Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Obama announces plans to raise taxes by $1.6 Trillion
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:16 pm    Post subject: Obama announces plans to raise taxes by $1.6 Trillion Reply with quote

So, this is what compromise looks like.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news/economy/obama-taxes-deficit/
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crikey. He's acting like there was a national debt to pay off or something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1375
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Crikey. He's acting like there was a national debt to pay off or something.


That sounds a lot like making a problem and then forcing others to solve it.
_________________
mcgruff wrote:
I can't promise to be civil.


pjp wrote:
The greater evil is voting for the "lesser evil."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, he's acting like a socialist who gives less than zero fucks about unemployment and economic vitality. The deficit should be closed by a balance of tax increases and spending cuts, using pre-Obama spending levels as a baseline.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BonezTheGoon wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
Crikey. He's acting like there was a national debt to pay off or something.


That sounds a lot like making a problem and then forcing others to solve it.

Very insightful of you. He jacked up the deficit to ridiculous levels, and now wants tax increases to pay for it. That's exactly why the baseline for negotiating the balance between spending cuts and tax increases should be pre-Obama (in other words, as part of the deal and before anything else, he needs to "find savings" (i.e. cut spending) to pay for what he's added, like he said he was going to). It ought to be about 25% tax increase and 75% spending cuts.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 547

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But if the taxes are increased, business owners will have no spare money to hire people!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spent
n00b
n00b


Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 51
Location: Bawlmer Hon!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The government has no intention of ever paying the debt. They just want to keep it below a certain level of GDP.

Who actually believes that new taxes will go toward debt reduction and not new spending. This is a never ending circle. The problem isn't a lack of revenue, it's too much spending. It's a problem that will never be solved, the temptation to spend other peoples money is too great.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobody's even talking about paying the debt. People are voicing wishful thoughts about balancing the budget, and trying to take steps to reduce the deficit. All Obama managed to do in his first term was double the size of it, while continuously promising to reduce it and paying lip service to "pay as you go".

That's Obama's biggest legacy so far: trillion-plus-dollar deficits every year. Six trillion added to the debt in four short years. He'll have single-handedly doubled the size of the National debt before he's done.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
No, he's acting like a socialist who gives less than zero fucks about unemployment and economic vitality. The deficit should be closed by a balance of tax increases and spending cuts, using pre-Obama spending levels as a baseline.


so you voted Obama then? Because that is the democrat proposal. Republicans REFUSED unanimously to support a tax increase.

:lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:

Very insightful of you. He jacked up the deficit to ridiculous levels, and now wants tax increases to pay for it. That's exactly why the baseline for negotiating the balance between spending cuts and tax increases should be pre-Obama (in other words, as part of the deal and before anything else, he needs to "find savings" (i.e. cut spending) to pay for what he's added, like he said he was going to). It ought to be about 25% tax increase and 75% spending cuts.


we played this number game a few threads back. It seems that much of the deficit was due to reduced tax receipts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Very insightful of you. He jacked up the deficit to ridiculous levels, and now wants tax increases to pay for it. That's exactly why the baseline for negotiating the balance between spending cuts and tax increases should be pre-Obama (in other words, as part of the deal and before anything else, he needs to "find savings" (i.e. cut spending) to pay for what he's added, like he said he was going to). It ought to be about 25% tax increase and 75% spending cuts.


we played this number game a few threads back. It seems that much of the deficit was due to reduced tax receipts.

No. It is from spending too much.

If you know you are going to have a personal wage reduction, you cut household spending. You do not spend more. What ever happened to common sense, was it thrown out the window by the entitlement generation?
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Very insightful of you. He jacked up the deficit to ridiculous levels, and now wants tax increases to pay for it. That's exactly why the baseline for negotiating the balance between spending cuts and tax increases should be pre-Obama (in other words, as part of the deal and before anything else, he needs to "find savings" (i.e. cut spending) to pay for what he's added, like he said he was going to). It ought to be about 25% tax increase and 75% spending cuts.


we played this number game a few threads back. It seems that much of the deficit was due to reduced tax receipts.

No. It is from spending too much.

If you know you are going to have a personal wage reduction, you cut household spending. You do not spend more. What ever happened to common sense, was it thrown out the window by the entitlement generation?


Cool. At least we are on the same page. That is, the primary cause is a reduction in tax receipts, followed by a secondary cause of spending not dropped to match.

