Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   "Now we can cut the pie. Obama wants government to keep it all. The GOP wants to give it all back to reduce tax rates. Let's be Solomonic. Divide the revenue in half, 50% to the Treasury for reducing debt, 50% to the citizenry for reducing rates"   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Obama wants, obama, treasuries, tax rates, GOP, Martin Feldstein, Tom Coburn, Louisiana Purchase  
•       •       •

2141 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Mar 2013 at 12:45 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-22 11:39:35 AM  
I don't understand why such stupidity gets national press. I really don't.
 
2013-03-22 11:49:09 AM  
You had me at "Pie".
 
2013-03-22 11:56:12 AM  
"obama wants the government to keep it all."

bullshiat.
 
2013-03-22 12:00:25 PM  
If I recall my Solomonic fables, the GOP would be the one's who rolled over on their baby and killed it. "Obama" would be the one who will say, "Don't cut it in half!" right at the last second.
 
2013-03-22 12:00:59 PM  
And leave 0% for actual operation?

What the hell kind of dumbassery is this?
 
2013-03-22 12:02:45 PM  
By Charles Krauthammer

LOL NO.
 
2013-03-22 12:04:40 PM  
Double fail:  Solomon never actually cut the infant in half.  And I don't trust this government "to make the best deal since the Louisiana Purchase."

I'm as good a liberal as any other Cantabrigian, but at least get the mythology right.
 
2013-03-22 12:04:57 PM  
Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.
 
2013-03-22 12:10:05 PM  
The only thing truly bankrupt is the intellect of Charles Krauthammer.
 
2013-03-22 12:17:48 PM  
Let's compromise: you'll give me everything I want, and I'll wait at least a week before asking for anything else.
 
2013-03-22 12:27:27 PM  
For once I almost kind of accept the premise of Krauthammer's argument. Republicans don't want to do much of anything on taxes ("closing loopholes" while being revenue neutral is just shifting around the tax burden, most of the time more regressively), and Democrats want to raise revenues by changing tax loopholes and rates (you know, actually doing what taxes are supposed to do, raise money for the government). So to compromise we should close loopholes that both sides can agree with (as if they actually exist), use some of the money to fund government (like Democrats want), but not all of it (like Republicans want).

This is actually a compromise, which is where I kind of accept his premise. It's not a particularly good compromise, and his statement of "you already got your tax hike in January" is complete crap (sunset provisions anyone?). But the basic notion of "compromise" is actually there, which is fairly new.
 
2013-03-22 12:49:18 PM  
Does he forget the part where the government doesn't "keep it all," but instead spends it on keeping people employed in both the public and private sectors?
 
2013-03-22 12:49:47 PM  
Started to read that, saw the byline and said "Forget it."
 
2013-03-22 12:50:23 PM  
I love the "Obama could do this if he wanted."  Yes, Obama controls tax rates and spending...oh wait, that's NOT what the President does?  It's CONGRESS that has to do that?  You don't say!
 
2013-03-22 12:51:06 PM  
Ooh analogies! Can I play Charles?
Democrats see the pool as half empty, Republicans see the pool as half full.
 
2013-03-22 12:51:47 PM  
I saw projections to what motivations Scary Imagined Ooga Booga Obama wants, and I knew this had to be the work of a GOP Propagandist without clicking the link.  Was I right?
 
2013-03-22 12:52:10 PM  

Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.


Who is suffering from this?
 
2013-03-22 12:52:47 PM  
Just noticed that this oaf Scheisshammer resembles Phil Spector. Too bad they aren't sharing a cell.
 
2013-03-22 12:52:48 PM  
Half of a baby is all dead.
 
2013-03-22 12:52:52 PM  

Cletus C.: Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.

Who is suffering from this?


The budget.
 
2013-03-22 12:53:28 PM  

InmanRoshi: I saw projections to what motivations Scary Imagined Ooga Booga Obama wants, and I knew this had to be the work of a GOP Propagandist without clicking the link.  Was I right?


Car_Ramrod: By Charles Krauthammer

LOL NO.


Answer your question?
 
2013-03-22 12:54:02 PM  
*reads headline*  This sounds stupid.

*reads by-line* Well, that explains that.
 
2013-03-22 12:54:31 PM  

rtaylor92: Ooh analogies! Can I play Charles?
Democrats see the pool as half empty, Republicans see the pool as half full.


Libs eat cheeseburgers like this:
3.bp.blogspot.com


Real Americans eat cheeseburgers like this!
img686.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-22 12:54:35 PM  
Let's be Solomonic moronic....
 
2013-03-22 12:54:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.

Who is suffering from this?

The budget.


What budget?
 
2013-03-22 12:55:40 PM  
By Charles Krauthammer

*CLOSES LINK*
 
2013-03-22 12:56:37 PM  
IN BEFORE derp!!!

dammit.


/slinks from thread
 
2013-03-22 12:57:02 PM  

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.

Who is suffering from this?

The budget.

What budget?


Cut the shiat and make your objection, everyone knows what you're trying to say. This fake Socratic BS is annoying.

/what objection?
 
2013-03-22 12:57:03 PM  
I could work with this 50/50.  50% to the deficit debt.  50% to people (jobs, education, infrastructure, R&D)

With only one rider, the people benefited the most from the wars can pay for the $6T tab first.
 
2013-03-22 12:57:03 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: And leave 0% for actual operation?

What the hell kind of dumbassery is this?


It's the kind of math they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better.
 
2013-03-22 12:58:08 PM  
Is he asking us to raise tax rates to 50%? Or cut them in half?
 
2013-03-22 12:58:10 PM  
Make the pie higher!
 
2013-03-22 12:59:36 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand why such stupidity gets national press. I really don't.


Because the idiots own most of the media outlets.
 
2013-03-22 12:59:47 PM  
The new revenue went directly back to the citizenry in the form of lower tax rates.
This is called revenue-neutrality.
...
As a final bonus, tax reform's lower rates spur economic growth.


We're gonna take more in taxes by doing X, but take less by doing Y.  X-Y=0. *magic happens* Economic growth!

It's foolproof.
 
2013-03-22 01:00:44 PM  
How about we bake a bigger pie?
 
2013-03-22 01:01:33 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Is he asking us to raise tax rates to 50%? Or cut them in half?


he is asking for a massive reduction in tax breaks and loopholes.  With the extra revenue gained from this, we use 50% for spending/Deficit reduction and 50% for a lowering of the actual tax rates.  Overall, there would be a net increase in taxes.

Doesn't seem to be an aweful idea to me.
 
2013-03-22 01:02:01 PM  

theknuckler_33: The new revenue went directly back to the citizenry in the form of lower tax rates.
This is called revenue-neutrality.
...
As a final bonus, tax reform's lower rates spur economic growth.

We're gonna take more in taxes by doing X, but take less by doing Y.  X-Y=0. *magic happens* Economic growth!

It's foolproof.


Apparently throughout that whole process, we're supposed to trust the government (which is half composed of dumbass wealth-fellating Republicans) to eliminate deductions and tax breaks that only benefit the wealthy.

Is anyone alive stupid enough to believe something like that would happen?
 
2013-03-22 01:03:28 PM  

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.

Who is suffering from this?

The budget.

What budget?

Cut the shiat and make your objection, everyone knows what you're trying to say. This fake Socratic BS is annoying.

/what objection?


OK. The original statement implying that "we're" suffering because of insanely low tax rates leaves me wondering exactly who is suffering. I'm not suffering. Are you suffering? The rich certainly aren't suffering.

"The budget" is a rather vague answer, especially considering there currently is no budget. Perhaps a budget envisioned by somebody.
 
2013-03-22 01:04:20 PM  

Wooly Bully: Just noticed that this oaf Scheisshammer resembles Phil Spector. Too bad they aren't sharing a cell.


"Come on, Charlie.  Come and kiss the gun."

The sound of wheels burning rubber can be heard as the wheelchair's occupant tries to leave the prison cell......
 
2013-03-22 01:04:44 PM  

astro716: Does he forget the part where the government doesn't "keep it all," but instead spends it on keeping people employed in both the public and private sectors?


That was not his point.  His point was that 1/2 of the increase in revenue could be used for these types of items (or conversly deficit reduction) and the other half would be directly returned to the taxpayers via lowere tax rates.
 
2013-03-22 01:05:04 PM  

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.

Who is suffering from this?

The budget.

What budget?


The budget with the power.
 
