Thread: The fat lady is just clearing her throat now...

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Soooo many ignorant points listed here, I just don't have the time. Bottom line - liberals are not interested in prosperity. They are only interested in equality. If no one loses, no one wins, except the power elite in Washington and their money masters. The only one comment I have is that your comments on Reagan are an absolute joke.

Thanks for your input. That totally adds alot to the discussion...

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Nice to finally see a post not filled with talking points, Ranger. Substance, for a change. I assert that the wealthy do not create jobs because they do not create the demand for said jobs. Who does? The consumers. The wealthiest people make thousands of times as much as me or you, but they do not buy thousands of the same widget or use the service a company provides thousands of times more. Similarly, if there is a demand for a service or product not available, then someone will try to fill it. That's why when Clinton and Reagan raised taxes, it didn't adversely affect job growth. It's also why when Reagan and Bush II cut taxes, there was no massive increase in job growth.

If you want to expand your operations and increase your employees, it's because the demand for your product or service as increased to the point that it makes financial sense, correct? It's not because some wealthy person decided to expand a failing business or one that is treading water. They will only take that risk when they see a chance for success, and that chance is given by the consumers.

The wealthiest are also taxed at all-time low rates. I believe their effective tax rate for the last year available was 16.6%. How much lower do you think they should go? We already cannot afford that low of a tax rate and that's one of the major things driving the debt higher. So it's as profitable as it has ever been, yet they still aren't doing it. It's a major reason why I don't like trickle-down economics like this. You give all the bread to those at the top and hope you are lucky to find a few crumbs that fall down to you.

If you're complaining about debt, I don't know why you'd want Obama to take a page out of Reagan's playbook? I'd think Reagan would embody everything you despise in a politician. He cut taxes and increased spending, he increased the size of the federal government, and he caused a the national debt to explode, for instance But at least Reagan was smart enough to raise taxes when he needed to, instead of fighting them tooth and nail, or the situation could have been far worse. Then, Bush II came in and followed his same plan with the same predictable result. I'd rather stay away from such irresponsible policies, myself. The debt right now Obama inherited from Bush. It was drastically climbing when Bush left office, and it was already projected at $1.4 trillion when he took over in 2009. No reasonable person should have expected Obama to be able to arrest the climb in a year, let alone four. It's like asking why someone didn't stop a speeding locomotive on the spot? You can't. It takes time, and will not stop during a recession. A nice graph, for you: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5066/5...71d8db3038.jpg

Increasing spending on things like unemployment benefits and food stamps during a recession is also much more stimulative to the economy than tax cuts and will help get the country on its feet faster. That is because when you cut taxes during a recession, people save that money and don't spend it because the economy sucks. Those other benefits, people will always spend.
Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says - Bloomberg
In other words, when we cut taxes, that extra money is not put into the economy. It is not invested in new ventures. It is saved, and that does nothing for us. Every $1 spent on unemployment benefits gives us an economic output increase of about $1.60. Temporary increase in food stamps is $1.74. Infrastructure spending is $1.57. Federal aid to states is $1.41. That's how you get an economy going again, and that's what the stimulus should have only included. But since about half of it was tax cuts, it wasn't as effective as it could have been.

Now on the flip side, what about tax cuts as a stimulative policy? Well, it's not very good. For every $1 spent, lump-sum tax rebates boost economic output by $1.01 for non-refundable ones and $1.22 for refundable ones. A holiday payroll tax cut is about $1.24. But permanent tax cuts are sunk costs. Making permanent capital gains taxes would only increase output by $0.37. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent will only increase it $0.32. That means we are losing 68 cents on every dollar we invest in those bogus tax cuts. Source. Would you call that a wise investment?

See, Ranger, when you give an honest and thought-out post, I'll return the favor. You put in time and effort, and I'll respect that by trying to do the same. I just do not have the tolerance for listing talking points I've seen a bunch of times, and I won't entertain them as serious discussion. That will get the harsher replies from me.

