Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

#41

(08-01-2018, 07:10 PM)pirkster Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 07:06 PM)mikesez Wrote:

You're shadow boxing.
No one here wants anyone to stop thinking and stop doing math.

Perhaps not me, but someone has certainly pulled the wool over your eyes.  Little you stand for adds up (based on the admittedly little I've heard from you.)

If I tried to explain what I stood for it would take a long time and bore you to tears.  Even at the end it probably would not "add up" to you.  
I'm not sure, but when you say, "add up," you mean that, my beliefs should "go together" in some sense, that if I want more government in health insurance, I must also want more government in censorship, or University admissions, or labor unions, or housing policy, etc. Is that what you mean?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#42

(08-01-2018, 06:45 PM)pirkster Wrote: Tax cuts don't "add" to a deficit.  Spending is the driver of deficits.

You can't have what you can't afford.

If you want to confiscate more revenue, you don't raise tax rates.  You add payroll by creating jobs.  If you aren't working/contributing, you're leeching and a burden.

We must always remember that earnings are just that - they belong to the individual who earned them (not the government.)  Taxes are a legal form of transferring rightful earnings from the earner to those who did not earn them.

It's glaringly clear that our current and projected spending is simply unsustainable.  Federal government spending is the only "unsustainable" item that should ever be uttered by anyone until it's fixed.

Many ways to reduce costs and build revenue. Not sure cutting back the welfare state and infrastructure is the answer. Reducing revenue prior to cutting expense definitely isn't any kind of answer.

Infact abolishing the states and just having a federal government and local government areas would probably be the most efficient cut in expense. No real reason for so many layers of government in a world of the internet.
Reply

#43

I love how socialist solution to all problems is to tax the rich more.
Reply

#44

(08-01-2018, 11:10 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: I love how socialist solution to all problems is to tax the rich more.

What's wrong with taxing the rich and corporates?

So you would prefer to take services from the poor?
Reply

#45

(08-02-2018, 12:09 AM)lastonealive Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 11:10 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: I love how socialist solution to all problems is to tax the rich more.

What's wrong with taxing the rich and corporates?

So you would prefer to take services from the poor?

No poor man ever gave me a job, corporations don't pay taxes, and yes, it's time to end generational government dependency.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#46

(08-01-2018, 10:16 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 07:10 PM)pirkster Wrote: Perhaps not me, but someone has certainly pulled the wool over your eyes.  Little you stand for adds up (based on the admittedly little I've heard from you.)

If I tried to explain what I stood for it would take a long time and bore you to tears.  Even at the end it probably would not "add up" to you.  
I'm not sure, but when you say, "add up," you mean that, my beliefs should "go together" in some sense, that if I want more government in health insurance, I must also want more government in censorship, or University admissions, or labor unions, or housing policy, etc. Is that what you mean?

No, we understand that you think you can create just the right amount of tyranny to create freedom. It's really what all your takes boil down to when you read them.

(08-01-2018, 11:10 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: I love how socialist solution to all problems is to tax the rich more.

Capitalism is the politics of greed, Socialism is the politics of jealousy.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#47

(08-01-2018, 07:06 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 06:42 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Tax rate cuts aren't inherently revenue negative and more often than not are revenue positive.  At current we are seeing record highs in tax revenue.  The problem is baseline budgeting and automatic spending increases of 8% in some cases.  

The only tax that, when cut, creates more revenue in the short term, is a sales tax or a capital gains tax.  This is because people can delay their activity until after the rate is reduced.  Income taxes do not work like that in the short term.  People don't delay their wages.  
In the long term, reductions to income tax can spur consumer spending which in turn can add to wages and payrolls and in turn give more money to the government in the end.  But that long term effect is uncertain.  It doesn't happen every time and is less likely to happen when the economy is at full employment already.

As for blaming the problem on automatic spending increases, isn't that changing the subject?  My point is, all else equal, the tax cuts I listed reduced receipts by the government more often than not.
Bringing spending levels into the discussion breaks the "all else equal" part.