2013-03-22 01:05:45 PM  
Maybe the citizenry should actually pay for the government they receive? All those hawt missles and totally sexy stealth airplanes didn't just buy themselves.
 
2013-03-22 01:05:53 PM  
I could live with that compromise.
 
2013-03-22 01:06:41 PM  

HeadLever: Lost Thought 00: Is he asking us to raise tax rates to 50%? Or cut them in half?

he is asking for a massive reduction in tax breaks and loopholes.  With the extra revenue gained from this, we use 50% for spending/Deficit reduction and 50% for a lowering of the actual tax rates.  Overall, there would be a net increase in taxes.

Doesn't seem to be an aweful idea to me.


I'm in favor of closing the Capital Gains loophole
 
2013-03-22 01:06:50 PM  

un4gvn666: Apparently throughout that whole process, we're supposed to trust the government (which is half composed of dumbass wealth-fellating Republicans) to eliminate deductions and tax breaks that only benefit the wealthy


Or you could have read the actaul article and seen that he does this by implementing Martin Feldstien's plan
 
2013-03-22 01:06:58 PM  

theorellior: Maybe the citizenry should actually pay for the government they receive? All those hawt missles and totally sexy stealth airplanes didn't just buy themselves.


SOCIALIST!!!
 
2013-03-22 01:06:59 PM  

theorellior: Maybe the citizenry should actually pay for the government they receive? All those hawt missles and totally sexy stealth airplanes didn't just buy themselves.


Well maybe those planes and missiles should get jobs already and quit suckling off the government teat.
 
2013-03-22 01:07:49 PM  

Lost Thought 00: I'm in favor of closing the Capital Gains loophole


Martin Feldstien's plan does this, I belive.
 
2013-03-22 01:08:09 PM  

theorellior: Maybe the citizenry should actually pay for the government they receive? All those hawt missles and totally sexy stealth airplanes didn't just buy themselves.


So I should stop paying my taxes?
 
2013-03-22 01:08:22 PM  

HeadLever: Lost Thought 00: I'm in favor of closing the Capital Gains loophole

Martin Feldstien's plan does this, I belive.


Do you have a link to the plan? I can't say I've heard of it prior to this thread.
 
2013-03-22 01:09:21 PM  
Ugh. Fark needs a Krauthammer tag, I need to know what kind of derp I'm getting into beforehand.
 
2013-03-22 01:09:33 PM  
What a bunch of poop-flinging idiots FARK has devolved into.  The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.

Some taxes should go up, as level-headed Republicans are starting to finally concede.  All additional revenues, as well as an extra few percent from the budget via spending cuts, should be going into retiring the debt and coming closer to living within our nation's means.
 
2013-03-22 01:09:35 PM  

HeadLever: un4gvn666: Apparently throughout that whole process, we're supposed to trust the government (which is half composed of dumbass wealth-fellating Republicans) to eliminate deductions and tax breaks that only benefit the wealthy

Or you could have read the actaul article and seen that he does this by implementing Martin Feldstien's plan


I'm also apparently expected to believe that those same Republicans would support any plan whatsoever that would restrict the wealthy from lowering their tax burden more than 2%.

Seriously?
 
2013-03-22 01:10:24 PM  

HeadLever: un4gvn666: Apparently throughout that whole process, we're supposed to trust the government (which is half composed of dumbass wealth-fellating Republicans) to eliminate deductions and tax breaks that only benefit the wealthy

Or you could have read the actaul article and seen that he does this by implementing Martin Feldstien's plan


Reading is hard?  You expect a farker to have the time to read a one page article when they have 4 threads going with over 200 posts to follow.
 
2013-03-22 01:10:42 PM  
Lower taxes does not spur growth,

demand spurs growth,

need creates demand,

lowering taxes does not create need,

lowering taxes gives people more money to spend on things they don't want,

like debt,

lowering taxes will just result in people stuffing their mattresses,

raising taxes forces that money to be spent,

on things we need,

like infrastructure

or technology investments,

raising taxes creates a need to spend,

need is demand,

spending increases economic growth.

Ergo, want a strong ecomony? Raise Taxes.

If you disagree with me, you are wrong, I am a genius, so fark you.
 
2013-03-22 01:11:32 PM  

Saiga410: HeadLever: un4gvn666: Apparently throughout that whole process, we're supposed to trust the government (which is half composed of dumbass wealth-fellating Republicans) to eliminate deductions and tax breaks that only benefit the wealthy

Or you could have read the actaul article and seen that he does this by implementing Martin Feldstien's plan

Reading is hard?  You expect a farker to have the time to read a one page article when they have 4 threads going with over 200 posts to follow.


un4gvn666: I'm also apparently expected to believe that those same Republicans would support any plan whatsoever that would restrict the wealthy from lowering their tax burden more than 2%.

Seriously?


lurk moar
 
2013-03-22 01:12:08 PM  

Saiga410: So I should stop paying my taxes?


Oh, look, there's that island of a man who built his life and obtained all his belongings without the aid and assistance of a modern democracy and the largest economy in the world. Taxes are theft, taxes are violence. Sure, go Galt, man, knock yourself out. I'm not sure how we'll get along without your immense contributions.
 
2013-03-22 01:12:40 PM  

fickenchucker: What a bunch of poop-flinging idiots FARK has devolved into.  The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.


You sound smart, how much should we really be spending?
 
2013-03-22 01:12:41 PM  

Teufelaffe: Rapmaster2000: SploogeTime: Rapmaster2000  - Cocaine!

What a bunch of hypocrites. I love it. That's what Fark has become, a total dive. Good. And yet, no one got my message. Amazing.

Libs just can't handle the SplogeTime.

You want the SplogeTime!?  You can't handle the SplogeTime.

/that's like jack nicholson from that time he was in that movie with tom cruise remember that it was pretty cool

Yeah, but what about that time he was in that movie with Ellen Barkin and he was some like dog walker or something and had to steal stuff?  That wasn't really cool at all.


Remember that one where he was in Koreatown and he was like "here's johnny" and then those rednecks killed him and then Dennis Hopper threw a water fountain through the window of the mental hospital?
 
2013-03-22 01:12:43 PM  

fickenchucker: The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.


If it's way higher than it should be perhaps you can tell me how much has spending increased from 2009 to 2012.
 
2013-03-22 01:12:49 PM  
Spoiler alert: Solomon was bluffing.
 
2013-03-22 01:13:26 PM  
It is linked to in TFA.  For those of you that are unable to actually read the article, it can also be found here
 
2013-03-22 01:14:01 PM  
Republitards act like Obama invented the concept of taxes, that we've never had to pay taxes before HE came along. How can anybody be this deranged, this removed from reality, and voluntarily to boot?
 
2013-03-22 01:14:05 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand why such stupidity gets national press. I really don't.


I tried to type several other responses, but this is really all that needs to be said.
 
2013-03-22 01:14:26 PM  

ScaryBottles: Spoiler alert: Solomon was bluffing.


Liar.  He had a half-baby fetish.
 
2013-03-22 01:14:40 PM  

un4gvn666: I'm also apparently expected to believe that those same Republicans would support any plan whatsoever that would restrict the wealthy from lowering their tax burden more than 2%.

Seriously?


If it hold's Obama's feet to the fire with respect to Entitlement Reform, they just might.
 
2013-03-22 01:14:43 PM  

fickenchucker: All additional revenues, as well as an extra few percent from the budget via spending cuts, should be going into retiring the debt and coming closer to living within our nation's means.


Lordamercy. Look, Sparky, there's no reason to retire the debt. The debt is useful. Of course, there are plenty of reasons why it shouldn't grow. Basically, all we have to do is stop running deficits and the problem will solve itself through GDP growth.
 
2013-03-22 01:16:16 PM  

bdub77: The only thing truly bankrupt is the intellect of Charles Krauthammer.


I'm kind of surprised that those words can even be in the same sentence.
 
2013-03-22 01:16:40 PM  

astro716: Does he forget the part where the government doesn't "keep it all," but instead spends it on keeping people employed in both the public and private sectors?


Yeah this is the part that I thought was humorous. We don't have a surplus. The treasury isn't sitting on a pile of cash, it is hemorrhaging debt. The treasury isn't keeping anything.
 
2013-03-22 01:18:44 PM  
theorellior:
What's totally crazy is that some of his derp got bahleeted. Amazing!

Damn!  I love that, guy.  Reminds me of NYZooMan.  NYZooMan tells it like it is!
 
