By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Something I thought of about tax cuts....

hobbit on 16 April 2010
NinjaguyDan said:
hobbit said:
NinjaguyDan said:
hobbit said:
NinjaguyDan said:
mrstickball said:
NinjaguyDan said:
If the tax cuts for the wealthy work so well, then why aren't we driving on streets paved in gold by now?
I've heard that bullshit for the last thirty years, "cut taxes on the rich and the economy will grow".
WHEN? WHERE? HOW!?! I have yet to see that happen.

I think you are the only one to assume that tax cuts should equate to driving on gold streets. If soaking the rich worked (on the opposite end), then Cuba and China should be made of solid gold, and North Korea should be the workers' paradise, shouldn't it?

Rather, the United States' relative stand to other countries quality of living has been been fairly strong after the massive tax cuts during the 80's.

Apparently, you are oblivious to the subtle humor contained within my hyperbole.

The are only two things that trickle down economics gave us, a growing debt and a shrinking middle class.

growing debt? no that was the retards in congress spending to much and refusing to reform entilements just because bush was in office.

shrinking middle class? theres no such thing as a middle class, theres the have ; have nots; and busness owners. Middle class is just a politcal ploy that changes week to week as to whom is in it.

Which retards had the majority and what retard signed the spending bills (and tax cuts) that increased the national debt by seven trillion dollars??

I'll give you a clue: They weren't liberal.

 


1. revenue went up after the tax cuts not sure why you think that make more of a deficit.

2.

2006   4698.31  
2007   4924.61  
2008   5359.95  
2009   6090.85  
2010   6504.74

dems took control of congress in 06. in three yrs they added more to the spending than the repubs had in six. Dems were the ones to block SS reform and now SS is in the red. so you can say what ever you want abou the repubs but the dems have been far worse. and for your knoweldge the repubs are pretty liberal.

Source on your chart?

Where did (most of) the seven trillion in debt that Bush racked up come from?

The "Dems" who took control in 06 were easily bought off by lobbyists. (cheap fucking whores)


well first bush didn't rack up 7 trillion it was under 6. check for yourself http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

3.1 trillion in debt came after the dems took control in 06.  and i went all the way up to the end of april 09 because most of that was bush's budget. After that it was obama in control with the stimulus and omnibus spending bills.  chart http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/



Around the Network
Squilliam on 17 April 2010
hobbit said:
Squilliam said:
hobbit said:
Squilliam said:

Theres obviously a place for central and strong governance as there are no countries in the world who have thrived without it. There is also a place for a market economy as the only countries in the world whom have thrived have done so with this economic system. The main role of the government IMO is to provide stability, provide goods and services which the market would not otherwise provide, I.E. be rational in an irrational society.

The net positive gain for having a government with taxation etc in the western world is always higher than the cost of not having one at all. The level of taxation ought to be set at a level which enables the government to perform its functions. The current governments probably could go on auto-pilot for a decade and people wouldn't notice. They have legislated 99% of the issues which are important to 95% of people when applicable. I suspect the best thing which could be done in terms of governence is a clean sweep and a restart to simplify the entire system.

 

no country that thrived without a strong central government? Have you forgotten about the US before the 1900s? Provide Goods and services that the market doesn't? Like what? Building roads? The states can take care of that. Society is irrational? really?

None. Insert X country without strong government here that thrives in the modern world. The closest thing to a free market economy is about the closest thing to economic collapse you can find anywhere, look to Africa.

State vs Federal = irrelevant. The Federal is a central government one step removed from a state central government.

Rational things governments do that people cannot:

1. Impartial courts.

2. Impartial policing.

3. Vaccines, health education etc.

4. Projects where the payoff is >5 years down the road, I.E big dams, roads, railway etc.

5. etc

States vs feds irrelavant? lol sure thats why this country has gone down the tube after the states lost all their power in the federal gov.

1 impartial courts? lol yeah like that judge that made up a stupid test to determine if national day of prayer should exist.

2 impartial policling? you mean like the sec going after goldman but john paulson hasn't been arrested or charged?

3 vaccines are made by the private sector always have been. in most places health care is private sector. The education system has been pretty abhorrent the last 30 yrs or so. maybe the feds should get out.

4 Locals can decide if those projects are worth while and they can pay for them. You remember the bridge to no where?

1. The state level is still a central government.

2. Dunno what you're talking about.

3. Vacchines made by the private sector? Ok. But the payment for them, the foresight in deploying them etc has rested with governance. If it was privately funded I doubt there would be near 100% litteracy in the population for example.

4. Locals can only see as far as the local environment.



Tease.

Squilliam on 17 April 2010
NinjaguyDan said:
Squilliam said:

Theres obviously a place for central and strong governance as there are no countries in the world who have thrived without it. There is also a place for a market economy as the only countries in the world whom have thrived have done so with this economic system. The main role of the government IMO is to provide stability, provide goods and services which the market would not otherwise provide, I.E. be rational in an irrational society.

The net positive gain for having a government with taxation etc in the western world is always higher than the cost of not having one at all. (1)

The level of taxation ought to be set at a level which enables the government to perform its functions.(2)

The current governments probably could go on auto-pilot for a decade and people wouldn't notice. (3)

They have legislated 99% of the issues which are important to 95% of people when applicable. I suspect the best thing which could be done in terms of governence is a clean sweep and a restart to simplify the entire system.(4)

 

1 - WRONG!  Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

2 - Government functions?  According to who?

3 -

4 - Again, according to who?

I agree with a clean sweep. The authoritarian/corporatists and the cowards who refuse to stand up to them have become entrenched in government at all levels.

 

1. You can have a civilized society without taxes. The basic functions of state aren't that expensive to maintain.

2. Democratically elected representatives.

3. See they wouldn't notice. It'll be a nice period of stability and governments generally take one step back for every step forward anyway.

4. Well there are pretty much laws for anything you can think of. I suspect a period without any new laws wouldn't kill anyone.

5. Unfortunately the people who are attracted to power are the last people you'd want to elect. When was the last time a government deliberately reduced itself in size?



Tease.

Kasz216 on 17 April 2010

Well to be honest Stickball... that's exactly what they are... and generally used to be reported at... when I was a kid anyway.

By CNN anyway... at the time I didn't really get it, because I didn't understand how wealth could grow or shrink rather then it just being an absolute thing.

As for the silly signs with bad spelling... I wouldn't really take any of them seriously, you can

A) Find them for any party.

and

B) There are actual websites funded that encourage liberals to pretend to be tea part activists and make them look racist and/or stupid.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35901.html



Akvod on 17 April 2010

Like I said guys, it's all cool as long as we're in equillibrium, fuck any ideology.

However it should be admitted that running government defecits lowers national savings, causes crowding out in the loanable funds market, and reduces private investment, and long term growth.

Monetary policy first, then government spending, run surpluses when we're in an economic boom and contract that shit.