Fov, I have no problem writing well thought out posts for the purposes of an informed discussion. But usually, you snipe certain assertions, without taking the full context of the meaning behind it. I could do that here, but I try to look at all of your points with a broad lens because I realize much of what you say piggy backs onto the concept you try and point out in the next paragraph. What reduces our discussions to rhetoric is when you (and I sometimes) pick those one or two elements we see as easily refuted, then concentrate our arguments on those specific elements in some hope that the mere act of disassembling those will have a domino effect on everything else.

Now, let me respond to some of your comments by first agreeing with some of what you propose. Let me first be clear, I have NO PROBLEM with raising taxes. Its like a business. If your company produces a widget, and because of market conditions that widget's value has gone up, then you should be able to increase your products price. Simple. Taxes are no different. Taxing the wealthy is a viable alternative, and one I think should be done. My issues stem from this concept that the wealthy are A) Not paying their fair share (As if something like "fair" could be qualitative), B) Obama seems to be blaming their prosperity on shady deals, as if he himself is pure as driven snow on that regard, and C) the wealthy are the last resort our country has to correct the economy. It smacks of reckless, amateur and unconscionable policies.

Our country needs to increase its taxes. But when it does, it needs to get out of the way and let free enterprise "stop the locomotive", not a single man who, in my opinion and based on his history, has no idea how. But it also needs to cut spending to help assist that process from the other end. As we balance the budget, through taxation and cutting of spending, we add more programs that help, not hurt. The unfortunate thing is that politics get in the way. Elected officials make promises they can't, of shouldn't keep, because if they don't, they won't be reelected. Like Obamacare.

Now to your points. You're on the right track, but I think you have the talking points labeled incorrectly. The wealthy DO create the jobs (sometimes), they just don't always create the demand. But that's also dependent on the industry you are talking about too. When Henry Ford rolled off his first Model A (or whatever it was), there was a demand for buggy's, buggy whips, horses, and rigging for those horses... not cars, which made all those other things obsolete. Its called innovation, and its an area where products/jobs come before demand. He saw an opportunity to introduce an innovative new product. One that would reshape the very foundation of our country. The horse and buggy would never have turned America into the powerhouse it is today if Henry Ford didn't take a small idea, turn it into something others would buy.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Its the "demand". But without that innovation, vision, risk-taking and the amassed wealth it takes to engineer something, you create no jobs. You just have a lot of people walking every where. That's why R&D department exist in the first place. You are trying to create a product to which there is no consumer demand in the hopes you can create that demand. Look at Facebook. Did we really need to know the bowel movements of our next door neighbor's, brother's, long lost cousin? Was there a demand for it? No. Can we live without it now? Probably not.

You could make the argument that there was a "demand" for a means of transportation from point A to B, and horse drawn buggy's served that purpose to a point. I mean hell, the concept wasn't all that hard since trains had been around for a long time. But without Henry Ford taking the money he had, investing it into an idea no one had had before, risking everything he owned to do it, we would not be having this conversation today. Then think about all the jobs his risk created. Now we needed paved roads, those had to be built. Roads with signs, which had to be built. Convenience stores with gasoline, which had to be built, stocked, and managed. Gas which had to be processed in every greater quantities to meet, you guessed it, consumer demands. All of which would not have been possible had Henry Ford not taken a chance, and risked his own money. Millions and millions of jobs created over the years. One guy with money made it all happen.

And for his effort, in his day, he was one of the wealthiest men in the world. His reward was worth the risk.

I agree, the wealthy don't buy thousands of times the widgets you and I would normally use at $5.00. How could they? But then again, you and I don't buy hundreds of millions of dollars in Mansions, luxury cars, Leer jets, yachts, caviar and wardrobes do we? And all that money goes back into the economy doesn't it? It goes to the workers who build those items, the people who ship it, market it, sell it, and repair it. And they turn around and buy widgets at $5.00 a pop. So while you are suggesting that the wealthy don't buy single items any different than you and I do, you and I don't spend NEARLY what they do on a single item either. So to my mind, the point is moot. You will never spend, in your entire life on everything you will ever buy, what they spend on a single item.