2013-03-22 01:19:16 PM  

theorellior: Look, Sparky, there's no reason to retire the debt. The debt is useful. Of course, there are plenty of reasons why it shouldn't grow. Basically, all we have to do is stop running deficits and the problem will solve itself through GDP growth.


Correct.  We really don't need to lower the debt to remain solvent.  From my standpoint, it would be nice to get it back down toaround the 50% of GDP mark.   However, it is clear that we can't continue to grow the debt like we have. We do have to change our current path.
 
2013-03-22 01:21:31 PM  

Car_Ramrod: By Charles Krauthammer

LOL NO.


Yeah, Charles Kreephammer is more like it.


Also, he can EABOD.
 
2013-03-22 01:21:48 PM  

HeadLever: un4gvn666: I'm also apparently expected to believe that those same Republicans would support any plan whatsoever that would restrict the wealthy from lowering their tax burden more than 2%.

Seriously?

If it hold's Obama's feet to the fire with respect to Entitlement Reform, they just might.


All these hoops to jump through and logical pretzel-twists, just to avoid the reality that taxes have to go up.

It would be amusing if it wasn't destroying our economy.
 
2013-03-22 01:21:52 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Damn! I love that, guy. Reminds me of NYZooMan. NYZooMan tells it like it is!


Too bad he's traveling.
 
2013-03-22 01:22:32 PM  

Teufelaffe: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.

Who is suffering from this?

The budget.

What budget?

The budget with the power.


What power?

(points for the obscure Labyrinth reference!!)
 
2013-03-22 01:23:22 PM  

tinderboxer: Yeah this is the part that I thought was humorous. We don't have a surplus. The treasury isn't sitting on a pile of cash, it is hemorrhaging debt. The treasury isn't keeping anything.


Again, the point here was that the treasury gets this extra money for either spending on current obligations or deficit reduction (as these are basically the same).  It is not that they keep it buried in mason jars out in Wolley Swamp.
 
2013-03-22 01:23:38 PM  
This actually turned into a very entertaining thread, thanks to the genuinely witty folks and even the unintentionally funny cock-obsessed ones,.
 
2013-03-22 01:23:39 PM  

HeadLever: Lost Thought 00: Is he asking us to raise tax rates to 50%? Or cut them in half?

he is asking for a massive reduction in tax breaks and loopholes.  With the extra revenue gained from this, we use 50% for spending/Deficit reduction and 50% for a lowering of the actual tax rates.  Overall, there would be a net increase in taxes.

Doesn't seem to be an aweful idea to me.


Sure, there is nothing to awe about it, it's actually an awful idea.
 
2013-03-22 01:23:54 PM  

HeadLever: We do have to change our current path.


The bending of the healthcare cost curve is already doing that. If it keeps up a third of our long-term debt disappears.
 
2013-03-22 01:25:33 PM  

tripleseven: Yeah, Charles Kreephammer is more like it.


Also, he can EABOD.


Charles "the Lizzid" Kreephammer

he's gonna eat your babies!!
 
2013-03-22 01:28:00 PM  

un4gvn666: All these hoops to jump through and logical pretzel-twists, just to avoid the reality that taxes have to go up.


Many republicans do not have an issue with increasing revenues, as many have supported the notion that we can reduce loopholes to get this done.  Krauthammer is apparently on board.  If some Democrats would maybe start supporting this notion as well and stop carpet-bombing those that are willing to work toward this path, we may start to see some movement in this regard, while at the same time marginalizing those repbulicans that are truley a roadblock toward this goal.
 
2013-03-22 01:28:35 PM  

tripleseven: it's actually an awful idea.


What part?
 
2013-03-22 01:28:56 PM  
Who paid for Kraut Hammer's wheelchair?
 
2013-03-22 01:29:04 PM  

HeadLever: as many have supported the notion that we can reduce loopholes to get this done.


Yes they've supported "the notion" but adamantly refuse to name a loophole to go after.
 
2013-03-22 01:30:22 PM  

tripleseven: HeadLever: Lost Thought 00: Is he asking us to raise tax rates to 50%? Or cut them in half?

he is asking for a massive reduction in tax breaks and loopholes.  With the extra revenue gained from this, we use 50% for spending/Deficit reduction and 50% for a lowering of the actual tax rates.  Overall, there would be a net increase in taxes.

Doesn't seem to be an aweful idea to me.

Sure, there is nothing to awe about it, it's actually an awful idea.


I can see it being distasteful for dem backers if the reduction in tax rates are only in the top 2 brackets but if the bottom bracket is reduced to 5% and the 2nd to 10% and maybe if the money holds the 3rd to 20%... would that be awful?
 
2013-03-22 01:31:53 PM  

un4gvn666: HeadLever: un4gvn666: I'm also apparently expected to believe that those same Republicans would support any plan whatsoever that would restrict the wealthy from lowering their tax burden more than 2%.

Seriously?

If it hold's Obama's feet to the fire with respect to Entitlement Reform, they just might.

All these hoops to jump through and logical pretzel-twists, just to avoid the reality that taxes have to go up.

It would be amusing if it wasn't destroying our economy.


Instead of me saying "our economy is being destroyed?" how about if someone posts all those charts showing how much better the economy has been doing under Obama.
 
2013-03-22 01:32:36 PM  

HeadLever: It is linked to in TFA.  For those of you that are unable to actually read the article, it can also be found here


The heck with that noise. Eliminate capital gains. That's all that needs to be done.
 
2013-03-22 01:32:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The bending of the healthcare cost curve is already doing that. If it keeps up a third of our long-term debt disappears.


And healthcare is the biggest single driver of the debt right now.  It is good that the trends are moving in the right direction, but these costs are still waaay above inflation and it is very unclear how this trend will move going into the future.
 
2013-03-22 01:33:12 PM  

theknuckler_33: HeadLever: It is linked to in TFA.  For those of you that are unable to actually read the article, it can also be found here

The heck with that noise. Eliminate capital gains. That's all that needs to be done.


And raise the cap on income subject to SS taxes.
 
2013-03-22 01:33:20 PM  

rdalton: Teufelaffe: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.

Who is suffering from this?

The budget.

What budget?

The budget with the power.

What power?

(points for the obscure Labyrinth reference!!)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBmeOzSzKoY

Thought that was Cary Grant from The Bachelor And The Bobby Soxer.
 
2013-03-22 01:34:04 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Yes they've supported "the notion" but adamantly refuse to name a loophole to go after.


That is what makes the Feldstein plan so attractive.  You dont have to name them.  Just cap them at 2%.
 
2013-03-22 01:35:17 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: HeadLever: as many have supported the notion that we can reduce loopholes to get this done.

Yes they've supported "the notion" but adamantly refuse to name a loophole to go after.


Well, you and I might not consider these "loopholes", but to them, defunding Big Bird's gay agenda and the well-known liberal conspiracy known as science is all that's necessary.
 
2013-03-22 01:35:33 PM  

theorellior: fickenchucker: All additional revenues, as well as an extra few percent from the budget via spending cuts, should be going into retiring the debt and coming closer to living within our nation's means.

Lordamercy. Look, Sparky, there's no reason to retire the debt. The debt is useful. Of course, there are plenty of reasons why it shouldn't grow. Basically, all we have to do is stop running deficits and the problem will solve itself through GDP growth.


OK--retiring was too literal of a word.  At this point I would be happy with "stop adding to".  Reducing it a little would be better.

Dusk-You-n-Me: fickenchucker: The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.

If it's way higher than it should be perhaps you can tell me how much has spending increased from 2009 to 2012.


Descending from the top of Mount Everest isn't something of which you should feel safe.  You're still way too high to breath easily.


HotWingConspiracy: fickenchucker: What a bunch of poop-flinging idiots FARK has devolved into.  The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.

You sound smart, how much should we really be spending?


Even with the sarcasm, I'll answer it.  Spending should be on par with revenues, or a few percent less to chip away at the bloated debt.
 
2013-03-22 01:37:05 PM  

Wooly Bully: Well, you and I might not consider these "loopholes", but to them, defunding Big Bird's gay agenda and the well-known liberal conspiracy known as science is all that's necessary.


That is on the spending side of the ledger and has nothing to do with the discussion on the revenue side.
 
2013-03-22 01:38:43 PM  
Rates are already to low.

Although, I don't think Republicans thought their cunning compromise through.

We now have a 1,000,000+ tax bracket, don't we?
 
