IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th August 2011, 07:21 PM   #41
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 43,506
Originally Posted by Dayan81 View Post
Standard & Poor's said on Fox News that they needed to say a bi-partisan plan to reduce the national debt by around $4 trillion over ten years. This could be done solely through spending-cuts or with increased revenue. But the key was the plan had to be bi-partisan so that a change in the control of the Senate or the House wouldn't threaten the plan.

However, it appears that the GOP & the Tea-Party failed to head the warnings of their friends at Fox News and insisted on resisting compromise with Obama and the Democrats.

So now we have lost our cherished & prized AAA credit-rating. Thanks fellows.
The problem with the GOP is that it is not really a party at the moment, it is bitterly divided. They can't even agree among themselves what they want.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:22 PM   #42
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Bush's and Obama's spending. An expensive war. Commitments. We took on commitments we couldn't pay for now they won't raise taxes to pay for their malfeasance. If you have a time machine and you could go back and stop the wars then yeah. We could do that.

They ordered the Lobster and steak, this bill has come due and they don't want to pay so they want to take the money from the poor.
Some time ago I gave a scenario in which I would support raising taxes. It involved eliminating the budget deficit without additional revenue and dedicating all the additional revenue from the tax increase to reducing the national debt. This would fall in line with your comments about paying for "malfeasance." You do not address, however, the budget deficit as it is now. Time machines won't fix what we spend now.

And don't spew that "take the money from the poor" crap. What you really mean is "give less money to the poor." There's a difference. And it's a huge one.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:24 PM   #43
Monketi Ghost
Confusion Reactor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 25,141
As per the Simpsons...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg democraticconventionsimpsons.jpg (70.9 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg republicanconventionsimpsons.jpg (67.5 KB, 9 views)
Monketi Ghost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:26 PM   #44
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Some time ago I gave a scenario in which I would support raising taxes. It involved eliminating the budget deficit without additional revenue and dedicating all the additional revenue from the tax increase to reducing the national debt. This would fall in line with your comments about paying for "malfeasance." You do not address, however, the budget deficit as it is now. Time machines won't fix what we spend now.
I'm not against cutting spending. But I AM for raising taxes for the deficit that is now.

Quote:
And don't spew that "take the money from the poor" crap. What you really mean is "give less money to the poor." There's a difference. And it's a huge one.
I could not give damn about the idiotic rhetoric. Reduce the money for the poor. BFD. In the end it's less money that they get and they sure as hell didn't get rich under Bush or Obama.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:29 PM   #45
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
They invented this crisis. They engineered this from the git-go with months of forethought. This problem is 100% caused by and made to the order of the GOP. Stupid *****************.
Ben, you are absolutely correct. Now we have to wait and see what happens on Monday morning....around 9:30am Eastern.
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:30 PM   #46
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Some time ago I gave a scenario in which I would support raising taxes. It involved eliminating the budget deficit without additional revenue and dedicating all the additional revenue from the tax increase to reducing the national debt.
BTW, I don't gove a damn about what you would be willing to do. Taxes are too damn low.



If Regan can raise taxes so can Obama.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 5th August 2011 at 07:32 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:30 PM   #47
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Seems to be a pretty damn clear signal that perhaps we should consider raising taxes. Or we could just keep going the same route, hoping that anti-tax ideology will trump reality
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:31 PM   #48
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I'm not against cutting spending. But I AM for raising taxes for the deficit that is now.
If the deficit could be eliminated by cutting spending, why should we raise taxes?

Quote:
I could not give damn about the idiotic rhetoric.
Coulda fooled me, since you spouted it.

Quote:
Reduce the money for the poor. BFD. In the end it's less money that they get
You say that like earning money and having money taken from someone else and given to you are equivalent.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:32 PM   #49
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
BTW, I don't gove a damn about what you would be willing to do. Taxes are too damn low.

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2460/taxesi.jpg
Your graph proves nothing. It can be just as easily said that tax rates have historically been too high.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:33 PM   #50
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
 
OMGturt1es's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
If the deficit could be eliminated by cutting spending, why should we raise taxes?
Cutting spending will result in job loss. encouraging job loss during a weak recovery is not a good idea.
__________________
“Science is an integral part of culture. It's not this foreign thing, done by an arcane priesthood. It's one of the glories of the human intellectual tradition.” - Stephen Jay Gould
OMGturt1es is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:34 PM   #51
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Taxes have been at near record lows for 10 years and the economy has not responded much. Reagan raised taxes to boost the economy, why wouldn't the Republican not offer anything to solve the problem in the way of tax increases?
Because taxes are EEEEVILLLLL!!!11!1

And, of course, because tax cuts for the rich fix every problem, all the time. Right?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 5th August 2011 at 07:38 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:35 PM   #52
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
If the deficit could be eliminated by cutting spending, why should we raise taxes?
It could only be eliminated with too much sacrifice to the economy and people who have paid into the system.

