Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:If give you a top rate of 40% if you'd give me a reduction of 10% across the board. That's not 10% less of an increase for the next year it's 10% less than we spent in every department the previous year. That's every government worker, contractor, and department gets a 10% reduction.

You give me a 40-45% tax rate, and I'll find 5-10% budget cuts at minimum, and I'd be willing to cut certain segments of the budget even more than that...

Quote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadle...ca145f772c

 

I refuse to try to read a link from any website that tries to force me to turn my adblocker off.

 

Quote:If you keep reading he says that tax cuts from 70% to 35% did create an economic boom but required using debt to fund liabilities when the revenue was drastically reduced. His argument isn't that cutting taxes doesn't stimulate the economy it's that we can't cut the top bracket 60% when the current rate is 39% it would damage the revenue to much and require more dependency on a deficit. 

 

I've long argued we don't have an income problem as a nation we have a spending problem. We can cut or raise taxes all day long, until we figure out how not to spend as much it won't make a damn bit of difference. That means less spending on the military, less on social programs, less on welfare, less on government employees, less on everything.

 

Ding, ding ding.... winner winner chicken dinner.  It's not only government spending, but also personal spending.

Quote:You give me a 40-45% tax rate, and I'll find 5-10% budget cuts at minimum, and I'd be willing to cut certain segments of the budget even more than that...

 

You really believe someone, anyone, should work for the government 3 hours out of every 8? 5 months of the year should go to the government? Absurd.

Quote:You really believe someone, anyone, should work for the government 3 hours out of every 8? 5 months of the year should go to the government? Absurd.

At the top tax bracket? Absolutely


The corporate tax rate on PROFITS? Absolutely.


That's what a progressive tax rate is all about. As for corporations, they utilize the majority of public good--educated work force, our commercial infrastructure, our legal system, our peace officers, the weight and security of the State Department, I mean I can go on and on... they need to pay the society back for what they are afforded.

Quote:If give you a top rate of 40% if you'd give me a reduction of 10% across the board. That's not 10% less of an increase for the next year it's 10% less than we spent in every department the previous year. That's every government worker, contractor, and department gets a 10% reduction.

How about this:


Reduce Involvement in Foreign Wars

Reduce Foreign aid significantly

Reduce Military Waste like on Jets the pentagon doesn't want and will never use.

Reduce Corporate Welfare by 60%

Take all unused federally owned properties and either re-purpose or sell them.

Eliminate all farm subsidies for commercial farms

 

For a start.  

Quote:How about this:

Reduce Involvement in Foreign Wars

Reduce Foreign aid significantly

Reduce Military Waste like on Jets the pentagon doesn't want and will never use.

Reduce Corporate Welfare by 60%

Take all unused federally owned properties and either re-purpose or sell them.

Eliminate all farm subsidies for commercial farms

 

For a start.

Increase farm subsidies and I'll meet you on the rest

Quote:How about this:


Reduce Involvement in Foreign Wars

Reduce Foreign aid significantly

Reduce Military Waste like on Jets the pentagon doesn't want and will never use.

Reduce Corporate Welfare by 60%

Take all unused federally owned properties and either re-purpose or sell them.

Eliminate all farm subsidies for commercial farms


For a start.

I don't have a problem with any of that, but when you start picking who and what departments get cut more than others the whole thing goes out the window. Which is why the only real way to cut spending is across the board at the same time.

Quote:At the top tax bracket? Absolutely


The corporate tax rate on PROFITS? Absolutely.


That's what a progressive tax rate is all about. As for corporations, they utilize the majority of public good--educated work force, our commercial infrastructure, our legal system, our peace officers, the weight and security of the State Department, I mean I can go on and on... they need to pay the society back for what they are afforded.

 

That Green Eyed Monster will never be satiated.

Quote:I don't have a problem with any of that, but when you start picking who and what departments get cut more than others the whole thing goes out the window. Which is why the only real way to cut spending is across the board at the same time.

 

Quote:A livable wage and sensible regulations... So then I provided you how the wages have decreased based on purchasing power over time... But during Eisenhowers period, it was pretty respectable... Here's the link AGAIN!!!! <a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf'>https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf</a>


Additionally, Eisenhowever himself was looking to increase the minimum wage, here's a quote from his State of the Union Address in 1955 First, in the past five years we have had economic growth which will support an increase in the Federal minimum wage. In the light of present economic conditions, I recommend its increase to ninety cents an hour. I also recommend that manyothers, at present excluded, be given the protection of a minimum wage.



