Cutting through all the tax collection nonsense, we need to address one thing.

[middleview]

You asked the question at about 1:30 yesterday. I answered you this morning at 9am. At 11:30 you are running around saying I haven't responded and talking about not searching for "every post"....try looking at responses to your own posts.....

 

[Lukey]

what does "unionist" in the context this conversation mean? I have posted on areas where spending can be cut. You are ignoring any sort of rational conversation in the hunt for debating points and losing.....

You're off in the weeds now sonny....

Not at all. Unionist, collectivist, anti-capitalist...take your pick. They all fit. You are arguing for a government centric solution when that is, in fact, our problem...

 

[Greenridgeman]

I'd be happy with 10% cuts across the board, no exceptions, and a return to pre-Bush tax cuts rates, again across the board, and accompanied by ending all exemptions, deductions, credits etc, added during the Bush years.

 

[middleview]

reread the thread. The highpoints are these...
You are against any increase in taxes, but have yet to come up with the $1 trillion in cuts to balance the budget.
You cite a GAO study and some very vague cuts in other areas and think you've come up with $200 billion per year. We disagree on how much you have actually identified. I'm thinking you may be at $100 billion or so, but the parts of your cuts ($60 billion from defense) etc....are useless....
I told you that cuts that put a lot of workers on the streets, in the middle of a recession, is a bad idea and you think that is unionist, collectivist, anti-capitalist and I'm saying that your use of labels is silly.

The time to make large cuts in government employment is when the economy is booming....not when unemployment is over 8%.

 

[Greenridgeman]

We also need to tax the 47%. Every wage earner should have at least 5% in the game, no exemptions, deductions, EIC, credits for any individual or corporation. Plain and simple taxation of EVERYONE in the game. Period.

 

[Barbella]

Except they're not cutting anything.....all they're doing is not RAISING it as much as they expected to. Like, you know....a barber, for instance....he announces that his haircuts "next year" will cost $20 instead of $15 as they do now.

Then, he turns around and says "oh no, I'm going to CUT my prices, haircuts will now only cost $17.50".

 

[Greenridgeman]

It can't all be blamed on Obamunism, this something for nothing attitude has been fostered since FDR at least.

All we have gotten for the War on Poverty billions is more poverty, more debt, and fatter, less-educated poor people.

Obama didn't create the dependent classes, he got them to coalesce behind him, to keep the Gravy Train rolling, faster, on borrowed money, but he didn't create the whole mess.

 

[Lukey]

reread the thread. The highpoints are these...
You are against any increase in taxes, but have yet to come up with the $1 trillion in cuts to balance the budget.
You cite a GAO study and some very vague cuts in other areas and think you've come up with $200 billion per year. We disagree on how much you have actually identified. I'm thinking you may be at $100 billion or so, but the parts of your cuts ($60 billion from defense) etc....are useless....
I told you that cuts that put a lot of workers on the streets, in the middle of a recession, is a bad idea and you think that is unionist, collectivist, anti-capitalist and I'm saying that your use of labels is silly.

The time to make large cuts in government employment is when the economy is booming....not when unemployment is over 8%.

Exactly when the urgency and therefore the will to do so reaches its nadir. And I think maybe you have me confused with Number58 (Jack Lambert?)...

 

[Lukey]

It can't all be blamed on Obamunism, this something for nothing attitude has been fostered since FDR at least.

All we have gotten for the War on Poverty billions is more poverty, more debt, and fatter, less-educated poor people.

Obama didn't create the dependent classes, he got them to coalesce behind him, to keep the Gravy Train rolling, faster, on borrowed money, but he didn't create the whole mess.

Amen! And, as I pointed out on Dino's other thread, it's Cloward-Piven all the way. Obama, ever the community organizer, has taken advantage of a dour economy to masterfully move it decidedly into its end game phase.

 

[Lukey]

If Obama had taken office at at time when we had 4.5% unemployment, a budget surplus, a booming economy and he had doubled the national debt, doubled (almost) the unemployment rate, gotten us into a major invasion with a country that wasn't a threat to the US and cratered the economy...I could understand that you hate the guy.

Instead we have a president who has increased the debt, but that was driven by the need to attempt to soften the blow for people who are most at risk. He lent money to GM and Chrysler....the result is that they are still in business and doing well. He extended unemployment benefits and while you guys seem to think all of those unemployed people are perfectly happy to sit at home for less than a quarter than they used to make, that extension kept people from losing their homes and allowed them to continue to look for work (looking for a job when you live out of your car aint all that attractive)....it also meant that those people wouldn't be an even larger drag on local agencies for the homeless and welfare or foodstamps. We had Hoovervilles in the 1930s....would have have preferred Bushvilles of cardboard shacks?

