt service costs are included, the wars have cost about $1.7 trillion. Additionally, the Pentagon has spent about $1 trillion above inflation on its nonwar budget. Adding debt service makes that about 1.3 trillion, for a grand total of roughly $3 trillion added to the debt courtesy of DOD. 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. . I assume payroll taxes do not count either...despite being the most regressive form of all taxes. State and local taxes also..do not count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Some glowing remarks he had about military spending: By a process of self-selection, acculturation, and groupthink, a majority of members of Congress currently sitting on teh defense committees of both House and Senate have become rigid advocates of ever higher military spending... .... As the cold war drew to a close the defense establishment had evolved into a rigid, bureaucratic institution strangely emulating the defunct Soviet system it believed it had vanquished. Its real mission had become inwardly focused: to preserve the status, privileges, and prerogatives it had enjoyed. The Pentagon developed a whole vocabulary to enable this. There is no such thing in the military as a problem; there are only "issues" or "challenges." Mistakes and errors never occur. I recall watching one prototype missile test launch that blew up perhaps three seconds after liftoff. A general pronounced it a "nominal success." ... There are many people active in politics who claim they would man the barricades to fight to the death against socialism. But these are the same people who also say they adore the US military, which is probably the largest - certainly the most lavishly funded - socialist institution remaining on Earth... .... Despite what secretary Gates and Panetta have claimed, the DOD budget has been, next to the Bush tax cuts, the single greatest contributor to the drastic swing from surplus to deficit since 2001. When debt service costs are included, the wars have cost about $1.7 trillion. Additionally, the Pentagon has spent about $1 trillion above inflation on its nonwar budget. Adding debt service makes that about 1.3 trillion, for a grand total of roughly $3 trillion added to the debt courtesy of DOD. I assume payroll taxes do not count either...despite being the most regressive form of all taxes. State and local taxes also..do not count. Okay so which "payroll" taxes will be lowered for the rich but not the poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Okay so which "payroll" taxes will be lowered for the rich but not the poor? You said rich are the only people paying taxes. I said, payroll tax, sales tax, state and local...apparently don't count. Neither do the non-rich who pay federal income tax apparently. Why are you so indoctrinated? (once again according to Lofgren) the four hundred richest Americans have been paying an average effective federal income tax rate of 17% since the Bush cuts, a little more than half of what they paid in the '90s...while their combined income quadrupled. This idea that teachers, nurses, fireman, and cashiers are oppressing derivatives traders and CEO's and people w/ multi-million dollar annual incomes is just .... not reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) You said rich are the only people paying taxes. I said, payroll tax, sales tax, state and local...apparently don't count. Neither do the non-rich who pay federal income tax apparently. Why are you so indoctrinated? (once again according to Lofgren) the four hundred richest Americans have been paying an average effective federal income tax rate of 17% since the Bush cuts, a little more than half of what they paid in the '90s...while their combined income quadrupled. This idea that teachers, nurses, fireman, and cashiers are oppressing derivatives traders and CEO's and people w/ multi-million dollar annual incomes is just .... not reality. Anytime you increase spending and decree that the revenue will come from the wealthy, it ends up being passed on to the middle class in one form or another. I live in that kind of society and just came back from another city that is similar (Barcelona). All you end up doing is making the cost of living higher on the middle class because the wealthy will always find ways around any tax increases unless you show up at their door and raid their mattresses. Edited September 11, 2012 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Anytime you increase spending and decree that the revenue will come from the wealthy, it ends up being passed on to the middle class in one form or another. I live in that kind of society and just came back from another city that is similar (Barcelona). All you end up doing is making the cost of living higher on the middle class because the wealthy will always find ways around any tax increases unless you show up at their door and raid their mattresses. Makes sense the basic framework is to decrease spending by a much larger margin than increasing revenue then huh? The basic idea that we aren't going to increase revenue 1 dime on donor class (who are paying lower effective rates than they have in many decades while holding more of the wealth than in decades) AND are going to INCREASE military spending and then just cut everything else to balance the budget is 1) impossible the math literally doesn't work and 2) it's immoral (even though I know you guys don't care about that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) No you dumbass I said that the rich are the only ones paying the taxes that Romney wants to cut.. And even after the cuts they will still be paying far more than the "poor". The "rich" are far from the only people paying federal income tax. I really don't know what world you are living in. Additionally, do you realize the word "inequality' is an economic thing....not a mere talking point? We're broke, plain and simple. The money in society is vastly allocated top heavy...more so than in recent history of our country. The CBO shows since '79 the top 1% doubled their share of gross income from 10 to 20% http://www.nytimes.c...-says.html?_r=1 Bertelsmann Foundation ranks us 27th out of 31 in study evaluating among other things economic equality, social mobility, and poverty prevention... http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf There is no reason to be so indoctrinated as to honestly fight tooth and nail for the GOP donor class b/c you are "republican" Edited September 11, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 You said rich are the only people paying taxes. I said, payroll tax, sales tax, state and local...apparently don't count. Neither do the non-rich who pay federal income tax apparently. Why are you so indoctrinated? (once again according to Lofgren) the four hundred richest Americans have been paying an average effective federal income tax rate of 17% since the Bush cuts, a little more than half of what they paid in the '90s...while their combined income quadrupled. This idea that teachers, nurses, fireman, and cashiers are oppressing derivatives traders and CEO's and people w/ multi-million dollar annual incomes is just .... not reality. I was talking about the taxes that were cut by Bush. why can't you stay focused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 It's his thesus not mine. He put the direct costs (not including funds funneled to agencies such as homeland security) to amount to about 1.7 trillion (nothing paid for) while the tax cuts themselves ... I can't recall what he had to say about the Bush Tax cuts in numbers but it was big...here's on graph a google search produces that is not his work so for what it's worth (it doesn't work for this discussion other than to show the tax cut impact relative to the war figure) and his overall criticism being a military spending nut was the institution of constantly increasing the budget no matter what perceived threat need be manufactured and no matter how superior our military becomes...he gave detailed descriptions of the lobby industry for military goodies and how they are in bed w/ the military itself and nobody on the hill dare question any of it lest they be "soft"... Basically his work is really depressing. He hits the entire spectrum and describes how he has seen it develop over 30 years. Senate tactics, money, military, anti-intellectual pandering, media, religion....he really harps on the tax and military issues b/c that's what he knows best. He blasts the Dems where they are the same for what it's worth although nobody on this board will see him as a credible source on anything I'm sure... 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 There is basically no rational argument that can be seriously argued as one concerned with the debt that fits the modern GOP tax policy. I really don't understand why this "class warfare" stuff trumped up by the mass idiocy machine has got you all so incredibly tooth-and-nail clinging to the GOP position. It's transparent. Yes we have to cut spending drastically, no ****. Now...about the revenue....uh...uh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 There is basically no rational argument that can be seriously argued as one concerned with the debt that fits the modern GOP tax policy. I really don't understand why this "class warfare" stuff trumped up by the mass idiocy machine has got you all so incredibly tooth-and-nail clinging to the GOP position. It's transparent. Yes we have to cut spending drastically, no ****. Now...about the revenue....uh...uh.... Which tax increases are you proposing and how much will they reduce the national debt. P.S. if you mention the buffet rule don't even bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) The "rich" are far from the only people paying federal income tax. I really don't know what world you are living in. Additionally, do you realize the word "inequality' is an economic thing....not a mere talking point? We're broke, plain and simple. The money in society is vastly allocated top heavy...more so than in recent history of our country. The CBO shows since '79 the top 1% doubled their share of gross income from 10 to 20% http://www.nytimes.c...-says.html?_r=1 Bertelsmann Foundation ranks us 27th out of 31 in study evaluating among other things economic equality, social mobility, and poverty prevention... There is no reason to be so indoctrinated as to honestly fight tooth and nail for the GOP donor class b/c you are "republican" I don't pay federal income tax but still get a "refund" check, due to the child tax credit (6 children) This is the first year my kids have not qualified for discount lunches. I have two kids in college, we have four vehicles and five computers DSL and Satellite TV, I put 11% of my income in my 401(k) and tithe to my church. Until the Parochial school closed last year my children went there ($2500/yr). The only debt I have is my mortgage, if I don't have the cash I don't buy it. Inequality is a bull **** talking point, liberals have convinced too many people that they are victims and need to be coddled. I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that more citizens contribute to society and that less take from same. The US government has spent more on welfare than any other nation and the number of "poor" continues to grow. and as typical with liberals you try and blame someone else for the failings of your policies. http://blog.heritage...rty-in-america/ i do not resent the wealthy, I want to join them, and am working my ass off to get there. There is basically no rational argument that can be seriously