Taxes Reach Historic Low

[maxcok]

Translation: I disagree with your less-than-representative lot.

Wanna hear something funny, Domisoldo? I actually had some points of agreement with you way back there.
I was on the verge of posting some independent data on the distribution of tax burdens that is somewhat contrary to what a few of the more progressive members of this forum have stated. But then I read your hilarious joke about the Ryan/Republican budget plan being based on the recommendations of Obama's Deficit Commission, and by the time I regained my composure it was too late. By then you had launched into a campaign of pompous put downs and imperious insults, alienating everyone in the forum who disagreed with you, and marginalizing us all into some crazy leftwing radical fringe of your own imagining.

To wit:
"your kind.... your set.... your horde.... your unsavory lot.... nut jobs.... Creationists of The Left.... the Lumpenproletariat.... a li'l handful of UltraLeft© agitprop agents.... the fringe you represent.... your bitter horde of extremists..... etc.,...."

And my favorite of all, an excerpt from this little tirade you launched at me:

your horde:

your sclerotic dogma
your tragically quaint class warfare propaganda
your pathological jealousy of the success of others
your fascination with bloated, central bureaucracies
your wholesale ignorance of the empirical world

and all the other pungent trappings of all fringe ideologies.

Your language is the language of the Teabaggers, only filtered through an overly self-important uni sophomore education - pursued with a thesaurus in your lap. And that doesn't begin to cover the avalanche of snotty, overblown insults you've pelted us with, and all the flowery flatulence that permeate your supercilious postings. So you see, after all the smug condescending ad hominem you've indiscriminately hurled at so many reasonable and well informed members of this forum - including the OP, who is known for his even-tempered rationality and diplomacy - I'll be damned if I'll post a word in this forum that could be construed to support your position in any way. Such are the consequences of marginalizing and alienating people with whom you might have found common ground through adult discourse. But your overbearing ego will not allow you to run the risk of having your vacuous spoonfed opinions challenged, so you dismiss and then denigrate the messenger rather than hear his message.

After all your smug nauseatingly affected deflection, I feel compelled to remind you where I entered the discourse with you. I once again challenge you to prove and cite with an independent source your contention that the Ryan/Republican budget plan passed by the House of Representatives is based on recommendations of President Obama's bipartisan Deficit Reduction Commission. In particular, I'd like you to show how Ryan's proposal to privatize Medicare, forcing seniors to purchase private health insurance on the open market thereby padding the profits of the insurance industry, is based on the Commission's recommendations. Bonus points if you show where the Commission recommended Social Security be replaced with private investment accounts.

I expect you to lay down some solid facts and figures, despite you erroneously assuming this:

According to the ultra-simplistic worldview characteristic of your kind, facts and figures are irrelevant.

If you respond to my post but purposely ignore or avoid this challenge, instead engaging in more deflective insults, again failing even to try proving your contentions, you are a coward. If you cannot prove your contentions, I think it's fair to conclude that you are spouting one of the most ridiculous Orwellian partyline talking points to originate from the rightwing media/blogosphere since the propaganda wars of the Healthcare debate in '09. I think it's also fair to conclude that you are a pompous ass and an intellectual fraud with no more substance than a swarm of gnats, with an above average vocabulary wasted on tortuously turned insolent phrases -- in short, a poseur.

In conclusion, I laugh again at your recent dissembling claim of being a "registered Democrat", replaced twelve hours later by your claim of being a (faux) "Independent". Your dismissiveness and demonization of anyone who disagrees with you as "the other", e.g., "your bitter horde of extremists", etc. clearly reveals you to be a self-righteous, self-absorbed Rightwing Authoritarian prone to Social Dominance Orientation. You really should study that, though given your mindset, I know it's silly of me to think you'd even consider it. How very limited you are. I might feel a little sad for you if you weren't such a rude condescending smartass and a pretentious prick.

 

[maxcok]

Yes, even here on LPSG, where everyone to the right of Frank Rich has been banned or bored out of existence.

Please. Spare us that dried old chestnut.