Quote:
You say that like earning money and having money taken from someone else and given to you are equivalent.
I really don't give a ****. Go bitch to someone else.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:36 PM   #53
Bri
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,310
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Yes, let's just borrow more money. Again. And again. And again. There's always going to be a next time until someone takes a stand. And it had to happen sooner or later.
First of all, the time to "take a stand" on spending is when you're determining how much you're going to spend, during the budget negotiations -- not when it's time to pay the bills for spending you've already done. The Republicans could have cut the deficit during the last budget negotiations, but insisted only on continuing the Bush tax cuts instead. Second, the Republicans didn't seem to complain about raising the debt ceiling under Bush even though Bush had a surplus and then cut taxes while waging two wars and implementing an expensive health care program. Third, if the Republicans are really concerned about the deficit as they claim to be, they should have put tax increases on the table and negotiated a real deal that would have cut the deficit $4 trillion as Obama wanted.

So excuse me for not taking this whole "somebody needs to take a stand" talk seriously.

Quote:
Why do you think the government takes in too little revenue?
Because taxes are lower than they've been in decades, and because of the recession. We probably shouldn't actually be cutting spending at all until the economy recovers. We should be investing in things that increase demand for products and create jobs, which will help the economy, which will increase revenue. But if the Republicans are going to insist on lowering the deficit now (even though it may further harm the economy to do so right now), then most economists agree -- including Republican economists -- that spending cuts and increased taxes have to be part of the equation.

Quote:
Why do you believe this country cannot perform its constitutional obligations with less than $2.16 trillion (the amount collected in 2010)?
Because both parties agreed under Bush and Obama to budgets that spent more on wars, tax breaks, and health care than we gained in revenues. And because we're in a recession right now.

Again, the time to discuss lowering spending or increasing income is when you're deciding to buy that big screen TV on credit, not when the credit card bill comes due.

-Bri

Last edited by Bri; 5th August 2011 at 07:40 PM.
Bri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:36 PM   #54
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Your graph proves nothing. It can be just as easily said that tax rates have historically been too high.
Duh. Let's not do that either.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:37 PM   #55
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Your graph proves nothing. It can be just as easily said that tax rates have historically been too high.
You're right. There is too much government spending. So how much are you willing to cut military spending? I mean, since the military is clearly the most socialist program there is in the U.S. government.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:38 PM   #56
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Because taxes are EEEEVILLLLL!!!11!1

And, of course, because tax cuts for the rich fix every problem, all the time.
Of course, look at the last 10 years.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:38 PM   #57
Kopji
 
Kopji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 7,990
I find it a little fascinating to watch a company like S&P make political squeeky noises like this. Too bad they were not so in the news back in 2008.

Our S&P rating is AA+, a notch down from AAA and not as low as AA. Not all companies have followed S&P's lead.

The Tea Party block did pretty much what they said they would do if elected. The problem is in the voters, congress is just the symptom. :|
Kopji is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:39 PM   #58
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Yes, let's just borrow more money. Again. And again. And again. There's always going to be a next time until someone takes a stand. And it had to happen sooner or later.
Err current projections make it pretty clear that there is going to be a next time. Should we then assume that no one has taken a stand yet?

Quote:
Why do you think the government takes in too little revenue
Because despite the fact the economy is currently in growth (admitedly limited) it can't meet the costs of the spending that the people's elected representatives have voted for.

Quote:
Why do you believe this country cannot perform its constitutional obligations with less than $2.16 trillion (the amount collected in 2010)?
Strange as it may seem those countries which do a reasonable job of managing or rebuilding their public finances rarely do so by getting into debates about centuries old documents. Sometimes you do have to listen to the accountants.

There are a number of reasons to raise taxes as well as cutting spending when trying to reduce a deficit is a good idea.

1)It works. In fact this is a well enough recognised fact that a combination of the two is now the standard method recomended by the likes of the IMF and world bank.
2)It gives you more tools for paying down the deficit
3)It effectively locks politians into a victory death position. If you cut spending and raise taxes you can't bribe the public into voting for you so your only option if you wish to be relected is to do a decent job on the public finances.
4)More shock proof. If you only do one or the other you are going to be in trouble the first time you face an unexpected bill or a new tax loophole is found.
5)While it may be unfashionable concept it includes a greater degree of fairness. Spending cuts tend to hit the poor harder and effective tax rises tend to hit the rich harder.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:43 PM   #59
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
If the deficit could be eliminated by cutting spending, why should we raise taxes?
It would let you cut it faster which means that you end up spending less money on interest payments.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:49 PM   #60
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,271
Apparently S&P thinks that the Bush Tax cuts will be extended again:

S.&P.’s Rationale for Downgrading the U.S.

Quote:
S.&P. also expects the Bush administration’s tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003,to remain in place past their expiration next year because of Republican opposition to their lapsing.
Others see this as a likely scenario too:
Next for U.S. Debt Deal: Democrats Capitulate on Bush Tax Cuts, Again

Quote:
But here is what's going to happen: In a now agonizingly familiar pattern, Obama will appease Republicans for the greater good. Republicans will sense his weakness and they will push for as much as they can get, knowing that the president will blink, just as they did when they risked the full faith and credit of the U.S. And Obama will laud it as a victory for bipartisanship, for coming together and getting something done.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:55 PM   #61
grunion
Philosopher
 
grunion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,435
...and let the stone-throwing begin:

Romney: "Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama. His failed policies have led to high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, and now, the unprecedented loss of our nation’s prized AAA credit rating."

Bachmann: "This President has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through his failed economic policies and his inability to control government spending by raising the debt ceiling."

Seriously, people really fall for this utterly transparent crap?
__________________
“Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome.”
― Charles Mackay, 1841 - Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds
grunion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:56 PM   #62
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
The republicans are the ones who want to keep taking in trillions less a year than the government spends.

How could it not be their fault?
Gee, maybe the other side of the equation might be a problem too, you know the spending part. Ya think?

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
One faction (the GOP) manufactured this crisis. Prior to this year, the debt ceiling was always raised. 89 times. 7 times under Bush. Really, this was 100% avoidable by simply raising the debt ceiling months ago.
Maybe you missed this part:

Quote:
Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures.
In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
So yeah, both parties bear the blame due to not cutting discretionary spending enough.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 07:59 PM   #63
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Gee, maybe the other side of the equation might be a problem too, you know the spending part. Ya think?
Perhaps it wasn't enough but THE DEMS CONCEDED TO SPENDING CUTS.

Tax increase? None.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:03 PM   #64
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by grunion View Post
...and let the stone-throwing begin:

Romney: "Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama. His failed policies have led to high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, and now, the unprecedented loss of our nation’s prized AAA credit rating."

Bachmann: "This President has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through his failed economic policies and his inability to control government spending by raising the debt ceiling."

Seriously, people really fall for this utterly transparent crap?
Of course no mention that under GWB the debt ceiling was raised what, 6-10 times and the nation didn't come to a grinding hault.
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:06 PM   #65
grunion
Philosopher
 
grunion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,435
Originally Posted by grunion View Post
Bachmann: "This President has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through his failed economic policies and his inability to control government spending by raising the debt ceiling."
I know she isn't very responsible when it comes to speaking intelligently about important subjects, but seriously, can anyone make any sense out of this statement? Obama was "unable to control government spending by raising the debt ceiling?" Calling her a moronic teabagger idiot is an insult to moronic teabagger idiots.
__________________
“Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome.”
― Charles Mackay, 1841 - Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds
grunion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:09 PM   #66
JudeBrando
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,692
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
This is true. The republicans' brinksmanship and refusal to consider even modest tax hikes is mostly responsible, but the democrats are responsible for allowing the hostage situation to even happen in the first place.
How can Democrats stop any payments on the votes they buy?
JudeBrando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:11 PM   #67
Dayan81
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by JudeBrando View Post
How can Democrats stop any payments on the votes they buy?
What does this silly accusation have to do with the thread jude?
Dayan81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:12 PM   #68
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Perhaps it wasn't enough but THE DEMS CONCEDED TO SPENDING CUTS.
And they should be blamed for not cutting more. The GOP should be blamed for not getting more cuts. If this had been done, the rating wouldn't have been dropped.

Quote:
Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:12 PM   #69
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by JudeBrando View Post
How can Democrats stop any payments on the votes they buy?
I wonder if the Koch bros think they got their money's worth.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:15 PM   #70
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
And they should be blamed for not cutting more. The GOP should be blamed for not getting more cuts. If this had been done, the rating wouldn't have been dropped.
The Dems should be blamed for not demanding tax increases. And yes, of course the Republicans deserve blame.

At the end of the day the Dems gave something and the Republicans bent America over the couch. And I'm a registered Republican who voted for Bush 4 times.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:19 PM   #71
JudeBrando
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,692
It seems to be taken as a self-evident truth here that "raising taxes" obviously means that the government takes in more money, right?

