|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2006 : 12:35:19 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to point out that this "economic growth" the GOP is touting has come at a the cost of our national debt going from 4 trillion to 8 trillion over the last 6 years.
Yeah, cutting taxes was SUCH a good idea.
And here I thought republicans were all about fiscal responsibility and living within our means.
What a joke.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 13:00:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
This is rich, and shows you do not comprehend the problem. You agree that taxes, or lack there of, are not the problem, but wasteful spending is. So far we agree. But rather then address the problem (wasteful spending) you would rather toss your $200 to the government in the form of tax contributions when you just said in the previous sentence that taxes, or the lack there of, are not the problem.
No, I clearly meant that a lack of taxes is the problem. So your "or lack thereof" assumption is why your having such a hard time making a cogent point. $200 for me alone doesn't accomplish much. $200 from every taxpayer is enough money to have fixed the levees in New Orleans.
Try reading for comprehension next time.
quote:
No, I clearly meant that a lack of taxes is the problem. So your "or lack thereof" assumption is why your having such a hard time making a cogent point. $200 for me alone doesn't accomplish much.
Umm, those clearly were not your words. Your exact words clearly were:
quote:
Taxes are not the problem. Wasteful spending is.
I agreed with you on this point. We disagree on how we solve this problem. Rather then address the spending, which is my choice, you think we need to give them back our refund. Why? You don't solve their pork barrel ways by giving them more pork and burdening the American people with their spending. After earmarking $95 million for his brother the last thing the congress, and Rep. Murtha, need is yours, or my, $200.
quote:
$200 from every taxpayer is enough money to have fixed the levees in New Orleans.
$200 from every tax payer should be enough to dome the entire bowl of a city. As long as the congress does not get to the $$$ first that is.
quote:
Try reading for comprehension next time.
Here is some comprehensove reading for you HH:
*The U.S. economy proceeded to grow by an average of nearly 4% a year for three years following mid-2003 and tax relief...
*As the nearby chart shows, federal revenues in fiscal 2006 were 18.4% of GDP, higher than the 18.2% post-1965 average. In October, the first month of fiscal 2007, revenues rose by 12% from a year earlier. (with tax relief not hikes)
*perhaps he wants to return to the late Clinton years, when the feds grabbed a record 20.9% of GDP and taxpayers demanded a refund by endorsing George W. Bush's tax cut proposal in the election of 2000.
*By the way, the federal deficit for fiscal 2006 was only 1.9% of GDP, which is lower than all but eight years since 1975.
*It is all but irrelevant to complaints that the U.S. borrows too much from "foreigners." Those foreigners invest here because of safety and soundness and the expected after-tax return. The quickest way to drive away those investors is to reduce that return by raising taxes.
*The "fiscal problems" riff is really a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, using future entitlement problems to justify a tax increase today. They know all too well that not a dime of new revenue raised today would be "saved" or otherwise devoted to paying for future Social Security or Medicare benefits. They would be spent on other things by the current Congress, just as today's surplus payroll tax revenues are spent, and just as they were spent when by the Treasury in the 1990s. (Is "save" even in their vocabulary?)
*By the way, how do the dems continue to dodge any historical accountability for the dot-com bust of 2000 and the recession that followed? In the liberal economic narrative, we are supposed to believe that the Clinton Administration somehow ended in 1999, and that Mr. Bush is to blame for everything that followed.
*Yet the Nasdaq peak came in the spring of 2000 and the third quarter of that year recorded negative growth. The shallow recession began in March 2001, with slower-than-average growth continuing until the tax cuts on dividends and the top marginal income rate passed in 2003 and the expansion moved into high gear.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009243
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 13:31:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I'd like to point out that this "economic growth" the GOP is touting has come at a the cost of our national debt going from 4 trillion to 8 trillion over the last 6 years.
Yeah, cutting taxes was SUCH a good idea.
And here I thought republicans were all about fiscal responsibility and living within our means.
