Profiles in Courage...

[Grindelwald]

Right and MSNBC isn't liberal either. Or the NYT. Good grief.... You guys like to rail about the one conservative leaning network like it'll bring down civilization while denying the more overt liberal bias of the MSM. The fact is that liberals controlled the media for a half century until cable news, the internet and talk radio gave conservatives widescale ability to get their message out. I can understand the left being very unhappy with their success.

I don't recall ever saying anything about MSNBC or the NYT.

[veritas]

I didn't make a personal attack.

Let's be honest about the debt:

It goes beyond the most flaming, cynical hypocrisy for the GOP to act as if they're the party of fiscal responsibility and their policies will reduce the debt, AS IT HAS BEEN BY AND LARGE THEIR POLICIES OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS WHICH HAVE EXPLODED IT.

Anybody w a brain, who is not a partisan hack, realizes that. BECAUSE IT IS INDISPUTABLE FACT.

A). "Partisan hack" is a personal attack.

B). I've never once said the GOP hasn't contributed to the debt nor have I ever been loathe to point out things they did that I thought were stupid. My allegiance is to conservatism, not the GOP. The more the GOP becomes the Dem-lite party, the more I'll be critical of them.

[pickles]

A). "Partisan hack" is a personal attack.

B). I've never once said the GOP hasn't contributed to the debt nor have I ever been loathe to point out things they did that I thought were stupid. My allegiance is to conservatism, not the GOP. The more the GOP becomes the Dem-lite party, the more I'll be critical of them.

If you're being a partisan hack, and somebody calls you one, that isn't an attack. It's an accurate statement.

The GOP hasn't merely contributed to the debt; they've largely caused it. Until you admit that, then, yeah, that's partisan hackery at it's finest.

[veritas]

If you're being a partisan hack, and somebody calls you one, that isn't an attack. It's an accurate statement.

The GOP hasn't merely contributed to the debt; they've largely caused it. Until you admit that, then, yeah, that's partisan hackery at it's finest.

The debt went up $1.6 trillion under Reagan, 1.6 trillion under G.H.W. Bush, 1.5 trillion under Clinton, 4.9 trillion under G.W. Bush and at least 4.9 trillion under Obama so far. That's 8.1 trillion in five GOP terms and 6.4 trillion in three Democrat terms.

I'm not sure how that works out to the GOP having largely caused the debt increase over the last 30 years.

[pickles]

The debt went up $1.6 trillion under Reagan, 1.6 trillion under G.H.W. Bush, 1.5 trillion under Clinton, 4.9 trillion under G.W. Bush and at least 4.9 trillion under Obama so far. That's 8.1 trillion in five GOP terms and 6.4 trillion in three Democrat terms.

I'm not sure how that works out to the GOP having largely caused the debt increase over the last 30 years.

See this is partisan hackery. You're twisting numbers to fit your narrative w a willful disregard for what those numbers mean. I mean, you don't honestly believe comparing raw numbers across thirty years is relevant do you?

Reagan quadrupled the national debt.

Bush II doubled it.

And both of their policies continue to wreak havoc upon it too this day.

Of the Presidents you just mentioned to the two who added the least amount of spending were...... wait for it....... the two Democrats. Unfathomable isn't it???

The fact is the GOP operates under a demonstrably false economic theory. That you continue to support it, in the face of all logic and fact, is partisan hackery. Deal w it.

[veritas]

See this is partisan hackery. You're twisting numbers to fit your narrative w a willful disregard for what those numbers mean. I mean, you don't honestly believe comparing raw numbers across thirty years is relevant do you?

Reagan quadrupled the national debt.

Bush II doubled it.

And both of their policies continue to wreak havoc upon it too this day.

Of the Presidents you just mentioned to the two who added the least amount of spending were...... wait for it....... the two Democrats. Unfathomable isn't it???

The fact is the GOP operates under a demonstrably false economic theory. That you continue to support it, in the face of all logic and fact, is partisan hackery. Deal w it.

