The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-18-2014, 06:27 PM   #51
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 37,141

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
That's just asinine. You're trying to claim that a 500bn yearly deficit is not an improvement over a 1,500bn yearly deficit (or w/e the hell the actual numbers are). It doesn't stop digging a hole, but it does reduce the rate of the digging. The deficit has been reduced, and the debt is growing slower. And it's certainly not "completely fixed". By any non insane definition, that's improvement (though like I said, certainly not "fixed").
It isn't getting better. Deficits are expected to rise again in 2015 and in the.next few decades they will explode to well over 100 percent of GDP.

Cutting spending ISNT intended to provide a short term jolt to the economy. So when you guys start screaming that it will hurt in the immediate term, yeah, so what, tax hikes hurt in the immediate short term but can have benefits later. The benefit is long term fiscal health and keeping debt at reasonable levels so that we aren't forced to later do drastic things like Greece.

It isn't supposed to be a happy process, its supposed to be painful.
__________________
SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 06:29 PM   #52
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Nah.
30 is a lot better.
Not when the rest of the world is still paying 16% effective rate on average.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 07:45 PM   #53
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBronco View Post
It isn't getting better. Deficits are expected to rise again in 2015 and in the.next few decades they will explode to well over 100 percent of GDP.
Has improved does not mean will continue to improve. Why the resistance to admitting reality?

Quote:
Cutting spending ISNT intended to provide a short term jolt to the economy. So when you guys start screaming that it will hurt in the immediate term, yeah, so what, tax hikes hurt in the immediate short term but can have benefits later. The benefit is long term fiscal health and keeping debt at reasonable levels so that we aren't forced to later do drastic things like Greece. It isn't supposed to be a happy process, its supposed to be painful.
The problem is we are doing a poor job of reducing spending (though despite all the hysterics, we have), and ALSO reducing taxes. It's like trying to saving a sinking boat with one guy bailing water out and another guy bailing water in.

It's not a matter of pain or no pain, its a matter of sanity vs insanity.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 10:15 PM   #54
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 37,141

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default

Fedaykin, I am a little unclear on your last statement as I construe it in two ways although I agree with both possible interpretations.

No.1 if you are saying its dumb to reduce spending and then cut taxes cause it wipes out the savings I agree. I don't buy the supply side crap. I am a pre 1981 style republican.

No.2 if you are saying what we should do is cut spending but cut taxes at least for the middle class cause they will actually spend it (and thus contribute to growth) and say offset that with a moderate increase on the wealthy so that you preserve the savings benefit of the spending cut I'm good with that as well.
__________________
SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 10:45 PM   #55
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBronco View Post
Fedaykin, I am a little unclear on your last statement as I construe it in two ways although I agree with both possible interpretations.

No.1 if you are saying its dumb to reduce spending and then cut taxes cause it wipes out the savings I agree. I don't buy the supply side crap. I am a pre 1981 style republican.

No.2 if you are saying what we should do is cut spending but cut taxes at least for the middle class cause they will actually spend it (and thus contribute to growth) and say offset that with a moderate increase on the wealthy so that you preserve the savings benefit of the spending cut I'm good with that as well.
Ahh, I see why you are confused, my phrasing was very poor. My overall position is #1, though I also agree that it would be a good idea to realign taxes to put more money in the hands of the masses rather than the few (ala #2). In the end, it will benefit everyone, including the rich.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 10:54 PM   #56
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
Not when the rest of the world is still paying 16% effective rate on average.
The big problem with avg out what our corporations actually pay is it compares big huge fortune 500 companies to one who employees 50 people.

What we need to do is split our corp tax system into two zones. One for domestic, one for foreign. Lower them both from 35% down to about 15%. But then also make a law requiring corp based in America to bring profits home to be taxed. Thats where all the missing revenue is.

Then start abolishing tax incentives and subsidies to pay for it.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 01:18 AM   #57
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,139

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
I agree, but it needs to be 16% flat rate to compete.
That is stupid. 16% of someone making $18,000.00 a year is a huge chunck. You have just pushed this person further into poverty. 16% of someone who makes hurts far less.

The greatest economy we ever had in the U.S. was in the 50's when the tax rate was 90% for the top 1%.
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 02:29 AM   #58
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
That is stupid. 16% of someone making $18,000.00 a year is a huge chunck. You have just pushed this person further into poverty. 16% of someone who makes hurts far less.

The greatest economy we ever had in the U.S. was in the 50's when the tax rate was 90% for the top 1%.
We're talking about corporate flat rates and closing the loopholes. Individual incomes at the poverty level shouldn't be taxed at all.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 02:44 AM   #59
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 23,432

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
That is stupid. 16% of someone making $18,000.00 a year is a huge chunck. You have just pushed this person further into poverty. 16% of someone who makes hurts far less.

The greatest economy we ever had in the U.S. was in the 50's when the tax rate was 90% for the top 1%.
Self employment tax is 15% regardless of what you make so it is pretty close to that for corporation plus corporations could have better write-offs. If we went back to taxing the top 1% at 90%, there is many of them leaving the US or at least putting many of their business out of the US and not just importing their product.
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 07:48 AM   #60
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,299
Default

If you tax the top at 90% they will just leave the country. It wasn't as easy to do that in the 1950's before the internet allowed you to do business anywhere.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 07:49 AM   #61
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,299
Default

Also it's a joke to talk about a 90% tax bracket because the liberals who control the dem party, hollywood, the elite, will never go along with it. They like their money as much as repubs do.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 10:33 AM   #62
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,604

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

It blows my mind that anybody thinks we're practicing austerity.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 10:38 AM   #63
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,604

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Our national debt has gone up by over $5 Trillion during the Obama presidency (over $10 trillion over the last two presidents), and the leftists in this country call that "austerity" and whine bitterly that it wasn't enough.

I can't even fathom how they believe they have anything even remotely approaching a credible point.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 06:01 PM   #64
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Also it's a joke to talk about a 90% tax bracket because the liberals who control the dem party, hollywood, the elite, will never go along with it. They like their money as much as repubs do.
Nobody has ever paid close to 90%. They deducted everything back then. Taxes stay about the same regardless of the top marginal rate. The complicated 1000+ page tax code lets the Republicans and Democrats creatively manipulate taxes and trade loopholes back and forth.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 06:15 PM   #65
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
Our national debt has gone up by over $5 Trillion during the Obama presidency (over $10 trillion over the last two presidents), and the leftists in this country call that "austerity" and whine bitterly that it wasn't enough.

I can't even fathom how they believe they have anything even remotely approaching a credible point.
But after four years of trillion dollar deficits, Fedaykin noted that it's an improvement. The "hole" isn't improving, but the speed of Obama's shovel is slowing down to match Bush's shovel speed. That's absolute improvement, just not completely fixed.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 10:23 PM   #66
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,369

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
The greatest economy we ever had in the U.S. was in the 50's when the tax rate was 90% for the top 1%.
America was also in love with Pat Boone at that time. Oh and women basically didn't work.

If you want to forge tax policy based on pure superstition, we better really roll back that clock.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 11:55 PM   #67
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
But after four years of trillion dollar deficits, Fedaykin noted that it's an improvement. The "hole" isn't improving, but the speed of Obama's shovel is slowing down to match Bush's shovel speed. That's absolute improvement, just not completely fixed.
Ahh yes, the butthurt commentary comes now. What's so difficult about recognizing that $500bn year is not as bad as $1.5T a year? Not like I'm saying it's some amazing feat or the end of the problem or anything like that. It's a simple acknowledgement of reality.

Why is that so difficult for you?

And frankly, you lose all credibility when you assign the blame for those deficits to Obama. Shows you have no idea of the composition of those deficits and the reasons they existed. Frankly, it's kinda sad for someone who acts so concerned about these problems but doesn't even grasp what the problems actually are.

And to be clear, Obama has done a ****ty job trying to fix them (even added to them in his own way -- but no where near the full amount), but he didn't create $5t+ in new spending by himself.

Last edited by Fedaykin; 07-19-2014 at 11:57 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 12:55 AM   #68
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 23,432

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Ahh yes, the butthurt commentary comes now. What's so difficult about recognizing that $500bn year is not as bad as $1.5T a year? Not like I'm saying it's some amazing feat or the end of the problem or anything like that. It's a simple acknowledgement of reality.

Why is that so difficult for you?

And frankly, you lose all credibility when you assign the blame for those deficits to Obama. Shows you have no idea of the composition of those deficits and the reasons they existed. Frankly, it's kinda sad for someone who acts so concerned about these problems but doesn't even grasp what the problems actually are.