So, you admit that much of the problem isn't Obama's then, right? This true for a number of reasons. First, you may not want to just lay off thousands of people as this may hurt the economy more. Now you may disagree with this, but certainly you have to see it as something plausible as many economists would support that view, and we are seeing some of the empirical support for that scenario now in Europe. Second, the govt has it's hands tied more than a small private company, for better or worse. Legislation and public unions would make it difficult to do mass layoffs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
No, he's acting like a socialist who gives less than zero fucks about unemployment and economic vitality. The deficit should be closed by a balance of tax increases and spending cuts, using pre-Obama spending levels as a baseline.


so you voted Obama then? Because that is the democrat proposal. Republicans REFUSED unanimously to support a tax increase.

:lol:

That has never been the Democrat proposal, and the election was not a vote on this issue.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Crikey. He's acting like there was a national debt to pay off or something.
lol

You can't possibly believe that. The tax increase without drastic cuts isn't sufficient. So far all I've heard about is the tax increase. If he's also cutting the yearly budget by >=1T, then he may be acting like there was a national debt to pay off.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Very insightful of you. He jacked up the deficit to ridiculous levels, and now wants tax increases to pay for it. That's exactly why the baseline for negotiating the balance between spending cuts and tax increases should be pre-Obama (in other words, as part of the deal and before anything else, he needs to "find savings" (i.e. cut spending) to pay for what he's added, like he said he was going to). It ought to be about 25% tax increase and 75% spending cuts.


we played this number game a few threads back. It seems that much of the deficit was due to reduced tax receipts.

Yes, and much of the price of avocados in Biloxi is due to weather. So what? If the government is spending so much and has so little reserve that it can't pay the bills when the economy slows, then it needs to cut spending when the economy slows. Raising taxes just slows the economy further.

If there's not enough reserve to cover a brief slow-down, then spending must be cut. A nation cannot live off deficit spending indefinitely, or it ends up like Greece. Obama had the opportunity to stimulate the economy, and he squandered it, using it instead for wealth transfer. Now, he needs to pay the price, by cutting spending. If he continues deficit spending, he'll destroy us economically.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Very insightful of you. He jacked up the deficit to ridiculous levels, and now wants tax increases to pay for it. That's exactly why the baseline for negotiating the balance between spending cuts and tax increases should be pre-Obama (in other words, as part of the deal and before anything else, he needs to "find savings" (i.e. cut spending) to pay for what he's added, like he said he was going to). It ought to be about 25% tax increase and 75% spending cuts.


we played this number game a few threads back. It seems that much of the deficit was due to reduced tax receipts.

Yes, and much of the price of avocados in Biloxi is due to weather. So what? If the government is spending so much and has so little reserve that it can't pay the bills when the economy slows, then it needs to cut spending when the economy slows. Raising taxes just slows the economy further.

If there's not enough reserve to cover a brief slow-down, then spending must be cut. A nation cannot live off deficit spending indefinitely, or it ends up like Greece. Obama had the opportunity to stimulate the economy, and he squandered it, using it instead for wealth transfer. Now, he needs to pay the price, by cutting spending. If he continues deficit spending, he'll destroy us economically.


greece's problem isn't just debt. it's growth. japan has way more debt, but lenders will happily lend to them.

as I said, it's difficult for a government to lay off a bunch of its workforce and possibly not desirable. the greeks are facing this now. Why are the cuts not closing the gap there? Because their economy is coming to a halt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Very insightful of you. He jacked up the deficit to ridiculous levels, and now wants tax increases to pay for it. That's exactly why the baseline for negotiating the balance between spending cuts and tax increases should be pre-Obama (in other words, as part of the deal and before anything else, he needs to "find savings" (i.e. cut spending) to pay for what he's added, like he said he was going to). It ought to be about 25% tax increase and 75% spending cuts.


we played this number game a few threads back. It seems that much of the deficit was due to reduced tax receipts.

No. It is from spending too much.

If you know you are going to have a personal wage reduction, you cut household spending. You do not spend more. What ever happened to common sense, was it thrown out the window by the entitlement generation?


Cool. At least we are on the same page. That is, the primary cause is a reduction in tax receipts, followed by a secondary cause of spending not dropped to match.

So, you admit that much of the problem isn't Obama's then, right? This true for a number of reasons. First, you may not want to just lay off thousands of people as this may hurt the economy more. Now you may disagree with this, but certainly you have to see it as something plausible as many economists would support that view, and we are seeing some of the empirical support for that scenario now in Europe. Second, the govt has it's hands tied more than a small private company, for better or worse. Legislation and public unions would make it difficult to do mass layoffs.


