champu 1 #26 August 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteTax cuts do not pay for themselves. Remember the childhood riddle, "How much dirt is there in a hole five feet wide, four feet long, and three feet deep?" Answer: "None. It's a hole." That's a neat analogy Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #27 August 10, 2010 Tax cuts pay for themselves when appropriate SPENDING cuts are also made. Spending in anticipation of money you might possibly have if people react a certain way isn't an economically sound policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #28 August 10, 2010 >Tax cuts pay for themselves when appropriate SPENDING cuts are also made. Agreed. Tax and spending cuts are great. Tax cuts when spending is increased leads to financial ruin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 August 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTax cuts do not pay for themselves. Remember the childhood riddle, "How much dirt is there in a hole five feet wide, four feet long, and three feet deep?" Answer: "None. It's a hole." That's a neat analogy, now show thru history how tax cuts have been beneficial. Oh, you can't. Thanks. But you still haven't shown because you can't. I'll take that as an admission that tax cuts are not beneficial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 August 11, 2010 QuoteTax cuts pay for themselves when appropriate SPENDING cuts are also made. Spending in anticipation of money you might possibly have if people react a certain way isn't an economically sound policy. So if there are SS shortfalls, then we must say, "sorry old folks, you'll have to die,but feel assured you're helping us out and future gens as well." This isn't about personal finance where thenew boat is gonna have to wait, this is about paying for need to avoid sufferring. Unfortunatley it is also about building the most grottesque military in all of history andthere inlies the biggest problem. At teh same time, that corporate welfare scheme does produce jobs, but when we left our model as a manufacturer and started this peacetime M.I.C., cut taxes to manufacture a few millionaires and therefore many poor people who real HC. The problem is many-fold, but it has some constants and one is that regardless of spending, when taxes are as low as tehy are now, disaster is immenent. Can you show me a time where taxes are this low and economic tomes were ok? You'd have to go before WWI, so that makes it irrelevant as we had an entire different economy, different society, unless you say you wish we went back to those times, then you'd be being a Libertarian/Republican regressive. Taxes were just slightly lower in the 1920's, the financial crisis hit and no one raised taxes, no one deficit spent and we endured all kinds of sufferring until taxes were raised. I just can't see any support for your and other's argument that low taxes = good times. But still the Libertarian cult rant goes on.....tax cuts, my friends.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 August 11, 2010 Quote>Tax cuts pay for themselves when appropriate SPENDING cuts are also made. Agreed. Tax and spending cuts are great. Tax cuts when spending is increased leads to financial ruin. And they had teh sense to realize that engagement into proxy wars meant taxes in the 80-90% range. They still wanted the proxy wars and/or MIC spending, yet they thought that they could cut taxes when the fascist pig entered office. Since then we've beeen screwed. I bet before FR the rich weren't such war-mongers, as it meant that it cost them big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #32 August 11, 2010 If there are SS shortfalls, then the government needs to either cut SS or make cuts elsewhere to make up for the shortfall. Pulling money out of thin air and saying "we'll pay for it later" is a bad idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #33 August 11, 2010 QuoteIf there are SS shortfalls, then the government needs to either cut SS or make cuts elsewhere to make up for the shortfall. Pulling money out of thin air and saying "we'll pay for it later" is a bad idea. continuing to release moneys from the SS fund for reasons not intended is the reason they are having issues with soso security. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #34 August 12, 2010 QuoteIf there are SS shortfalls, then the government needs to either cut SS or make cuts elsewhere to make up for the shortfall. Pulling money out of thin air and saying "we'll pay for it later" is a bad idea. www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html Retirement trust fund is solvent until 2037. crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/social-security-trustees-report-no-socia... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 August 12, 2010 "Tax receipts will dip below outlays before then" Solvent doesn't mean it won't add to the annual deficit. Instead of subsidizing wars and stimulus giveaways, it will draw away money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 August 12, 2010 QuoteIf there are SS shortfalls, then the government needs to either cut SS or make cuts elsewhere to make up for the shortfall. Pulling money out of thin air and saying "we'll pay for it later" is a bad idea. As I said and you guys get pissed when I refer to Libertarians as sociopaths. I'm not PAing, I just want to know how you label a person/group of people who think you can just throw out old folks onto the streets; THEY SHOULD HAVE SAVED MONEY WHEN THEY WERE YOUNGER. Jesus fucking Christ, are you serious? Make cuts to SS - sounds so clinical until you realize that in simple English it means granny, who has $47 a month left over anyway, would lose her means of existence and be on the streets. Hey, I know, for fun let's go and terrorize old people; are you in? Sociopth: W/o a conscience. If they had to make cuts in SS they should make them by revoking it from rich people worth over X amount or who still earn at SS age, X amount. But I know you don't mean that, you mean just accross the board in typical Libertarian Anarchist fashion: Go Ron Paul. Libertarian Anarchists sound so reasonable and all their ideas sound so pallatable so long as you don't look at the real-life applications. and consequences; they're just sociopathic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf there are SS shortfalls, then the government needs to either cut SS or make cuts elsewhere to make up for the shortfall. Pulling money out of thin air and saying "we'll pay for it later" is a bad idea. continuing to release moneys from the SS fund for reasons not intended is the reason they are having issues with soso security. Yea, it's not teh aging population growing and fewer young people paying into it and HC costs skyrocketing due to no/insufficient cost controls - no way. As long as doc can afford both his Porches and all 3 whores as well as, of course hius mansion, then I'm