US Politics - 51 threads to the election!

[SpicyTurkey]

Ha. It is time for Glorious Revolution.

On a more serious note though, I am a bit mystified by the right's lack of interest in inequality. There have to be plenty of "conservative" voters who think "shit is fucked up and is bullshit" but their politicians continue to act like the only problems are too many taxes and too many regulations.

Democrats in Congress are not blameless at all, of course, but they at least seem to understand as TrackerNeil pointed out.

Neither party understands. Spending is not a cure, raising taxes is no better, and continuing to spend while at the same time cutting taxes is even worse. We need a sensible policy, and I believe that allowing people to spend their money how they see fit is the best option. Why should allow some bureaucrat to take my money, and spend it on programs I don't agree with?

[SpicyTurkey]

I will refer you to the fact that if you confiscated every penny from every millionaire, it would be enough to run the federal government for about 4 months.

So i would say that anyone who believes that we have only a revenue problem, and not a spending problem, does not understand the issue. Like, at all.

This!!

[SpicyTurkey]

You can do a hell of a lot to reduce the deficit by raising taxes. Just because you can't cover it all doesn't mean you shouldn't even have this as one of the arrows in the quiver. Spending should be cut and revenues should be increased.

Spending should be decreased, so should taxes. In an economic turmoil you would want capital to increase.

[Swordfish]

In spirit, perhaps.

You can do a hell of a lot to reduce the deficit by raising taxes. Just because you can't cover it all doesn't mean you shouldn't even have this as one of the arrows in the quiver. Spending should be cut and revenues should be increased.

I agree with you 100%. But that is most definitely not what tracker said. he was making the claim that we ONLY have a revenue problem.

i was simply pointing out that suggesting we have no spending problem is equally as ignorant as suggesting that we ONLY have a spending problem, and therefor both parties appear to be pretty clueless from where I'm sitting.

[awesome possum]

Does anyone have any good data on how much revenue we'd get if we simply let the Bush tax cuts expire across the board? So not just for incomes above a certain level, but everyone?

Because I think that probably would put a huge dent in the current deficit. That doesn't take into account the future which will require much more action.

Including the extension I believe it's nearing $3 trillion.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Well, no. you cannot raise taxes enough to cover the projected deficits. it's impossible.

I will refer you to the fact that if you confiscated every penny from every millionaire, it would be enough to run the federal government for about 4 months.

So i would say that anyone who believes that we have only a revenue problem, and not a spending problem, does not understand the issue. Like, at all.

I'm curious about how you arrived at this figure. Does "confiscated every penny" mean that the hypothetical tax would take every penny of income for that year, or every penny of wealth? Does "millionaire" refer to somebody who has over $1 million in annual income, or somebody who owns $1 million in assets? Is this sum of money collected in addition to current federal taxes, or as a replacement for it? I tend to agree that revenue shortfalls won't be solved purely by raising taxes on millionaires, but without further information I'm not sure what this demonstrates.

In non-hypothetical situations, there are any number of developed countries that enjoyed decades of prosperity while levying much more in taxes relative to GDP than the United States does. I'm not sure what that policy wouldn't work here as well.

i was simply pointing out that suggesting we have no spending problem is equally as ignorant as suggesting that we ONLY have a spending problem, and therefor both parties appear to be pretty clueless from where I'm sitting.

Which Democrats believe that we have no spending problem? Do you have quotes? I can think a lot of Democrats who believe that we have a long-term spending problem (particularly in regard to health care costs). Believing that we shouldn't be cutting spending during a weak recovery isn't the same thing as saying that we shouldn't be cutting spending under any circumstances.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

You didn't answer my question.

Then here is my answer: I don't know. I haven't looked into it.

[SpicyTurkey]

I'm curious about how you arrived at this figure. Does "confiscated every penny" mean that the hypothetical tax would take every penny of income for that year, or every penny of wealth? Does "millionaire" refer to somebody who has over $1 million in annual income, or somebody who owns $1 million in assets? Is this sum of money collected in addition to current federal taxes, or as a replacement for it? I tend to agree that revenue shortfalls won't be solved purely by raising taxes on millionaires, but without further information I'm not sure what this demonstrates.

In non-hypothetical situations, there are any number of developed countries that enjoyed decades of prosperity while levying much more in taxes relative to GDP than the United States does. I'm not sure what that policy wouldn't work here as well.

Efforts to reform taxation are identical in one crucial aspect with efforts to increase taxes: both outwardly or tacitly accept the nonsense that the State somehow has a legitimate "right" to plunder people living within the domain where it professes to "rule." But for anyone who believes in self-ownership and freedom, that concept is utter nonsense, for it cannot be rationally explained from whence the State's agents derive the "authority" to plunder you or me.

Which Democrats believe that we have no spending problem? Do you have quotes? I can think a lot of Democrats who believe that we have a long-term spending problem (particularly in regard to health care costs). Believing that we shouldn't be cutting spending during a weak recovery isn't the same thing as saying that we shouldn't be cutting spending under any circumstances.

If spending is the problem, then prolonging it will only prolong the problem. Before we attempt to correct the problem we first must understand how we reached it. Neither party understands how we reached this mess, and they attempt to correct the problem by continuing the actions that got us into this mess in the first place.

[alguien]

I read what SpicyTurkey is posting, but all I hear is this.

Must be the avatar...

Sorry, I have a hard time taking anyone posting with an (unironic) Cap avatar in the politics threads seriously. :dunno:

[SpicyTurkey]

I read what SpicyTurkey is posting, but all I hear is this.

Must be the avatar...

Sorry, I have a hard time taking anyone posting with an (unironic) Cap avatar in the politics threads seriously. :dunno:

I actually have been changing my avatar almost every day.

[alguien]

That is... impressive?