2013-03-22 01:39:03 PM  

fickenchucker: Descending from the top of Mount Everest isn't something of which you should feel safe.  You're still way too high to breath easily.


That's not an answer. If you don't know how much spending has increased since Obama took office your claims that it's too high don't hold any water.

The deficit as a % of GDP has shrunk faster in the last three years than at any time since WWII.

We do have a spending problem. We aren't spending enough.
 
2013-03-22 01:40:54 PM  
Wooly Bully: Well, you and I might not consider these "loopholes", but to them, defunding Big Bird's gay agenda and the well-known liberal conspiracy known as science is all that's necessary.

That is on the spending side of the ledger and has nothing to do with the discussion on the revenue side.


Yeah OK we'll just have disagree about what's relevant here, Mr. Thread Cop.
 
2013-03-22 01:41:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The deficit as a % of GDP has shrunk faster in the last three years than at any time since WWII.


But it is still much higher than any time since WWII.  Just because the deficit is trending down does not mean that it is still sky high.  Not sure why you think that we should make it worse with more spending and more debt.
 
2013-03-22 01:42:20 PM  

latique.com


Yo Dawg, I heard you like Solomnic in your columns, so I got you some Solomnic columns.

 
2013-03-22 01:42:34 PM  

Wooly Bully: Yeah OK we'll just have disagree about what's relevant here, Mr. Thread Cop.


I didn't say it wasn't relevent, just that it had nothing to do with this argument.
 
2013-03-22 01:44:09 PM  

Teufelaffe: theorellior: Maybe the citizenry should actually pay for the government they receive? All those hawt missles and totally sexy stealth airplanes didn't just buy themselves.

Well maybe those planes and missiles should get jobs already and quit suckling off the government teat.


We've employed those damn things for over ten years now, time to just let them retire already
 
2013-03-22 01:44:15 PM  

HeadLever: Not sure why you think that we should make it worse with more spending and more debt.


Because the debt isn't our biggest problem. It's not even in the top five. A balanced budget is the result of a robust economy, not the cause. Fix the persistent high unemployment problem, you'll fix revenues, you'll fix the deficit and the debt. Not the other way around.
 
2013-03-22 01:45:17 PM  

fickenchucker: HotWingConspiracy: fickenchucker: What a bunch of poop-flinging idiots FARK has devolved into. The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.

You sound smart, how much should we really be spending?

Even with the sarcasm, I'll answer it. Spending should be on par with revenues, or a few percent less to chip away at the bloated debt.


Now let us know everything you're going to cut.
 
2013-03-22 01:56:38 PM  
How about no.  When one person doesn't want to get farked and another person wants to fark them with a hacksaw, the compromise is not farking them with a hammer.
 
2013-03-22 02:16:21 PM  

IrateShadow: How about no.  When one person doesn't want to get farked and another person wants to fark them with a hacksaw, the compromise is not farking them with a hammer.


This made me smile and yet shudder at the same time.
 
2013-03-22 02:17:00 PM  

IrateShadow: How about no.  When one person doesn't want to get farked and another person wants to fark them with a hacksaw, the compromise is not farking them with a hammer.


Nonsense! If I want to take your life and your money and you don't want to part with either, I'm sure you'd accept the compromise that I only take your money.
 
2013-03-22 02:18:11 PM  
"We agreed to raise taxes by an insignificant amount once, therefore we will never agree to discuss raising taxes ever again."

That's what passes for "negotiation" these days?
 
2013-03-22 02:27:18 PM  
Are charitable deductions loopholes?
 
MFK
2013-03-22 02:52:52 PM  

HeadLever: un4gvn666: All these hoops to jump through and logical pretzel-twists, just to avoid the reality that taxes have to go up.

Many republicans do not have an issue with increasing revenues, as many have supported the notion that we can reduce loopholes to get this done.  Krauthammer is apparently on board.  If some Democrats would maybe start supporting this notion as well and stop carpet-bombing those that are willing to work toward this path, we may start to see some movement in this regard, while at the same time marginalizing those repbulicans that are truley a roadblock toward this goal.


Give me a farking break.

"Reducing loopholes" is doublespeak for "let's take away the few benefits the middle class gets from the tax code so the ultra wealthy don't have to see their nearly non-existant tax rates increase".

The current system is rigged in favor of the top 10% earners. The top 10% are the ONLY ones who have benefited from the current system to the detriment of the rest of us. So why should we "be willing to work with" these guys who are only out to stab us in the back? They're not negotiating in good faith, but they are trying to spread the propaganda that they are. But you know this already which is why you're astroturfing in this thread to try and make Charles farking Krauthammer seem like someone with "reasonable" ideas.

Go pound sand, HeadLever. We're not falling for it.
 
2013-03-22 02:53:49 PM  
Is it a bad thing I laughed so hard I think I blacked out a bit when I clicked the link and saw Krauthammer had written that profoundly stupid piece of shiat?

Great plan there, Mr. Debt/Deficit Hawk, shoring up the tax code for the express purpose of not paying down the national debt or reducing the deficit.
 
2013-03-22 03:03:15 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Because the debt isn't our biggest problem. It's not even in the top five.


It sure is.  It may not be our most pressing problem, but I'll argue that it is one of our biggest.  If you don't fix the debt, you are going to ensure that we will never have a growing and robust economy.  Yes, this has the ability to impact our economic growth, but so does ignoring the problem.  Also, you can't just say that having a growing economy will automatically produce a balanced budget.  It depends too much on the spending and revenue policies that may completely independent of economic growth.

Fix the persistent high unemployment problem, you'll fix revenues, you'll fix the deficit and the debt.
Say we get revenues back to histioic level, and we will be producing about 18.5% of GDP in reveues.  Right now the spending is about 22.7% of GDP (and expected to increase due to SS, medicare and additional interest obligations).  That still leaves us with about a $650 Billion deficit each year.  As you can see, it is not just about fixing unemployment and getting revenues back to normal.  It is much more than that.
 
2013-03-22 03:04:37 PM  

MFK: Reducing loopholes" is doublespeak for "let's take away the few benefits the middle class gets from the tax code so the ultra wealthy don't have to see their nearly non-existant tax rates increase".


Hmm, I wasn't aware the the wealthy did not use tax loop holes.  My mistake then.

/lol
 
2013-03-22 03:07:17 PM  
GODDAMNIT PEOPLE! The last farking thing we need is more tax cuts. Hell, everyone's taxes should jump a few ticks. And Capital Gains and other top tier taxes by at least double what the lower brackets increase. How the hell are we as a society so selfish that we are incapable of seeing this!?
 
2013-03-22 03:12:04 PM  

MFK: The current system is rigged in favor of the top 10% earners.


Well, then, let's reduce teh amount of tax loopholes they have avalible to them as Feldstein proposes.  If you were going to only tax the rich, you would not get very far in the way of deficit reduction.  For any significant deficit reduction to take place,  the middle class is going to have to participate.

Oh, and here is a little blub calling our your retared assertion that tax loopholes are only for the middle class:
 
2013-03-22 03:13:14 PM  

Oerath: Hell, everyone's taxes should jump a few ticks.


Overall tax would go up a few ticks under this proposal.  Governemnt would see more reveue.  What is not to like with this proposal?
 
2013-03-22 03:13:18 PM  

HeadLever: If you don't fix the debt, you are going to ensure that we will never have a growing and robust economy.


Why?

HeadLever: Right now the spending is about 22.7% of GDP (and expected to increase due to SS, medicare and additional interest obligations).


SS has nothing to do with the debt. The medicare cost curve is bending, as I mentioned before. Medicare costs are high because health care costs are high, not the other way around. Obamacare attempts to fix this. As it's fully implemented we'll see how good of a job it does. At full employment 40% of our deficit disappears. Poof, gone. With that comes less of a need to spend on UE benefits, welfare, and other similar programs, reducing spending over all.

We can borrow for next to nothing right now. We should be borrowing and spending money on programs that create jobs. Green energy, infrastructure, education, R&D, etc. Full employment should be our number one priority right now. The CPC budget, the only budget to the left of center, attempts to do this.
 
2013-03-22 03:17:31 PM  
 
2013-03-22 03:25:15 PM  
Ah, the mind of a modern conservative. Somehow thinking that the moral of the Solomon story is that splitting the baby is a great idea.
 
2013-03-22 03:25:25 PM  

HeadLever: Dusk-You-n-Me: Why?

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]


I know you enjoy that graph, but that's not an answer to my question.
 