This forum is well known for having a hard line clique that ostracizes anyone that is more right than Michael Moore.

How original. Is there a weird echo in here, or are you just parroting your new best friend?

Why is it any time anyone presents anything right of Nancy Pelosi here, they are accused or parroting either a talking head or a nameless blog?

My, you really are sucking up to "Domi", as you call him. Just blow him already. You know you want to.

I'll go ahead and don my flame suit since this board has made it clear that anyone that doesn't agree with them should be ostracized and beaten.

That dried old chestnut again. :rolleyes2:

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I'll tell you what... I'll give you that oatmeal cookie back that you gave me a couple posts ago... and give you a parrot in interest for my transgressions against you.

Well, you're the one that put that bullshit out there. You really thought you were trying to score a few points by doing it as well. Probably made your dick grow a few centimeters in the process, but that's a different story. But now you're starting to get annoyed that I have continually used your own lame insult to my own advantage and at your expense? Like I really give a shit. After all of the unprompted insults thrown at me from various fools on this board for the last 3 years, you learn how to take the labels and wear them as you see fit when necessary to make other points to use against the accuser.

Now are we gonna go back to the thread topic, continue to complain that I used some of your own insulting sentiments about me against you (when you've tried to do the same by redrafting what my points were through farcical, elementary level assumptions and failed miserably) or are we through with this pathetic attempt of a discussion?

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Please. Spare us that dried old chestnut.

How original. Is there a weird echo in here, or are you just parroting your new best friend?

My, you really are sucking up to "Domi", as you call him. Just blow him already. You know you want to.

That dried old chestnut again. :rolleyes2:

And I'm accused of providing nothing of substance to the conversation? :drillsergeant:

 

[maxcok]

And I'm accused of providing nothing of substance to the conversation? :drillsergeant:

Did I say that? No. You must have me confused with someone else, strawman.







And why the Smokey Bear emoticon? Never mind. I really don't care. Just makes your post look oddly overdecorated.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Well, you're the one that put that bullshit out there. You really thought you were trying to score a few points by doing it as well. Probably made your dick grow a few centimeters in the process, but that's a different story. But now you're starting to get annoyed that I have continually used your own lame insult to my own advantage and at your expense? Like I really give a shit.

Now are we gonna go back to the thread topic, continue to complain that I used some of your own insulting sentiments about me against you (when you've tried to do the same by redrafting what my points were through farcical, elementary level assumptions and failed miserably) or are we through with this pathetic attempt of a discussion?

VB, I'm not annoyed at all. I have discussed many things with you and others on this board many times. Long ago I learned how things work on here and this is why I removed myself. There is a reason why there is nobody on here that debates politics from right of center. While some are truly bumbling idiots, the main reason is because... well, it has already been mentioned earlier in this thread and I could care less about this dick shaking test that always happens here.

You want something on the OP?

Alright, how about this... Who gives a flying shit about what the tax rate is now or has been in the future? None of this matters a single inkling if the people doing the spending spend more than is coming in. You can't operate your household from the red. You can't run a city from the red. You can't run a state from the red. And likewise you can't run a federal government from the red. And in the event that you believe that you can run any of these items long term from the red... please simply state this so I know where you stand.

If you think you can... then I'd love to see your math for how this will work long term.

Once you show me how to run a government by spending more than you bring in... then we can talk, cry, and debate about how much each person should be taxed. OK? Until then, I think all rate debate is completely irrelevant. It's like arguing who is going to pay what percentage of a restaurant bill when the group doesn't have enough to cover the bill even if everyone pitches in all they got.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Did I say that? No. You must have me confused with someone else, strawman.

Here I corrected your post.

Omg. Omg. Omg. Omg. Omgggggg....PII you said a LOGICAL FALLACY!

WHAMO! Take that you non-socialist!

I love it. My bad and my sincerest apologies. I already gave VB his cookie back (with a parrot as interest) so I am kind of left broke at the moment. Next time someone is nice enough to give me a cookie I will forward to you, OK?

 

[maxcok]

Here I corrected your post.