What policies are wreaking havoc? Please be specific. The fact is that we are addicted to spending money we don't have and both parties do it. Obama has continued in that vain and wants to add to it substantially. Obamacare is the biggest example. The GOP believes in trying to keep money in the hands of the citizens because only private enterprise can create long term wealth and the jobs that go with it. The Dems have faith in government and think we need to institute top-down "fairness", something anathema to a free market and a free people.

We can raise taxes on the wealthy but what we need are cuts in spending. That's cuts as in real cuts, not just trimming the scheduled increases. Neither party has the ability to do that. The Dems don't want to do it and the GOP can't because of the entrenched bureacracies and constituencies that will not allow it. So, that's where we are.

[pickles]

[QUOTE]

What policies are wreaking havoc? Please be specific.

The tax cuts that haven't provided broad wealth or jobs.

The fiasco in Iraq (and yes, we're still spending a good chunk of change there.)

The interest we're paying the debt accrued by those two.

The expansion of Medicare under Bush.

The DOH.

Shall I go on??

The fact is that we are addicted to spending money we don't have and both parties do it. Obama has continued in that vain and wants to add to it substantially. Obamacare is the biggest example.

And yet, Obamacare will add less to the deficit than Iraq did.

It's about priorities.

If you'd rather invade foreign countries, for no reason so whatsoever, than expand medical insurance for American citizens, and reign in costs, then that's your priority. I don't share it.

The GOP believes in trying to keep money in the hands of the citizens because only private enterprise can create long term wealth and the jobs that go with it.

The GOP believes in capitalism like I believe in female promiscuity: When it's convenient for me.

What's funny, but trickle down economics and the weakening of labor, actually results in less real money in the hands of the vast majority of the country.

But you knew that already.

The Dems have faith in government and think we need to institute top-down "fairness", something anathema to a free market and a free people.

Eh. You paint far too broadly. I think it's accurate that Dems believe more in central planning obviously. I don't think that's a threat to our "freedoms." I think you can debate the merits of that philosophy though w/o hyperbole.

We can raise taxes on the wealthy but what we need are cuts in spending. That's cuts as in real cuts, not just trimming the scheduled increases. Neither party has the ability to do that. The Dems don't want to do it and the GOP can't because of the entrenched bureacracies and constituencies that will not allow it. So, that's where we are.

We need both. And frankly, we should raise taxes on the middle class too. Most of the "gubmint spending" isn't spent on Cadillac Welfare Queens. It's spent on the middle class.

I've said it before I'll say it again:

Across the board tax increases. 1-4% progressively.

Military spending cut in 1/3 w further reductions coming.

Removal of the income cap on SS taxes.

Raising of the age of both SS and Medicare.

A freeze on discretionary spending.

An outright halting of gov. subsidies for farms and large corporations.

Return capital taxes to what they were in 1992.

Return estate taxes and death taxes to what they were in 1980.

Oh, and a broad dismantling of the DOHS.

There goes your debt and deficit problem.

[veritas]

[QUOTE=pickles;8211312]

The tax cuts that haven't provided broad wealth or jobs.

The fiasco in Iraq (and yes, we're still spending a good chunk of change there.)

The interest we're paying the debt accrued by those two.

The expansion of Medicare under Bush.

The DOH.

Shall I go on??





And yet, Obamacare will add less to the deficit than Iraq did.

It's about priorities.

If you'd rather invade foreign countries, for no reason so whatsoever, than expand medical insurance for American citizens, and reign in costs, then that's your priority. I don't share it.




The GOP believes in capitalism like I believe in female promiscuity: When it's convenient for me.

What's funny, but trickle down economics and the weakening of labor, actually results in less real money in the hands of the vast majority of the country.

But you knew that already.




Eh. You paint far too broadly. I think it's accurate that Dems believe more in central planning obviously. I don't think that's a threat to our "freedoms." I think you can debate the merits of that philosophy though w/o hyperbole.