Does everyone here believe that raising tax-rates results in increasing revenue to the treasury?

What if raising tax-rates results in decreasing government revenue?
Would you still want to raise taxes?

What if decreasing tax-rates results in increasing government revenue?
Would you then want to cut taxes?
JudeBrando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:21 PM   #72
JudeBrando
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,692
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I wonder if the Koch bros think they got their money's worth.
Howso?

Originally Posted by Dayan81 View Post
How exactly did this happen?
Originally Posted by JudeBrando View Post
How can Democrats stop any payments on the votes they buy?
Originally Posted by Dayan81 View Post
What does this silly accusation have to do with the thread jude?
It answers your question most succinctly...

Edited by LashL:  Removed breach.

Last edited by LashL; 6th August 2011 at 09:09 AM.
JudeBrando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:26 PM   #73
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by JudeBrando View Post
How can Democrats stop any payments on the votes they buy?
How so?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:26 PM   #74
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JudeBrando View Post
What if decreasing tax-rates results in increasing government revenue?
Would you then want to cut taxes?
I'll bite.

Yes. In fact, one of the plans offered during this mish-mash of a debt-ceiling drama would have done exactly that. By restructuring the tax code and closing all the damned loopholes which were opened up since Reagan closed them in the 1980s, we would have been able to raise about $1 trillion in new revenue; and the upshot is that it would have also led to an overall decrease in the tax rate, for everyone.

So, if we can go back to that kind of deal, then hell yes I'm all for it. The problem is the GOP/Tea Party doesn't even want to look at this idea because it means that some rich people will ultimately pay more in taxes since all the loopholes get closed, even though it is more than reasonable. This is the kind of thing Reagan did, and despite the fact the GOP supposedly idolizes Reagan, they sure don't want to follow his plan that worked so well in the 80s.

That's what happens when blind ideology trumps pragmatism.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:29 PM   #75
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by JudeBrando View Post
Does everyone here believe that raising tax-rates results in increasing revenue to the treasury?
Absolutely. Reagan lowered taxes and everything went to hell so he raised them.

Quote:
What if raising tax-rates results in decreasing government revenue?
Would you still want to raise taxes?
What if cutting spending resulted in fewer jobs and a stagnant economy? Would you still want to cut?

Quote:
What if decreasing tax-rates results in increasing government revenue?
Would you then want to cut taxes?
What if increasing taxes raised revenue like it did for Reagan, would you do it?

David Stockman: We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:30 PM   #76
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by JudeBrando View Post
Edited by LashL:  Removed breach.
Maybe you shouldn't think so much of yourself. And you didn't answer the question.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by LashL; 6th August 2011 at 09:10 AM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:31 PM   #77
SezMe
post-pre-born
Moderator
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,178
Originally Posted by JudeBrando View Post
What if raising tax-rates results in decreasing government revenue?
What if decreasing tax-rates results in increasing government revenue?
What if the Laffer curve is a load of hooey?
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:31 PM   #78
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,271
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Gee, maybe the other side of the equation might be a problem too, you know the spending part. Ya think?
And democrats agreed to cut spending. Democrats were willing to meet republicans more than halfway.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:32 PM   #79
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,735
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
I'll bite.

Yes. In fact, one of the plans offered during this mish-mash of a debt-ceiling drama would have done exactly that. By restructuring the tax code and closing all the damned loopholes which were opened up since Reagan closed them in the 1980s, we would have been able to raise about $1 trillion in new revenue; and the upshot is that it would have also led to an overall decrease in the tax rate, for everyone.

So, if we can go back to that kind of deal, then hell yes I'm all for it. The problem is the GOP/Tea Party doesn't even want to look at this idea because it means that some rich people will ultimately pay more in taxes since all the loopholes get closed, even though it is more than reasonable. This is the kind of thing Reagan did, and despite the fact the GOP supposedly idolizes Reagan, they sure don't want to follow his plan that worked so well in the 80s.

That's what happens when blind ideology trumps pragmatism.
You know I've heard this from a LOT of people, centrists, left, and right wing. Yet every time these debates come up someone claims there are 'no plans' other than slashing spending to and past the bone. Can we put that to bed?

'Let's do what Reagan did.' Sounds like a plan.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2011, 08:32 PM   #80
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,465
I don't think the downgrade will last long. Too many powerful people can see the dangers. As I read the Standard and Poors comments, they are telling Congress to tone down bickering and excessive partisanship and be ready to talk about increasing revenues.

It's a carrot and stick thing, but remember the stick isn't used to beat the mule with; it's there to provide incentive.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.