And yes, you are right once again about expanding operations. And once again, you are right... to a point. If I, as a small business owner of a software company, want to expand my operations, the first thing I look for is automation. I want to know, how can I spend the smallest amount of money I can, that will increase my bottom line the most? If that doesn't work, then I look to see if there is a contractor out there who can do what I need, faster, cheaper, and better than I could do it, if I had to set everything up on my own. If that doesn't work, then I look to hire people to do it in house. You're confusing expansion of a company, with increasing profit on the bottom line. The two are not always interrelated.

I know what my cost analysis and breakdowns are. I know what I need to make to reach my gross profit, net profit and ROI. I know these things because I do a comprehensive break down of each step. But when I want to expand my business, I'm generally not looking to simply make more of the same widget, I'm looking to leverage the money my widgets have already made me, into another product line. THAT's when it makes sense to hire more employees, buy more gear, invest in more capital goods.

But Obama's taking away my ability to leverage my own money. Every social policy he introduces, reduces my ability to stay flexible, and adapt to changing market forces. Because in reality, and using your analogy of the locomotive, the best way to stop something that large is to never put it in motion to begin with. I oppose large government for that very reason! Once it gets going, no one can stop it!

I don't know where you're getting your data on what the wealthy are paying, but I can tell you, they are paying their fair share, despite the fact they may be paying a lower percentage as it relates to them. They pay more as a percentage, AND obviously in actual amount than you and I. Just how much more do they need to get taxed? Is the problem that they aren't paying enough? Or that we are spending too much? At what point do we take a fiscally responsible look at our own spending as a country and say, "We aren't living within our means?"

Here is a Wall Street Journal article on this: The Real Tax Rates of the Rich - The Wealth Report - WSJ

And please, don't tell me the WSJ is somehow biased toward Republicans because you don't like this guys data. That's silly. Its from the IRS, so I tend to think it's pretty reliable.

As this article suggests, it's only the absolute highest wage earners who are paying a disproportionate amount. Those people who have amassed so much wealth, like Buffet, Winfrey, Gates, and Romney, they no longer put themselves in a position to be taxed in the same way. According to the article, you're only talking about 8,000 people, out of 100 million+. How much money do these 8,000 really have to contribute? Is their considerable wealth really going to matter in the overall scheme of things? No. Of course not. Its paltry and Obama knows it. But it gains traction politically. It stirs up the base, inspires people for change. Obama's gonna ride that wave as long as he can. But in the end, it won't matter.

Not even a little bit.

Now, your views on who should be saddled with the debt we have now are certainly up for debate and nothing but pure speculation. Did Bush increase the debt? You bet. Our nation was attacked, and he went to war. We paid for it, and we'll be paying for it for some time to come. The question I pose to you is whether or not Obama should have recognized that fiscally irresponsible decision on Bush's part, and make the necessary decisions to correct it. You could argue till you're blue in the face that spending your way out of debt is the best way to get it done. And in certain circumstances, I would agree. But not here.

Obama passed trillion dollar deficit spending packages, raised taxes through Obamacare, placed tighter regulations on business... the last two which amount to hand-cuffing business. As I write this, our national debt clock is nearing 16 trillions dollars. See for yourself.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

It would have continued to go up after Bush left office because of his policies, but not nearly at the rate Obama has moved it to. That's a purely speculative comment, I know. But neither one of us has the ability to really prove otherwise. You say Bush, I say Obama. You simply don't increase debt in this manner. Even Obama himself knows you don't increase taxes in the middle of a recession. So how do you get out of the recession if you can't raise taxes?

You cut spending.