I'll thank you not to do that, even if you think it's cute or funny. It wasn't.

You haven't been in here for quite awhile, so I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the Forum Rules, particularly in regards to altering members' quotes.

I love it. My bad and my sincerest apologies.

"sincerest"? Really?

I already gave VB his cookie back (with a parrot as interest) so I am kind of left broke at the moment. Next time someone is nice enough to give me a cookie I will forward to you, OK?

You can keep your cookies, I'm not interested.
Riding to the rescue of your boy "Domi" out of the blue was weird enough.
Please don't pretend to ingratiate yourself to me with your phony apologies and passive aggressive 'humor'.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

VB, I'm not annoyed at all.

Such emphasis for not being annoyed.

I have discussed many things with you and others on this board many times. Long ago I learned how things work on here and this is why I removed myself. There is a reason why there is nobody on here that debates politics from right of center. While some are truly bumbling idiots, the main reason is because... well, it has already been mentioned earlier in this thread and I could care less about this dick shaking test that always happens here.

That's bullshit and you know it. As someone who has received flack and engaged in heated debates from people of all political ideologies (left, right and points in between), the only common thread between these people and their decision to leave the board is the fact that they cannot convey their message in a persuasive manner to garnish the responses & support they seek. Period. I don't care where anyone positions themselves on the political spectrum. Regardless if you have a (D), an (R) or an (I) next to your name, that doesn't exonerate you if you decide to post something stupid.

Alright, how about this... Who gives a flying shit about what the tax rate is now or has been in the future?

Ummmmmmm... taxpayers especially those in the lower & middle classes since they're the ones that are being forced to flip the bill? Greedy people in the higher tiers who dishonestly claim that a flat tax is more fair, ignoring what most people below them pay by percentage every year out of necessity and not luxury?

None of this matters a single inkling if the people doing the spending spend more than is coming in.

It's all related. Our government needs to generate revenue in order to counteract any necessary spending that needs to be made. There's no sense in talking about excessive spending if we fail to maintain programs that are essential to the nation's citizens in the process.

You can't operate your household from the red. You can't run a city from the red. You can't run a state from the red. And likewise you can't run a federal government from the red.

Yet households continue to do so despite showing some progress - link
Cities haven't shut down even though many of them are in debt - link
And somehow, the federal government hasn't been foreclosed on yet.

And in the event that you believe that you can run any of these items long term from the red... please simply state this so I know where you stand. If you think you can... then I'd love to see your math for how this will work long term.

Better yet, I'll use my own business as an example.
When I started it, I spent more of my own money to get it going and properly promoted for two years. So even though I was making money by quarter, I was technically operating in the red. All quarterly payments were broken down between myself and all my contractual partners, and what was left over was used to pay off some of the initial debt I accumulated at the beginning as well as maintaining a necessary infrastructure to keep my company moving. As for my math? You are not part of my business so you will not see my exact figures. But six years later, the company is still afloat and is about to break even by this Fall.

Once you show me how to run a government by spending more than you bring in... then we can talk, cry, and debate about how much each person should be taxed.

I can't show you what you vehemently don't want to believe, nor won't take any ounce of your cranium to properly understand.

Until then, I think all rate debate is completely irrelevant. It's like arguing who is going to pay what percentage of a restaurant bill when the group doesn't have enough to cover the bill even if everyone pitches in all they got.

I agree. You did nothing but spout out distorted talking points about "spending" and "debt" like a Teabagger so this debate is irrelevant without any real specifics that focuses on the numbers, where we should be doing budget cuts for short term and long term growth, and how we should properly adjust the tax system in our nation so that the people make the least don't incur most of the harm. And I won't even go into heavy detail as to how your simile misses the mark as well, but I will say that in most situations if they don't have enough to cover a meal at a restaurant someone winds up breaking out a credit card. Between cash & available credit, most responsible people who aren't out to intentionally cheat the system (in this case being a "dine & dash") will take care of the immediate obligations and have a plan to pay it back. The key word in this scenario is "plan"... which many people don't want to look at seriously but still feel entitled to run their mouth about.

