Reagan?s budget director David Stockman on why taxes on the wealthy must be increased - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Kingfish · 11-30-2010, 01:01 AM

Quote:

But that's NOT what Social Security is supposed to be. Theoretically...I pay in a certain amount over the years and then I GET IT BACK WHEN I RETIRE. Every penny of it.

Ok but let?s get back to reality for a moment Social Security has just been used as a general slush fund to pay for whatever government expenditure came up. Furthermore, it was never designed to be 100% payback because it provided for the disabled and dependent children whose parents passed away and these people never paid anything into the system.

There is a population bubble coming up politicians lie to us and say this means social security is bankrupt. The reality of what this means is the money collected to pay social security benefits wasn't put in a separate ?lock box? if it had been there would be plenty of money in the coffers to get over the population bubble.

Quote:

Why do so many people on this board seem to think it's okay to just take people's money? I do not understand that at all. I work hard for my money and the govt. just takes it.

It pisses me off too, but I am a realist as a society we have to pay our collective bills. Fighting two wars is an expensive proposition, caring for the veterans of those wars for the next 50-70 years is going to be an expensive proposition. I wish the government hadn?t squandered the money on the no negotiation prescription drug benefit for seniors. The cost of government deregulation in the airline industry, savings and loan industry and banking industry has caused a great finical burden on the taxpayer. But those things have already been done we can?t undo them and we are still obligated to pay for them. If we don?t have enough revenue to cover these obligations what are our options as far as paying them? It certainly doesn?t seem wise to borrow another 700 trillion for tax cuts when we can?t meet our current obligation.

It?s is a bit like running your own business if we suddenly see our cash flow is negative generally the first thing we do isn?t go out and give ourself a big raise.

So it?s not that it is ok to take people?s money it is collectively as a society we made bad decisions by electing incompetent and corrupt leadership that told us we could have it all wars, tax cuts, prescription drug benefits and so on. Now it?s simply time to pay the piper for not being smart enough to know we really can?t have it all.

12clicks · 11-30-2010, 09:51 AM

Another gulled, or incompetent, or lying "kingfish" explaining why the rich shouldnt keep their tax cut because of our collective society.

If you werent gulled, incompetent, or lying, your argument would be to let ALL the tax cuts expire or to have the 46% of the population who pays NOTHING in income taxes to pay something.
At least then your "it's for the collective" argument would have a little credibility.

12clicks · 11-30-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splendorous_Male

This place is packed with millionaires.

Back when I was making $20k a year I still knew it was wrong to take more from the rich simply because they had it and we could vote on it and pretend it wasn't stealing.

will76 · 11-30-2010, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Back when I was making $20k a year I still knew it was wrong to take more from the rich simply because they had it and we could vote on it and pretend it wasn't stealing.

Amen to that. I remember the first time I had tax brackets explained to me, I was a freshman in college. I didn't know shit about how taxes worked just that I didn't make much money as a waiter and a little taxes came out of my check. When I had it explained to me I said, WTF why do they tax you more (higher %) the more you make, that's not fair. Why punish people for being successful and reward people for being either unproductive, dumb, lazy, for making bad decisions etc.. or a combination of all. As a 18 year old kid in college making about 10K a year part time I thought it was wrong to not charge everyone the same tax rate, there should be a flat 25% across the board for everyone, whether you make $1 or 100M and no loop holes, exemptions etc.. Don't worry rich haters, the "rich" would still pay a lot more in taxes but at least the % would be fair for everyone.

I don't care how much you make the same % of your income should go to taxes for everyone.

These dumb ass rich haters (closet socialist) on here get mad because the rich get some breaks but they ignore the fact that even after the "breaks" the rich is still paying a disproportionate more in taxes then everyone else and they still getting raped.

Brujah · 11-30-2010, 01:04 PM

A lot of wealthy sucking up in here, which makes for a nice distraction I suppose, but doesn't address the issue of paying the debt.

The debt already exists, so how would you get rid of it? Don't say cut spending, that doesn't address the existing debt but manages future debt. Everyone seems to be the political expert, on a daily basis, so do you have any solutions to it? How do you pay for expensive wars? The money has to come from somewhere.

Sly · 11-30-2010, 01:06 PM

I didn't read the thread or watch the interview.

I simply wanted to comment on how funny it is watching "liberals" herald the words of a Reagan advisor when they typically spend their days bashing Reaganomics.

That is all.

Kingfish · 11-30-2010, 01:40 PM

My point exactly they can strut around and crow all they want, but the debt has already been incurred. The money to pay for it has to come from somewhere, the poor don?t have any money to take, and the middle class already pay a higher percentage of their income into taxes than the rich so basically that leaves the rich to pay for it. Regardless if you think that is right or wrong the debt has to be paid and you have to take the money from the people that have it.

And there is a sort of poetic justice in that the debt was run up by leaders the rich supported (GW Bush), and because of programs they wanted (the bush tax cuts) (deregulation of the banking industry) (hands off wall street) (prescription drug benefit for the pharmaceutical industry) so why not make the people that created the problem clean up their own mess? It seems fair to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

A lot of wealthy sucking up in here, which makes for a nice distraction I suppose, but doesn't address the issue of paying the debt.

The debt already exists, so how would you get rid of it? Don't say cut spending, that doesn't address the existing debt but manages future debt. Everyone seems to be the political expert, on a daily basis, so do you have any solutions to it? How do you pay for expensive wars? The money has to come from somewhere.

12clicks · 11-30-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

A lot of wealthy sucking up in here, which makes for a nice distraction I suppose, but doesn't address the issue of paying the debt.

The debt already exists, so how would you get rid of it? Don't say cut spending, that doesn't address the existing debt but manages future debt. Everyone seems to be the political expert, on a daily basis, so do you have any solutions to it? How do you pay for expensive wars? The money has to come from somewhere.

Simple.
Have the 47% who pay NOTHING in income tax now contribute (what's the phrase the rabble like to use on their betters?) "their fair share"
Call it 10%. 2nd, let the tax cuts expire for everyone so that the rabble who voted for hope change, and massive debt feel the pain too.

There you go.

12clicks · 11-30-2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingfish

My point exactly

No, your only point is that you want your betters to pay your way, including the debt that's been run up by out of control spending.

minicivan · 11-30-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

A lot of wealthy sucking up in here, which makes for a nice distraction I suppose, but doesn't address the issue of paying the debt.

The debt already exists, so how would you get rid of it? Don't say cut spending, that doesn't address the existing debt but manages future debt. Everyone seems to be the political expert, on a daily basis, so do you have any solutions to it? How do you pay for expensive wars? The money has to come from somewhere.

You get rid of it by tight fiscal responsibility first, cutting spending, waste and so on. You act like these aren't factors when they are THE factors. You have to stop the bleeding before you can heal the wound. Thats obvious common sense. You can't tax people and an economy into success. You can't tax people into job creation.

There is a relationship between tax rates and economic growth and investment. Denying that is purely idiocy. The question is "where is that magic line that can do the least amount of damage to economic growth while increasing tax revenues". There are also strong arguments for reducing taxes as a means to stimulate growth. Simplistic examples like the laffer curve make the simple point that when taxes are zero, government gets zero. When taxes are 100%, the government gets 0% (i.e. no business can operate). You can't just create taxes because you need money without consequences.

There was also a study recently by a university that showed that raising taxes almost without exception, never reduced any government deficits. The direct result each and every time is that government increases spending and very little revenue goes to deficits.

The single largest problem is that government is extremely inefficient with finances, never responsible and runs around spending money like a drunk 19 year old sailor in a bangkok whorehouse. And when it runs out of money, it just takes more from tax payers, rather than examining and modifying its spending habits. This is a government problem. Its not a democrat problem, a republican problem or a Bush or Obama problem. its a global issue for all governments every where.

Brujah · 11-30-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Simple.
Have the 47% who pay NOTHING in income tax now contribute (what's the phrase the rabble like to use on their betters?) "their fair share"
Call it 10%. 2nd, let the tax cuts expire for everyone so that the rabble who voted for hope change, and massive debt feel the pain too.

There you go.

Have you done the math on that? If you get $1,000 on average from each of the poorest 142 million households that's only $142 billion? That's not going to pay for much of the cost of the Iraq war, not to mention the added costs of extra security (homeland security, massive increase in government employees to protect America from terrorists).

minicivan · 11-30-2010, 02:23 PM

Its this simple - Government is the problem. Not Republicans. Not Democrats:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/159/159.htm

(put your retarded partisan arguments aside and actually think about the study)

Also, even though that study is not current, the current numbers are closer to this:

For ever 1.00 in taxes (new taxes), Government spends 1.05 or so. The problem at its core being that deficits do not go away without modifying spending behaviors to begin with

Brujah · 11-30-2010, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minicivan

Its this simple - Government is the problem. Not Republicans. Not Democrats:

Except that's who the Government is - Republicans and Democrats.

minicivan · 11-30-2010, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Except that's who the Government is - Republicans and Democrats.

Oh.

Sorry.

Nevermind.

Both sides need to keep attacking and blaming each other for meaningful, positive, lasting and enduring change to remedy a problem that plagues every world government. Because that certainly doesn't deflect attention from the core problem of deficit spending and general fiscal irresponsibility.

Thanks for your deep and thought provoking insight into an issue that I was apparently over complicating.

Brujah · 11-30-2010, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minicivan

Thanks for your deep and thought provoking insight into an issue that I was apparently over complicating.

You don't need to get all upset and cry about it. I think you misunderstood my reply, because I didn't say it was one parties fault, but not the other. You said it was "... Government's fault. Not Republicans. Not Democrats." I think you meant; "It is (all) Government's fault - not just Republicans, not just Democrats."

minicivan · 11-30-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

You don't need to get all upset and cry about it. I think you misunderstood my reply, because I didn't say it was one parties fault, but not the other. You said it was "... Government's fault. Not Republicans. Not Democrats." I think you meant; "It is (all) Government's fault - not just Republicans, not just Democrats."

Government refers to the institution itself. I would have thought that would have been apparent in my remarks. The core problems are institutional, not partisan.

And my snotty reply was due that the fact that as usual, a comment backed up with evidence is met with a deflection about nothing, other than stating the obvious, which is not in dispute to begin with.

Brujah · 11-30-2010, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minicivan

Government refers to the institution itself. I would have thought that would have been apparent in my remarks. The core problems are institutional, not partisan.

And my snotty reply was due that the fact that as usual, a comment backed up with evidence is met with a deflection about nothing, other than stating the obvious, which is not in dispute to begin with.

Maybe you should stop bothering then. You aren't emotionally mature enough to handle it yet.

BFT3K · 11-30-2010, 03:50 PM

I would rather see the unfunded, unnecessary, Bush tax breaks, expire for everyone, rather than see them extended for the rich. Just let it all expire as scheduled. The economy was not helped at all by these cuts, and they just added shitloads more debt to the budget. We were all better off BEFORE these one-sided cuts were introduced.

And, in addition, cap unemployment at one year maximum while you're at it. Two years or longer is just absurd! Let's add some less expensive models to the porn pool!

minicivan · 11-30-2010, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Maybe you should stop bothering then. You aren't emotionally mature enough to handle it yet.

Again showing that you aren't interested in facts or real discussion as you now babble about emotional maturity on gofuckyourself.com of all places, as an excuse to avoid some obvious economic facts that might affect your overly simplistic world and economic view. Just easier to blame Bush, filibusters and anything else as you rationalize taking money from peoples pockets to fund the idiocy of a machine who like Las Vegas, fully devotes it's time to proving you're going to lose each time, yet people still can't wait to line up and get bent over.

BFT3K · 11-30-2010, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minicivan

Oh.

Sorry.

Nevermind.

Both sides need to keep attacking and blaming each other for meaningful, positive, lasting and enduring change to remedy a problem that plagues every world government. Because that certainly doesn't deflect attention from the core problem of deficit spending and general fiscal irresponsibility.

Thanks for your deep and thought provoking insight into an issue that I was apparently over complicating.

Start an all-out anti-government anti-special interest movement then. I'm all for it! Not some bullshit teabagger crap though - a REAL anti-government anti-special interest movement!

tony286 · 11-30-2010, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

I would rather see the unfunded, unnecessary, Bush tax breaks, expire for everyone, rather than see them extended for the rich. Just let it all expire as scheduled. The economy was not helped at all by these cuts, and they just added shitloads more debt to the budget. We were all better off BEFORE these one-sided cuts were introduced.

And, in addition, cap unemployment at one year maximum while you're at it. Two years or longer is just absurd! Let's add some less expensive models to the porn pool!

If you pAid into it 25 yrs and now you are in your fifties and basically noone wants to hire u . U wouldnt think it was absurd.

BestXXXPorn · 11-30-2010, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Stop the spending then we can talk about higher taxes. He is talking about higher taxes to pay off the debt. Obama is talking about raising taxes to spend more and borrow more. There is a huge difference between what he is saying and what you want him to be saying.

Raising taxes with a president like Bush or Obama will do nothing to help.

And I'm not even going to read the rest of this thread...

There should be tax CUTS, massive ones, across the fucking board; poor, middle class, wealthy... everyone.

The government does not need to get bigger and it does not need more money. The PEOPLE need the fucking money. The government needs to spend less and shrink the god damned head count.

Robbie · 11-30-2010, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

I would rather see the unfunded, unnecessary, Bush tax breaks, expire for everyone, rather than see them extended for the rich. Just let it all expire as scheduled. The economy was not helped at all by these cuts, and they just added shitloads more debt to the budget. We were all better off BEFORE these one-sided cuts were introduced.

From my point of view:
How could they be "unfunded"? The ONLY "funding" is when the govt. TAKES our money as taxes. And no...letting you and I KEEP our own money is NOT what caused us to go into debt. Two stupid wars, having our military occupy 80 something countries all over the world, Nancy Pelosi flying around in a private jet...and BILLIONS of other wasteful things the govt. does, in other words SPENDING is what caused the deficit.

Think of it like this: If you make a thousand dollars a week and spend one thousand five hundred a week...are you going to say that because you aren't making an extra five hundred it's not your fault?
Of course not. You can't do that.

The government keeps doing it. I can't spend more than I have. You can't spend more than you have. But the govt. just keeps on doing it. And those Senators and Representatives are drunk on money. They never cut anything. And every bill they pass is loaded with earmarks.

We are taxed enough. The govt. needs to cut it's spending. I don't care what they have to cut...they need to spend no more than they bring in.

I see people say that "We" believed we could fight wars and pay out all these expenditures to millions of Americans AND pay less tax.
No..."We" didn't. The Senators and Representatives just keep spending like drunken sailors and bringing home pork so they can get re-elected over and over and over again.

Spending is the problem. Not taxing.

minicivan · 11-30-2010, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Start an all-out anti-government anti-special interest movement then. I'm all for it! Not some bullshit teabagger crap though - a REAL anti-government anti-special interest movement!

Why would i spend my time trying to change the world, when i can ignore it almost completely and devote my time to just living a happy life? I have no issues to moving to another country in the morning if I decide its time. My primary obligation in life is to myself and my family. There is little else that matters in the end. The biggest flaw in any political system is that every sweeping change somehow will have some permanence and improve things indefinitely. How hard should one fight and how much time should one devote to fighting for change that may never come and if it does, will not last?

You have 70-80 years to find happiness. The sooner you start, the better.

BestXXXPorn · 11-30-2010, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

From my point of view:
How could they be "unfunded"? The ONLY "funding" is when the govt. TAKES our money as taxes. And no...letting you and I KEEP our own money is NOT what caused us to go into debt. Two stupid wars, having our military occupy 80 something countries all over the world, Nancy Pelosi flying around in a private jet...and BILLIONS of other wasteful things the govt. does, in other words SPENDING is what caused the deficit.

Think of it like this: If you make a thousand dollars a week and spend one thousand five hundred a week...are you going to say that because you aren't making an extra five hundred it's not your fault?
Of course not. You can't do that.

The government keeps doing it. I can't spend more than I have. You can't spend more than you have. But the govt. just keeps on doing it. And those Senators and Representatives are drunk on money. They never cut anything. And every bill they pass is loaded with earmarks.

We are taxed enough. The govt. needs to cut it's spending. I don't care what they have to cut...they need to spend no more than they bring in.

I see people say that "We" believed we could fight wars and pay out all these expenditures to millions of Americans AND pay less tax.
No..."We" didn't. The Senators and Representatives just keep spending like drunken sailors and bringing home pork so they can get re-elected over and over and over again.

Spending is the problem. Not taxing.

Here here! I tend to agree with all your posts actually, hahaha.

Like how about the 14 TONS (like literally) of cash the fed printed for the US and then they loaded it all onto helicopters and sent it to the middle east where... they lost it. All of it... BILLIONS in CASH.... OOPS!

And then there's that $9B in cash sent to fund the war to the DoD and they can't account for 96% of it,hahahaha....

Then there's those $1,000 screwdrivers ...

...or what about the contract NYC recently renewed for $100k a year to service TYPEWRITTERS! hahahhahahah

It's easy to spend when you have no accountability... and if you run out, just raise taxes!

BFT3K · 11-30-2010, 04:16 PM

tony286 · 11-30-2010, 04:21 PM

And if it wasnt for gov throwiing money at that stupid internet creatation thing . Alot of the people bitching here thier lives wouldnt of been very different.

12clicks · 11-30-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Have you done the math on that? If you get $1,000 on average from each of the poorest 142 million households that's only $142 billion? That's not going to pay for much of the cost of the Iraq war, not to mention the added costs of extra security (homeland security, massive increase in government employees to protect America from terrorists).