Why cut spending? Because the private sector, which is usually the catalyst for improving the economy is in shambles after a collapsed housing market, millions in job losses, manufacturing losses, and financial uncertainty in others. Then you add on regulations. Ordinarily, I would support increased government spending... so long as that spending was going to private companies. Now before you start to say, "But Ranger, in your last post, you said government should get out of the private sector! You noob!" I did. Now let me bring it home. The government should never investin a private company like Solyndra (Republican or Democrat), but I have no problem with the government out sourcing to a private company, like Halliburton, Boeing or Lockheed Martin for a contract. That's appropriate government spending. Not an investment. You want the Federal government to "invest" in a company? Buy their shit.

You're point about increasing unemployment benefits during a recession is the whole reason the Bush Tax cuts where implemented in the first place. The goal is to put more money in the hands of the consumers. But once again, this is how the private sector works better than the Federal government. When the Fed starts handing out cash in the form of food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc. it creates a dependency. There have been countless studies that show people tend to find work just before those benefits run out. You extend those benefits, you enable people to stay on them longer. They won't have a reason to get a job until there is no more free money coming in. How is this, in any way, good for the economy?

But by God, it will generate some votes won't it?

By putting an extra thousand dollars in your hand and allowing you to spend it how you want, you are improving some area of the economy when you spend it. And when the lower and middle classes get a stipend like that, they tend to spend all of it. When you hand a millionaire a thousand bucks, they almost don't know what to do with it. They'll chuck it in the bank and go eat dinner. But someone in the lower and middle classes will buy a new washer and dryer, or take a trip, or pay off debt. In any of those cases, they are doing more for the economy than what the Fed does when it allocates food stamps.

Do unemployment benefits help in a recession? You bet. Is it the best way? Not by a long shot.

This is I believe your last point concerning tax cuts as a means of stimulation. Here is one area where I tend to agree with you on (shocker, huh). Cutting taxes permanently are generally never a good thing. I know it gets traction in elections because people like to think they're going to have more money in their pockets. But every year, the cost of doing business as a country goes up. The amount of taxation should rise too. But here is where the waters get murky.

If all you ever do is go to the "taxation well" to fix financial issues, eventually, it will dry up. Socialist countries prove it. This is why there is so much resistance from Republicans on this issue of taxing the rich.

Now, bear with me because this is where it gets cool. Tax dollars will go up if you allow free market to exist without so many needless regulations... WITHOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF TAXATION GOING UP. You don't need to increase tax percentages every couple years to meet that demand, you just have to spend conservatively (there's that word you hate Fov), so that your income never exceeds your expenses. This is not a hard concept to learn. Yet our politicians seem to think that all you need to do is print more money and the situation corrects itself.

NO!

It creates an environment where we borrow .40 of every dollar we spend from foreign countries, namely China. That's fine until China realizes we are in no shape to pay that back. That is enormously detrimental to the diplomatic landscape. At any time China can withhold it's loan, or ask for it repaid, and when that happens, the Great Depression will seem like winning the lottery. Our only saving grace in this situation is that China's economy would be really hurt if American's didn't import their crap products. Its a mutually dependent arrangement, but one that won't last forever.

I would like to see the Bush tax cuts go. I think it will give us a clearer picture of what the fiscal landscape really is. Right now, its a placebo. But I also want Obamacare to go as well. It's poorly constructed, and will cost an untold amount of money to actually see the results. Much higher than what Obama originally predicted. And it's going to devastate small business.

Let me wrap this up. And sorry for the wall of text once again everyone. While I agree with many of the results of Democratic philosophies, I disagree in nearly every way how they go about reaching it.

That is all.

Originally Posted by vcr

sometimes with the bullsh--t that goes on with employees i just want to trade out my employees with monkeys


i dont know if i am allowed to say dirty words

Yes you can. Providing your not aiming an insult at a member you can call employees stupid fucking retards all day long. Been there i feel your pain.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Now, let me respond to some of your comments by first agreeing with some of what you propose. Let me first be clear, I have NO PROBLEM with raising taxes. Its like a business. If your company produces a widget, and because of market conditions that widget's value has gone up, then you should be able to increase your products price. Simple. Taxes are no different. Taxing the wealthy is a viable alternative, and one I think should be done. My issues stem from this concept that the wealthy are A) Not paying their fair share (As if something like "fair" could be qualitative), B) Obama seems to be blaming their prosperity on shady deals, as if he himself is pure as driven snow on that regard, and C) the wealthy are the last resort our country has to correct the economy. It smacks of reckless, amateur and unconscionable policies.

Our country needs to increase its taxes. But when it does, it needs to get out of the way and let free enterprise "stop the locomotive", not a single man who, in my opinion and based on his history, has no idea how. But it also needs to cut spending to help assist that process from the other end. As we balance the budget, through taxation and cutting of spending, we add more programs that help, not hurt. The unfortunate thing is that politics get in the way. Elected officials make promises they can't, of shouldn't keep, because if they don't, they won't be reelected. Like Obamacare.

A) What I believe their “fair share” is that they should pay roughly the same percent of taxes as the percentage of the wealth they own, and not just based on income. Just take the top 1%, for example. They own 40% of the wealth, but they pay only 25.3% of all federal taxes. The top 20% own 84% of the wealth, and they pay 65.3% of all the federal taxes. Share of Federal Taxes Under Current Law, By Cash Income Percentile, 2012
Another problem, for me, is that the top 0.1% take home HALF of all the capital gains earnings, but somehow manage to only have to pay 15% on that. That has to be increased, in my opinion.

I also think they should do away with the cap on taxable income for Social Security, or at least bump it way up.

B) I disagree with that assertion.

C) Worship of the wealthy, in my opinion, is misguided. If we are that dependent on the wealthiest people, then we are nothing more than a banana republic. The income inequality in this country has been skyrocketing since Reagan. I think that is a far bigger problem than grovelling at the feet of the wealthy and begging them not to leave us.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Now to your points. You're on the right track, but I think you have the talking points labeled incorrectly. The wealthy DO create the jobs (sometimes), they just don't always create the demand. But that's also dependent on the industry you are talking about too. When Henry Ford rolled off his first Model A (or whatever it was), there was a demand for buggy's, buggy whips, horses, and rigging for those horses... not cars, which made all those other things obsolete. Its called innovation, and its an area where products/jobs come before demand. He saw an opportunity to introduce an innovative new product. One that would reshape the very foundation of our country. The horse and buggy would never have turned America into the powerhouse it is today if Henry Ford didn't take a small idea, turn it into something others would buy.

…..

And for his effort, in his day, he was one of the wealthiest men in the world. His reward was worth the risk.

Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, and that's not what he is famous for. What he did was invent a way to PRODUCE the automobile in a cheap and affordable way that made them affordable to the masses. By mass producing cars, he was able to get the prices low enough so that a middle-class person could afford it. The assembly line is his innovation, and by getting the price down enough, he created the demand for cars. Also, by paying his workers a good wage for the time, $5 a day, he made created more possible customers that earned enough to buy his product. Of course the plan entailed risk, because automobiles were still new, but how he went about it made it the success it was.

However, most companies don't take those big risks with their own money. The government takes the risks for them, through grants and the like. In other cases, innovation has come through public universities or the military. Companies tend to play safe with their money and are hesitant to take huge risks.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I agree, the wealthy don't buy thousands of times the widgets you and I would normally use at $5.00. How could they? But then again, you and I don't buy hundreds of millions of dollars in Mansions, luxury cars, Leer jets, yachts, caviar and wardrobes do we? And all that money goes back into the economy doesn't it? It goes to the workers who build those items, the people who ship it, market it, sell it, and repair it. And they turn around and buy widgets at $5.00 a pop. So while you are suggesting that the wealthy don't buy single items any different than you and I do, you and I don't spend NEARLY what they do on a single item either. So to my mind, the point is moot. You will never spend, in your entire life on everything you will ever buy, what they spend on a single item.

