Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

[The Rabbi]

Raising tax on the "rich" will not raise enough revenue. Maybe we should eliminate the Bush tax cuts then put a graduated surcharge on incomes over $300,000?

In addition we need to stop with the "tax" holiday (actually a premium holiday as pay roll "taxes" are really premiums for retirement and disability insurance.)

That still wont make much difference. It's the spending.

 

[daveman]

Blind ideological solutions are both impossible to implement and recklessly damaging in their unintended consequences.

Sort of like over taxing job creators regardless of the negative consequences.

Dude, you keep walking into it.

It's not blind ideology, things were better before the Bush tax cuts, nothing seemed to be gained by extending them so it's time to put them back and see if that helps.

Okay. You also have to decrease the size and spending of government to the levels before the Bush tax cuts, too.

Or did you think just the levels of taxation make all the difference?

 

[occupied]

You didn't answer the question....the answer is most imortant

Any answer I would give you involves social responsibility. I have a feeling that you do not think anyone owes a thin dime back to the society that provided an economy, infrastructure and safety where someone could become exceptionally wealthy so why bother?

Why does higher taxes=social responsibility? Why are you being socially responsible with other people's money? That isn't generosity. That's theft.

My money too, I am in favor of all tax rates to return to where they were in case you were wondering, I have already told you that America likes it's spending where it is in spite of their complaints about it and that the real path to deficit reduction is to be taxed at a level that pays for that spending, only then Americans will take spending cuts seriously. Put taxes back where they were, cut what little we can without exploding the misery index and then pay the deficit down, not try to make some subset of Americans suffer for what we all did, that's social responsibility.

 

[The Rabbi]

Any answer I would give you involves social responsibility. I have a feeling that you do not think anyone owes a thin dime back to the society that provided an economy, infrastructure and safety where someone could become exceptionally wealthy so why bother?

Why does higher taxes=social responsibility? Why are you being socially responsible with other people's money? That isn't generosity. That's theft.

My money too, I am in favor of all tax rates to return to where they were in case you were wondering, I have already told you that America likes it's spending where it is in spite of their complaints about it and that the real path to deficit reduction is to be taxed at a level that pays for that spending, only then Americans will take spending cuts seriously. Put taxes back where they were, cut what little we can without exploding the misery index and then pay the deficit down, not try to make some subset of Americans suffer for what we all did, that's social responsibility.

It would take roughly a doubling of tax rates to achieve a balanced budget with this level of spending. That isn't going to happen. And if it did all economic activity here would cease.

 

[Antares]

Any answer I would give you involves social responsibility. I have a feeling that you do not think anyone owes a thin dime back to the society that provided an economy, infrastructure and safety where someone could become exceptionally wealthy so why bother?

Why does higher taxes=social responsibility? Why are you being socially responsible with other people's money? That isn't generosity. That's theft.

My money too, I am in favor of all tax rates to return to where they were in case you were wondering, I have already told you that America likes it's spending where it is in spite of their complaints about it and that the real path to deficit reduction is to be taxed at a level that pays for that spending, only then Americans will take spending cuts seriously. Put taxes back where they were, cut what little we can without exploding the misery index and then pay the deficit down, not try to make some subset of Americans suffer for what we all did, that's social responsibility.

Nope, if its ok to take taxes back to his levels, its ok to take spending to them too.

 

[The Rabbi]

We dont need to go to the Clinton era. We can go back to 2005. Just adopt 2005s budget and the budget would be balanced.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Taxing just the rich is a futile effort.

.....But, a.....

....DAMNED GOOD $TART!!!!!

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . ​

 

[Antares]

Social Responsibility=Social Justice

We aren't "responsible" for everybody else.....sorry, life is unfair.

 

[occupied]

Sort of like over taxing job creators regardless of the negative consequences.

Dude, you keep walking into it.

It's not blind ideology, things were better before the Bush tax cuts, nothing seemed to be gained by extending them so it's time to put them back and see if that helps.

Okay. You also have to decrease the size and spending of government to the levels before the Bush tax cuts, too.

Or did you think just the levels of taxation make all the difference?

Not possible, although the government is smaller under Obama we still have programs and agencies that cannot be put back in the bottle without paying a suicidal political cost on the part of one party or the other, I can guess who you would like to be the party that takes the heat for killing such popular programs as medicare D.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We dont need to go to the Clinton era. We can go back to 2005. Just adopt 2005s budget and the budget would be balanced.

Ah, yes.....let's try one-MORE-time!!!!​

January 13, 2008​

"The recession-deniers were muzzled by a horrendous last two weeks of December, and the gloom-and-doomers are now out in force. Their key arguments:

* Plummeting housing will now drag down the rest of the economy.

*The "bad debt" problem is not just "sub-prime" folks who should never have have taken out mortgages in the first place. It includes credit card debt, "high quality" mortgages, car loans, and other leverage that have recently become a consumer way of life.

*Pressure on consumers is leading to a reduction in consumer spending (70% of economy), which, in turn, will lead to a reduction in spending by companies that sell stuff to consumers.

*The question now is not "will there be a recession?" but "how bad will it get?"

*The most optimistic forecasts in a NYT gloom-and-doom round-up are for three crappy quarters, regardless of what the Fed does. Less optimistic forecasts suggest that we are, well, screwed.

After blowing the last downturn, we've been worried this one since last summer (see below). We also suspect that, given the importance of housing to the economy and debt to consumer spending, the recession will be deeper and more prolonged than people think."

"U.S. Economy Screwed"​

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not blind ideology, things were better before the Bush tax cuts, nothing seemed to be gained by extending them so it's time to put them back and see if that helps.

Okay. You also have to decrease the size and spending of government to the levels before the Bush tax cuts, too.

Or did you think just the levels of taxation make all the difference?

Not possible, although the government is smaller under Obama we still have programs and agencies that cannot be put back in the bottle without paying a suicidal political cost on the part of one party or the other, I can guess who you would like to be the party that takes the heat for killing such popular programs as medicare D.

What makes you think the gov't is smaller under Obama? The opposite is the case.
We have tons of programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The only ones pushing for them are the gov't workers who benefit directly.

 

[occupied]

Why does higher taxes=social responsibility? Why are you being socially responsible with other people's money? That isn't generosity. That's theft.

My money too, I am in favor of all tax rates to return to where they were in case you were wondering, I have already told you that America likes it's spending where it is in spite of their complaints about it and that the real path to deficit reduction is to be taxed at a level that pays for that spending, only then Americans will take spending cuts seriously. Put taxes back where they were, cut what little we can without exploding the misery index and then pay the deficit down, not try to make some subset of Americans suffer for what we all did, that's social responsibility.

It would take roughly a doubling of tax rates to achieve a balanced budget with this level of spending. That isn't going to happen. And if it did all economic activity here would cease.

So we are at an impasse, since neither cuts or tax hikes can work alone, it must be both and there must be no sacred cows. So I'll ask you again, what do you really like that you are willing to give up? Furthermore, are you prepared to hold your attacks if these cuts happen to cause your own personal misery index to go up? Are you prepared to suffer some for deficit reduction since it seems to be the only thing you care about here?

 

[occupied]

Okay. You also have to decrease the size and spending of government to the levels before the Bush tax cuts, too.

Or did you think just the levels of taxation make all the difference?

Not possible, although the government is smaller under Obama we still have programs and agencies that cannot be put back in the bottle without paying a suicidal political cost on the part of one party or the other, I can guess who you would like to be the party that takes the heat for killing such popular programs as medicare D.

What makes you think the gov't is smaller under Obama? The opposite is the case.
We have tons of programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The only ones pushing for them are the gov't workers who benefit directly.

There are thousands less government employees at all levels and agencies now than in 2008, not nearly enough to make up for Bush's unprecedented growth of the government but you have to start somewhere.

 

[Darkwind]

Not possible, although the government is smaller under Obama we still have programs and agencies that cannot be put back in the bottle without paying a suicidal political cost on the part of one party or the other, I can guess who you would like to be the party that takes the heat for killing such popular programs as medicare D.

What makes you think the gov't is smaller under Obama? The opposite is the case.
We have tons of programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The only ones pushing for them are the gov't workers who benefit directly.

There are thousands less government employees at all levels and agencies now than in 2008, not nearly enough to make up for Bush's unprecedented growth of the government but you have to start somewhere.

When people speak of the size of government, they are not discussing the number of employees.

But you knew that, which makes your reply less than honest.

 

[occupied]

What makes you think the gov't is smaller under Obama? The opposite is the case.
We have tons of programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The only ones pushing for them are the gov't workers who benefit directly.

There are thousands less government employees at all levels and agencies now than in 2008, not nearly enough to make up for Bush's unprecedented growth of the government but you have to start somewhere.

When people speak of the size of government, they are not discussing the number of employees.

But you knew that, so that makes your reply less than honest.

Not really in the mood to address the question of how intrusive the government is, the question here is numbers and money, in terms of new spending and employees the government is much smaller under Obama, the problem of continuing spending on existing programs is really one to hang on congress over the last twenty years rather than the president over the last four.

 

[Darkwind]

There are thousands less government employees at all levels and agencies now than in 2008, not nearly enough to make up for Bush's unprecedented growth of the government but you have to start somewhere.

When people speak of the size of government, they are not discussing the number of employees.

But you knew that, so that makes your reply less than honest.

Not really in the mood to address the question of how intrusive the government is, the question here is numbers and money, in terms of new spending and employees the government is much smaller under Obama, the problem of continuing spending on existing programs is really one to hang on congress over the last twenty years rather than the president over the last four.

Not caring about what you are in the mood for.

Government size is determined by its intrusiveness, spending, and burden upon the citizens. Not on the number of employees.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not possible, although the government is smaller under Obama we still have programs and agencies that cannot be put back in the bottle without paying a suicidal political cost on the part of one party or the other, I can guess who you would like to be the party that takes the heat for killing such popular programs as medicare D.

What makes you think the gov't is smaller under Obama? The opposite is the case.
We have tons of programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The only ones pushing for them are the gov't workers who benefit directly.

There are thousands less government employees at all levels and agencies now than in 2008, not nearly enough to make up for Bush's unprecedented growth of the government but you have to start somewhere.

Uh, no. That is not true. Try again:
Total Government Employment Since 1962

 

[The Rabbi]

My money too, I am in favor of all tax rates to return to where they were in case you were wondering, I have already told you that America likes it's spending where it is in spite of their complaints about it and that the real path to deficit reduction is to be taxed at a level that pays for that spending, only then Americans will take spending cuts seriously. Put taxes back where they were, cut what little we can without exploding the misery index and then pay the deficit down, not try to make some subset of Americans suffer for what we all did, that's social responsibility.

It would take roughly a doubling of tax rates to achieve a balanced budget with this level of spending. That isn't going to happen. And if it did all economic activity here would cease.

So we are at an impasse, since neither cuts or tax hikes can work alone, it must be both and there must be no sacred cows. So I'll ask you again, what do you really like that you are willing to give up? Furthermore, are you prepared to hold your attacks if these cuts happen to cause your own personal misery index to go up? Are you prepared to suffer some for deficit reduction since it seems to be the only thing you care about here?

We are not at an impasse. You cannot balance the budget by increasing taxes. Therefore spending must be cut.
I'd propose a reduction back to spending levels of 2005. I'd compromise at 2007. I wasnt suffering then. I'm not suffering now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rabbi, where is your proof that "Obama and gazillion Dems" want to "tax just the rich"?

Oh never mind.

I know you were lying and you know you were lying.

We'll just leave it at that.

Liar.

 

[occupied]

It would take roughly a doubling of tax rates to achieve a balanced budget with this level of spending. That isn't going to happen. And if it did all economic activity here would cease.

So we are at an impasse, since neither cuts or tax hikes can work alone, it must be both and there must be no sacred cows. So I'll ask you again, what do you really like that you are willing to give up? Furthermore, are you prepared to hold your attacks if these cuts happen to cause your own personal misery index to go up? Are you prepared to suffer some for deficit reduction since it seems to be the only thing you care about here?

We are not at an impasse. You cannot balance the budget by increasing taxes. Therefore spending must be cut.
I'd propose a reduction back to spending levels of 2005. I'd compromise at 2007. I wasnt suffering then. I'm not suffering now.

So what's it to you? Really? I was under the impression that these tax hikes would break you the way you've been harping on it here. I guess your opinion confirms that you really don't give a shit about the deficit and are just interested in using the argument as an assault on the welfare state. I now know that you would accept any level of deficit spending if you could just stick it to the mooches and cut your tax bill and to hell with the consequences.