(08-01-2018, 07:05 PM)pirkster Wrote: This is why the left always wishes to silence their opposition, and the right is so insistent upon freedom of speech.

Without it, the truth cannot be found.  With free speech, you can't bury history and examples of what does not work and does not produce prosperity.

Let them open their mouths and show how cute but asinine their ill formed beliefs and ideas are.

That's what free speech affords.  Uncensored information, without which one cannot pursue truth.

You're shadow boxing.
No one here wants anyone to stop thinking and stop doing math.

If we are having a discussion about deficits then you have to include all aspects.  Since the biggest reason for our out of control deficit is spending then you have to enter it into the discussion.
Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Reply

#48
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2018, 08:11 AM by mikesez.)

(08-02-2018, 07:22 AM)copycat Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 07:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: The only tax that, when cut, creates more revenue in the short term, is a sales tax or a capital gains tax.  This is because people can delay their activity until after the rate is reduced.  Income taxes do not work like that in the short term.  People don't delay their wages.  
In the long term, reductions to income tax can spur consumer spending which in turn can add to wages and payrolls and in turn give more money to the government in the end.  But that long term effect is uncertain.  It doesn't happen every time and is less likely to happen when the economy is at full employment already.

As for blaming the problem on automatic spending increases, isn't that changing the subject?  My point is, all else equal, the tax cuts I listed reduced receipts by the government more often than not.
Bringing spending levels into the discussion breaks the "all else equal" part.



You're shadow boxing.
No one here wants anyone to stop thinking and stop doing math.

If we are having a discussion about deficits then you have to include all aspects.  Since the biggest reason for our out of control deficit is spending then you have to enter it into the discussion.

Did Congress discuss cutting spending while they were discussing Trump's tax cuts? I don't think they did. Why should we?
In fact, Congress admitted that those tax cuts would increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars. They budgeted for that.  As they moved dollars around, the idea was to keep the total right about there.  
Do we really think that we know the budget better than they do?
All else being equal, tax cuts increase the deficit.

(08-02-2018, 07:14 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 10:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: If I tried to explain what I stood for it would take a long time and bore you to tears.  Even at the end it probably would not "add up" to you.  
I'm not sure, but when you say, "add up," you mean that, my beliefs should "go together" in some sense, that if I want more government in health insurance, I must also want more government in censorship, or University admissions, or labor unions, or housing policy, etc. Is that what you mean?

No, we understand that you think you can create just the right amount of tyranny to create freedom. It's really what all your takes boil down to when you read them.

The question was for pirkster.  I already know the answer from our resident John Galt cosplayer.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#49

(08-01-2018, 11:02 PM)lastonealive Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 06:45 PM)pirkster Wrote: Tax cuts don't "add" to a deficit.  Spending is the driver of deficits.

You can't have what you can't afford.

If you want to confiscate more revenue, you don't raise tax rates.  You add payroll by creating jobs.  If you aren't working/contributing, you're leeching and a burden.

We must always remember that earnings are just that - they belong to the individual who earned them (not the government.)  Taxes are a legal form of transferring rightful earnings from the earner to those who did not earn them.

It's glaringly clear that our current and projected spending is simply unsustainable.  Federal government spending is the only "unsustainable" item that should ever be uttered by anyone until it's fixed.

Many ways to reduce costs and build revenue. Not sure cutting back the welfare state and infrastructure is the answer. Reducing revenue prior to cutting expense definitely isn't any kind of answer.

Infact abolishing the states and just having a federal government and local government areas would probably be the most efficient cut in expense. No real reason for so many layers of government in a world of the internet.

And we shall change our name from the United States of America to just ‘Murica.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#50

(08-01-2018, 07:10 PM)pirkster Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 07:06 PM)mikesez Wrote:

You're shadow boxing.
No one here wants anyone to stop thinking and stop doing math.