Industrialsize posted a link to this interesting interactive puzzle in the past, and I think it deserves repeating again - Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

Give it a shot. Regardless of how you solve the puzzle, it clearly demonstrates how we cannot fix our financial problems without focusing on tax increases AND budget cuts, without completely doing away with or obliterating funds for necessary programs. Here's an example of that using nothing but "spending cuts". See anything in there you disagree with?

And BTW... I never gave you a cookie. Your short-sighted comprehension to my sarcastic swipe alluded that I gave you one, when I didn't actually give you a damn thing beyond a metaphorical "middle finger". It would be advisable for you to actually pay attention to the words being said and not be so rash to jump to conclusions. Because clearly, you're not good at ASSuming anything.

 

[Cuddler]

...
You want something on the OP?

Alright, how about this... Who gives a flying shit about what the tax rate is now or has been in the future?

Time travel makes my head hurt. Let's get back to something simpler.

None of this matters a single inkling if the people doing the spending spend more than is coming in. ...

In the red implies income < spending

One way to fix that is to increase the income side. Therefore, increasing taxes can be part of the solution.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

It's all related. Our government needs to generate revenue in order to counteract any necessary spending that needs to be made. There's no sense in talking about excessive spending if we fail to maintain programs that are essential to the nation's citizens in the process.

"Necessary" is a relative term. What you deem to be necessary, I am pretty sure, is not what I believe is necessary.

Yet households continue to do so despite showing some progress - link
Cities haven't shut down even though many of them are in debt - link
And somehow, the federal government hasn't been foreclosed on yet.

First link - Exactly my point. Households are paying down their debt because they realize that they cannot operate in the red.
Second link - So what are you saying? Because the city of Boston is in debt and hasn't erased itself off a map that it is operating OK? Laughable.
Third point - There is no point here.

You seem to insinuate that just because these entities are still "alive" means that they can operate in the red in the long term. Of course, you completely ignore the fact on the federal level that just because the government hasn't been "foreclosed" on (whatever that means in the national government sense) that it is OK to keep going as such. Quite honestly, your position baffles me. The only way that the government can survive is by taxing it's people. If it spends more on whatever than it brings in... then it has to borrow. Borrow from someone. You can't borrow for someone indefinitely. At some point you have to pay it back.

How do you propose that we pay it our debts back and keep the economy going? As of right now the U.S. owes 14.2 trillion dollars ($128,856 per taxpayer).

Here's the trend:
2000: 5.738 trillion
2004: 7.196 trillion
2008: 9.717 trillion
2011: 14.2 trillion

Better yet, I'll use my own business as an example.
When I started it, I spent more of my own money to get it going and properly promoted for two years. So even though I was making money by quarter, I was technically operating in the red. All quarterly payments were broken down between myself and all my contractual partners, and what was left over was used to pay off some of the initial debt I accumulated at the beginning as well as maintaining a necessary infrastructure to keep my company moving. As for my math? You are not part of my business so you will not see my exact figures. But six years later, the company is still afloat and is about to break even by this Fall.

OK so this is what I am getting.

You started a business.
Thus, you went in the red for startup.
Over the years, you operated yearly in the black... but overall in the red.
This year, you expect to break even overall, and now operate the business for profit.

Good. So we see here that while you can operate in the red... you cannot continue to do so. You have to dig yourself out. If you continued to operate in the red year after year (as our government does) then how long would your business have lasted, VinylBoy?

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Time travel makes my head hurt. Let's get back to something simpler.



In the red implies income < spending

One way to fix that is to increase the income side. Therefore, increasing taxes can be part of the solution.

Yes. But there are economic results at hand. No?

Please expound on any pros or cons you believe will happen if income/taxes is increased today.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

And BTW... I never gave you a cookie.

My mother taught me that if you offered something that you would give it.

Sorry for being raised wrong and reading into your "middle finger" offer.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

You haven't been in here for quite awhile, so I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the Forum Rules, particularly in regards to altering members' quotes.

