No, because when you cut taxes you are giving back money that the government took from us.... But if you give money back to people that didn't pay Federal Income tax other than medicare and Social security then it is a hand out. That money is still in the Medicare funds and those people will still be able to draw off of that according to what they put into it. It is basically a welfare program at that point.
But Medicare is money that the government took from the incomes of those people
Yes, but that money is still in the Medicare fund for them to use at a later date. Even if it is not a individual account, they can still draw from it when they come to that point. That makes it a hand out.
But that fund is established through tax dollars. So if you choose to cut that tax for some people, they don't owe into that fund. If you choose to retroactively cut that tax for those people, you would issue them a check for what they are owed.
No, because when you cut taxes you are giving back money that the government took from us.... But if you give money back to people that didn't pay Federal Income tax other than medicare and Social security then it is a hand out. That money is still in the Medicare funds and those people will still be able to draw off of that according to what they put into it. It is basically a welfare program at that point.
But Medicare is money that the government took from the incomes of those people
Yes, but that money is still in the Medicare fund for them to use at a later date. Even if it is not a individual account, they can still draw from it when they come to that point. That makes it a hand out.
But that fund is established through tax dollars. So if you choose to cut that tax for some people, they don't owe into that fund. If you choose to retroactively cut that tax for those people, you would issue them a check for what they are owed.
But that money that they are giving back isn't coming out of the Medicare fund therefore they are being given back money but still have the same amount invested in the Medicare system and Social Security... Why is that so hard to understand. It is still a hand out.
That will put a strain on the States budget because that money the federal government is throwing around isn't going to last forever. Once the federal $$ run out then the burden is left on the states and that is where the budget strain comes in. It's not that hard to figure out
I'm not terribly dense about most things, but I'm still not seeing it, Puro. The feds are saying, "Here, take this money and use it to extend unemployment benefits." When the money is gone, that's it. There is no obligation on the states to continue paying extended unemployment. This is not an unfunded mandate like No Child Left Behind, where the feds tell the states they have to do something and then don't give them the money to do it. It's exactly the opposite. It's the feds handing the states a huge pile of money and telling them to use it for unemployment benefits. There is no requirement that the states continue paying the benefits when that money is gone.
PuroFreak:
And yes, the democrats proposed this as a 58-42 split, but most of the 42% is spending under the banner of tax cuts that will never actually be passed on to the actual citizens or businesses of our country.
Source, please.
I have to say, Puro, that if even Fox News's definition of a tax cut is too liberal for you, you're never going to be happy in this country. Ever. Why do you stay? (That's not a passive-aggressive version of "I wish you'd leave," btw. It's a sincere question.)
PuroFreak:
Now along to your last part I agree with you, keeping the tax cuts with the current rate of spending would create an ENORMOUS deficit... (like we are going to avoid that anyway.) Tax cuts are only HALF of the solution. The other half being to CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! Stop all the bullshit pork!
Well, again, your beef here is with the GOP. Just like they're the ones who wrote a tax bill that made cuts only temporary, they're the ones who wrote the spending bills for six of the past 8 years. That's the period when our deficits exploded (and that's even with their phoney-baloney accounting that didn't include the cost of the wars in the budget), and it's also when the number of earmarks exploded. Even in this continuing resolution you're talking about, 40% of the earmarks are from Republicans.
PuroFreak:
President Obama needs to live up to his promises and do as he said and "Line by line cut the pork spending from Washington!"
That's not what he said. He said he would go through the budget line by line. This bill is not the budget. It's a continuing resolution. Those are 2 completely different things. He hasn't had a chance to cut pork from a budget, yet, because he hasn't gotten one back from congress yet. He just submitted his proposal last week. Let's see what it looks like when it comes back from congress. If it's got a lot of pork and earmarks in it, let's see what he does about it. If he does nothing, then we can criticize him.
PuroFreak:
He rushed this bill through so fast without making any changes saying that he didn't have time because of the urgency for action. Well then why don't many of the things in the bill take effect for up to 10 years??
Source, please. I'm a fairly well informed guy, and while I've heard people make this accusation, I've never heard anybody back it up. I'm not saying it's false. I'm just saying I've never seen the evidence that it's true.
PuroFreak:
When the stats of MA is spending MILLIONS of dollars of their share for the "Edward Kennedy" library and memorial... that is CRAP and in NO WAY helps our economy.
I just don't even know where to begin on that one. You're seriously saying construction projects don't stimulate the economy? Christ on a cracker, Puro. You may not like the fact that it's Kennedy-related, but construction is another one of the most stimulative things the government can spend money on. In economic terms, it doesn't matter what the construction is for. Texas could build the *** Armey Economic Institute, or an elevator to the moon; it would still be construction and it would still be highly stimulative to the economy.
I'm looking for some sources for a responce but I'm also working too so it is going to take a bit, but just a couple points for ya, I never said the republicans are right. If you sift through these posts you will see where I said that even President Bush didn't cut spending like he should have. I never said that was only a democrat problem, that is a government problem in general.
On the last thing you typed, construction doesn't do jack s**t to creat permenant jobs that help the economy in the long run. Once the shrine, to the drunk Sen. from Mass who went out in search of some ass, is built guess what? NO MORE JOB! And I don't care if it is for Teddy or George **** Washington, I don't think that is what we need to be spending tax money on right now.
I'll get you some sources for the rest of this in a bit. Until then, good debating my brothers of the leaf!
PS All Foxnews was reporting in that story was what the bill was being proposed as. It wasn't a commentary on it, it was just the figures and titles that congress has given the bill and all the little parts of it.
I'm looking for some sources for a responce but I'm also working too so it is going to take a bit, but just a couple points for ya, I never said the republicans are right. If you sift through these posts you will see where I said that even President Bush didn't cut spending like he should have. I never said that was only a democrat problem, that is a government problem in general.
Fair enough.
PuroFreak:
On the last thing you typed, construction doesn't do jack s**t to creat permenant jobs that help the economy in the long run. Once the shrine, to the drunk Sen. from Mass who went out in search of some ass
Okay, if it wasn't before, it's now completely obvious that what you object to in that case isn't the spending, but the fact that it's for something Kennedy-related. That's fine, but please don't misrepresent it as being about economics.
PuroFreak:
guess what? NO MORE JOB!
And you think that's a criticism of the stimulus plan? That's the point of the stimulus plan. The point is to provide a short-term boost in demand while the private-sector economy gets itself sorted out and back on its feet. A short-term boost. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. That's why the spending and tax cuts are temporary, not permanent.
Nobody's arguing that the gov't is creating permanent jobs for anybody. That's not even the goal. Never has been. It's never even been represented that way. The goal is to provide jobs until the economy recovers. Once that happens, the private sector will be hiring again instead of laying people off.
This is the most basic of basic Keynesian economics. It's Econ 101. Keynesian stimulus is temporary; always has been, always will be. Nobody but nobody is saying the federal gov't should permanently employ every worker who gets laid off by the private sector. That, too, is basic Keynesian economics. Keynes himself explicitly rejected the very idea.
Honestly, I don't know where you guys on the right get your notions about what's being proposed. It's like you've got this overpowering belief that everybody to your left is really a secret socialist, no matter what they say or do to the contrary. It blinds you so completely to reality that you can't even criticize well. Of course these jobs are temporary. That's all they're intended to be. Nobody's proposing socialism, for Christ's sake.
Urbi Urbi Urbi (shaking my head) Thats what YOU don't get, my point is that government spending to create temporary jobs aren't as effective as stimulating business and consumer spending to create permenant jobs by cutting taxes. I know your plan isn't to make permenant jobs... Thats why I don't believe it is the best way to handle things. If you can create permenant jobs in the private sector now, then you don't have people getting laid off to find new jobs later when the economy is better. You have people making the economy better in new PERMENANT jobs now.
The Sen from Mass thing was an old old joke from a comedian Jay Hickman. It has nothing to do with it being about Kennedy. Damn Urbs lighten up. A guy can crack a joke once in a while during a serious conversation. "There once was a Sen. from Mass, who went out in search of some ass, he luck and found it then f***ed up and drown it, and that was the end of his ass." It's just a joke man, take it easy
Urbi Urbi Urbi (shaking my head) Thats what YOU don't get, my point is that government spending to create temporary jobs aren't as effective as stimulating business and consumer spending to create permenant jobs by cutting taxes. I know your plan isn't to make permenant jobs... Thats why I don't believe it is the best way to handle things. If you can create permenant jobs in the private sector now, then you don't have people getting laid off to find new jobs later when the economy is better. You have people making the economy better in new PERMENANT jobs now.
Fair enough. That would absolutely be better. What would be even better would be if business owners had been doing that over the past decade with all that money they made, but they didn't. They took the tax-cut money, sent the jobs to Mexico or the Third World, banked huge profits rather than re-investing in their businesses, and laundered the money through the Caribbean so they didn't have to pay even their newly-lower taxes on it. They took the money and ran. On what basis do you think they would behave differently now?
That's where I come from on this deal. That's a great theory you've got. But it makes some assumptions about human behavior that just haven't turned out to be true. If the current generation of capitalists behaved the way your theory assumes they will, your theory would work. But if that's how they behaved, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
I had the same experience with Reaganomics. I was a Reagan supporter. His team came in with this new thing called supply-side economics that sounded great. I said, yeah, let's do that. Then it didn't work. It worked in sense that the economy improved in the short-term, but one of its fundamental assumptions -- that the tax-cuts, etc., would grow the economy so much that their cost would be more than offset -- turned out to be false, and we ended up with huge deficits. So while Reagan's approach improved the economy in the short-term, its ultimate effect was bad.
So when I hear conservatives still advocating supply-side economics and declaring Reagan an economic hero, I don't get it. That stuff failed. It sounded great. It was worth a try. But it failed. So let's not repeat the mistake.
To me, that's the situation we're in here. The tax-cuts-create-jobs theory sounds great, but we just tried it and it didn't work. Let's not repeat the mistake.
PuroFreak:
The Sen from Mass thing was an old old joke from a comedian Jay Hickman. It has nothing to do with it being about Kennedy. Damn Urbs lighten up. A guy can crack a joke once in a while during a serious conversation. "There once was a Sen. from Mass, who went out in search of some ass, he luck and found it then f***ed up and drown it, and that was the end of his ass." It's just a joke man, take it easy
Not familiar with the joke. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Comments
I have to say, Puro, that if even Fox News's definition of a tax cut is too liberal for you, you're never going to be happy in this country. Ever. Why do you stay? (That's not a passive-aggressive version of "I wish you'd leave," btw. It's a sincere question.) Well, again, your beef here is with the GOP. Just like they're the ones who wrote a tax bill that made cuts only temporary, they're the ones who wrote the spending bills for six of the past 8 years. That's the period when our deficits exploded (and that's even with their phoney-baloney accounting that didn't include the cost of the wars in the budget), and it's also when the number of earmarks exploded. Even in this continuing resolution you're talking about, 40% of the earmarks are from Republicans. That's not what he said. He said he would go through the budget line by line. This bill is not the budget. It's a continuing resolution. Those are 2 completely different things. He hasn't had a chance to cut pork from a budget, yet, because he hasn't gotten one back from congress yet. He just submitted his proposal last week. Let's see what it looks like when it comes back from congress. If it's got a lot of pork and earmarks in it, let's see what he does about it. If he does nothing, then we can criticize him. Source, please. I'm a fairly well informed guy, and while I've heard people make this accusation, I've never heard anybody back it up. I'm not saying it's false. I'm just saying I've never seen the evidence that it's true. I just don't even know where to begin on that one. You're seriously saying construction projects don't stimulate the economy? Christ on a cracker, Puro. You may not like the fact that it's Kennedy-related, but construction is another one of the most stimulative things the government can spend money on. In economic terms, it doesn't matter what the construction is for. Texas could build the *** Armey Economic Institute, or an elevator to the moon; it would still be construction and it would still be highly stimulative to the economy.
On the last thing you typed, construction doesn't do jack s**t to creat permenant jobs that help the economy in the long run. Once the shrine, to the drunk Sen. from Mass who went out in search of some ass, is built guess what? NO MORE JOB! And I don't care if it is for Teddy or George **** Washington, I don't think that is what we need to be spending tax money on right now.
I'll get you some sources for the rest of this in a bit. Until then, good debating my brothers of the leaf!
PS All Foxnews was reporting in that story was what the bill was being proposed as. It wasn't a commentary on it, it was just the figures and titles that congress has given the bill and all the little parts of it.
Nobody's arguing that the gov't is creating permanent jobs for anybody. That's not even the goal. Never has been. It's never even been represented that way. The goal is to provide jobs until the economy recovers. Once that happens, the private sector will be hiring again instead of laying people off.
This is the most basic of basic Keynesian economics. It's Econ 101. Keynesian stimulus is temporary; always has been, always will be. Nobody but nobody is saying the federal gov't should permanently employ every worker who gets laid off by the private sector. That, too, is basic Keynesian economics. Keynes himself explicitly rejected the very idea.
Honestly, I don't know where you guys on the right get your notions about what's being proposed. It's like you've got this overpowering belief that everybody to your left is really a secret socialist, no matter what they say or do to the contrary. It blinds you so completely to reality that you can't even criticize well. Of course these jobs are temporary. That's all they're intended to be. Nobody's proposing socialism, for Christ's sake.
The Sen from Mass thing was an old old joke from a comedian Jay Hickman. It has nothing to do with it being about Kennedy. Damn Urbs lighten up. A guy can crack a joke once in a while during a serious conversation. "There once was a Sen. from Mass, who went out in search of some ass, he luck and found it then f***ed up and drown it, and that was the end of his ass." It's just a joke man, take it easy
That's where I come from on this deal. That's a great theory you've got. But it makes some assumptions about human behavior that just haven't turned out to be true. If the current generation of capitalists behaved the way your theory assumes they will, your theory would work. But if that's how they behaved, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
I had the same experience with Reaganomics. I was a Reagan supporter. His team came in with this new thing called supply-side economics that sounded great. I said, yeah, let's do that. Then it didn't work. It worked in sense that the economy improved in the short-term, but one of its fundamental assumptions -- that the tax-cuts, etc., would grow the economy so much that their cost would be more than offset -- turned out to be false, and we ended up with huge deficits. So while Reagan's approach improved the economy in the short-term, its ultimate effect was bad.
So when I hear conservatives still advocating supply-side economics and declaring Reagan an economic hero, I don't get it. That stuff failed. It sounded great. It was worth a try. But it failed. So let's not repeat the mistake.
To me, that's the situation we're in here. The tax-cuts-create-jobs theory sounds great, but we just tried it and it didn't work. Let's not repeat the mistake. Not familiar with the joke. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Bailouts and Bull**** 1
Bailouts and Bull**** 2
Bailouts and Bull**** 3
Bailouts and Bull**** 4
Bailouts and Bull**** 5