We need both. And frankly, we should raise taxes on the middle class too. Most of the "gubmint spending" isn't spent on Cadillac Welfare Queens. It's spent on the middle class.

I've said it before I'll say it again:

Across the board tax increases. 1-4% progressively.

Military spending cut in 1/3 w further reductions coming.

Removal of the income cap on SS taxes.

Raising of the age of both SS and Medicare.

A freeze on discretionary spending.

An outright halting of gov. subsidies for farms and large corporations.

Return capital taxes to what they were in 1992.

Return estate taxes and death taxes to what they were in 1980.

Oh, and a broad dismantling of the DOHS.

There goes your debt and deficit problem.

A few points.

Bush grew the debt at an 8% compounded annual growth rate. Reagan was at 14%. Obama is over 15%. Clinton was at 4%. So, obviously, Obama is no Clinton.

The tax cuts gave us an economic boom for the last six years of Reagan's term. The problem with tax cuts generally is that we never trim spending. While tax cuts can and do generate revenue for government, that does not happen immediately. Plus, when government gets additional revenue, what does it do with it? Why it spends it, of course.

As for Iraq, I've made lengthy posts in numerous threads on the folly of that adventure both strategically and in the costs in treasure and lives. Traditional conservatism eschews the use of force except in the last extremity and where the GOP differs from that philosophy, I'll not support it. I also take issue with the billions we are dishing out to our supposed "friends" such as Pakistan. That is money we could use here.

As for raising taxes on the middle class, I doubt that will be overly helpful when people are struggling. We need to expand the tax base and the way to do that is by making conditions favorable for business, small business especially. When more people are working they'll be paying more taxes. Unemployed people consume but they do not produce. I have no qualms about raising taxes on the wealthy but that, in itself, will only help a bit. Any middle class tax raises must be very moderate.

Military spending cuts I agree can be made. I'm not sure the one third figure is realistic but there are certainly large savings that can be made there.

As for SS and Medicare, something must happen there but I'm not sure what. We have an expanding pool of recipients being supported by a shrinking pool of contributors. That cannot last indefinitely.

A freeze on discretionary spending is a good idea but try getting government to institute one. Spending to government is like crack to an addict. They are incapable of controlling themselves.

I'm all for curtailing corporate and farm subsidies. Again, it is difficult to take candy from the children once they've gotten used to it. In this case, the usual political pressure will be brought to bear.

Raising taxes on capital gains and estates sounds like a good idea but these taxes hammer the middle class, not just the uber wealthy. Lots of middle class people make income from stocks. Many older people live off SS and whatever dividends and cap gains they can coax out of the market. They should not be penalized with higher taxes.

Estate taxes is where we differ completely. The government has no right to be taking the wealth accumulated by a family over a lifetime of toil. It's like a pack of ghoulish vultures descending on a carcass. These people have paid myriad taxes for decades and to have what they've worked to build and pass on to their families be stolen by government is galling. This is another tax that unduly hurts the middle class because they are the ones who have struggled and, in some cases, managed to build a moderate estate of perhaps a million or two, which, in the big picture, is not a lot of money. People pay income taxes, cap gains, RE taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, SS taxes and who knows what else for a lifetime. Why they should then have to give their hard earned wealth to government because they died, is ludicrous. Estate taxes should not exist at all.

[CajunRaven]

See this is partisan hackery. You're twisting numbers to fit your narrative w a willful disregard for what those numbers mean. I mean, you don't honestly believe comparing raw numbers across thirty years is relevant do you?

Reagan quadrupled the national debt.

Bush II doubled it.

And both of their policies continue to wreak havoc upon it too this day.

Of the Presidents you just mentioned to the two who added the least amount of spending were...... wait for it....... the two Democrats. Unfathomable isn't it???

The fact is the GOP operates under a demonstrably false economic theory. That you continue to support it, in the face of all logic and fact, is partisan hackery. Deal w it.

If the raw numbers don't speak to it, what does?

And BTW, Tip O'Neill was Speaker during Reagan's terms. Anyone who pins this problem on one party is the partisan hack.

They have all contrbuted to it.

And calling someone a partisan hack is certainly a personal attack. Vetritas may be a partisan, as am I and you, but he is certainly not a hack.

[pickles]

If the raw numbers don't speak to it, what does?

Oh, so a dollar is worth the same today as it was in 1980?

Interesting.

And BTW, Tip O'Neill was Speaker during Reagan's terms. Anyone who pins this problem on one party is the partisan hack.

They have all contrbuted to it.

So I suppose Boehner is responsible for Obama's debts, right?

You want to be consistent don't you?

I never said the Democrats are blameless. They aren't. However over the last 30 years one party's policies are largely to blame for our debt and deficit.

And calling someone a partisan hack is certainly a personal attack. Vetritas may be a partisan, as am I and you, but he is certainly not a hack.

I don't consider myself partisan. I don't care about parties. I care about ideas. And the GOP is irrecoverably wed to a failed economic theory.

[pickles]

A few points.

Bush grew the debt at an 8% compounded annual growth rate. Reagan was at 14%. Obama is over 15%. Clinton was at 4%. So, obviously, Obama is no Clinton.

And the fact that Bush took over essentially a balanced budget, and Obama a trillion dollar deficit w the worst economy we've seen in four generations has nothing to do w that?

Come now.

The tax cuts gave us an economic boom for the last six years of Reagan's term. The problem with tax cuts generally is that we never trim spending. While tax cuts can and do generate revenue for government, that does not happen immediately.

1) Reagan's "boom" largely benefited Wall Street, and it was largely the product of falling energy prices, and increased beauracratic spending. Not a direct and sole fallout of his tax policy.

2) Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating going back to the tax rates as Reagan found them. They were excessive and he rightfully lowered them.

A quick point about Estate Taxes:

We live in a capitalist society. Which is good. It's the best imperfect economic model in the world. The big problem w capitalism is the way it empowers capital.

You're not going to like what I'm going to say, and you're going to wrongly accuse me of being a "socialist", but in the Capitalist society, some entity needs to weaken the tyranny of capital. What did it in the 20th cent in America, when we built the greatest economic engine and middle-class this world has ever seen, was progressive tax codes, strong organized labor, and robust government programs. Part of that balancing act was the estate tax. We need to balance the power of capital and the power of labor. And trickle down economics and deregulation tilts the balance too far towards capital.

[dsummoner]

Government has done nothing to show that it is entitled to the funds that it currently loots or any additional funds.

It is, however, funny to watch socialists melt down when being called on their socialism.

[pickles]

Government has done nothing to show that it is entitled to the funds that it currently loots or any additional funds.

It is, however, funny to watch socialists melt down when being called on their socialism.

So the federal government hasn't done anything to improve the lives of Americans?

It's funny to watch anarchists try to justify their sophmoric "philosophies" behind garbled rhetoric lifted from Ayn Rand novels, when they're about as intellectually deep, and share many of the same ideals, as the average British art student.

[dsummoner]

So the federal government hasn't done anything to improve the lives of Americans?

Nothing that shows entitlement to extant or additional funding.

It's funny to watch anarchists try to justify their sophmoric "philosophies" behind garbled rhetoric lifted from Ayn Rand novels, when they're about as intellectually deep, and share many of the same ideals, as the average British art student.

The 'anarchists' are merely mainstream, violent, unhinged, Libbies rioting and looting for... wait for it... more socialism.

[Joy in Mudville]

Oh my, I'm afraid I made an arsesupmtion given your screen name.

That's ok. Based on the renewed doubts expressed here on this board I've asked a very lovely young woman to make a thorough assessment and she has readily agreed.

[Joy in Mudville]

Actually Joy, it is well under a $100B a year. Something around &5 to 80 from what I have seen. Revenue certainly has to be part of the equation. I'd rather see them all start telling the truth. The problem with adjusting the rate is the exemptions, shelters etc.. are still in place and everyone will ne looking for them to offset the hit.

I think it better to reduce the rate and remove most of the deductions. The code needs serious reform and the fairest way is to make it very simple. You make Y, you pay X. And everyone should pay something, even if only a few bucks at the lower end.

Hundreds of billions of dollars over the decade but that is still part of the solution.

Here is the problem with lowering the rates and trying to offset the decreased revenue by eliminating deductions. First, the math doesn't add up. Second, while it is a good idea to periodically go through and sweep out the cobwebs in an effort to simplify the tax code that only that works for a little while and then, before you know it, the oil and gas industries have effectively reinstated their tax deductions for exploration. Then someone realizes that, hey, maybe it was a good idea to make college tax deductable, and then the home builders come back along with home depot and lowes and say, that mortgage deduction helped people buy houses and that really drove the economy and within less than a decade we're right back where we are now except that the tax rates are now at historic lows and our deficit is out of control.

[Joy in Mudville]

The tax cuts gave us an economic boom for the last six years of Reagan's term. The problem with tax cuts generally is that we never trim spending. While tax cuts can and do generate revenue for government, that does not happen immediately. Plus, when government gets additional revenue, what does it do with it? Why it spends it, of course.

The economic expansion during the Reagan years was fueled by monetary policy and a giant stimulus program known as increased defense spending. The Fed raised interest rates throughout the late Carter years in order to tackle inflation. After 82, the Fed began reducing interest rates from around 20 percent to roughly 6 percent in 89. No wonder the economy started heating up.

In addition, Reagan increased defense spending by an annual amount of almost $200 billion in today's dollars. That's a $1.6 trillion dollar stimulus program over eight years.

This is another tax that unduly hurts the middle class because they are the ones who have struggled and, in some cases, managed to build a moderate estate of perhaps a million or two, which, in the big picture, is not a lot of money. People pay income taxes, cap gains, RE taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, SS taxes and who knows what else for a lifetime. Why they should then have to give their hard earned wealth to government because they died, is ludicrous. Estate taxes should not exist at all.

This is bunk. There is almost no one in the middle class with an overall estate worth more than $1 million.

I believe that estates worth less than $5 million are exempted from the estate tax. That's hardly the middle class and very few people ever pay it.

[veritas]

The economic expansion during the Reagan years was fueled by monetary policy and a giant stimulus program known as increased defense spending. The Fed raised interest rates throughout the late Carter years in order to tackle inflation. After 82, the Fed began reducing interest rates from around 20 percent to roughly 6 percent in 89. No wonder the economy started heating up.

In addition, Reagan increased defense spending by an annual amount of almost $200 billion in today's dollars. That's a $1.6 trillion dollar stimulus program over eight years.





This is bunk. There is almost no one in the middle class with an overall estate worth more than $1 million.

I believe that estates worth less than $5 million are exempted from the estate tax. That's hardly the middle class and very few people ever pay it.

In 2013, in the absence of new legislation, the estate tax reverts back to a $1 million exemption with the rate at 55% for all above that level. We can quibble about whether or not a $1 million dollar estate puts someone among the "wealthy" but the bigger question is what right the government has to steal more than half of someone's wealth, whether their estate is $1 million or $100 million. Liberals seem to think that the more you've built up, the more obligated you are to give it to government instead of your heirs. That is nothing but legalized theft and a textbook definition of tyranny. People pay the government their whole lives. They owe the rapacious, grasping thieves nothing when they die.

[Joy in Mudville]

We can quibble about whether or not a $1 million dollar estate puts someone among the "wealthy"

The median income in the United States is $50,000 per annum and a vast, vast, vast majority of working Americans make less than 50 k per year. It is not quibbling it is just stating a fact. By any objective standard someone with a net worth of $1 million is not only wealthy compared to the global population, they are wealthy compared to almost every single American who has ever worked a day in their lives.