I actually think I've been on LPSG and also the political forum (not that anyone remembers me) for longer than you have. But that is besides the point.

I believe in rules so I went ahead and reported my post. Tschuss!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

"Necessary" is a relative term. What you deem to be necessary, I am pretty sure, is not what I believe is necessary.

Well, let's see. Most entitlement programs that have a direct impact on the poor are ones I would sustain for now. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc... we'd be foolish as a nation to even considering cutting those BEFORE we look at things like Defense Spending, Energy, and necessary Wall Street & Bank Policy Reforms. We have members of the GOP going after small things like Planned Parenthood, meanwhile trying to maintain funding for weaponry that the Military doesn't even want. And for short term gains, taxes on the highest 2% should be raised. Even Warren Buffet, who just happens to be the third richest man in the world agrees with that.

I'll start there for now. Your turn, and please try to do it without the usual buzzwords.

First link - Exactly my point. Households are paying down their debt because they realize that they cannot operate in the red.
Second link - So what are you saying? Because the city of Boston is in debt and hasn't erased itself off a map that it is operating OK? Laughable.
Third point - There is no point here.

You actually completely missed my point.
You stated that we cannot operate in the red, when in reality many things in our country do. That's why I posted those links in a slightly snarky way. As long as there is a real plan to eventually get out of the red, it can be done. Nobody with any sense would think we could do operate in the red forever, but in some cases it is necessary in order to obtain a much better outcome. But let me take a more direct approach here. Ever took a loan out for college? A mortgage for a house? Congratulations... you're now "operating in the red" until those debts are paid in full. And many of those debts last people for decades. Get it yet?

You seem to insinuate that just because these entities are still "alive" means that they can operate in the red in the long term.

No I didn't. You did.

Of course, you completely ignore the fact on the federal level that just because the government hasn't been "foreclosed" on (whatever that means in the national government sense) that it is OK to keep going as such.

Again, I didn't. You're assuming this.

Quite honestly, your position baffles me.

No comment.

The only way that the government can survive is by taxing it's people.

Not necessarily. The best way "survive" in this case is to come up with a proper plan that allows us to establish a proper balance between cutting unnecessary spending (like you stated earlier) and taxation. The same way we could eliminate the deficit by doing nothing but budget cuts (at the major expense of important programs and necessary infrastructure), it's possible to do it all by raising taxes as well if you want to piss off an entire nation (as well as make things more difficult for the lower & middle class) and maintain the current levels of excessive & bloated spending going on in certain areas of our budget. Need I say DEFENSE any louder?

If it spends more on whatever than it brings in... then it has to borrow. Borrow from someone. You can't borrow for someone indefinitely. At some point you have to pay it back.

No kidding.

How do you propose that we pay it our debts back and keep the economy going? As of right now the U.S. owes 14.2 trillion dollars ($128,856 per taxpayer).

Here's the trend:
2000: 5.738 trillion
2004: 7.196 trillion
2008: 9.717 trillion
2011: 14.2 trillion

I've already proposed what I thought was part of the solution. Stop repeating yourself.

You started a business.
Thus, you went in the red for startup.
Over the years, you operated yearly in the black... but overall in the red.
This year, you expect to break even overall, and now operate the business for profit.

Good. So we see here that while you can operate in the red... you cannot continue to do so. You have to dig yourself out. If you continued to operate in the red year after year (as our government does) then how long would your business have lasted, VinylBoy?

To be perfectly honest, I know people who have set up businesses that have operated in the red for MUCH longer than a couple of years. For me, I figured out something that would work with what I wanted to obtain, within my own financial reality, and without any illogical, greedy ideologies about becoming a billionaire. Even I know the sky has a limit since if you go too high you'll run out of oxygen. Again, it's all about the business plan. Our Congress has a chance to make one to reverse many years of bad economic choices, but they have to get serious about it and start paying attention to specifics. But the only specifics most GOP members care about are ones that will win them an election in 2012, which is why they has done nothing but strategically focusing on sources that would make it harder for poor, working class people who usually vote Democrat under the phony guise of "fiscal responsibility". Union Rights? Planned Parenthood? Abortion? Tax Cuts for the richest 2% (aka their private donors)? The privatizing of Medicare & Social Security? Need I go on?