And to be clear, Obama has done a ****ty job trying to fix them (even added to them in his own way -- but no where near the full amount), but he didn't create $5t+ in new spending by himself.
Kind of like this guy on the campaign trail?


Or this one....



I guess you must have been talking about Obama himself.
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:45 AM   #69
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncocalijohn View Post

Obama didn't just say he would cut the deficit. He didn't just promise to do it. He "pledged" to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Either he lied, or he had no idea of the composition of those deficits and the reason they existed and couldn't grasp what the problems are.

Promise means give word that something will be done. Pledge is to guarantee by a solemn promise or word of honor and assume that obligation.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 03:42 AM   #70
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,604

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

Obama talked like a tea partier to get elected. The masses ate it up like honey.
Taco John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 05:35 AM   #71
Hotwheelz
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Hotwheelz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
It blows my mind that anybody thinks we're practicing austerity.
Some of us have experienced it firsthand, dude. When you guys talk about cutting spending, people like me know that that means cutting our measly monthly SSI check or my nursing coverage or medication that I need to just survive. To you, these are just abstract numbers, but not to us. So when people propose ideas that don't completely screw us further and you say that we can't because the rich will pick up the ball and go somewhere else... it is crazy to us. Living on social programs isn't fun, I don't want to. But it's necessary for me to even have a chance at life.
Hotwheelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 02:51 PM   #72
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
Obama didn't just say he would cut the deficit. He didn't just promise to do it. He "pledged" to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Either he lied, or he had no idea of the composition of those deficits and the reason they existed and couldn't grasp what the problems are.

Promise means give word that something will be done. Pledge is to guarantee by a solemn promise or word of honor and assume that obligation.
Nice try to deflect. Will you actually try to engage honestly or have to fallen to the depth of BroncoBeavis, cutlet, et al.?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 07:01 PM   #73
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Nice try to deflect. Will you actually try to engage honestly or have to fallen to the depth of BroncoBeavis, cutlet, et al.?
We were talking about two different things. The deficit has improved. The debt has gotten worse. No deficits are improvements to the debt. Deficits fluctuate, and may be improvements compared to each other. Every deficit in history is an improvement over the deficits of the last four years.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 07:28 PM   #74
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,369

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
We were talking about two different things. The deficit has improved. The debt has gotten worse. No deficits are improvements to the debt. Deficits fluctuate, and may be improvements compared to each other. Every deficit in history is an improvement over the deficits of the last four years.
The deficit has 'improved' to worse than Bush's worst year in office. You know, back when Fed and Co. was calling such things unpatriotic.

Will he admit it? Why? When he can just keep doubling and tripling down on the self-beclownment?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...87f_story.html

Quote:
Despite peace, prosperity and the wealthy paying their “fair share,” under Obama’s budget deficits will remain in the $500 billion range for the next 10 years. And by the president’s own projections, the federal debt will double during his presidency — from $10 trillion when he took office to $20 trillion when he leaves.

How can that be?

Maybe it’s because the policies President Obama blamed were never the drivers of our long-term deficit in the first place. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), entitlement costs (and the resulting higher interest on the debt) are responsible for 100 percent of the rising long-term deficits.

Over the next decade, CBO projects record revenue that will average 18.9 percent of GDP — well above the 18 percent historical average. Indeed, revenue in the next 10 years are expected to match the pre-Bush period of 1993-2002 as the highest revenue period in U.S. history. So revenue is not the problem.
The tab for the Ponzi state is steadily becoming due. And absolutely nothing other than putting "non-discretionary" spending back on the table will do much to fix it.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 07:33 PM   #75
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,139

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncocalijohn View Post
Kind of like this guy on the campaign trail?


Or this one....



I guess you must have been talking about Obama himself.
here is the Deficit under Obama. He has cut it more than half.




Budget deficit shrinks to lowest level under Obama

The federal budget outlook will continue to improve this year, with the deficit projected to shrink to $514 billion — the lowest level since President Barack Obama took office.

Rebounding tax receipts and slower spending will help narrow the budget shortfall for the third consecutive year, the Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. The deficit will continue to fall next year, to $478 billion, before beginning to climb again in 2016, as costs related to aging baby boomers mount.

It’s a turnaround from the early days of the Obama administration, when the government ran a string of trillion-dollar deficits that topped out at $1.4 trillion, amid the Great Recession.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...#ixzz383wCThXk
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:59 AM.


Denver Broncos