2013-03-22 03:26:43 PM  

HeadLever: Dusk-You-n-Me: Why?

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-03-22 03:26:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: SS has nothing to do with the debt.


Then why is the SS trust fund part of the total goverment debt?  It has quite a bit to do with our debt.

The medicare cost curve is bending, as I mentioned before.

Which is a good deal as I mentioned before.  Not sure how this will hold up with the Baby Boomers retiring though.  That is going to be the proof in this pudding.

We can borrow for next to nothing right now. We should be borrowing and spending money on programs that create jobs.

Not as a general rule as the goverment should never be just job source.  That extra debt by spending more may be cheap now, but it will not be that way forever.  If you want to spend money on items that have a significant ROI or does serve a legitimate goverment function, then I could be persuaded, however, just to employ ditch diggers is not a path that we should go down.  What happens when you decide to stop paying for folks just to have jobs?
 
2013-03-22 03:27:48 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I know you enjoy that graph, but that's not an answer to my question.


Sure it is.  See that interest obligation?  Do you know what that means when it starts to ourstrip our ability to deal with it?
 
2013-03-22 03:28:58 PM  
Teufelaffe:
[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]


Strike out 'MY" in your pic and replace with "CBO".  That is what they get paid to do.
 
2013-03-22 03:31:58 PM  

HeadLever: Teufelaffe:
[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]


Strike out 'MY" in your pic and replace with "CBO".  That is what they get paid to do.


OK, now find us that pretty graph sourced directly from the CBO instead of pulled from some economic doom and gloom blog.
 
2013-03-22 03:34:33 PM  

HeadLever: Then why is the SS trust fund part of the total goverment debt?  It has quite a bit to do with our debt.


Anyone (even Obama) claiming SS needs to be cut, or adjusted because of the debt is wrong. SS is solvent for 25 years. Defense spending still running the black, is it?

HeadLever: If you want to spend money on items that have a significant ROI or does serve a legitimate goverment function, then I could be persuaded,


Infrastructure spending does have a positive ROI.

HeadLever: just to employ ditch diggers is not a path that we should go down.


According the ASCE we have a $2T infrastructure deficit. Over 150,000 of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. One hundred and fifty thousand bridges. That's a real problem. That's real work that real people can do and make real money (and pay real taxes!). Fixing those now before they oh I don't know, collapse, saves us money when they then don't.

HeadLever: Sure it is.


No, it isn't. You said: "if you don't fix the debt, you are going to ensure that we will never have a growing and robust economy." That graph does not explain how this is true.
 
2013-03-22 03:37:30 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: fickenchucker: Descending from the top of Mount Everest isn't something of which you should feel safe.  You're still way too high to breath easily.

That's not an answer. If you don't know how much spending has increased since Obama took office your claims that it's too high don't hold any water.

The deficit as a % of GDP has shrunk faster in the last three years than at any time since WWII.

We do have a spending problem. We aren't spending enough.


That is a valid answer for a short-format thread.  Bush spent too much, Obama spent to much at first, and with those insane deficits, the analogy was appropriate.  The decline from an insanely-high level is a noble first effort, I guess, but it's still way too high.

Libby-libs decried deficit spending when Reagan was in office, and again when W was---why is it OK now, when it's so much higher than them?
 
2013-03-22 03:42:03 PM  

fickenchucker: Obama spent to much at first, and with those insane deficits


That he inherited.

fickenchucker: Libby-libs decried deficit spending when Reagan was in office, and again when W was---why is it OK now, when it's so much higher than them?


OK has nothing to do with it. Obama inherited that huge deficit you're upset about. He also inherited an economy losing 750,000 jobs a month. Because of this, spending in area like welfare and UE necessarily increased. As we slowly get back to full employment, we'll spend less on those things.
 
2013-03-22 03:42:09 PM  

rdalton: Teufelaffe: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.

Who is suffering from this?

The budget.

What budget?

The budget with the power.

What power?

(points for the obscure Labyrinth reference!!)


The power of voodoo...economics.
 
MFK
2013-03-22 03:43:50 PM  

HeadLever: MFK: Reducing loopholes" is doublespeak for "let's take away the few benefits the middle class gets from the tax code so the ultra wealthy don't have to see their nearly non-existant tax rates increase".

Hmm, I wasn't aware the the wealthy did not use tax loop holes.  My mistake then.

/lol


I find it interesting that not a one of you republicans is willing to point to which loopholes are going to magically reduce the deficit.  I think that's because the ones you want to cut would be political suicide and you know it.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Which loopholes can be cut that will achieve the goals you're trying to achieve?

Name them.

Please proceed.
 
2013-03-22 03:44:11 PM  

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.

Who is suffering from this?

The budget.

What budget?

Cut the shiat and make your objection, everyone knows what you're trying to say. This fake Socratic BS is annoying.

/what objection?

OK. The original statement implying that "we're" suffering because of insanely low tax rates leaves me wondering exactly who is suffering. I'm not suffering. Are you suffering? The rich certainly aren't suffering.

"The budget" is a rather vague answer, especially considering there currently is no budget. Perhaps a budget envisioned by somebody.


We have been cutting taxes for three decades to get to where we are now.  The federal government and many states have been running high deficits as a result.  They then turn around and make cuts to reduce their deficits, often in essential areas like education, infrastructure and health care.  The people who do those jobs no longer have money in their pockets to spend, either from being laid off by the public sector or from lack of spending from the government on private sector contracts.  Without this spending helping to drive the economy at the local level, we all suffer from the stagnation.  Meanwhile, the people who got the bulk of the tax cuts are mostly unaffected.
 
2013-03-22 03:46:47 PM  

Oerath: GODDAMNIT PEOPLE! The last farking thing we need is more tax cuts. Hell, everyone's taxes should jump a few ticks. And Capital Gains and other top tier taxes by at least double what the lower brackets increase. How the hell are we as a society so selfish that we are incapable of seeing this!?


I've really though about this, it comes down to being one of three people.

1) You're a million/billionaire.  Building wealth has become a life goal of yours. The end justifies the means.  If jimmying the politics benefits your wealth, so be it.  Usually, your wealth came by inheritance.
2) You're a comfortable enough person (middle class), but see yourself as rich, and therefore better than others of less wealth.  Usually, this is accompanied by some weird pathological belief that paying taxes is literally taking a pound of flesh.  And dammit, nobody is taking my flesh. ITS MINE MINE MINE!  Sociopathic behavior if you ask me.  Usually tea partiers.
3) Really poor white people.  Usually teamed with Racism, as it is the driving force behind their politics.  Usually they would benefit from social services, and usually do.  SO, whatever the leaders of their party (of god, and 'murica and whiteness) tell them is what they believe.

These are just my observations.
 
MFK
2013-03-22 03:47:09 PM  

HeadLever: MFK: The current system is rigged in favor of the top 10% earners.

Well, then, let's reduce teh amount of tax loopholes they have avalible to them as Feldstein proposes.  If you were going to only tax the rich, you would not get very far in the way of deficit reduction.  For any significant deficit reduction to take place,  the middle class is going to have to participate.

Oh, and here is a little blub calling our your retared assertion that tax loopholes are only for the middle class:


nice strawman that you've built and subsequently knocked down. I didn't say that the tax loopholes were only for the middle class. But thanks for playing.

And what's this nonsense about how "because taxing the rich won't solve ALL our problems we shouldn't do it at all?" That position comes from such a state of utter ignorance that I'm surprised you people still pull it out... every farking time.
 
2013-03-22 03:51:52 PM  

HeadLever: It sure is.  It may not be our most pressing problem, but I'll argue that it is one of our biggest...


Sure it is, nobody sane or credible says that in the long term, it isn't. However, there are problems with a flat "national debt is the problem" assertion:

First,  austerity does not work in economic downturns. Never has, still hasn't, never will. This is not debatable; it is demonstrable fact.

Second, and following from the first point,  now is not the proper time to address the debt. We're still in recovery from the 2008 economic collapse. Once we've recovered and unemployment is down,  then is the proper time to address debt and deficit problems.

Third,  we in the US have decided to not practice austerity during economic upswings. This is Keynesian economics' "dirty little secret" and elephant in the room. If you're to deficit spend to prevent deflationary spirals, regulate busts, and speed recovery,  you must recoup those losses and pay down debt incurred, during the boom cycle. This is easily demonstrated in the late 1990s, when Clinton and Congress worked together to cut taxes, give rebates, and ease financial and monetary regulatory schema because we were in a boom, opposed to use budget surpluses to pay down the debt, and again between 2003-7 when the Bush administration and Congress did the same during the housing bubble.