Perhaps not me, but someone has certainly pulled the wool over your eyes.  Little you stand for adds up (based on the admittedly little I've heard from you.)

I'm still not sure what you mean by this.  What would I see if the wool was gone? What am I missing?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#51
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2018, 08:16 AM by StroudCrowd1.)

(08-02-2018, 12:09 AM)lastonealive Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 11:10 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: I love how socialist solution to all problems is to tax the rich more.

What's wrong with taxing the rich and corporates?

So you would prefer to take services from the poor?


It's great that people think the job creators (yes, the evil corporations) will sit idly by and take it on the chin from the government, and everything remains status quo. There is a reason the economy is roaring right now, and I promise you its not because they love paying high taxes.

Take services from the poor? I'd prefer the poor find better jobs and not depend on the government for their every need. 

Hell, if Ocasio-Cortez, The Bern, and other socialist nutjobs get their way, the "poor" will get a free college education to only not use it, and continue to rely on the gov't.
Reply

#52

(08-02-2018, 07:59 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(08-02-2018, 07:22 AM)copycat Wrote: If we are having a discussion about deficits then you have to include all aspects.  Since the biggest reason for our out of control deficit is spending then you have to enter it into the discussion.

Did Congress discuss cutting spending while they were discussing Trump's tax cuts? I don't think they did. Why should we?
In fact, Congress admitted that those tax cuts would increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars. They budgeted for that.  As they moved dollars around, the idea was to keep the total right about there.  
Do we really think that we know the budget better than they do?
All else being equal, tax cuts increase the deficit.


(08-02-2018, 07:14 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: No, we understand that you think you can create just the right amount of tyranny to create freedom. It's really what all your takes boil down to when you read them.

The question was for pirkster.  I already know the answer from our resident John Galt cosplayer.

The question should be why isn't congress discussing spending cuts.  All things being equal and all.
Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Reply

#53
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2018, 09:14 AM by mikesez.)

(08-02-2018, 08:28 AM)copycat Wrote:
(08-02-2018, 07:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: Did Congress discuss cutting spending while they were discussing Trump's tax cuts? I don't think they did. Why should we?
In fact, Congress admitted that those tax cuts would increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars. They budgeted for that.  As they moved dollars around, the idea was to keep the total right about there.  
Do we really think that we know the budget better than they do?
All else being equal, tax cuts increase the deficit.



The question was for pirkster.  I already know the answer from our resident John Galt cosplayer.

The question should be why isn't congress discussing spending cuts.  All things being equal and all.

I think it's because not enough of the Republicans sincerely care about the deficit.  Even if 90% of them wanted to cut spending, it wouldn't be enough to get to a majority vote in congress.  And at this time no Democrats want to cut spending. 100% of Republicans were willing to pretend to care about the deficit while it was time to complain about Obama, and now a significant number of those (unfortunately we don't know which one) are hypocrites.  Paul Ryan is probably one of the hypocrites.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#54

[quote pid='1133859' dateline='1532358426']
(07-23-2018, 08:30 AM)FBT Wrote: Who cares how she won?  The fact that she won immediately catapulted her into star status among your buddies on the left.  They were tripping over themselves trying to catch lightning in a bottle, and then she opened her mouth and offered up not just blatant ignorance, but almost a sense of pride in how little she actually knows.  But, she checks off the boxes for identity politics that libs base their entire world view on, so they'll back her.  They don't have a choice now.

While I have plenty of left wing friends, I'm not a liberal myself.  Believe it or not, it is possible to be friendly with people you disagree with.  I'm proud of this.  You should try it sometime.
As for getting catapulted into star status, initially it looked like a "David beats Goliath" story.  She knocked on doors herself, and defeated a longtime incumbent.  It's the kind of feel good story that catapults folks from left and right to stardom.  Remember David Brat?  Same thing.  
As for the Democratic Party, "They don't have a choice" because by New York State law her name will appear on hundreds of thousands of ballots with the word "democrat" next to it.  any attempt to disown her because she's saying bad stuff now would be futile.
This is similar to, but smaller than, the problem Republicans had in 2016 and still have today with Trump.
[/quote]

I have friends and family from all over the political spectrum.