1. You didn't add in the money from letting ALL of the tAx cuts expire.
2. If I can't add in spending cuts, you certainly can't add spending increases.
But thanks for playing.

12clicks · 11-30-2010, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Why do the unintelligent race home to post this false chart?

12clicks · 11-30-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

And if it wasnt for gov throwiing money at that stupid internet creatation thing . Alot of the people bitching here thier lives wouldnt of been very different.

Why do the unintelligent rush home to post trite, nonsensical posts like this?

We understand you want your betters paying you we. Your point was made long ago.

12clicks · 11-30-2010, 04:36 PM

"""The cost of extending the tax cuts for everyone for the next 10 years would approach $4 trillion, the Associated Press reported, citing congressional estimates. Eliminating the breaks for the top earners would reduce that bill by about $700 billion."""

So in other words, the tax cuts for the rich cost $70 billion a year but the rest of the tax cuts cost $330 billion a year.

Stupid kids and their dopey arguments

GatorB · 11-30-2010, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Taxes on everyone, including the rich need to be increased unfortunately. Bush and Obama have dug us so deep in the hole (14 trillion in debt and growing every min) that we don't have many options to pay that off and get it under control. Revenue from Income tax is by far the biggest source of revenue for the govt. It's just common sense that they will have to raise taxes, for everyone. They also need to cut a lot of govt spending as well. We going to have to tough it out as a country for 5-10 years if we want to get a handle on this, if not it will sink us into a depression.

Well no one can touch Social Security, Medicare or the military which make up the VAST majority of the budget so how are they going to cut spending if you start off with those 3 things as "hands off"? That's 61% of the budget. another 9% is interest on teh debt so you can't cut that. It is what it is. So that leaves 30%. What are you going to do, cut that part in half?

11-30-2010, 09:51 AM	#52
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,783	Another gulled, or incompetent, or lying "kingfish" explaining why the rich shouldnt keep their tax cut because of our collective society. If you werent gulled, incompetent, or lying, your argument would be to let ALL the tax cuts expire or to have the 46% of the population who pays NOTHING in income taxes to pay something. At least then your "it's for the collective" argument would have a little credibility. __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

11-30-2010, 01:04 PM	#55
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	A lot of wealthy sucking up in here, which makes for a nice distraction I suppose, but doesn't address the issue of paying the debt. The debt already exists, so how would you get rid of it? Don't say cut spending, that doesn't address the existing debt but manages future debt. Everyone seems to be the political expert, on a daily basis, so do you have any solutions to it? How do you pay for expensive wars? The money has to come from somewhere. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

11-30-2010, 01:06 PM	#56
Sly Let's do some business! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 31,292	I didn't read the thread or watch the interview. I simply wanted to comment on how funny it is watching "liberals" herald the words of a Reagan advisor when they typically spend their days bashing Reaganomics. That is all. __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted Windows VPS now available. Wanted: CCBill pay sites for sale

11-30-2010, 02:23 PM	#62
minicivan Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 943	Its this simple - Government is the problem. Not Republicans. Not Democrats: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/159/159.htm (put your retarded partisan arguments aside and actually think about the study) Also, even though that study is not current, the current numbers are closer to this: For ever 1.00 in taxes (new taxes), Government spends 1.05 or so. The problem at its core being that deficits do not go away without modifying spending behaviors to begin with Last edited by minicivan; 11-30-2010 at 02:25 PM..

11-30-2010, 03:50 PM	#68
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	I would rather see the unfunded, unnecessary, Bush tax breaks, expire for everyone, rather than see them extended for the rich. Just let it all expire as scheduled. The economy was not helped at all by these cuts, and they just added shitloads more debt to the budget. We were all better off BEFORE these one-sided cuts were introduced. And, in addition, cap unemployment at one year maximum while you're at it. Two years or longer is just absurd! Let's add some less expensive models to the porn pool! Last edited by BFT3K; 11-30-2010 at 03:53 PM..

11-30-2010, 04:16 PM	#76
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764

11-30-2010, 04:21 PM	#77
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	And if it wasnt for gov throwiing money at that stupid internet creatation thing . Alot of the people bitching here thier lives wouldnt of been very different.

11-30-2010, 04:36 PM	#81
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,783	"""The cost of extending the tax cuts for everyone for the next 10 years would approach $4 trillion, the Associated Press reported, citing congressional estimates. Eliminating the breaks for the top earners would reduce that bill by about $700 billion.""" So in other words, the tax cuts for the rich cost $70 billion a year but the rest of the tax cuts cost $330 billion a year. Stupid kids and their dopey arguments __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.