But that is a limited and highly specialized market. There are only a handful of people that can afford to spend that much on items, and their spending would never employ enough people to keep our economy going. Not even close. So your right that I'll never spend in a lifetime what some people spend on one item, but all of us combined easily will.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

And yes, you are right once again about expanding operations.

…...

But Obama's taking away my ability to leverage my own money. Every social policy he introduces, reduces my ability to stay flexible, and adapt to changing market forces. Because in reality, and using your analogy of the locomotive, the best way to stop something that large is to never put it in motion to begin with. I oppose large government for that very reason! Once it gets going, no one can stop it!

Actually, I wasn't confusing expansion with the profit line. What I said was you would not expand your business unless the demand was there to do so, correct? You're telling me you wouldn't expand production of your widget if demand was outpacing production? Would you not buy more machinery or hire more people to keep up with demand? I understand leveraging that money to make a new product line, but why pass up the opportunity to make more with an existing widget?

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I don't know where you're getting your data on what the wealthy are paying, but I can tell you, they are paying their fair share, despite the fact they may be paying a lower percentage as it relates to them. They pay more as a percentage, AND obviously in actual amount than you and I. Just how much more do they need to get taxed? Is the problem that they aren't paying enough? Or that we are spending too much? At what point do we take a fiscally responsible look at our own spending as a country and say, "We aren't living within our means?"

…...

Not even a little bit.

For this part, allow me to refer you back to the top of my post and point A. As for the number 16.6%, I think that was for only the top 400 wealthiest people, as your link points out virtually the same thing.

I think the problem is both, to be honest. I don't think the top echelons are tax high enough, and I do think we are spending too much. However, what I think we are spending too much on probably differs from what you think we are spending too much on. But, as a caveat, I do support spending as a means to keep the economy running. In other words, I believe we should run a deficit when in a recession and a surplus when we have a good economy. Theoretically, the two would balance out over time, but when someone like Bush and the GOP decide to run a deficit during good economic times, we're gonna have a huge deficit problem when a recession comes. And guess what? That's exactly what happened.

As for the WSJ article, I believe it's flawed, not because the numbers are inaccurate, but because it is cherry-picking numbers to prove it's point. Federal income taxes alone do not paint the whole tax picture, and like you said in an earlier post, I know you think cherry-picking is wrong. It ignores Social Security and other payroll taxes. That's why I like the source I used above because it points out the percentage of ALL federal taxes paid, and not just income.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Now, your views on who should be saddled with the debt we have now are certainly up for debate and nothing but pure speculation.

…..

It would have continued to go up after Bush left office because of his policies, but not nearly at the rate Obama has moved it to. That's a purely speculative comment, I know. But neither one of us has the ability to really prove otherwise. You say Bush, I say Obama. You simply don't increase debt in this manner. Even Obama himself knows you don't increase taxes in the middle of a recession. So how do you get out of the recession if you can't raise taxes?

It was Bush's deficit, and it's not speculative at all. Obama inherited the massive deficit from Bush.

“When Barack Obama is sworn into office in two weeks, he'll also inherit another less pleasant piece of history: the largest deficit ever, $1.2 trillion. And he said today he expects things to get worse before they get better.“
Federal Budget Deficit Projected to Skyrocket in 2009 | Online NewsHour | January 7, 2009 | PBS

I don't see how you can blame Obama for the deficit? You could say he was responsible for about $200 billion the first year, since the actual deficit was $1.4 trillion, but not much more than that. No matter what Obama did when after he was sworn in, there was going to be this massive deficit. Same if McCain had won. After that, it was impossible to bring it down quickly. It simply wasn't going to happen, and it's unreasonable to expect that.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

You cut spending.