You need research to understand the impact of the things that Obama has done. The republicans would tell you that he has nationalized health care. That isn't anywhere near true. They said he had taken over GM (remember government motors?). That wasn't true either.

Where are the republican jobs bills? Go look at Cantor's website before you spout off about Reid holding up a ton of repub legislation. I've read though them and the only reference to jobs is in the titles. Tell me how the "Net Neutrality" bill would create a single job.

What Obama has done is take advantage of a bad economy to move the Cloward-Piven strategy into its end game scenario, through the use of economy stultifying anti-capitalist policy. If he gets another term we will not recognize the America that emerges on the other side of it...

 

[kgswiger]

We should focus on leveling the playing field with China. They have a 25% import tariff on goods imported from the US. Why do we tolerate that? That is on top of what their manipulation of the yuan has on the value of the exports....

Because China has Permanent Normal Trade Relationship status. We can't put any tariffs on their goods that we don't put on any other country. We need to revoke their PNTR status first, and the agricultural lobbies are going to fight that.

 

[middleview]

Our trade treaty with them should certainly prevent their tarrifs on our goods.....

 

[kgswiger]

If you are too optimistic (like Obama was when he predicted they could keep unemployment under 8% if the stimulus was passed).

It should be noted that the unemployment rate was already 8.2% when the stimulus passed. Otherwise, it might have kept it under 8%.

 

[OldGaffer]

If he gets another term we will not recognize the America that emerges on the other side of it...

You need to ratchet up the fear mongering a couple of notches, put a little more hysteria into it. You realize none of that hyperbolic bullshit is going to affect Democrats and moderates and all you are doing is preaching to the Winger Choir?

 

[kgswiger]

Our trade treaty with them should certainly prevent their tarrifs on our goods.....

The trouble is, when the law granting them PNTR was passed, it was rushed through, and not given any teeth if the Chinese didn't abide. A lot of pols on both sides tried to slow things down because of that, but they weren't successful, in the face of agri-lobbying.

We need to repeal their PNTR status, and start over.

 

[kgswiger]

Exactly when the urgency and therefore the will to do so reaches its nadir.

Clinton managed it in the middle of a boom.

 

[middleview]

When Obama made the statement it was in late November or early December of 2008.....nobody saw the rapid increase in unemployment coming...750,000 jobs in just 30 days. That is true. It doesn't change the fact that Obama was being optimistic in making that prediction....

 

[kgswiger]

The tax rate is down....what are you talking about the "tax burden"?

The spending has gone up as a result of the Bush recession. Unemployment benefits. medicaid and food stamps. The deficit is up because of the decline in revenue from the number of people who are out of work, the tax cuts that Obama is hoping will push the economy into recovery and the spending increases.....

As far as your understanding about who is out of work....you are wrong. I know a lot of IT workers and management types who are out of work....not just the unskilled. Try to get out from time to time....

Their tax burden has gone up. If you earn more money, your tax burden goes up. And those poor rich folks have seen their incomes climb, so obviously they're hurting more.

 

[middleview]

I certainly don't recognize the America that came out of the Bush administration.....

I have yet to get an example from you guys of an anti-capitalist policy.....you rely too much on bullshit rhetoric. Try sticking to the facts. The Dow dropped to under 7,000 before Obama had a chance to get the stimulus moving. Dodd-Frank passed and no negative impact on the market. It is now up to 12,500 or so.....is that all because of anti-capitalist policies? The "class warfare", anti-capitalist, socialist, anti-American, muslim, kenyan...crap just makes it more and more evident that you guys haven't a leg to stand on. It was republican policies that said "don't trust the government, trust the free market" that let banks and brokerages run wild....they looted our pension and 401k plans. There are quite a few people in the 1% who did really well in 2006 to 2009. Those are the folks who are now allowed to buy elections thanks to the republican appointees to the supreme court.

Vote republican? You gotta be kiddin'.

 

[middleview]

silliest post of the day. Reagan and Bush pushed major tax cuts through and the democrats promised spending cuts? Bush had the congress until January of 2007. The republicans had to resort to blackmail and bribery and kept the vote that was supposed to be open for 15 minutes....open for hours while they twisted arms to avoid a loss on Bush's payoff to the drug companies....a huge spending increase.

Is it possible for you to actually see the truth or is it always going to be "all things republican are good"?