Makes me realize that in my few years of posting here I've never thrown up an av pic and have only changed my name once.

Clearly, I have some catching up to do.

[SpicyTurkey]

Makes me realize that in my few years of posting here I've never thrown up an av pic and have only changed my name once.

Impressive.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Efforts to reform taxation are identical in one crucial aspect with efforts to increase taxes: both outwardly or tacitly accept the nonsense that the State somehow has a legitimate "right" to plunder people living within the domain where it professes to "rule."

Take out the scare quotes and loaded terms like "nonsense" and "plunder," and I agree with you. And since I'm not terribly interested in debating whether that assumption is valid, I'll leave it at that.

If spending is the problem, then prolonging it will only prolong the problem.

Not necessarily. If the runaway cost of healthcare in the medium term is the problem, and evidence suggests that it is, then cutting the FY 2012 budget by a couple of billion dollars without slowing the rise in health care costs will not affect the problem. Indeed, if it hurts economic growth, cutting spending in the short term could very well exacerbate the problem.

[TrackerNeil]

Efforts to reform taxation are identical in one crucial aspect with efforts to increase taxes: both outwardly or tacitly accept the nonsense that the State somehow has a legitimate "right" to plunder people living within the domain where it professes to "rule." But for anyone who believes in self-ownership and freedom, that concept is utter nonsense, for it cannot be rationally explained from whence the State's agents derive the "authority" to plunder you or me.

Oh geez...every six to nine months another libertarian-type joins the board and compares taxation to the piracy or what have you.

Spicy, the "right" of the federal government to "tax" comes from a document known as the "Constitution." Specifically, this "power" is "derived" from Article I, Section 8, which reads:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Does "that" satisfy you?

[SpicyTurkey]

Not necessarily. If the runaway cost of healthcare in the medium term is the problem, and evidence suggests that it is, then cutting the FY 2012 budget by a couple of billion dollars without slowing the rise in health care costs will not affect the problem. Indeed, if it hurts economic growth, cutting spending in the short term could very well exacerbate the problem.

I agree. Advocating the instant abolishment of programs in which government have encouraged the people to depend on will only result in many hardships. That is way a transition out of these programs is the best option at the moment.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

I agree. Advocating the instant abolishment of programs in which government have encouraged the people to depend on will only result in many hardships. That is way a transition out of these programs is the best option at the moment.

I'm not sure you do, really, so let me be clearer. I think runaway healthcare costs are a problem, full stop: for corporate balance sheets, for household budgets, and for governments on all levels. So I don't think that we need to transition people off of government programs, because that doesn't solve the problem, it just shifts it from the government to the individual. (I think the problem would be better solved by universal coverage plus some kind of aggressive price controls, which I imagine that you would probably take exception to. But that leads us into an ACA discussion, which has been talked to death and I'm not really interested in re-hashing it.)

[SpicyTurkey]

Oh geez...every six to nine months another libertarian-type joins the board and compares taxation to the piracy or what have you.

I have actually been here for a while, I had an account here 3 years (or so) ago. Something unfortunate happened to that account, and now I'm back. (I must say, that this sub-forum is not as active as it used to be.)

Spicy, the "right" of the federal government to "tax" comes from a document known as the "Constitution." Specifically, this "power" is "derived" from Article I, Section 8, which reads:

Does "that" satisfy you?

That satisfies, but the Constitution also details the role of the federal government. Though that specific article does not strictly define what should the federal government tax (and I concede that I don't mind paying some forms of taxes despite my attitude towards them), though there are taxes that have no legal arguments (the 16th amendment for example).

[Swordfish]

I'm curious about how you arrived at this figure. Does "confiscated every penny" mean that the hypothetical tax would take every penny of income for that year, or every penny of wealth? Does "millionaire" refer to somebody who has over $1 million in annual income, or somebody who owns $1 million in assets? Is this sum of money collected in addition to current federal taxes, or as a replacement for it? I tend to agree that revenue shortfalls won't be solved purely by raising taxes on millionaires, but without further information I'm not sure what this demonstrates.

it demonstrates that raising taxes doesn't suddenly resolve our deficit/debt problems.

Which is, you know, what we were discussing.

In non-hypothetical situations, there are any number of developed countries that enjoyed decades of prosperity while levying much more in taxes relative to GDP than the United States does. I'm not sure what that policy wouldn't work here as well.

Which Democrats believe that we have no spending problem? Do you have quotes? I can think a lot of Democrats who believe that we have a long-term spending problem (particularly in regard to health care costs). Believing that we shouldn't be cutting spending during a weak recovery isn't the same thing as saying that we shouldn't be cutting spending under any circumstances.

But raising taxes during a weak recovery is fine?

Uh... OK.

if you want quotes from people who don't believe we have a spending problem, you need only read this thread.

It's an emerging democratic talking point.

you could go back and take a look at the debates going on during the debt limit debacle....

Providing lip service to it is one thing. Actually doing something about it is another.

in that respect, republicans don't appear to concerned about spending either, so fuck them too.

But the real point is, that anyone who believes we need to do one and not the other doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about. Or even worse, they just don't care.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

it demonstrates that raising taxes doesn't suddenly resolve our deficit/debt problems.

I don't think it does. At best, it demonstrates that raising taxes on millionaires doesn't suddenly resolve our deficit/debt problems.

if you want quotes from people who don't believe we have a spending problem, you need only read this thread.

It's an emerging democratic talking point.

I don't want quotes from people. I want quotes from leading Democrats. If it's an emerging Democratic talking point, you should have no trouble finding them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Harry,

I don't think it does. At best, it demonstrates that raising taxes on millionaires doesn't suddenly resolve our deficit/debt problems.

So, is it your opinion that we should raise taxes on middle income earners as well? I haven't heard any Democratic politicians advocating that move.