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 193
    More: Interesting, Obama wants, obama, treasuries, tax rates, GOP, Martin Feldstein, Tom Coburn, Louisiana Purchase  
•       •       •

2139 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Mar 2013 at 12:45 PM (2 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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