….

By putting an extra thousand dollars in your hand and allowing you to spend it how you want, you are improving some area of the economy when you spend it. And when the lower and middle classes get a stipend like that, they tend to spend all of it. When you hand a millionaire a thousand bucks, they almost don't know what to do with it. They'll chuck it in the bank and go eat dinner. But someone in the lower and middle classes will buy a new washer and dryer, or take a trip, or pay off debt. In any of those cases, they are doing more for the economy than what the Fed does when it allocates food stamps.

Do unemployment benefits help in a recession? You bet. Is it the best way? Not by a long shot.

I think cutting spending during a recession is the worst possible thing you can do. If we did that, it would have dropped us into a full-blown depression. No doubt. I say that because during a recession, consumer spending drops like a brick. People lose their jobs and people fear losing their jobs, so they don't have money to spend or they decide to save. With less revenue, companies shed more jobs and buy less inventory. The recession deepens. It's a cycle. When you have the government injecting money into the economy, it saves jobs and increases people's willingness and ability to spend. Unemployment benefits are spent immediately and entirely. Infrastructure projects creates demand and jobs. Government spending and stimulus’s aren't meant to end a recession, they're meant to keep the economy afloat until the private sector can rebound. The stimulus plan passed by Obama was a success, and most economists agree on that, because it held the economy up.

However, lump-sum tax rebates are also stimulative, I agree, as long as they are to the lower-classes and not the upper ones. However, tax cuts make too small of an impact to increase spending, and thus output. This is what happened in 2008 with broad bipartisan support. The only problem is that it is a one-time thing, and once the money is gone, it's gone and you're going back to your old spending habits. That's why benefits increase economic output far more than other means, because they come in regular intervals and are spent every time. And if you say the economy sucks, like I've seen you say a number of times, then what jobs are these people going to get? Either the economy is decent and they are too dependent on unemployment benefits, or the economy sucks and their aren't any jobs. You have to pick one, it cannot be both.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

This is I believe your last point concerning tax cuts as a means of stimulation. Here is one area where I tend to agree with you on (shocker, huh). Cutting taxes permanently are generally never a good thing.

…..

Now, bear with me because this is where it gets cool. Tax dollars will go up if you allow free market to exist without so many needless regulations... WITHOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF TAXATION GOING UP. You don't need to increase tax percentages every couple years to meet that demand, you just have to spend conservatively (there's that word you hate Fov), so that your income never exceeds your expenses. This is not a hard concept to learn. Yet our politicians seem to think that all you need to do is print more money and the situation corrects itself.

“Needless regulations”? The lack of any semblance of regulation in the financial market before its collapse would beg to differ. Regulations are necessary because people have a tendency to take advantage of a situation when there are no rules. And I never said anything about increasing the tax rate every few years. Obviously, as the economy improves the tax receipts will increase and the deficit will drop, but that still won't get us out of the red until we make cuts or up the tax rate. Now let me ask you this, would you be willing to cut the defense budget to make up for any difference? And if so, how deep would you be willing to cut? I'm just curious on this point.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I would like to see the Bush tax cuts go. I think it will give us a clearer picture of what the fiscal landscape really is. Right now, its a placebo. But I also want Obamacare to go as well. It's poorly constructed, and will cost an untold amount of money to actually see the results. Much higher than what Obama originally predicted. And it's going to devastate small business.

Let me wrap this up. And sorry for the wall of text once again everyone. While I agree with many of the results of Democratic philosophies, I disagree in nearly every way how they go about reaching it.

That is all.

I disagree about health care reform, but I do agree about the Bush tax cuts. Personally, I'd have liked to see Obama and the Democrats have the backbone to call the Republicans bluff on the tax cuts and let them all expire.

But this discussion is a lot better and more substantive.

we need CHANGE!

YES WE CAN!!