Whether or not you like the term livable wage and sensible regulations, it's clear that republicans before Reagun saw it's importance. And additionally, you are still trying to skip out and deflect from this point. I will not let you get away with it, my good friend.

Let me get away with? Loll.


by the quote u cited Eisenhower saw economic growth as the driver of the condition to raise the minimum wage. You are correct, in 1955 Eisenhower raised the minimum wage from $.75 to $1. At the time annual GDP was roughly 2.5 trillion dollars. Today GDP is roughly 16.5 trillion. So indexed to economic growth it would be roughly $6.6. Depending on which calculator of inflation you use then purchasing power of that dollar is roughly about 8.50. 7.25 falls right in line with both adjustment for growth and inflation.


If you would like to see it raised in direct concert with inflation then that's a conversation we have and i might even agree with you.


Nut to use the minimum wage under Johnson (all time inflation adjusted high) to try and paint a picture of Eisenhower policy is disingenuous at best.

Now for taxes. Two people own the same mutual fund. Person a has a taxable account. Person b owns it through a wroth account tax free. Over time person b will have a higher rate of return based on the same investment. Why? The absence of taxation means that the rate of reinvestment is higher and thus the growth is compounded.


In the macroeconomic sense its the same thing. Tax policy doesn't pick the stocks and bonds but growth oriented tax policy allows more efficient reinvestment of capital and thus more compounding of growth.

Quote:Well, I'm not sure how far off we are on spending. But I will agree there are major areas where our spending should be reduced. Subsidies for corporations and military spending are 2 areas I agree with. That is for another thread, though.


The article also points out that the cuts Reagun put in place caused huge deficits. This was because Reagun was not very fiscally responsible. He made those huge tax cuts, but increased government spending.


But here's my point: The cuts in taxes from 70% (the marginal rate when Reagun came into office) to 29% and the rise in taxes under clinton had about the same effect.


To me, that means that A-- The clinton tax rise didn't kill the economic expansion that occurred in the 90s. The boom was un-altered by the rise. So, it's clear that raising taxes doesn't kill job growth. This is also something that most economists will say.


As for Reagun's cuts, let's also remember that the under Reagun, government spending also increased. Government spending creates job growth as well. So you can't just say that these huge tax cuts were the sole reason for the job growth under Reagun.


That's been my point this whole time. The cut in taxes may have some marginal effect on jobs if you have a starting tax rate of 70%. But at what level does it become diminishing returns? 50%? 45%? Under Clinton, jobs weren't affected at 38%... So, I think we can got back up to at least 45%. But again, that's a different discussion as well...

If government spending created jobs you'd have felt it by now.


You are right, there is a point at which a 2% move either way may not affect business motivations but there are three things you fail to consider


1.) under Reagan interest rates were near 20% and u had runaway inflation. Imagine buying a house with 20% down and an 18% rate. Under Clinton in 1994 you had the advent of credit default swaps and the beginnings of the biggest asset bubble in us history.


2.) a significant portion of the growth under Clinton came after a CUT in the cap gains rate which has the most direct correlation to private sector risk.


3.) newt gingrich and John kadich forced cost certainty based on a balanced budget. You had signed welfare reform Hillary care was scrapped and a democrat president declared the age of big government was over. A budget surplus and no laundry list of new entitlements gave risk takers the security that they woyldnt be sand bagged with a higher tax bill.


Also, you can't leave out the proportional disparity of the Reagan tax cut and the Clinton increase.

Quote:If government spending created jobs you'd have felt it by now.


 

 

...  wow...  Just wow...  Sometimes I don't know what to say to you.  

 

Have you not noticed that there has been job growth for a while now...  I think I heard its been 72 straight months of job growth...  You're gonna need to back track and clarify this statement.

 

As for the taxes issue, there are many factors that help push an economy.  Taxes definatley are a factor.  But as I think Eric and some of the other posters recognize, it's not the primary driver of job creation and job destruction.  

 

Again, it's been proven that the tax cuts we've seen and kept since W. Bush have not gone to creating more jobs.  The savings on taxes have by these huge corporations and the all time high profits that they are experiencing are going to pay off the stock holders, and to buy back common shares.

So its pretty obvious all of you liars only visit YOUR parties websites and just tout their garbage. Do research without party affiliation

Blanket statements are the play ground for the ignorant, friend.

Quote:...  wow...  Just wow...  Sometimes I don't know what to say to you.  

