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  
•       •       •

2143 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 43 of 193 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


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