You keep deflecting with the "I'm not a liberal myself" line, but your words tend to betray you more often than not.

Republicans didn't have a problem with Trump.  The establishment did.  The very fact that he won is a testimony to how people in the middle have been completely ignored by the elite on both ends of political discourse.  The truth is, republicans are fine with Trump based on the latest polling numbers showing that he's holding on to more than 90% of his base at this point in his presidency.  

Occasio-Cortez winning provided the democrat party that's racing as far to the left as possible these days with a face they could trot out there to sell the Bernie Sanders brand of politics.  Over the past week or so, it's gotten to the point where she's showing up in elections in other states.  So much for some insignificant congressional candidate from NY.  The democrats are so desperate to find someone who checks off all the boxes in their eternal quest to satisfy identity politics that they'll embrace whatever ignorance comes flowing out of her mouth.  "I actually talked to, like, a Nobel winner!"

Democrats don't care about substance.  They care about placating the various minority groups, and resisting Trump.  That is literally their entire platform for the mid-terms, and I get the feeling it's not going to go well for them.

(07-24-2018, 12:30 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:
(07-23-2018, 11:46 PM)TJBender Wrote: In more ways than one, she's the Democratic Party's Trump. Way off in left field, no experience, views that are way off of most of the party (and most of America), and appealing so strongly to a select few that they will turn out in droves to get her elected.

I couldn't disagree more.

She's gotten a lot of support from leaders in the DNC. Her views are being supported by her party--at least a lot of it.

Besides, I don't believe Trump's views reflect those of only a "select few". Trump received 62 million votes, and he's only getting more popular. The left can't seem to grasp the idea that Trump shares a lot of views that are popular with a lot of Americans. It's their way in minimizing his impact. The sooner the left starts catering to SOME of these views, the sooner they'll learn to beat him. Instead, they keep pushing further left, and that's how you end up with a Sanders or Ocasio Cortez.

The DNC is being forced further to the left because of her.  This is not some anomaly.  

(07-27-2018, 03:08 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: This is truly painful to watch.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DailyCaller/s...frame.html

It's not painful to watch.  It's revealing inasmuch as she can spout her ignorance in front of an audience and a host, and nobody bothers to challenge a single thing she says even though I would think that at least a few people there would have enough common sense to recognize that she is completely clueless.  

This woman has an economics degree, and she doesn't know the first thing about economics.  

(07-27-2018, 04:00 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 06:34 PM)pirkster Wrote: The fatal flaw in that analogy is that Trump won by winning the middle - flipping 9 million 0bama voters.

9 million is about the number first time voters Obama brought out in 2008.
I'd guess these are mostly the same people and they just crave a celebrity vibe.  I'd guess they have no ideological opinions.


So, you're saying that people who were hoodwinked by the king of the teleprompter readers turned tail on the democrats and voted for Trump?  We should just ignore the fact that the rust belt completely flipped for Trump.  This was all about the ignorant masses that Obama brought out to vote in 2008?


Much like your fellow libs have done before, I think you're misreading what actually happened in the Trump election.  While I'm sure there was a small % of voters who were just looking at the "celebrity vibe", I think the overwhelming majority of those who supported Trump did so because he represented a complete deviation from the normal politically correct candidate who says all the things we want to hear but delivers on very little.  Trump touched a nerve in the heartland that completely changed the dynamic of the election in 2016.  He said things that reverberated with people who had grown accustomed to being ignored, or taken advantage of for their vote by professional politicians.  He represented the anti-establishment in a way that no other candidate in that election cycle came close to, and he irritated the very people in the establishment who have been guilty of making all sorts of promises in the past that were never realized.