What a joke.
quote:
I'd like to point out that this "economic growth" the GOP is touting has come at a the cost of our national debt going from 4 trillion to 8 trillion over the last 6 years.
Well the tax relief was not even passed until 2003 and if the US population is 300 million we will say, for the sake of our conversation, that 200 million are paying taxes. We'll use HH's refund of $200 for our lesson. That only comes to 60 billion x's 3 years for a 180 billion total. Subtract that from 4 trillion and you have a heck of a lot on money that must be accounted for in spending and just as I have been saying all along that tax relief is but a drop in the bucket for the bottomless pockets of the high rollers sitting on the hill. HH was right here, taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem. Case in point Rep. Murtha.
quote:
Yeah, cutting taxes was SUCH a good idea.
In context I would say yes. The GOP got this one right.
quote:
And here I thought republicans were all about fiscal responsibility and living within our means.
News flash. They are not. And neither are the dems. Both sides want their pork and to eat it too.
quote:
What a joke.
I agree. The notion that one side of the isle is completely moral and upright while the other side is in alliance with diablo is just biased thinking. History says both sides have screwed us all out of a lot of money. As soon as you realize that even the precious deems can be corrupt the better off you'll be.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 14:05:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
This is rich, and shows you do not comprehend the problem. You agree that taxes, or lack there of, are not the problem, but wasteful spending is. So far we agree. But rather then address the problem (wasteful spending) you would rather toss your $200 to the government in the form of tax contributions when you just said in the previous sentence that taxes, or the lack there of, are not the problem.
No, I clearly meant that a lack of taxes is the problem. So your "or lack thereof" assumption is why your having such a hard time making a cogent point. $200 for me alone doesn't accomplish much. $200 from every taxpayer is enough money to have fixed the levees in New Orleans.
Try reading for comprehension next time.
All though I agree with you on point, I really hate your comparison. Fix the levee.... How about moving people out, and saving the money the next time the levee has to be fixed.
Come on........ Below sea level next to a sea. There was a reason it was called the crescent city.........
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 15:56:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
No, I clearly meant that a lack of taxes is the problem. So your "or lack thereof" assumption is why your having such a hard time making a cogent point. $200 for me alone doesn't accomplish much.
Umm, those clearly were not your words. Your exact words clearly were:
quote:
Taxes are not the problem. Wasteful spending is.
Bill, if I say "X is not a problem," nowhere is it implied that "not X is not a problem." If I say "the number of police on the streets are not the problem, but what crimes they focus on," nowhere is it implied that less police wouldn't cause it's own problems. It only means the current number is acceptable.
So I'm clearing up any confusion my comments may have caused you. I'm not advocating less taxes or tax refunds. I think the government needs that money to spend on useful or even necessary programs for the good of the nation. Thus, I only advocate responsible spending, not less taxes, which I find entirely irresponsible.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/15/2006 15:58:09 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 18:44:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
OK, my bad. I had JR confused with someone else. Yes, I predict the dems will raise the taxes by not renewing the tax cuts. I could be wrong and I am not putting up any money here so we will have to wait and see. I sure hope they don't raise them as the extra money and relief is much appreciated around my house. So I guess my beef is for the dems to please please dismiss Rubin's rants and renew tax relief. Has any country ever taxed itself into prosperity?
This sort of semantic trickery is so bogus. If not renewing tax cuts is the same as raising taxes, then I submit that any bill that has sunset provisions in it is, in fact, a raise in taxes. Thus, the Republican congress and the President raised taxes by passing bills with sunset provisions.
Stick to your default answer (it's all the GOP's fault) for all I care. You just demonstrate yourself to be nothing but an ideologue when you do this. I place any congressman (repub or dem) who raises my taxes, so Rep. Murtha can line his brothers pockets etc... etc..., in my voting crosshairs.
You're dense, aren't you. My "default" answer isn't that it's anyone's fault. I'm not even sure what the fault is! Your post was a complaint that the new Dem Congress was going to "raise" taxes by allowing the current tax laws to expire. Am I wrong? (Answer: no.) I simply argued that the semantics you employed were straight from the RNC fax machine. The Rush Limbaugh ditto-head (there is no more apt nickname for such people) line is that by not continuing such sunset provisions, one is in effect voting for a tax increase. I find this utterly stupid. If taxes returning to a certain level after a sunset clause is an increase, then logically the people including the sunset provision must, in fact, be voting for an eventual tax increase.
If a sunset clause isn't supposed to expire-- and if everyone agrees that it shouldn't expire-- then there should be no reason to include it.
You argument that I'm an idealogue--- and then to toss in a comment about Murtha-- simply shows that you're nothing but a bitter-but-confused Republican hack who cannot accept that the plutocrats and neo-cons who took over the party some 25 years ago duped the theocrats (that's you) into thinking that they cared.
Me? I've been a registered independant since 2000-- when I changed my registration from Republican once the theocrats started taking over the party. I'm in favor of smart, honest people in government. Indeed, the more I've looked into the Murtha situation, the less pleased I am (uh-oh, what if I'm not an idealogue?). I'll have to do more reading, but things mas still be amiss in Congress. We'll see.
In any case, supply-side economics is, as George H. W. Bush said, voo-doo economics, and his dumb-fuck son is running our contry into the ground arguing otherwise. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 20:59:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
[br
So I'm clearing up any confusion my comments may have caused you. I'm not advocating less taxes or tax refunds. I think the government needs that money to spend on useful or even necessary programs for the good of the nation. Thus, I only advocate responsible spending, not less taxes, which I find entirely irresponsible.
In a perfect world this would all be great. The problem here, hh, is the government has always been full of corrupt members. These are fallible human beings who fold to temptation and have given us a proven track record that nothing is going to change anytime soon, on both sides of the isle. We just purged a congress for corruption and the incoming class puts a pork barrel spender at best, and white collar thief at worst, up as majority leader. I mean come on, give me a break here. And you want to give these clowns more $money$? You don't say that you care about spending but give them more money in the face of scandal after scandal. That is putting the cart in front of the horse. They must first reign in spending, and then if they even need more money we can look at an increase. I pick on Murtha as the story of the day. But his earmarking of $95 million for his brother could be told many times over. I bet $95 million would have built some pretty nice dikes in the big easy. Reign in spending before a tax increase is even on the table. Not the other way around. The problem with that is your going to have to come up with a few hundred un-falible men, and then get them all elected into office at the same time. Good luck with all that. Notice how through out world history we have never seen a model of a completely ethical and morally sound government, where the good of the common people, for which the government serves, was placed above all other things? It is almost as if man has an inherent nature to do what is wrong. And power and authority just brings this nature to the forefront. Very interesting...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 01:49:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
This is rich, and shows you do not comprehend the problem. You agree that taxes, or lack there of, are not the problem, but wasteful spending is. So far we agree. But rather then address the problem (wasteful spending) you would rather toss your $200 to the government in the form of tax contributions when you just said in the previous sentence that taxes, or the lack there of, are not the problem.
No, I clearly meant that a lack of taxes is the problem. So your "or lack thereof" assumption is why your having such a hard time making a cogent point. $200 for me alone doesn't accomplish much. $200 from every taxpayer is enough money to have fixed the levees in New Orleans.
Try reading for comprehension next time.
All though I agree with you on point, I really hate your comparison. Fix the levee.... How about moving people out, and saving the money the next time the levee has to be fixed.
Come on........ Below sea level next to a sea. There was a reason it was called the crescent city.........
Peace
Joe
Works for us in the Netherlands  |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 06:30:21 [Permalink]
|
For Pete's sakes Bill, take your pick: Tax and spend or borrow and spend. It isn't like the Republicans have exactly lived up to their image of fiscal conservatives or even fiscally responsible in the last 6 years.
No, the Republicans made sure a few billion got lost in Iraq perhaps in their buddies hands or maybe even a few kick backs of their own? And a few trillions will eventually go into crony corporate accounts and war profiteering.
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 06:54:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
This is rich, and shows you do not comprehend the problem. You agree that taxes, or lack there of, are not the problem, but wasteful spending is. So far we agree. But rather then address the problem (wasteful spending) you would rather toss your $200 to the government in the form of tax contributions when you just said in the previous sentence that taxes, or the lack there of, are not the problem.
No, I clearly meant that a lack of taxes is the problem. So your "or lack thereof" assumption is why your having such a hard time making a cogent point. $200 for me alone doesn't accomplish much. $200 from every taxpayer is enough money to have fixed the levees in New Orleans.
Try reading for comprehension next time.
All though I agree with you on point, I really hate your comparison. Fix the levee.... How about moving people out, and saving the money the next time the levee has to be fixed.
Come on........ Below sea level next to a sea. There was a reason it was called the crescent city.........
Peace
Joe
Works for us in the Netherlands
:)
WHen was the last Category 4 storm hit the Netherlands? Not that I know that much about the Netherlands, but I assume and hope that they would build adequate levees.
Here, they are rebuilding the levee for a Category 3 storm. The others so rarely hit they are banking that the political fallout and bankrolling will have been forgotten when they have to rebuild it 15-20 years after they finish it.
Ludicrous I say, ludicrous.
Peace
Joe |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 08:12:25 [Permalink]
|
| The Netherlands makes the US levee system look like it was built by three little pigs. Hell they even have an inflatable dam. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 08:28:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
Works for us in the Netherlands
:)
WHen was the last Category 4 storm hit the Netherlands? Not that I know that much about the Netherlands, but I assume and hope that they would build adequate levees.
Here, they are rebuilding the levee for a Category 3 storm. The others so rarely hit they are banking that the political fallout and bankrolling will have been forgotten when they have to rebuild it 15-20 years after they finish it.
Ludicrous I say, ludicrous.
Peace
Joe
I really don't know for the Netherlands. I can't find anything on how much our coastal works are designed to withstand in my 5 second wiki search (okay, got better things to do, so sue me ).
The coastal works were designed after the north sea flood, which was an extremely strong tidal wave (height up to 3.4 meters) in 1953. A lot of the coastal line, especially the province Zeeland was flooded, killing about 1,800 people and causing millions of damage (that was a lot of money back then). We hope to be better prepared at this time, in part because of an extensive (and well maintained) coastal defense, the delta works.
I have heard some recent (or not so recent) reports that because of these systems, there is a chance the tidal waves now could roll past the Netherlands, building up speed and force and then hitting Belgium. But who needs Belgium anyway.
I'll give you we probably don't have any category 4 storms. But in one thing I am also quite certain. If there is any country in the world that would be able to build up adequate defenses against such storms, it would be the Netherlands. It is no boasting if I say that experts from the Netherlands are called in all over the world to build adequate systems against flooding and help in land-gaining operations. And because we are a smaller country, if disasters such as the 1953 tidal wave strike, we actually have an operation for help, recovery and future prevention running extremely quickly. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 16:31:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
For Pete's sakes Bill, take your pick: Tax and spend or borrow and spend. It isn't like the Republicans have exactly lived up to their image of fiscal conservatives or even fiscally responsible in the last 6 years.
No, the Republicans made sure a few billion got lost in Iraq perhaps in their buddies hands or maybe even a few kick backs of their own? And a few trillions will eventually go into crony corporate accounts and war profiteering.
quote:
For Pete's sakes Bill, take your pick: Tax and spend or borrow and spend. It isn't like the Republicans have exactly lived up to their image of fiscal conservatives or even fiscally responsible in the last 6 years.
How about reign in spending? Does Rep. Murtha really need to earmark $95 million in pork for his brother?
quote:
No, the Republicans made sure a few billion got lost in Iraq perhaps in their buddies hands or maybe even a few kick backs of their own? And a few trillions will eventually go into crony corporate accounts and war profiteering.
What does this have to do with the dems bad behavour? They both have had their fair share of draining the cookie jar. Your just as peved by Murtha giving his brother $95 million in pork, correct?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