good withit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #38 August 12, 2010 Quote Quote Quote If there are SS shortfalls, then the government needs to either cut SS or make cuts elsewhere to make up for the shortfall. Pulling money out of thin air and saying "we'll pay for it later" is a bad idea. continuing to release moneys from the SS fund for reasons not intended is the reason they are having issues with soso security. Yea, it's not teh aging population growing and fewer young people paying into it and HC costs skyrocketing due to no/insufficient cost controls - no way. As long as doc can afford both his Porches and all 3 whores as well as, of course hius mansion, then I'm good withit. Your big green monster shows his ugly head yet agian"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #39 August 12, 2010 Quote"Tax receipts will dip below outlays before then" Solvent doesn't mean it won't add to the annual deficit. Instead of subsidizing wars and stimulus giveaways, it will draw away money. Dissing Clinton requires not including SS in the deficit/surplus.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #40 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf there are SS shortfalls, then the government needs to either cut SS or make cuts elsewhere to make up for the shortfall. Pulling money out of thin air and saying "we'll pay for it later" is a bad idea. continuing to release moneys from the SS fund for reasons not intended is the reason they are having issues with soso security. Yea, it's not teh aging population growing and fewer young people paying into it and HC costs skyrocketing due to no/insufficient cost controls - no way. As long as doc can afford both his Porches and all 3 whores as well as, of course hius mansion, then I'm good withit. the democrats have added several different things to what social security has to pay out, it no longer pays only to those that pay in. the health care bill take millions out of social security. just because you don't have a porche and 3 whores doesn't mean the doctor that spent 10 years in school and spent several hundred thousand in tuition shouldn't have a few nice things. This is america not a socialist country, this is how things are here, the harder you work the more you can have, if you don't like it leave. we don't want a socialist society. and we don't want to pay for the lazy asshats the want to sit on their couches and get everying they have not worked for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuote"Tax receipts will dip below outlays before then" Solvent doesn't mean it won't add to the annual deficit. Instead of subsidizing wars and stimulus giveaways, it will draw away money. Dissing Clinton requires not including SS in the deficit/surplus. What does Clinton have to do with this? Nothing. The running surplus, about to end, since Reagan jacked the FICA rate in the early 80s has subsidized government debt. While we can pretend that this is a trust fund and it's perfectly solvent to right around my retirement age, the truth is that it will be a red ink program that wasn't before, and that has budget implications. Pay as you go means pain, esp when if we don't address the decreasing ratio of retired/workers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #42 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuote"Tax receipts will dip below outlays before then" Solvent doesn't mean it won't add to the annual deficit. Instead of subsidizing wars and stimulus giveaways, it will draw away money. Dissing Clinton requires not including SS in the deficit/surplus. Social Security should have been left as it was and not drawn upon or bargained against, so you are correct. It should not be included.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #43 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote"Tax receipts will dip below outlays before then" Solvent doesn't mean it won't add to the annual deficit. Instead of subsidizing wars and stimulus giveaways, it will draw away money. Dissing Clinton requires not including SS in the deficit/surplus. What does Clinton have to do with this? Nothing. (A) See Turtle's response. (B) Standard GOP riposte to "Clinton balanced the budget" is to deny it because of the SS contribution. So if you don't include it in 1999-2000 you shouldn't include it now, in the interests of consistency. Simple really, I'm surprised you had to ask.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote"Tax receipts will dip below outlays before then" Solvent doesn't mean it won't add to the annual deficit. Instead of subsidizing wars and stimulus giveaways, it will draw away money. Dissing Clinton requires not including SS in the deficit/surplus. What does Clinton have to do with this? Nothing. (A) See Turtle's response. (B) Standard GOP riposte to "Clinton balanced the budget" is to deny it because of the SS contribution. So if you don't include it in 1999-2000 you shouldn't include it now, in the interests of consistency. Simple really, I'm surprised you had to ask. a) reply to turtle then. b) has no bearing on your statement that SS is solvent until 2037, or my response to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #45 August 12, 2010 Just because you can't see a connection doesn't mean there isn't one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 August 12, 2010 QuoteJust because you can't see a connection doesn't mean there isn't one. And just because you see one doesn't mean it actually exists. Al Gore covered this topic 10 years ago. Catch up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #47 August 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteJust because you can't see a connection doesn't mean there isn't one. And just because you see one doesn't mean it actually exists. Yes, I see a connection between the accounting of SS in the surplus/deficit in 1999 and the accounting of SS in the surplus/deficit in 2010. Since I am arguing for consistency in deciding whether SS is included in the deficit or not and you are disagreeing with me, you clearly prefer inconsistency in accounting. OK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 August 13, 2010 Loans from one portion of government to another portion of government still have to be repaid.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #49 August 13, 2010 QuoteLoans from one portion of government to another portion of government still have to be repaid. Did I write that they didn't? All I'm asking for is CONSISTENCY. Account for SS the same way in 1999 as in 2010. In 1999 SS produced an excess of income over expenditures but the right objected to counting it because it made Clinton look good. Now that SS has a shortfall the right wants to count it so that it makes Obama look bad.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #50 August 14, 2010 That's simple not true. Actually or metaphorically. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