(08-01-2018, 06:42 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Tax rate cuts aren't inherently revenue negative and more often than not are revenue positive.  At current we are seeing record highs in tax revenue.  The problem is baseline budgeting and automatic spending increases of 8% in some cases.  

There's no amount of running that a public bakery can't cancel out.  Moreover, with an income tax increase and a carbon tax and static scoring she didn't even cover the renewable energy infrastructure part of her platform and the question was about "Medicare for all".

Spot on.  Baseline budgeting creates an ever expanding government with guaranteed increases.  When a politician proposes slowing those increases down, naturally the liberals come howling in to tell us how their benefits are being cut.  It's a clever political ploy to perpetuate the spreading of fear among the masses. 

(08-01-2018, 11:02 PM)lastonealive Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 06:45 PM)pirkster Wrote: Tax cuts don't "add" to a deficit.  Spending is the driver of deficits.

You can't have what you can't afford.

If you want to confiscate more revenue, you don't raise tax rates.  You add payroll by creating jobs.  If you aren't working/contributing, you're leeching and a burden.

We must always remember that earnings are just that - they belong to the individual who earned them (not the government.)  Taxes are a legal form of transferring rightful earnings from the earner to those who did not earn them.

It's glaringly clear that our current and projected spending is simply unsustainable.  Federal government spending is the only "unsustainable" item that should ever be uttered by anyone until it's fixed.

Many ways to reduce costs and build revenue. Not sure cutting back the welfare state and infrastructure is the answer. Reducing revenue prior to cutting expense definitely isn't any kind of answer.

Infact abolishing the states and just having a federal government and local government areas would probably be the most efficient cut in expense. No real reason for so many layers of government in a world of the internet.

Yes, let's remove local and state governments from the equation, and just deal with one central power dictating how we live our lives.  God knows we don't want the ability to have a more direct say in how we are governed on a daily basis.  Just let the federal government rule all.  How Soviet of you.

(08-02-2018, 12:09 AM)lastonealive Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 11:10 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: I love how socialist solution to all problems is to tax the rich more.

What's wrong with taxing the rich and corporates?

So you would prefer to take services from the poor?

The way libs whine about people paying their fair share, why are we targeting the rich, who actually create things with their wealth?  Let's tax the poor too.  Since 90% of tax revenues come from the top 1% of earners in this country, and we're setting records for tax revenues on a monthly basis even after the Trump tax cuts, we might as well start looking at where we can get more revenue.  I say tax the poor.  They're the ones that receive those services you're so concerned about them losing, so if they want them, they can pay a little more for them. 

Seriously, I actually would prefer to take services away from the poor in order to break the cycle of generational poverty.  The only way to get someone back on their feet is to push them to do so, and if they understand that the government assistance is not a finite thing, and that there is a deadline, it might actually spark them to try to improve their life situation, and based on the opportunities that are available right now, that would benefit the poor, and add to the taxpayer roles overall. 
 
(08-02-2018, 07:59 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(08-02-2018, 07:22 AM)copycat Wrote: If we are having a discussion about deficits then you have to include all aspects.  Since the biggest reason for our out of control deficit is spending then you have to enter it into the discussion.

Did Congress discuss cutting spending while they were discussing Trump's tax cuts? I don't think they did. Why should we?
In fact, Congress admitted that those tax cuts would increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars. They budgeted for that.  As they moved dollars around, the idea was to keep the total right about there.  
Do we really think that we know the budget better than they do?
All else being equal, tax cuts increase the deficit.

(08-02-2018, 07:14 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: No, we understand that you think you can create just the right amount of tyranny to create freedom. It's really what all your takes boil down to when you read them.

The question was for pirkster.  I already know the answer from our resident John Galt cosplayer.

Congress did actually discuss cutting spending during the tax cut debate, but they balked at doing anything other than the tax cut because it wasn't politically expedient to start "cutting" government programs as part of this effort.  In fact, the speaker of the house was consistent in saying that the tax cut was only the first phase of the plan, and that spending cuts would be the next component.

The CBO projected the increase of the deficit as a result of the tax cuts.  Revenues have actually increased, but so has spending.  This is the same CBO that also said ObamaCare was deficit neutral.  Go figure.
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

#55
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2018, 12:39 PM by mikesez.)

(08-02-2018, 09:40 AM)FBT Wrote: [quote pid='1133859' dateline='1532358426']
mikesez
While I have plenty of left wing friends, I'm not a liberal myself.  Believe it or not, it is possible to be friendly with people you disagree with.  I'm proud of this.  You should try it sometime.
As for getting catapulted into star status, initially it looked like a "David beats Goliath" story.  She knocked on doors herself, and defeated a longtime incumbent.  It's the kind of feel good story that catapults folks from left and right to stardom.  Remember David Brat?  Same thing.  
As for the Democratic Party, "They don't have a choice" because by New York State law her name will appear on hundreds of thousands of ballots with the word "democrat" next to it.  any attempt to disown her because she's saying bad stuff now would be futile.
This is similar to, but smaller than, the problem Republicans had in 2016 and still have today with Trump.

I have friends and family from all over the political spectrum.

You keep deflecting with the "I'm not a liberal myself" line, but your words tend to betray you more often than not.

Republicans didn't have a problem with Trump.  The establishment did.  The very fact that he won is a testimony to how people in the middle have been completely ignored by the elite on both ends of political discourse.  The truth is, republicans are fine with Trump based on the latest polling numbers showing that he's holding on to more than 90% of his base at this point in his presidency.  

(07-27-2018, 04:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: 9 million is about the number first time voters Obama brought out in 2008.
I'd guess these are mostly the same people and they just crave a celebrity vibe.  I'd guess they have no ideological opinions.


So, you're saying that people who were hoodwinked by the king of the teleprompter readers turned tail on the democrats and voted for Trump?  We should just ignore the fact that the rust belt completely flipped for Trump.  This was all about the ignorant masses that Obama brought out to vote in 2008?


Much like your fellow libs have done before, I think you're misreading what actually happened in the Trump election.  While I'm sure there was a small % of voters who were just looking at the "celebrity vibe", I think the overwhelming majority of those who supported Trump did so because he represented a complete deviation from the normal politically correct candidate who says all the things we want to hear but delivers on very little.  Trump touched a nerve in the heartland that completely changed the dynamic of the election in 2016.  He said things that reverberated with people who had grown accustomed to being ignored, or taken advantage of for their vote by professional politicians.  He represented the anti-establishment in a way that no other candidate in that election cycle came close to, and he irritated the very people in the establishment who have been guilty of making all sorts of promises in the past that were never realized.

(08-02-2018, 12:09 AM)lastonealive Wrote: What's wrong with taxing the rich and corporates?

So you would prefer to take services from the poor?

The way libs whine about people paying their fair share, why are we targeting the rich, who actually create things with their wealth?  Let's tax the poor too.  Since 90% of tax revenues come from the top 1% of earners in this country, and we're setting records for tax revenues on a monthly basis even after the Trump tax cuts, we might as well start looking at where we can get more revenue.  I say tax the poor.  They're the ones that receive those services you're so concerned about them losing, so if they want them, they can pay a little more for them. 

Seriously, I actually would prefer to take services away from the poor in order to break the cycle of generational poverty.  The only way to get someone back on their feet is to push them to do so, and if they understand that the government assistance is not a finite thing, and that there is a deadline, it might actually spark them to try to improve their life situation, and based on the opportunities that are available right now, that would benefit the poor, and add to the taxpayer roles overall. 
 
(08-02-2018, 07:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: Did Congress discuss cutting spending while they were discussing Trump's tax cuts? I don't think they did. Why should we?
In fact, Congress admitted that those tax cuts would increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars. They budgeted for that.  As they moved dollars around, the idea was to keep the total right about there.  
Do we really think that we know the budget better than they do?
All else being equal, tax cuts increase the deficit.

Congress did actually discuss cutting spending during the tax cut debate, but they balked at doing anything other than the tax cut because it wasn't politically expedient to start "cutting" government programs as part of this effort.  In fact, the speaker of the house was consistent in saying that the tax cut was only the first phase of the plan, and that spending cuts would be the next component.

The CBO projected the increase of the deficit as a result of the tax cuts.  Revenues have actually increased, but so has spending.  This is the same CBO that also said ObamaCare was deficit neutral.  Go figure.
[/quote]


I'm a registered Republican and have been a registered republican since 2005 or 2006.  You can call me part of "the establishment" if you want but I never felt "established" politically.  One time my father in law called me to hear some political opinions.  My wife asks me from time to time but she doesn't really change her mind based on what I say.  I don't think I've ever had power or influence over anyone else.  In any case, more than half of the Republicans who bothered to show up for the 2016 primaries voted for someone other than Trump to be the candidate.  I did.  It's only because of our party's silly plurality-winner-takes-all rules that he got any momentum at all.  As far as his approval rating "among Republicans" remaining high, perhaps you should be taking a closer look at those same polls.  The fraction of people who will tell the pollster that they are Republican is way down since Trump got into office.  That's bad for the party and for Trump.

As far as how Trump got 9 million extra votes, I think we're both right.  I'm right that a lot of them had voted for Obama in 2008, and you're right that a lot of them were in the Rust Belt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters.

As far as "taxing the poor," you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.  Even if you're right that it would be the ethical thing to do, it's not going to make a dent in the deficit.  A lot of government assistance has an expiration date today.  Maybe more should.  I'm open to that idea.  But I don't think it dovetails with "taxing the poor". 

I'm aware that Paul Ryan talked a good game last year about having a multi-step plan to lower spending.  He's been talking about it since he got there.  It's always in the form of reports and power point presentations and it never seems to make it into legal text on thomas.net.  Ryan's a flim-flam man.  A faker, for going on twenty years.  He had me fooled for a little while too.

I'm aware that last month was a good month in terms of federal government revenue growing compared to the prior year.  But the ones before that were bad months.  The full year numbers aren't in yet, but signs aren't good.  Tax cuts decrease revenue.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#56

(08-02-2018, 12:09 AM)lastonealive Wrote:
(08-01-2018, 11:10 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: I love how socialist solution to all problems is to tax the rich more.

What's wrong with taxing the rich and corporates?

So you would prefer to take services from the poor?

The government has a legitimate role in providing a safety net. A temporary safety net. The problem is that there are millions of people who are camped out in the net, never to leave. So yes, putting a time limit on "services" would be a good start. Clinton/Gingrich did that in the 1990s to good effect, but it was repealed by the 2009 Dem total control government.

Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers pay the taxes in the form of higher prices. If you tax McDonalds, that poor person who buys a Big Mac is paying the tax.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#57
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2018, 11:20 AM by pirkster.)

If the poor wouldn't reject following the best practices of "the rich," we wouldn't have so many poor. But for that, would take them to accept personal responsibility which for far too many is never an option. The cocoon of victimhood and handouts is the easy way out, with those ready to exploit them eager to take over their lives.

Again, the biggest issue we have today is unsustainable federal spending. Until we have the strength to face it, it will be the greatest threat to our existence as a country.

(08-02-2018, 08:48 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(08-02-2018, 08:28 AM)copycat Wrote: The question should be why isn't congress discussing spending cuts.  All things being equal and all.

I think it's because not enough of the Republicans sincerely care about the deficit.  Even if 90% of them wanted to cut spending, it wouldn't be enough to get to a majority vote in congress.  And at this time no Democrats want to cut spending. 100% of Republicans were willing to pretend to care about the deficit while it was time to complain about Obama, and now a significant number of those (unfortunately we don't know which one) are hypocrites.  Paul Ryan is probably one of the hypocrites.