argued as one concerned with the debt that fits the modern GOP tax policy. I really don't understand why this "class warfare" stuff trumped up by the mass idiocy machine has got you all so incredibly tooth-and-nail clinging to the GOP position. It's transparent. Yes we have to cut spending drastically, no ****. Now...about the revenue....uh...uh.... Cut spending and lower tax rates and the revenue will increase. Just as it always has. raise them and it goes down. Edited September 11, 2012 by Gary M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Which tax increases are you proposing and how much will they reduce the national debt. P.S. if you mention the buffet rule don't even bother. Buffet rule. For real the basic frame work of simpson-bowles is where both parties should start...and there would hopefully be a way to get a little more revenue from the top and more cuts (mainly in defense but also discretionary)...of course that is a pipe dream b/c Simpson-Bowles was a nonstarter as is and pushing for more military cuts or revenue won't change that even if all discretionary spending were cut an additional 200B a year (which Dems would never go for). The point is with Gary's faux-view on American society and economy today and staunch support for the donor class as a result there's no discussion to be had at all! Edited September 11, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Buffet rule. For real the basic frame work of simpson-bowles is where both parties should start...and there would hopefully be a way to get a little more revenue from the top and more cuts (mainly in defense but also discretionary)...of course that is a pipe dream b/c Simpson-Bowles was a nonstarter as is and pushing for more military cuts or revenue won't change that even if all discretionary spending were cut an additional 200B a year (which Dems would never go for). The point is with Gary's faux-view on American society and economy today and staunch support for the donor class as a result there's no discussion to be had at all! We were discussing the Bush tax cuts, correct? (that is what was in the chart you posted) You changed the subject to payroll taxes. There is no way to have a conversation with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Cut spending and lower tax rates and the revenue will increase. Just as it always has. raise them and it goes down. You are living in fantasy land brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 You are living in fantasy land brother No, he's not. Government revenue has historically gone up with the increased business that results from lower taxes. Hey and don't worry about that defense budget, they already are demonstrating great spending decisions. The Chevy Volt, the plug-in car that has been plagued by sluggish sales and mounting losses since General Motors rolled it out in 2010, has one deep-pocketed customer: the Pentagon. The Department of Defense is planning to purchase 1,500 electric cars including Volts as part of its effort to make the military more environmentally friendly. But given the federal government’s bailout of Chevy maker General Motors, President Obama’s praise of the Volt and the car’s long-running problems, the federal purchase is likely to become the latest controversy in the Volt’s short life. … Those sales will be boosted at taxpayer expense. The Department of Defense began buying Volts this summer as the Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, Calif., purchased two in July. Another 18 Volts will soon be delivered to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, where Air Force One is based, according to military magazine Stars and Stripes. So, let me get this straight: The defense budget is looking at billions of dollars in budget cuts to create a “leaner military” over the next decade, and Secretary Panetta has said that the upcoming half-a-trillion sequester would be a “disaster” as-is, but now we’re using our limited defense funds to buy cars that the free market is rejecting in order to prop up the Obama administration’s green agenda? …Is this real life? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Government revenue has historically gone up with the increased business that results from lower taxes. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue--- When asked recently about the proposition, "A cut in federal income tax rates in the U.S. right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut," none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers, 96 percent disagreed and 4 percent were uncertain. Of course since it's history you are concerned w/ you could just look at the graph above showing the Bush tax cuts over the past decade have substantially contributed to massive deficits I really don't know what it would take to beat this this out of the certain people's minds that if we simply cut taxes, all is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Government revenue has historically gone up with the increased business that results from lower taxes. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue--- When asked recently about the proposition, "A cut in federal income tax rates in the U.S. right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut," none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers, 96 percent disagreed and 4 percent were uncertain. Of course since it's history you are concerned w/ you could just look at the graph above showing the Bush tax cuts over the past decade have substantially contributed to massive deficits I really don't know what it would take to beat this this out of the certain people's minds that if we simply cut taxes, all is well. Nothing. Its a "religion" for them now. call it "faith-based" budgeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts