Obama: Not Raising Taxes is a Form of Government Spending

I understand why people consider the distinction between tax cuts and government programs important. However, Obama's phrasing is perfectly clear and accurate. While it's not entirely neutral, it's certainly not inflammatory either.

Consider the common definition of spend (dictionary.com): to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of

Tax cuts are certainly money expended and disposed of (from the perspective of the government). The Bush tax cuts in particular were tax cuts that were paid and and disbursed: checks were mailed out to millions of Americans. Obama's phrasing is also in keeping with standard macroeconomic language: deficit spending refers not merely to policies involving expenditures but to the difference between expenditures and revenues (ie, taxes). In general, the study of fiscal policy recognizes that spending and revenues are fundamentally linked.

Baruch argued that the difference between a tax cut and spending in a government program is that

the money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people.

This is a sentiment that, if taken literally (and I doubt this is how Baruch intended it), seems to suggest that taxes are inherently illegitimate in all circumstances. That is a notion that I've seen many times on this forum, and one that I still cannot fathom. To suggest that the government has no right to collect taxes or to hold assets is contrary to the law and to our constitution. It flies in the face of our culture and our history. It ignores the legitimacy of our democratically elected representatives. It's a pernicious concept that justifies destroying even the most worthwhile of government programs on the grounds that their method of funding is immoral.

Once again, for the slow , the ONLY way tax cuts are Government spending is if the Government owns all the money. And THAT is NOT in the Constitution.
 
Do you see how fucking stupid you have to be to run up annual trillion deficits and get our first every credit downgrade?

Is it starting to sink in how bad Obama really is?
 
From the perspective of the professional economist the term tax expenditure makes sense. But for the rest of the world, trying to justify it by semantic hair splitting won't go. They need to remember that the money was extracted from those who to whom it belongs for the goals of the nation. It is not their re election fund, it is not their toy.

It is our money for our need and they are the fiduciaries of what we give them to work with. It does not belong to the government and when they allow us to have what is rightfully ours, they are not expending it, we are retaining it.
 
Clearly someone never went to college.

It's amazing how you people suck up every lie that comes out of that man's mouth. Truly pathetic.

Just how is it a lie? Please explain in detail.

The money NOT taken in taxes is NOT Government money, no matter what the rates are. The ONLY way one can claim that a tax cut is Government spending is if one ASSUMES ALL money belongs to the Government. PRETTY DAMN SIMPLE CONCEPT, I think even an 8 year old could grasp it.

Certainly money not taken in taxes (or in some other way) is not government money. However, Obama was discussing changing the tax rates, or allowing them to change. If tax rates were raised then more private money would be collected into public funds, and this would be entirely legitimate.

Even that money which does not belong to the government does belong to society. Our society recognizes a firm but limited right to private ownership of property. That's why the government may collect taxes and do more esoteric things that infringe on property rights (such as freeing slaves). Someone who objects to how our democratic government apportions resources has only a few remedies: moving away, evading taxes, or attempting to influencing the government.
 
I understand why people consider the distinction between tax cuts and government programs important. However, Obama's phrasing is perfectly clear and accurate. While it's not entirely neutral, it's certainly not inflammatory either.

Consider the common definition of spend (dictionary.com): to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of

Tax cuts are certainly money expended and disposed of (from the perspective of the government). The Bush tax cuts in particular were tax cuts that were paid and and disbursed: checks were mailed out to millions of Americans. Obama's phrasing is also in keeping with standard macroeconomic language: deficit spending refers not merely to policies involving expenditures but to the difference between expenditures and revenues (ie, taxes). In general, the study of fiscal policy recognizes that spending and revenues are fundamentally linked.

Baruch argued that the difference between a tax cut and spending in a government program is that

the money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people.

This is a sentiment that, if taken literally (and I doubt this is how Baruch intended it), seems to suggest that taxes are inherently illegitimate in all circumstances. That is a notion that I've seen many times on this forum, and one that I still cannot fathom. To suggest that the government has no right to collect taxes or to hold assets is contrary to the law and to our constitution. It flies in the face of our culture and our history. It ignores the legitimacy of our democratically elected representatives. It's a pernicious concept that justifies destroying even the most worthwhile of government programs on the grounds that their method of funding is immoral.

Obama is a fucking moron, a complete financial illiterate; he makes Dan Quayle look like Newton or Einstein
 
I understand why people consider the distinction between tax cuts and government programs important. However, Obama's phrasing is perfectly clear and accurate. While it's not entirely neutral, it's certainly not inflammatory either.

Consider the common definition of spend (dictionary.com): to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of

Tax cuts are certainly money expended and disposed of (from the perspective of the government). The Bush tax cuts in particular were tax cuts that were paid and and disbursed: checks were mailed out to millions of Americans. Obama's phrasing is also in keeping with standard macroeconomic language: deficit spending refers not merely to policies involving expenditures but to the difference between expenditures and revenues (ie, taxes). In general, the study of fiscal policy recognizes that spending and revenues are fundamentally linked.

Baruch argued that the difference between a tax cut and spending in a government program is that

the money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people.

This is a sentiment that, if taken literally (and I doubt this is how Baruch intended it), seems to suggest that taxes are inherently illegitimate in all circumstances. That is a notion that I've seen many times on this forum, and one that I still cannot fathom. To suggest that the government has no right to collect taxes or to hold assets is contrary to the law and to our constitution. It flies in the face of our culture and our history. It ignores the legitimacy of our democratically elected representatives. It's a pernicious concept that justifies destroying even the most worthwhile of government programs on the grounds that their method of funding is immoral.

Once again, for the slow , the ONLY way tax cuts are Government spending is if the Government owns all the money. And THAT is NOT in the Constitution.

Taking it off the top in revenue or off the bottom in spending makes no difference to the deficit, it differs only symbolically to republicans as they are pathologically unwilling to reduce the deficit with any kind of taxation at all.
 
I understand why people consider the distinction between tax cuts and government programs important. However, Obama's phrasing is perfectly clear and accurate. While it's not entirely neutral, it's certainly not inflammatory either.

Consider the common definition of spend (dictionary.com): to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of

Tax cuts are certainly money expended and disposed of (from the perspective of the government). The Bush tax cuts in particular were tax cuts that were paid and and disbursed: checks were mailed out to millions of Americans. Obama's phrasing is also in keeping with standard macroeconomic language: deficit spending refers not merely to policies involving expenditures but to the difference between expenditures and revenues (ie, taxes). In general, the study of fiscal policy recognizes that spending and revenues are fundamentally linked.

Baruch argued that the difference between a tax cut and spending in a government program is that



This is a sentiment that, if taken literally (and I doubt this is how Baruch intended it), seems to suggest that taxes are inherently illegitimate in all circumstances. That is a notion that I've seen many times on this forum, and one that I still cannot fathom. To suggest that the government has no right to collect taxes or to hold assets is contrary to the law and to our constitution. It flies in the face of our culture and our history. It ignores the legitimacy of our democratically elected representatives. It's a pernicious concept that justifies destroying even the most worthwhile of government programs on the grounds that their method of funding is immoral.

Once again, for the slow , the ONLY way tax cuts are Government spending is if the Government owns all the money. And THAT is NOT in the Constitution.

Taking it off the top in revenue or off the bottom in spending makes no difference to the deficit, it differs only symbolically to republicans as they are pathologically unwilling to reduce the deficit with any kind of taxation at all.

Wrong, they offered 400 billion in new taxes, the Democrats refused because it would have required cuts to match. What you mean to say is the Democrats refuse to cut anything.
 
From the perspective of the professional economist the term tax expenditure makes sense. But for the rest of the world, trying to justify it by semantic hair splitting won't go. They need to remember that the money was extracted from those who to whom it belongs for the goals of the nation. It is not their re election fund, it is not their toy.

It is our money for our need and they are the fiduciaries of what we give them to work with. It does not belong to the government and when they allow us to have what is rightfully ours, they are not expending it, we are retaining it.

Certainly a government entity is fiduciary in the sense that it is intended to expend public funds for the benefit of the public rather than its employees. And certainly public funds are neither campaign funds nor toys. However, I see scant evidence that it is treated as either to a significant degree, your concerns about aircraft carriers and scientific funds notwithstanding.

If you are referring to my interpretation of Obama's words, I don't think I was splitting hairs (this time). While a number of people have objected to Obama's phrasing, no one has suggested that his words were the least bit misleading. They seem perfectly clear and factual, although to some people they revealed an objectionable ideology.

Again, I'm uncomfortable with your phrasing: "It does not belong to the government". Surely you are not suggesting that it would be legitimate to refuse to pay taxes which you legally owed?
 
The thing is, the money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people. The government takes money from people to do important and useful stuff, but the money left in their pockets in no way counts as spending by the government

That's how it was intended by the Founders, but 1971 turned the philosophy of money inside out when specie USDs were replaced with fiat USDs. Specie dollar = government issued debt instrument backed by gov-owned commodity whereas the fiat dollar = government issued credit instrument backed by individual tax liabilities.

Take out and look at that government-created USD money left in your pocket -- "legal tender for all debts public and private." Earning sovereign tax credits arbitrarily called 'money' essentially earns you the right to pay federal tax expenses legally incurred onto yourself upon entering the US labor force.

With respect to the government/individual financial relationship, government is ultimately a creditor to individual debtor whenever money is privately earned.
 
Once again, for the slow , the ONLY way tax cuts are Government spending is if the Government owns all the money. And THAT is NOT in the Constitution.

Taking it off the top in revenue or off the bottom in spending makes no difference to the deficit, it differs only symbolically to republicans as they are pathologically unwilling to reduce the deficit with any kind of taxation at all.

Wrong, they offered 400 billion in new taxes, the Democrats refused because it would have required cuts to match. What you mean to say is the Democrats refuse to cut anything.

They have cut a lot but there is only so much you can do with discretionary spending, No way to cut our way out of debt with that alone, there has to be some new revenue from somewhere to replace all they have allowed people to keep instead of paying in. Not familiar with the offer you are talking about but any offer of a tax hike by republicans is just a scheme to shift the tax burden further downward.
 
Last edited:
The government is our creation. What many of us fear is that it is going to run off and do its own thing without reference to our needs much in the nature of Frankenstein's monster. If we let it get too powerful and too rich it will either destroy us or become our master. If we allow the concept that what is ours is our on sufferance to our servant we have lost something very valuable. And the government we created together for our mutual protection becomes the biggest threat we have to fear.
 
Mr Obama said:
Keep in mind, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle class households. You’ve heard me say it: Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.”
Simple solution, let's make everybody pay the exact same income tax rate. Preferably somewhere around 10% or less.

I would also like to point out the ever-present class warfare being espoused in the very first sentence.
One can be a millionaire and only have an income of $20,000, thus he is only taxed on his $20,000, not his wealth. A middle class person is going to have between $40,000 and $240,000 in annual income and potentially not be a millionaire. Last I looked, it's called an "income tax", not a "wealth tax".
 
From the perspective of the professional economist the term tax expenditure makes sense. But for the rest of the world, trying to justify it by semantic hair splitting won't go. They need to remember that the money was extracted from those who to whom it belongs for the goals of the nation. It is not their re election fund, it is not their toy.

It is our money for our need and they are the fiduciaries of what we give them to work with. It does not belong to the government and when they allow us to have what is rightfully ours, they are not expending it, we are retaining it.

This historical anecdote is what finally allowed me to wrap my head around government's philosophy of money's functional purpose; a counterintuitive perspective they very desperately want to keep obscured from citizens:

Shortly after arriving, the colonial administration in British Africa imposed Royal land taxes, payable in colonist-issued Imperial fiat, so that the carefree natives would be compelled to use the currency and engage in economic productivity. Upon returning to England, one colonist was disappointed to learn that the Imperial fiat he'd been hoarding in Africa held a monetary value of exactly zero in England and everywhere else.
 
<snips> While a number of people have objected to Obama's phrasing, no one has suggested that his words were the least bit misleading. They seem perfectly clear and factual, although to some people they revealed an objectionable ideology.

Again, I'm uncomfortable with your phrasing: "It does not belong to the government". Surely you are not suggesting that it would be legitimate to refuse to pay taxes which you legally owed?

That is the main point of contention here is that his phrasing exposes ideology that is incompatible with a free society.

We create the government and set the taxes to achieve national goals agreed on during the democratic process. The funds come from the people, and not from the government. Things left in the hands of their rightful owners are not expended to them. When you walk out of a store with your purchases, the change in your pocket is not an expense to the store.
 
Well, that is the theory. We get air craft carriers and we gut studies on the love life of newts. The way it is spent shows that they really don't understand where it came from.

68% of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense.

Which of those do you want to cut?

All three of them need to be cut. That's why you aren't seeing any serious proposals to fix the deficit other than Paul Ryan's lukewarm plan that he put forward, which wasn't practical anyway. The Republicans and Democrats are too cowardly to make the tough calls and the American people aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary.

Nothing will happen until we face a Greek style collapse and then all the politicians will be pointing fingers at each other even though they'll all be at fault for it.
 
Well, that is the theory. We get air craft carriers and we gut studies on the love life of newts. The way it is spent shows that they really don't understand where it came from.

68% of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense.

Which of those do you want to cut?

we are cutting defense homer, catch up.

now your turn;

Social Security, Medicare

take your time, I know all these choices confuse you.......................
 
<snips> While a number of people have objected to Obama's phrasing, no one has suggested that his words were the least bit misleading. They seem perfectly clear and factual, although to some people they revealed an objectionable ideology.

Again, I'm uncomfortable with your phrasing: "It does not belong to the government". Surely you are not suggesting that it would be legitimate to refuse to pay taxes which you legally owed?

That is the main point of contention here is that his phrasing exposes ideology that is incompatible with a free society.

We create the government and set the taxes to achieve national goals agreed on during the democratic process. The funds come from the people, and not from the government. Things left in the hands of their rightful owners are not expended to them. When you walk out of a store with your purchases, the change in your pocket is not an expense to the store.

I wish I could rep you twice for that. excellent succinct synopsis....thx. :clap2:
 
From the perspective of the professional economist the term tax expenditure makes sense. But for the rest of the world, trying to justify it by semantic hair splitting won't go. They need to remember that the money was extracted from those who to whom it belongs for the goals of the nation. It is not their re election fund, it is not their toy.

It is our money for our need and they are the fiduciaries of what we give them to work with. It does not belong to the government and when they allow us to have what is rightfully ours, they are not expending it, we are retaining it.

This historical anecdote is what finally allowed me to wrap my head around government's philosophy of money's functional purpose; a counterintuitive perspective they very desperately want to keep obscured from citizens:

Shortly after arriving, the colonial administration in British Africa imposed Royal land taxes, payable in colonist-issued Imperial fiat, so that the carefree natives would be compelled to use the currency and engage in economic productivity. Upon returning to England, one colonist was disappointed to learn that the Imperial fiat he'd been hoarding in Africa held a monetary value of exactly zero in England and everywhere else.

:lol::lol:fantastic anecdote thx...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top