 

Have you not noticed that there has been job growth for a while now...  I think I heard its been 72 straight months of job growth...  You're gonna need to back track and clarify this statement.

 

As for the taxes issue, there are many factors that help push an economy.  Taxes definatley are a factor.  But as I think Eric and some of the other posters recognize, it's not the primary driver of job creation and job destruction.  

 

Again, it's been proven that the tax cuts we've seen and kept since W. Bush have not gone to creating more jobs.  The savings on taxes have by these huge corporations and the all time high profits that they are experiencing are going to pay off the stock holders, and to buy back common shares.

 

1.) Stock holders include every person with a 401k or IRA in this country.  Also any union members that have retirement/pension plans.  

 

2.) I never said that it was the sole driver.  I said that it creates an environment for the most efficient compounding of growth.  

 

3.) We have one of the lowest labor force participation rates on record.  The number of people waking up to go earn a paycheck is slightly down over the course of the administration.  Ironically enough, the leading states in job creation over that time are right to work states with no state income tax.  GEE I WONDER WHY?  And this is on the heels of the president spending and borrowing more money than any president in history.  This is after a trillion dollar stimulus package.  This is after taking over 1/6th of the economy.  This is after hundreds of billions of dollars going to Solyndra and it's twin sisters.  All you have for me is this WASHINGTONIAN talking point "360k people left the labor force this week, but 100k people went to work at burger king.  That's prosperity?

Your being intellectually dishonest, once again if you think that 401k's have anything to do with the retained earnings that I'm talking about. Either that, or you just don't know what you're talking about.


Finally, as you normally do, you deflect from what I actually said in order to spout your rhetoric that your have so well rehearsed. Keynesian economics dictates that during a recession spending goes up. Even in the 80s, this occurred. Face it, your economic theories don't work, and even republicans when the are in office spend during a recession.


Also, it's cute that you mention anything about taking points and then go right ahead and bring up the solindra right wing talking point. Heck your last paragraph could have between copy and pasted from a Fox news transcript!!! Hahaha Your lack of self awareness I'd adorable.

Quote:Blanket statements are the play ground for the ignorant, friend.

 

Quote:Your being intellectually dishonest, once again if you think that 401k's have anything to do with the retained earnings that I'm talking about. Either that, or you just don't know what you're talking about.


Finally, as you normally do, you deflect from what I actually said in order to spout your rhetoric that your have so well rehearsed. Keynesian economics dictates that during a recession spending goes up. Even in the 80s, this occurred. Face it, your economic theories don't work, and even republicans when the are in office spend during a recession.


Also, it's cute that you mention anything about taking points and then go right ahead and bring up the solindra right wing talking point. Heck your last paragraph could have between copy and pasted from a Fox news transcript!!! Hahaha Your lack of self awareness I'd adorable.

 

Keynesian Economics also dictates that you reduce spending in growth periods and deity knows that [BLEEP] never happens.

Quote:Your being intellectually dishonest, once again if you think that 401k's have anything to do with the retained earnings that I'm talking about. Either that, or you just don't know what you're talking about.


Finally, as you normally do, you deflect from what I actually said in order to spout your rhetoric that your have so well rehearsed. Keynesian economics dictates that during a recession spending goes up. Even in the 80s, this occurred. Face it, your economic theories don't work, and even republicans when the are in office spend during a recession.


Also, it's cute that you mention anything about taking points and then go right ahead and bring up the solindra right wing talking point. Heck your last paragraph could have between copy and pasted from a Fox news transcript!!! Hahaha Your lack of self awareness I'd adorable.

 

Again, for ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION.  We are currently spending between 22 to 25% of GDP annually.  That's the highest rate in the history of the country.  That's nearly DOUBLE the levels under the NEW DEAL!  If government spending was truly a driver of economic growth, then we would be in a boom right now.  Instead, Barrack Obama will be one of the few presidents to leave office while NEVER presiding over a single year of economic growth topping 3%.  

 

THAT'S WITH interest rates effectively at 0.  Not to mention the FHA handing out 7500 to any first time home buyer to help with a down payment.  

 

The Obama administration is empirical evidence that Keynesian government lead economic policies DON'T GENERATE GROWTH!!!  It's not my opinion.  It's math.  

 

And to discount the Reagan Era tax cuts, the KENNEDY era tax cuts and the cap gains cuts in 97 is beyond intellectual dishonesty.  It's burying your head in the sand.  

 

Ask the VA about how well the government manages resources.  Is that the model that you want for the rest of the economy?