It's not that hard to connect all the dots if you just allow yourself to look past your political ideology and stop trying to place me in one that you think I fit in. I may not have all the answers, but some things can be spelled out pretty easily.

My mother taught me that if you offered something that you would give it.
Sorry for being raised wrong and reading into your "middle finger" offer.

That's interesting. My mommy taught me that anyone can offer you the world, but until it's placed in your hands or in your bank account it doesn't mean a thing. I won't say that you were raised wrong, however, apparently somewhere between adolescence and maturity a few key items were not discussed. Also, it was obviously a sarcastic swipe. Hence the "middle finger" reference. Context, PI squared... context!!

 

[Cuddler]

Yes. But there are economic results at hand. No?

Please expound on any pros or cons you believe will happen if income/taxes is increased today.

Beliefs and even carefully crafted theories can be wrong. Sometimes it's good to look at the real world and see what's going on.

When the Liberal government in Canada fell, there was a $12 billion surplus. The Conservative government cut the corporate tax rate from 21% to 16.5% and the VAT by 2%. Now instead of a surplus, there was a $55 billion deficit last year.

If the tax rates hadn't been cut over several years, there would have been more of a buffer to withstand the recent troubled times, and paying off the national debt within a few years would still be in sight. Instead, there will be red ink for years to come.

 

[deleted213967]

Which leads me to your second question. The government already does override the will of the people, in many ways. I'm sure you'll be shocked to find this out, but you can quite easily purchase government support in most democracies, in the US moreso than many others.

However, one answer to the medical coverage problem, single-payer, is quite popular. It polls repeatedly(In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health - NYTimes.com for one) pretty well, and there's already a partial system in place. So given that never even seriously gets discussed, I'd say the government is precisely overriding the will of the people.

I also thought that there could have been broader public support for a privately-run single payer, overseen by an independent body composed of consumer rights advocates, medical professionals et al.

However, the most Democratic government in a very long time failed to convince citizens.

Even today's grotesque compromise is still a hard sell, is facing judicial challenges and is being watered down by a slew of "waivers".

In 20/20 hindsight, Congress should have undertaken this effort in baby steps, perhaps first solidifying the common ground that existed in 2008: ending the most controversial practices of the health insurance industry and letting people shop across state lines.

Still, how would even the most expertly-run single payer cut health care costs by half or (ideally) more, thereby vastly increasing the viability of the related welfare programs?

 

[deleted213967]

If the tax rates hadn't been cut over several years, there would have been more of a buffer to withstand the recent troubled times, and paying off the national debt within a few years would still be in sight. Instead, there will be red ink for years to come.

One tax-collector's "buffer" is another taxpayer's "unbuffer".

 

[deleted213967]

In conclusion, I laugh again at your recent dissembling claim of being a "registered Democrat", replaced twelve hours later by your claim of being a (faux) "Independent".

All right. Perhaps I was a closet Independent all along but a handful of members here and elsewhere helped me come out.

I was always terrified at being anywhere near the fundamentalist Christian right on the political spectrum. I signed petitions and donated money to so-called progressive causes.

However, I've belatedly come to terms with the fact of left-wing extremism.

My upbringing and my formal education stressed moderation and rational thinking, therefore I am profoundly repulsed by extremism. If that means that I am now officially at times Republican, at times Democratic, at times neither or both, so be it.

LPSG may not allow it but the US Constitution does.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

My upbringing and my formal education stressed moderation and rational thinking, therefore I am profoundly repulsed by extremism. If that means that I am now officially at times Republican, at times Democratic, at times neither or both, so be it.

Perhaps the real solution would be to not feel obligated to choose a label, but to just be thoroughly informed? That way, one could vote either way regardless of the affiliation and not feel obligated to support any candidate or not just because a (D), (R) or (I) appears next to their name. But then again, you have me on block so whatever.