If you could see the forest for the trees, you'd see that the left has dragged this country so far left - they have brought most of the so-called "Republicans" with them.  They're both cut from the same cloth.

There aren't enough folks from EITHER PARTY that care about spending any longer.

Why?

Spending has been weaponized for votes.  It's clear as day for those taking an objective look.  You yourself see it but are drawing flawed conclusions, seeking confirmation bias to a conclusion you drew before seeking the evidence.
"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#58

(08-02-2018, 07:59 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(08-02-2018, 07:22 AM)copycat Wrote: If we are having a discussion about deficits then you have to include all aspects.  Since the biggest reason for our out of control deficit is spending then you have to enter it into the discussion.

Did Congress discuss cutting spending while they were discussing Trump's tax cuts? I don't think they did. Why should we?
In fact, Congress admitted that those tax cuts would increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars. They budgeted for that.  As they moved dollars around, the idea was to keep the total right about there.  
Do we really think that we know the budget better than they do?
All else being equal, tax cuts increase the deficit.

(08-02-2018, 07:14 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: No, we understand that you think you can create just the right amount of tyranny to create freedom. It's really what all your takes boil down to when you read them.

The question was for pirkster.  I already know the answer from our resident John Galt cosplayer.

No no no!  Tax RATE cuts do not directly lead to negative total revenues because the economy is a dynamic system. Simple question. Are we collecting more or less income tax revenue this year over last year.
Reply

#59

You're trying to sway those who can't handle observing more than a single variable at a time.
"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."
Reply

#60
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2018, 11:37 AM by mikesez.)

(08-02-2018, 10:54 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(08-02-2018, 12:09 AM)lastonealive Wrote: What's wrong with taxing the rich and corporates?

So you would prefer to take services from the poor?

The government has a legitimate role in providing a safety net. A temporary safety net. The problem is that there are millions of people who are camped out in the net, never to leave. So yes, putting a time limit on "services" would be a good start. Clinton/Gingrich did that in the 1990s to good effect, but it was repealed by the 2009 Dem total control government.

Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers pay the taxes in the form of higher prices. If you tax McDonalds, that poor person who buys a Big Mac is paying the tax.

McDonald's spent enough on stock buybacks last year to give every single one of their employees, from the corporate marketing people to store managers to burger flippers, a check for $4,000.  Not that they should have done that instead, but I'm just saying let's not rush to the "they're on a thin margin and would have to raise prices" conclusion.  They have LOADS of cash at the moment.

(08-02-2018, 11:30 AM)pirkster Wrote: You're trying to sway those who can't handle observing more than a single variable at a time.

I can observe many variables at once.  I have a thing on my desk I'm updating that has about 20 independent variables.
I'm just saying, that to answer this question, you only have to look at one, and looking at more obscures the picture rather than clarifying it.

(08-02-2018, 11:28 AM)jj82284 Wrote:
(08-02-2018, 07:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: Did Congress discuss cutting spending while they were discussing Trump's tax cuts? I don't think they did. Why should we?
In fact, Congress admitted that those tax cuts would increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion dollars. They budgeted for that.  As they moved dollars around, the idea was to keep the total right about there.  
Do we really think that we know the budget better than they do?
All else being equal, tax cuts increase the deficit.


The question was for pirkster.  I already know the answer from our resident John Galt cosplayer.

No no no!  Tax RATE cuts do not directly lead to negative total revenues because the economy is a dynamic system. Simple question. Are we collecting more or less income tax revenue this year over last year.

The Laffer curve has an upslope and a downslope.  If you're to the right of the peak, you can expect a cut to marginal rates to correlate to an increase in revenue collection.  If you're on the left of the peak, you can expect the opposite.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!