Fourth,  our boom/bust cycle is highly unstable. Because in the last thirty years our government has deemed it unnecessary to practice austerity at any time, using downturns as an excuse to cut taxes, increase spending, and ease regulatory schema, and upswings as an excuse to do the same, let alone practice austerity at the  right time, we've experienced a boom/bust cycle that is not only unstable but also increasing in severity with each cycle, coming ever closer to an inflationary or deflationary spiral each time. This problem with our boom/bust cycle is exacerbated by regulatory schema that are, to be charitable, exceedingly inadequate. Case in point, the precipitating market activity to the 2008 economic collapse, despite much of which being of prosecutorial merit even now went unpunished and in fact rewarded, would have been unequivocally illegal as late as 1998 under the Glass-Steagall Act.

Fifth,  we lack the political will or competency to rectify either problem. Legislators are more interested in being elected than doing what is best for our economy, and "well, we're doing all right now so it's time to tighten our belts and pay down on what we had to spend to get ourselves back to good times"  never sits well with voters. Tax cuts and rebates do.

Sixth, and now we enter into the realm of international political economy,  the USD is still the global reserve currency. There are, and have been for decades, more dollars circulating overseas than domestically. The US actually lacks direct control over the value of the USD for that, but on the other hand retaining global reserve currency status gives the US unprecedented global influence. Without dollars flowing overseas (enabled by interest payments on foreign debt) to match global economic growth, we risk losing that status to countries or multi-national organizations with regional hegemonic influence. In short, we must run  some level of foreign debt to keep dollars flowing overseas for international trade.
 
2013-03-22 03:54:14 PM  

Teufelaffe: HeadLever: Teufelaffe:
[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]


Strike out 'MY" in your pic and replace with "CBO".  That is what they get paid to do.

OK, now find us that pretty graph sourced directly from the CBO instead of pulled from some economic doom and gloom blog.


To expound upon this, even if you find a properly sourced copy of that graph, it's still a stupid graph because, just like the character in the XKCD comic, it operates under the assumption that no behavioral changes will be made going forward.  Government spending changes every year, so predicting economic problems based on the assumption that spending won't change is, at best, pointless hypothesizing.  That graph is basically an economic stoner saying, "Dude, what if like, we totally never changed our government spending on anything for, like, 50 years or something?"
 
2013-03-22 03:55:24 PM  

Teufelaffe: OK, now find us that pretty graph sourced directly from the CBO instead of pulled from some economic doom and gloom blog.


here you go PDF WARNING
 
2013-03-22 03:56:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Anyone (even Obama) claiming SS needs to be cut, or adjusted because of the debt is wrong. SS is solvent for 25 years.


Because of the Debt already inherent in the system.  In any case, my point wasn't that SS needs to be cut, but that is does directly impact our debt.  Overall, the fixes of SS are easy compared to the other items.
 
2013-03-22 03:58:02 PM  

Car_Ramrod: By Charles Krauthammer

LOL NO.


Same here, his name is synonymous with pseudo-intellectualism and fractal wrongness...there were so many examples of this that i don't even catalogue them in my head, i just made the executive decision to permanently link 'idiot' and 'krauthhammer' and be done with it.
 
2013-03-22 03:58:36 PM  

HeadLever: Teufelaffe: OK, now find us that pretty graph sourced directly from the CBO instead of pulled from some economic doom and gloom blog.

here you go PDF WARNING


That's from 2009, and the GAO. Just sayin'.
 
2013-03-22 04:00:25 PM  

MFK: I find it interesting that not a one of you republicans is willing to point to which loopholes are going to magically reduce the deficit.


Here is a good start.  Add in the ethanol tax breaks, and we will start saving billions right now.
 
2013-03-22 04:01:14 PM  
FTFA:That's radically new. The historic 1986 Reagan-O'Neill tax reform closed loopholes with no extra money going to the Treasury. The new revenue went directly back to the citizenry in the form of lower tax rates.

And that was possible because tax rates were really high.  At this point we have low tax rates, the lowest in modern times, so low we have to shutter worthwhile things we used to be doing, Low despite the fact that we are fighting two foreign wars.  So low that there is very little stimulative effect of lowering them further IF THAT EFFECT EVER REALLY EXISTED AND DID ANYTHING BUT CREATE ASSET BUBBLES.

At this point we should close tax loopholes because they are patently unfair and regressive.  That's it.  Pay the man, it's your damned country, own it.

And by the way, 50% is a compromise and the GOP doesn't do that.

I really wonder if Krauthammer is actually this stupid or if he does it just for the fun of throwing the skunk in the room.
 
2013-03-22 04:03:07 PM  

that bosnian sniper: First, austerity does not work in economic downturns. Never has, still hasn't, never will. This is not debatable; it is demonstrable fact.


Really?  If that is what you consider as fact, I guess I can write you off as a hack.  No need to read any further.
 
2013-03-22 04:03:24 PM  

that bosnian sniper: That's from 2009, and the GAO. Just sayin'.


Here's the chart from the 2012 report.

i.imgur.com

Link, .pdf

Non-filled-in-interest-portion aside, the outlook is better.
 
2013-03-22 04:03:51 PM  

that bosnian sniper: That's from 2009, and the GAO. Just sayin'.


Want to know how I know you didn't read the report?
 
2013-03-22 04:07:04 PM  
And the fact that we're even discussing what the debt may look like in thirty years is a gift to the GOP, and should put to rest any notion that Obama is a liberal.
 
2013-03-22 04:08:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Non-filled-in-interest-portion aside, the outlook is better.


Correct.  However, that is mosly due to a larger revenue projection.  I would tend to think that it is a little bit optimistic in that updated one as we have only ever touched 20% of GDP for revenue twice in our history.
 
2013-03-22 04:10:13 PM  

HeadLever: Correct.


Can we expect you to post the newer-by-three-years chart from now on?
 
2013-03-22 04:12:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: And the fact that we're even discussing what the debt may look like in thirty years is a gift to the GOP, and should put to rest any notion that Obama is a liberal.


I'm concerned less about who is responsible for the past and more concentrated on how we fix the mess going into the future.  Others choose to be partisan hacks and have the blinders on.
 
2013-03-22 04:15:30 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Can we expect you to post the newer-by-three-years chart from now on?


Yeah, I have not seen that one and it is more recent.  Thanks for linking to it.  Though as I pointed out, I don't agree necessarily with the optimistic revenue projections.  Even with that, it continues to show us the inability of us to contain our deficits going into the future.
 
2013-03-22 04:16:38 PM  
And if incomes weren't stagnant for 30 years this wouldn't be a problem, and until they start growing again, you can't do much more than put band aids on various issues.
 
2013-03-22 04:24:15 PM  

HeadLever: Really?  If that is what you consider as fact, I guess I can write you off as a hack.  No need to read any further.


The unemployed left looking for jobs elsewhere. Clearly, it a resounding success.
 
2013-03-22 04:30:14 PM  

WhyteRaven74: And if incomes weren't stagnant for 30 years this wouldn't be a problem,


In this erea of free trade and gobal economy, much of that will depend upon how fast the rest of the planet catches up with us.
 
2013-03-22 04:31:32 PM  

that bosnian sniper: The unemployed left looking for jobs elsewhere. Clearly, it a resounding success.


With that type of economic growth, it shouldn't be too hard to find those jobs, should it?
 
2013-03-22 04:33:38 PM  

fickenchucker: What a bunch of poop-flinging idiots FARK has devolved into.  The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.


I'm all in favor of getting the welfare queens off the government teat.  Northrup Grumman, Halliburton and whatever Blackwater is calling itself this week can reach for their bootstraps.
 
MFK
2013-03-22 04:35:56 PM  

HeadLever: MFK: I find it interesting that not a one of you republicans is willing to point to which loopholes are going to magically reduce the deficit.

Here is a good start.  Add in the ethanol tax breaks, and we will start saving billions right now.


FTFA: Closing these loopholes would certainly not fix the tax code's much larger problems or put a huge dent in the federal deficit.

This is not an arguement against closing those loopholes. They are foolish and absolutely should be closed. But this is a drop in the bucket and is not the "closing loopholes" that the national GOP is floating. In order to close that big a gap, the only possible way is to get rid of the mortgage deduction and the child credit.The wealthy certainly benefit more from these loopholes than the middle class does because their mortgages are often many times higher, but in order to "close loopholes without raising new revenues" you're going to have to hit the middle class and this is the very thing that you're avoiding talking about until it's too late. The GOP's plan is to get people on board with the idea of closing loopholes without identifying them and then spring this bullshiat on us.

Just like with the 2A'ers. It takes a while but after you get them going they'll confess that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting but the "right to kill US cops and soldiers."  If you want to get rid of the middle class tax loopholes, come out and say it.  Don't beat around the bush.
 
2013-03-22 04:37:20 PM  
Ah, the magic 'revenue-neutral' tax cuts.  Tax cuts that don't increase the deficit because they're offset by closing loopholes.  Which loopholes?  Quit looking behind the curtain, you're ruining it!

..and this is the GOP's compromise?  They'll agree to concrete tax cuts and elusory loophole closes?  Don't pull a muscle overextending yourself there.
 
2013-03-22 04:45:46 PM  

MFK: This is not an arguement against closing those loopholes.


Of course it is not.  Is is an argument FOR closing these loopholes.  I agree they are foolish.

But this is a drop in the bucket and is not the "closing loopholes" that the national GOP is floating.

I like how you moved the goalpost from "NOT ONE REPUBLICAN"  to now 'NATIONAL GOP'.

In order to close that big a gap, the only possible way is to get rid of the mortgage deduction and the child credit.

No, it is not the only way.  You can reduce them or implement Feldstien's Plan.

 but in order to "close loopholes without raising new revenues" you're going to have to hit the middle class and this is the very thing that you're avoiding talking about until it's too late.

Not sure what you are getting at here.  Closing loopholes will generally raise revenues.  If you wanted to close loopholes without raising revenue, you would have to give this money back in some sort of tax break. If you hit the middle class with a tax break, I don't think the middle class would mind one bit.  I certainly don't see the republicans needing to avoid this.
 
2013-03-22 04:48:21 PM  

Hastor: Ah, the magic 'revenue-neutral' tax cuts.


Please read TFA, as it is not revenue nuetral.  The plan here is to have 1/2 of the tax increases  sent to the Treasury  and the other half given back as tax rate decreases.
 
2013-03-22 04:49:31 PM  

MFK: It takes a while but after you get them going they'll confess that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting but the "right to kill US cops and soldiers."


Ohh, look another strawman.

You are full of logical fallacies today
 
2013-03-22 04:51:56 PM  

HeadLever: With that type of economic growth, it shouldn't be too hard to find those jobs, should it?


You mean the "growth" that still pegs the Latvian GDP as 85% of its pre-crisis level?

Oh, and by the by, from your own article,

In his interview with CNBC on Friday, Dombrovskis said the austerity versus growth debate was a false one.

"We need both. We need to regain our financial stability and we need to regain visibility vis-a-vis the financial markets. But at the same we need measures to stimulate economic growth, and actually, to grow out of those problems," he said.

I guess this guy's a hack, too, huh?
 
2013-03-22 04:53:20 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: HeadLever: Not sure why you think that we should make it worse with more spending and more debt.

Because the debt isn't our biggest problem. It's not even in the top five. A balanced budget is the result of a robust economy, not the cause. Fix the persistent high unemployment problem, you'll fix revenues, you'll fix the deficit and the debt. Not the other way around.


...the problem here is, unemployment is not the only problem here.  It's not just how many jobs there are, it's how many well-paying jobs there are.  And minimum wage jobs and $10-hr jobs requiring a four-year degree are not well-paying jobs.
 
2013-03-22 04:55:47 PM  

that bosnian sniper: HeadLever: Really?  If that is what you consider as fact, I guess I can write you off as a hack.  No need to read any further.

The unemployed left looking for jobs elsewhere. Clearly, it a resounding success.


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2013-03-22 04:58:08 PM  

IlGreven: ...the problem here is, unemployment is not the only problem here.  It's not just how many jobs there are, it's how many well-paying jobs there are.  And minimum wage jobs and $10-hr jobs requiring a four-year degree are not well-paying jobs.


Agree completely.
 
MFK
2013-03-22 05:00:35 PM  

HeadLever: MFK: This is not an arguement against closing those loopholes.

Of course it is not.  Is is an argument FOR closing these loopholes.  I agree they are foolish.

But this is a drop in the bucket and is not the "closing loopholes" that the national GOP is floating.

I like how you moved the goalpost from "NOT ONE REPUBLICAN"  to now 'NATIONAL GOP'.

In order to close that big a gap, the only possible way is to get rid of the mortgage deduction and the child credit.

No, it is not the only way.  You can reduce them or implement Feldstien's Plan.

 but in order to "close loopholes without raising new revenues" you're going to have to hit the middle class and this is the very thing that you're avoiding talking about until it's too late.

Not sure what you are getting at here.  Closing loopholes will generally raise revenues.  If you wanted to close loopholes without raising revenue, you would have to give this money back in some sort of tax break. If you hit the middle class with a tax break, I don't think the middle class would mind one bit.  I certainly don't see the republicans needing to avoid this.


That's not what I was saying and you know it.  I said "new  revenues" as in the form of raising taxes particularly on those who have taken advantage of the system while the rest of us suffer. I'm not so sure the middle class needs another tax break but the 1% certainly doesn't need another tax CUT.
 
2013-03-22 05:02:01 PM  

that bosnian sniper: I guess this guy's a hack, too, huh?


Nope, there is nothing mutually exclusive with generallized austerity and growth stimulating policies.

You mean the "growth" that still pegs the Latvian GDP as 85% of its pre-crisis level?

Sure.  During these times, there are countries that would kill to have 85% of its Pre-Crisis GDP growth.  We are currently about 50%.
 
2013-03-22 05:03:31 PM  

MFK: That's not what I was saying and you know it.


Either he is too ignorant to understand what you said (it was pretty clear) or he is being intentionally dishonest. In either case I don't know why you bother responding to him, it isn't like he is putting forward interesting and insightful arguments.
 
2013-03-22 05:04:57 PM  

MFK: I said "new revenues" as in the form of raising taxes particularly on those who have taken advantage of the system while the rest of us suffer.


Sorry, my crystal ball only showed 'new revenues' when you said 'new revenues'.  I guess I'll have to get it recalibrated so that 'new revenues' now shows up as 'raising taxes on only those that take advantage off the system'.
 
2013-03-22 05:05:19 PM  

HeadLever: Nope, there is nothing mutually exclusive with generallized austerity and growth stimulating policies.


Then you probably should have done well to read my Weeners, then.  But forget it, I forgot Poland.

Sure.  During these times, there are countries that would kill to have 85% of its Pre-Crisis GDP growth.  We are currently about 50%.

I'm not talking about  growth, I'm talking about  total GDP. US GDP is 105.5% of its peak pre-crisis level ($14.21T in 2008 compared to $14.99T in 2011).
 
2013-03-22 05:05:23 PM  

HeadLever: that bosnian sniper: I guess this guy's a hack, too, huh?

Nope, there is nothing mutually exclusive with generallized austerity and growth stimulating policies.

You mean the "growth" that still pegs the Latvian GDP as 85% of its pre-crisis level?

Sure.  During these times, there are countries that would kill to have 85% of its Pre-Crisis GDP growth.  We are currently about 50%.


Those aren't the same thing.
 
2013-03-22 05:06:14 PM  

jst3p: MFK: That's not what I was saying and you know it.

Either he is too ignorant to understand what you said (it was pretty clear) or he is being intentionally dishonest. In either case I don't know why you bother responding to him, it isn't like he is putting forward interesting and insightful arguments.


Godddamn it I responded to him too... *sigh*
 
2013-03-22 05:13:33 PM  

that bosnian sniper: not talking about growth, I'm talking about total GDP. US GDP is 105.5% of its peak pre-crisis level ($14.21T in 2008 compared to $14.99T in 2011).


Ah, gotcha.  Sorry about the misunderstanding.  You are correct here, but with the high growth rates, it will likely not take them very long to make that back up.
 
2013-03-22 05:19:55 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: If I recall my Solomonic fables, the GOP would be the one's who rolled over on their baby and killed it. "Obama" would be the one who will say, "Don't cut it in half!" right at the last second.


It's like you have to not have a basic understanding of anything (or everything must be a complete misunderstanding) to be part of the GOP. Thanks for pointing out they couldn't even get the lesson learned from this fable correct.
 
2013-03-22 05:28:18 PM  

HeadLever: Ah, gotcha.  Sorry about the misunderstanding.  You are correct here, but with the high growth rates, it will likely not take them very long to make that back up.


Assuming that growth rate continues and it is sustainable, yes. Which are two awfully big assumptions to make.

Of course, digging deeper into this, Latvia also employed a mixed regimeof  targeted opposed to  blanket austerity measures, and at the same time employed  targeted stimulus. And, they've since ceased using austerity and moved into stimulus as part of a more encompassing, phased economic recovery plan.

http://www.euronews.com/2013/03/21/latvia-s-dombrovskis-fearless-pat h- to-euro/

But please, don't let that interrupt the "Latvia practiced austerity!" narrative, even though it ignores flatly every other fiscal and monetary policy Latvia simultaneously practiced. So, should I amend my previous statement to say "austerity  alone does not work"? Perhaps, but for the fact the discussion is pre-framed in the (admittedly, false) "austerity  versus stimulus" dichotomy.
 
2013-03-22 05:29:00 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: fickenchucker: HotWingConspiracy: fickenchucker: What a bunch of poop-flinging idiots FARK has devolved into. The constant denial that spending is way higher than it should be is astounding.

You sound smart, how much should we really be spending?

Even with the sarcasm, I'll answer it. Spending should be on par with revenues, or a few percent less to chip away at the bloated debt.

Now let us know everything you're going to cut.


You're assuming all conservatives toe the party line.  I would cut everything to various degrees, from the military to foreign aid to slowing the rate of growth in social services.

Another poster after you snarkily mentions the military is bloated.  Well no duh.  I would cut it pretty deeply in comparison to what most politicians would tolerate.  This Conservative is probably more of a moderate than the stereotype would imply.  The military, in my mind, shouldn't be a playground for politicians to slap-fight each other about jobs.  It's to be as efficient as possible for deterring our enemies and breaking things when necessary.
 
2013-03-22 06:05:49 PM  
Isn't that what Obama tried to do?

/o wait, imma been not trolly
 
2013-03-22 06:25:28 PM  
FTFA: "The proposition that entitlement curbs are the key to maintaining national solvency is widely accepted..."

This is the point where this idiot begins! I think a basic problem is a disagreement about the definition of the word "entitlement". It seems that for liberals, entitlements are things to which you are entitled. Conservatives (it seems) tend to think entitlements are that to which you are not entitled. Like it's an ironic word that means the opposite of what it means. I imagine the outcry from telling a conservative that as a citizen, he is entitled to keep and bear arms. "That's not an entitlement; That's my right!"
 
2013-03-22 06:48:23 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand why such stupidity gets national press. I really don't.


Because it's America, the post-fact empire.
 
2013-03-22 06:52:07 PM  

Car_Ramrod: By Charles Krauthammer

LOL NO.


My exact response as well.
 
2013-03-22 07:19:42 PM  

Saborlas: Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.


You should be slapped for saying "totes."

Shame on you.
 
2013-03-22 08:05:41 PM  

that bosnian sniper: HeadLever: Teufelaffe: OK, now find us that pretty graph sourced directly from the CBO instead of pulled from some economic doom and gloom blog.

here you go PDF WARNING

That's from 2009, and the GAO. Just sayin'.


And assumes no policy changes.
 
2013-03-22 08:11:11 PM  
"As a final bonus, tax reform's lower rates spur economic growth. A unique win-win-win: efficiency, fairness, growth."

empirical evidence, please.
 
2013-03-22 08:24:18 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Of course, digging deeper into this, Latvia also employed a mixed regimeof  targeted opposed to  blanket austerity measures, and at the same time employed  targeted stimulus. And, they've since ceased using austerity and moved into stimulus as part of a more encompassing, phased economic recovery plan.


That is true because their deficits have been reduced to about 1.5% of GDP and their and debt level is only about 50% of GDP.  It makes it easier to re-institute these types of activities

 So, should I amend my previous statement to say "austerityalone does not work"?

Ah, the no true Scotsman approach?  How refreshing.   So basically, it is austerity when it doesn't work (and Krugman gets to crows about how badausterity has screwed the country up), but yet not true austerity when it does.  Nice!
 
2013-03-22 08:28:05 PM  

HeadLever: It makes it easier to re-institute these types of activities


They reinstituted the stimulus when the austerity didn't work.
 
2013-03-22 08:32:33 PM  

Ablejack: This is the point where this idiot begins! I think a basic problem is a disagreement about the definition of the word "entitlement". It seems that for liberals, entitlements are things to which you are entitled. Conservatives (it seems) tend to think entitlements are that to which you are not entitled.


Entitlements in this regard are generally accepted to be SS, Medicare, and Medicaid with a smattering of smaller welfare or provider type programs.  The first three are areas that are generally recognized as to be large programs that are in trouble or large drivers of our current and future deficits/debt.
 
2013-03-22 08:33:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: They reinstituted the stimulus when the austerity didn't work.


lol, not according to Krugman.  That talking point only came out as it did start to work.  Had to cover your arse, I guess.
 
2013-03-22 08:37:34 PM  

lordluzr: empirical evidence, please.


in a certain way, you could argue the Bush Tax Cuts did that.  GDP growth rate increased for several years after these tax cuts (from 2001 to 2005 or so).
 
2013-03-22 08:38:13 PM  

HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: They reinstituted the stimulus when the austerity didn't work.

lol, not according to Krugman.  That talking point only came out as it did start to work.  Had to cover your arse, I guess.


Show me where.
 
2013-03-22 08:51:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Show me where.



From 8 months ago:
The bottom line is that while Latvia's willingness to endure extreme austerity is  politically impressive, its economic data don't support any of the claims being made about its economic lessons.

Not only austerity, but EXTREME AUSTERITY!  I'll give you an E for effort on the No True Scotsmen deflection though.

lol.
 
2013-03-22 08:54:06 PM  
What is funny is you have Krugman on one side saying that they are faking the recovery  and dumbasses here saying that it is not really austerity.
 
2013-03-22 11:37:26 PM  

HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: Show me where.


From 8 months ago:
The bottom line is that while Latvia's willingness to endure extreme austerity is  politically impressive, its economic data don't support any of the claims being made about its economic lessons.

Not only austerity, but EXTREME AUSTERITY!  I'll give you an E for effort on the No True Scotsmen deflection though.

lol.


Which of his data are incorrect?
 
2013-03-23 08:03:45 AM  

Rann Xerox: By Charles Krauthammer

*CLOSES LINK*


Same for me. Also: Christ, what an asshole.
 
2013-03-23 10:44:14 AM  

HeadLever: That is true because their deficits have been reduced to about 1.5% of GDP and their and debt level is only about 50% of GDP.  It makes it easier to re-institute these types of activities


Incorrect. Latvian  public debt is approximately 40% of GDP. Latvian  external debt is approximately 140% of GDP. Not only does it make a mixed approach easier to institute, but for the relatively light debt problems Latvia faced in the ongoing Eurozone crisis one could even construe its invocation here in the greater context a form of special pleading, especially compared to the PIIGS countries which each have public debt alone greater than Latvia's public and external debt together.

Ah, the no true Scotsman approach?  How refreshing.   So basically, it is austerity when it doesn't work (and Krugman gets to crows about how badausterity has screwed the country up), but yet not true austerity when it does.  Nice!

...or it could be a mixed approach when more than austerity measures are enacted.
 
2013-03-23 03:14:36 PM  
Classic conservatism:  Let's compromise and do it all my way.

50% for debt reduction
50% for tax cuts to the few lucky people who pay any income tax (because they are the few who have any income), any capital gains (because they are the few who have any capital), estate taxes (because they are the few couples who leave estates of more than $4,500,000, excluding their primary residence), etc.

In other words, let's cut off our left feet and march right, right, right, right, right. You know, compromise.

Nothing for health care, education, social security, science, and so forth. You'll be pretty compromised if you agree with anything they say.

Say, how about a little something for government and the general welfare? Nope. 50% for us and another 50% for us because we are Lions and have the teeth and claws to prove it. Any problem with that comrade Sheeple? I thought not. By the by, I'm having you for lunch next Tuesday. Wear mint sauce.
 
2013-03-24 04:08:55 AM  

Rann Xerox: By Charles Krauthammer

*CLOSES LINK*


THIS.

After being lured into the thread by promises of pie I end up with an article by CK?

Life is not fair.
 
Displayed 193 of 193 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report