Admit that it isn't Obama's fault? You've got to be kidding, right. You do realize that Obama has added as much to the debt as all but one of his predecessors combined? Plus lower tax rates do not necessarily equal less revenue.The 1980s are a perfect example of lowering the rates and doubling the revenue.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Very insightful of you. He jacked up the deficit to ridiculous levels, and now wants tax increases to pay for it. That's exactly why the baseline for negotiating the balance between spending cuts and tax increases should be pre-Obama (in other words, as part of the deal and before anything else, he needs to "find savings" (i.e. cut spending) to pay for what he's added, like he said he was going to). It ought to be about 25% tax increase and 75% spending cuts.


we played this number game a few threads back. It seems that much of the deficit was due to reduced tax receipts.

No. It is from spending too much.

If you know you are going to have a personal wage reduction, you cut household spending. You do not spend more. What ever happened to common sense, was it thrown out the window by the entitlement generation?


Cool. At least we are on the same page. That is, the primary cause is a reduction in tax receipts, followed by a secondary cause of spending not dropped to match.

So, you admit that much of the problem isn't Obama's then, right? This true for a number of reasons. First, you may not want to just lay off thousands of people as this may hurt the economy more. Now you may disagree with this, but certainly you have to see it as something plausible as many economists would support that view, and we are seeing some of the empirical support for that scenario now in Europe. Second, the govt has it's hands tied more than a small private company, for better or worse. Legislation and public unions would make it difficult to do mass layoffs.


Admit that it isn't Obama's fault? You've got to be kidding, right. You do realize that Obama has added as much to the debt as all but one of his predecessors combined? Plus lower tax rates do not necessarily equal less revenue.The 1980s are a perfect example of lowering the rates and doubling the revenue.


that's too bad - we AREN'T on the same page.

But you do see his hands are a little tied right? Mass layoffs are difficult. Both legally and politically. In case you didn't notice, you just had an election.

Oh, I agree that you can lower rates and get more revenue. At the same time you can cut spending and lower revenue too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not saying the initial economic collapse was Obama's fault. He was just as guilty as most other politicians that tried to manipulate the housing market for their political motives, but it was a problem brewing long before he came on the scene. I do blame him for the anemic "recovery." His policies have made matters worse. And he has thrown money to his masters in a bid for trickle down government, but the snake can only consume itself for so long.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Very insightful of you. He jacked up the deficit to ridiculous levels, and now wants tax increases to pay for it. That's exactly why the baseline for negotiating the balance between spending cuts and tax increases should be pre-Obama (in other words, as part of the deal and before anything else, he needs to "find savings" (i.e. cut spending) to pay for what he's added, like he said he was going to). It ought to be about 25% tax increase and 75% spending cuts.


we played this number game a few threads back. It seems that much of the deficit was due to reduced tax receipts.

Yes, and much of the price of avocados in Biloxi is due to weather. So what? If the government is spending so much and has so little reserve that it can't pay the bills when the economy slows, then it needs to cut spending when the economy slows. Raising taxes just slows the economy further.

If there's not enough reserve to cover a brief slow-down, then spending must be cut. A nation cannot live off deficit spending indefinitely, or it ends up like Greece. Obama had the opportunity to stimulate the economy, and he squandered it, using it instead for wealth transfer. Now, he needs to pay the price, by cutting spending. If he continues deficit spending, he'll destroy us economically.


greece's problem isn't just debt. it's growth. japan has way more debt, but lenders will happily lend to them.

as I said, it's difficult for a government to lay off a bunch of its workforce and possibly not desirable. the greeks are facing this now. Why are the cuts not closing the gap there? Because their economy is coming to a halt.

Of course nobody measures debt in a vacuum; that goes without saying. But, the Greek economy coming to a halt is not a cause of their problems; it's an effect. Read what you wrote above and compare it to that statement. It is the consequence of them no longer being able pump borrowed money into their economy. The cause of that is that they've done it too long, living beyond their means as a nation and borrowing so much nobody will lend to them anymore.

There are two ways they can eliminate their deficit: increased taxation and reduced spending. Tax-supported government spending (as opposed to debt-supported government spending) slows an economy down, so the path to economic recovery is to minimize government spending. However, the state's obligations to the people must also be met, so there is a minimum level of spending that must continue (a minimum level of austerity that is legally and morally acceptable, which each state must define for itself).

It becomes a trade-off between short-term suffering and long-term suffering. Naturally, like all selfish, ignorant, dependent, child-like creatures, the helpless drones created by generations of socialism will bitch and moan about short-term suffering. They don't give a shit about their children (not their responsibility, the state will provide), and they are so deep into learned helplessness that they can't fathom that their lives will suck more 3, 5, 10, 20, and 50 years from now if they don't have the balls to just suck it up now for a couple years now. They don't understand constraints on what Mommy Government can provide: it's just the giant, endless tit in the sky. They don't understand concepts like compound interest on debt. They just want their usual ration of Victory Chocolate and Victory Vodka, and they want it now. Gimme-gimme-gimme.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum