BIGUN 1,053
Recommended Posts
One of the often-overlooked advantages of libertarianism is that it reduces the amount of corruption and the influence of money in government. After all, who wants to influence and corrupt a central state that does not reward them by favorable legal treatment or contracts.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
Gawain 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThis is a George Bush tax hike. It was on his watch that the legislature passed and he signed the bill that put the tax cuts into effect and also dictated that they would be temporary. If Bush and his compatriots had the political will they could have made them permanent. They did not because they did not want to be honest about the tax cuts effect on the deficit long range. So, here we are....
Well that is a nice spin
And I know you believe it
I do believe it. I am an independent (libertarian leaning). Any pretense the republicans have to fiscal sanity, discipline, or cutting spending have gone out the window long ago. At this point the republicans are the party of corporate kleptocracy.
Tell me what is incorrect on this? Bush wanted the tax cuts but had to make them temporary to get them passed, otherwise legislatures would have balked at the effect on the deficit.
Tax cuts are not the issue
(gov revenues have went up after all tax cuts after a period of time)
Spending is
Both parties share the blame IMO
Government revenues go up naturally. The population increases. Inflation. The issue is whether real (adjusted) revenues went up.
Incorrect. Revenues are down, despite a growing population and growing available workforce.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Andy9o8 0
QuoteOne of the often-overlooked advantages of libertarianism is that it reduces the amount of corruption and the influence of money in government.
In theory. But in practical reality, that fails to account for a key variable, and it's the 900 lb gorilla in the room: human nature. Libertarianism won't have true power until it starts getting plenty of Libertarian politicians elected to office. Those Libertarian politicians will be no less human than anyone else. They WANT to get elected, and they will WANT to exert power and influence while in office, they will WANT to get re-elected, and all of that requires HUGE amounts of money. That will subject them to corruption and the influence of money in government; and with all due respect, anyone who thinks Libertarians will be less susceptible to that than others is being a bit naive.
Bolas 5
QuoteQuoteOne of the often-overlooked advantages of libertarianism is that it reduces the amount of corruption and the influence of money in government.
In theory. But in practical reality, that fails to account for a key variable, and it's the 900 lb gorilla in the room: human nature. Libertarianism won't have true power until it starts getting plenty of Libertarian politicians elected to office. Those Libertarian politicians will be no less human than anyone else. They WANT to get elected, and they will WANT to exert power and influence while in office, they will WANT to get re-elected, and all of that requires HUGE amounts of money. That will subject them to corruption and the influence of money in government; and with all due respect, anyone who thinks Libertarians will be less susceptible to that than others is being a bit naive.
Unless once the Libertarians get in and start continuously exposing the corruption and work to plug the loopholes that allow it to occur. That would cause the amounts of $$$ it takes to get elected/reelected to drop sharply.
Once the federal stimulus money starts drying up, we may start seeing corporations and other special interest groups backing Libertarian candidates. As long as the philosophy of the corporation/group is limited gov't intervention, it will simple be a synergy and not a conflict of interest like so many today.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteUnless once the Libertarians get in and start continuously exposing the corruption and work to plug the loopholes that allow it to occur. That would cause the amounts of $$$ it takes to get elected/reelected to drop sharply.
Never
ever
happen.
Quote
Unless once the Libertarians get in and start continuously exposing the corruption and work to plug the loopholes that allow it to occur. That would cause the amounts of $$$ it takes to get elected/reelected to drop sharply.
The commies have convincingly proven Andy's stance to be correct.
carmenc 0
QuoteTake your pick
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/The-Three-Biggest-Myths-About-Tax-Cuts-and-the-Budget-Deficit
This one is more of an interesting discussion
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/05/national-review-debunks.html
This one is just for Lucky
http://old.nationalreview.com/reagan/roberts200406101413.asp
Look through these where you will find arguments for both sides but, compare the words on one side against the data on the other
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=us+record+tax+revenues&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Did you read those articles?
Your first link shows that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for 14% of the deficit increase.
Your second link includes:
"There is no evidence that the tax cuts on net produced more revenue than the Treasury would have realized without them. That claim could be true — if we were to credit most or all of the economic growth during the period in question to tax cuts, but that is an awfully big claim, one that no serious economist would be likely to entertain. It’s a just-so story, a bedtime fairy tale Republicans tell themselves to shake off fear of the deficit bogeyman. It’s whistling past the fiscal graveyard. But this kind of talk is distressingly unremarkable in Republican political circles."
Nothing you linked showed that real revenues increased after inflation and population growth were taken into account.
Tf15 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThis is a George Bush tax hike. It was on his watch that the legislature passed and he signed the bill that put the tax cuts into effect and also dictated that they would be temporary. If Bush and his compatriots had the political will they could have made them permanent. They did not because they did not want to be honest about the tax cuts effect on the deficit long range. So, here we are....
Well that is a nice spin
And I know you believe it
I do believe it. I am an independent (libertarian leaning). Any pretense the republicans have to fiscal sanity, discipline, or cutting spending have gone out the window long ago. At this point the republicans are the party of corporate kleptocracy.
Tell me what is incorrect on this? Bush wanted the tax cuts but had to make them temporary to get them passed, otherwise legislatures would have balked at the effect on the deficit.
Tax cuts are not the issue
(gov revenues have went up after all tax cuts after a period of time)
Spending is
Both parties share the blame IMO
Government revenues go up naturally. The population increases. Inflation. The issue is whether real (adjusted) revenues went up.
Revenues are down, despite a growing population and growing available workforce.
So rushmc was wrong, then. The tax cuts didn't increase govt. revenues. There goes that argument.
Three times is enemy action
mnealtx 0
QuoteNothing you linked showed that real revenues increased after inflation and population growth were taken into account.
Since you (like kallend) mention this, I'm sure that you have the countervailing information to prove that false?
I'm also sure that your information will show the increase of the number of TAXPAYERS and not the overall population increase, of course.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteRegardless of all thebantering about who is more at fault. I think, and have been stating such here, that there is no other optioni for the US to raise taxes if they want to emerge from their current dire situation.
They will also have to try and curtail spending, though history has shown most countries to be unable to do so.
I predict this just to be the start of increased taxes and fees. You can only run up the debt for so long until you actually have to start paying it off.
Try telling that to the fucking RETARDS who want MORE fucking tax cuts.
At some point SOMEONE has to pay the bills.. I guess the current crop of CONSERVETURDS can't seem to figure that out nasty little fact out in the Party of FAKE Fiscal Responsibilty.
I swear to GOD the fucktards want someone ELSE to pay for all the things they EXPECT.. like the TEA PARTY ASSCLOWNS.... who want to cut entitlements... till someone points out that THEY are recieving entitlements
Calm down how the hell do you get away with all the PA? IE fucking retards, assclowns, fucktards, etc its obvious you are always using this directed towards the republican posters
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,
Bolas 5
It's GA, not PA.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Amazon 7
QuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of all thebantering about who is more at fault. I think, and have been stating such here, that there is no other optioni for the US to raise taxes if they want to emerge from their current dire situation.
They will also have to try and curtail spending, though history has shown most countries to be unable to do so.
I predict this just to be the start of increased taxes and fees. You can only run up the debt for so long until you actually have to start paying it off.
Try telling that to the fucking RETARDS who want MORE fucking tax cuts.
At some point SOMEONE has to pay the bills.. I guess the current crop of CONSERVETURDS can't seem to figure that out nasty little fact out in the Party of FAKE Fiscal Responsibilty.
I swear to GOD the fucktards want someone ELSE to pay for all the things they EXPECT.. like the TEA PARTY ASSCLOWNS.... who want to cut entitlements... till someone points out that THEY are recieving entitlements
Calm down how the hell do you get away with all the PA? IE fucking retards, assclowns, fucktards, etc its obvious you are always using this directed towards the republican posters
The GROUP of ASSCLOWNS that put this "agenda" out are just another SHILL group for rePUBIClown politics as usual.... look up their tie ins with "K street" and Jack Abramoff
So.. more tax cuts... yeah thats the ticket... lets bury the fucking country in perpetual debt
BIGUN 1,053
QuoteIt’s a just-so story, a bedtime fairy tale Republicans tell themselves to shake off fear of the deficit bogeyman. It’s whistling past the fiscal graveyard. But this kind of talk is distressingly unremarkable in Republican political circles."
Nothing you linked showed that real revenues increased after inflation and population growth were taken into account.
Here ya go... knock yourself out.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.
carmenc 0
QuoteQuoteIt’s a just-so story, a bedtime fairy tale Republicans tell themselves to shake off fear of the deficit bogeyman. It’s whistling past the fiscal graveyard. But this kind of talk is distressingly unremarkable in Republican political circles."
Nothing you linked showed that real revenues increased after inflation and population growth were taken into account.
Here ya go... knock yourself out.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts
That doesn't show gov revenues increasing following the tax cuts after inflation and population growth are taken into account.
Rushmc's own links proved him wrong on that score too. Even the Heritage Foundation admitted that the tax cuts are responsible for 14% of the growth in the deficit. Gawain also told us that revenues are down just a few posts ago.
carmenc 0
QuoteQuoteNothing you linked showed that real revenues increased after inflation and population growth were taken into account.
Since you (like kallend) mention this, I'm sure that you have the countervailing information to prove that false?
I'm also sure that your information will show the increase of the number of TAXPAYERS and not the overall population increase, of course.
According to Gawain, "Revenues are down, despite a growing population and growing available workforce."
IMO, until a balanced budget constitutional amendment is passed and/or the government is forced to do zero-based budgeting, rather than the current incremental budgeting methodology the problem and party accusations will continue.
Even while in the military, each year, there was a mad dash to spend money by October 1st "so we don't lose our budget funding for next year!" Silliness.
While there are stated advantages to incremental budgeting, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages:
Seriously, has anyone ever even seen the US Government's Organizational Chart and the number of redundant activities compounded with the OrgCharts of State Agencies and divisions? http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml
If I ran for President, it would be on the platform of re-organizing, downsizing and eliminating government agencies. Of course, I would lose because so many people work for federal or State agencies and no one working there would want to hear the term, "downsizing."
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites