ok, ricky when you start sourcing CATO or the Heritage institute then I will listen. NO I don't consider tax breaks spending, I consider Obamacare, EPA, Dept. of Energy, Medicare, Medicaid and all other Federal instutions as spending, It is very simple process, if you bring in 1 dollar revenue and spend 5 you are going to get in trouble, you need to spend .95, even for the cappuccino drinking liberals outside the little cafe should be able to figure that out. Don't care what the tax rate is now, or what the revenue to GDP is, get spending under revenue and when spending has to go up, congress by 2/3 has to approve it.
Lets start there and see what happens.

Rick, there would be no draw on the economy if you take away obamacare, merge departments, and shrink gov't institutions. At the same time lower the tax rate of corporations but take away the loop holes, get business back here, we will never have more revenue(employed people) if all our business's are going across seas. This is a two fold dilema, make true cuts and work on getting jobs back here. We have never made real cuts so nobody really knows the effect, but we do know one thing, our current course is futile.

This is about the 5th time I read that you poo poo's Ronaldus Magnus. Yes, he deficit spent, but for what reason? In the military to bring down one the most "evil" empires in the world and it worked. I didn't see your socialist comrades complaing when the wall came down and who made that possible, wasn't any other nation, no matter how you spin it.
What Ronaldus failed to do was shrink the fed gov't like he wanted to do and bring down costs and that was a function of a democratic congress. One example is he wanted to disband the dept of education, like that institution has worked in the last quarter century. I gave you the CATO link on Reagonomics, did you read it? A slight difference to your ideology on it.

I even sent you or Danivon informationn from wikipedia(not he best) to the effect that even when Kennedy cut taxes it sparked the economy. But like I said you can't have tax cuts or anything else without direct and substantial spending decreases. Now i am all for the gov't getting a reasonable surplus for rainy days or in our case now, rainy decade for helping out the unfortunate or wars but not as an entitlement program where we become a nanny state that we cannot support.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Also, despite popular myth, the US is collecting less taxes as a proportion of GDP than it used to, and so clearly the economy can bear a moderate increase as part of the plans to reduce deficits.

Nice source.

I have already provided sources for this, in the other thread. to help you find them, here are the posts.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=398&start=129
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=398&start=141

In all of them you can see that tax/GDP is low compared to levels since WWII.

You call me stupid (thanks, RJ and Brad for letting DEFIANT in on how polite discourse should go) and in the same breath make an elementary mistake:

It is totally untrue that the bottom 50% pay no Federal taxes. The truth is that about 50% of American households pay no Federal Income Tax. But as you well know, Income Tax is not the only Federal Tax. There are payroll taxes for a start.

Perfect example. You know what Ray Jay meant, but you had to score points on something he didn't mean. We all know the joys of SSI.

I wasn't responding to Ray Jay, I was responding to DEFIANT, who boldly claimed that 50% of people pay no Federal Taxes. If he meant something different, then let him explain that. I have no idea (not being a mind reader) what he meant. All I can see is what he wrote.

Oh, and you say I don't provide sources for my assertions. There's a link in there, in case you missed it.

I am not getting emotional about this debate, at all. I'll leave that to the people who call me names

If you'd start taking people seriously instead of ONLY trying to score cheap points (as with Ray Jay), no one would call you anything. However, the truth is you make all manner of factual assertions (as in this post) without proof. We're just supposed to accept it. You also regularly misinterpret what is written in a manner that just cannot be genuine. You are too smart to be that dumb.

I apologise Steve, for not having repeated the links that backed up my assertions about tax/GDP. Now that I've done it, will you check them out.

DEFIANT wrote:ok, ricky when you start sourcing CATO or the Heritage institute then I will listen.

So, basically, you will only consider as evidence sources from opinion-factories that agree with you already?

Not really an open-minded approach, DEFIANT.

NO I don't consider tax breaks spending

So what do you consider the interest payments on borrowing caused by deficits that result from sending out tax rebate checks?

Don't care what the tax rate is now, or what the revenue to GDP is, get spending under revenue and when spending has to go up, congress by 2/3 has to approve it.
Lets start there and see what happens.

I thought you did very much care about what the tax rate was, and that it was too high. I think both taxation revenue and spending matter, and running a nation (like running any organisation) needs to be done on a slightly less arbitrary basis.

DEFIANT wrote:I even sent you or Danivon informationn from wikipedia(not he best) to the effect that even when Kennedy cut taxes it sparked the economy.

And I have said several times that tax cuts are often a good way to spur the economy and provide a stimulus in weak economic times. So you are preaching to the choir on that limited point.

The problem is that any stimulus effect is limited over time, and that if you don't roll back a stimulus during the good times, you can't use it at the next bad time. It also causes a drain on the budget over time.

Also, if you understand Laffer's Curve, it should become apparent that there is a point at which tax cuts result in reduced revenue, and that as you go down in tax rates, the effect is likely to increase.

Danivon:

The problem is that any stimulus effect is limited over time, and that if you don't roll back a stimulus during the good times, you can't use it at the next bad time. It also causes a drain on the budget over time.

It would be interesting to see a study of how often and under what conditions governments roll back stimuluses (stimuli?), and why they don't. Is it inherent in government spending or is it something that can be controlled? Is the US particularly at risk because of the status of the USD as the reserve currency?

rickyp wrote:This isn't magic. Its adult responsibility.

So, getting back to where we are now, which is all that matters, who gets the responsibility?

I think the results are in. Obama's ratings have hit his all-time low.

You will point to Congress' ratings. I will say "Congress is not on the 2012 balance in the same sense that Obama is." People may not like how "Congress" has been running itself, but each individual race has a different name in it. "Obama" will be on the ballot. "Congress" will not. The re-election rate is always high for Congress and if there is any "change" in this election, it will be to get rid of more of the old guard, not the maligned "Tea Party."

Why? Because most voters (not "most apathetic people who cannot be bothered to vote") know the government spends too much money. "This isn't magic. It's (sic) adult responsibility." We all know that borrowing 40% of the budget is crazy, yet Democrats have simply accepted it as the new normal.

Well, they are willing to "cut the deficit" by minimal increments through raising taxes. At best, that is like using a styptic pencil on a sucking chest wound.

Danivon,
why are you so afraid of the CATO institute or the Heritage Foundation, could it be that they represent the truth and backed up by their facts that do not conform to your ideolody, that's why I suggestedt those two because I knew it would represent a rip in your liberal ideology but I really thought rick would respond not you. You do know that those two are highly reconized as legitimate sources not like your common MSNBC, NBC,CNN, main stream cronies.

Boy you really miss the point of tax cuts with cuts in spending, again, you do not acknowledge spending cuts, why is that, you never respond with a quote from the true idea of tax cuts, why is that?

BTW, I'M SAYING LOUD AN PROUD THE BOTTOM 50% DON'T PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, PROVE ME WRONG.

See Rayjay this is where I have a hard time saying Danivon in not being very *****ight. He does not understand the US's tax system.

Prove to me that 50% of the lower end do pay federal income taxes, good luck in find that fact? ;)

DEFIANT, in case you hadn't noticed, I have already agreed with the assertion that about 50% of American households do not pay net Federal Income Tax. At least I provided a link to that effect which also showed some of the trends.

Demanding I prove something I never asserted is pretty shoddy, as far as it goes.

Oh, on Cato and Heritage, I was not ignoring them, I was pointing out that your own words seem to suggest that unless they agree, then you'll ignore everyone else.

I'm impressed, though, you appear to be out-trolling the very best of our local trolls. Soon this place will be left to them.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, getting back to where we are now, which is all that matters, who gets the responsibility?

I think the results are in. Obama's ratings have hit his all-time low.

Yep, they have. (odd that for all your griping about my posts, you don't provide a source, but what's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander, eh?).

You will point to Congress' ratings. I will say "Congress is not on the 2012 balance in the same sense that Obama is." People may not like how "Congress" has been running itself, but each individual race has a different name in it. "Obama" will be on the ballot. "Congress" will not. The re-election rate is always high for Congress and if there is any "change" in this election, it will be to get rid of more of the old guard, not the maligned "Tea Party."

Actually, seeing as Congress' ratings have been in the toilet for ages, I see that point. Still, 'Generic Democrat' is ahead of 'Generic Republican', which suggests that the GOP have won the public over.

But the real question will be who Obama comes up against (after all, there will be that other name on the ballot who will be running

RCP has the polling:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html

Against a 'generic' Republican, Obama is behind in the average, but the margin is less than 1%

Against named potential candidates, Obama is ahead:

v Romney + 3.1%
v Perry + 10.8%
v Bachmann + 11.2%
v Paul +10.7%
v Cain + 14.7%
v Gingrich + 14.7%
v Huntsman + 14%

The name thing may mean 'Obama' is less popular than 'Democrat', but there does appear to be a problem for the other party too when it comes to picking a candidate. I've missed out of that list Palin who has not declared and Pawlenty who has pulled out after the Iowa straw poll - Giuliani isn't on the page, but he has recently polled ahead of Obama, but what are his chances of getting picked?

A long way to go though.

By the way, the Tea Party is also polling at lows on the polling I've seen:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148940/Tea-P ... ssion.aspx

But what I get is not that Obama is not getting blame, rather that everyone involved is getting blame. That includes Obama, the Congressional Democrats ('Progressive' or 'Blue Dog') and the Congressional Republicans ('Moderates' or 'Tea Party').

But such things don't fit in with your narrative or your partisan desires, Steve.

Overall support for Tea Party movement is now 25%, a new low

Steve, can you explain this trend?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, getting back to where we are now, which is all that matters, who gets the responsibility?

I think the results are in. Obama's ratings have hit his all-time low.

Yep, they have. (odd that for all your griping about my posts, you don't provide a source, but what's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander, eh?).

Weak, even for you, Owen. Everyone has seen those 39% approval ratings by now. Since you are (allegedly) the only politically-aware (presumably) person who is out of the loop, I can't be bothered.

Well, okay, just for you--and the fact that it's just so nice to see the Great Man coming into his own.

Actually, seeing as Congress' ratings have been in the toilet for ages, I see that point. Still, 'Generic Democrat' is ahead of 'Generic Republican', which suggests that the GOP have won the public over.

No, I think you have that a bit backwards, but I understand what you're saying.

Still, I think the GOP expended some capital getting the debt deal. Whether that was wise or not, I cannot say. In the end, I think they extracted some fairly meaningless cuts for a massive increase in the debt ceiling. So, Obama "gets" to keep spending.

However, I think that is a bit of a boomerang. I think this is short-term pain for the GOP. Obama is the one spending the money, talking like a man who wants to spend even more, and then asking for re-election. I don't know if that is a winning formula. I doubt that it is.

But the real question will be who Obama comes up against (after all, there will be that other name on the ballot who will be running

RCP has the polling:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html

Against a 'generic' Republican, Obama is behind in the average, but the margin is less than 1%

Against named potential candidates, Obama is ahead:

v Romney + 3.1%
v Perry + 10.8%
v Bachmann + 11.2%
v Paul +10.7%
v Cain + 14.7%
v Gingrich + 14.7%
v Huntsman + 14%

I'm sorry, but this is all so much tripe. An incumbent with 100% name ID leads candidates, many of whom few know, by those margins? If I was Obama, I would be going extremely negative--which is what he's already doing. Those really aren't good numbers. If you follow Presidential politics, you know a few things: 1. The challenger gets a boost by winning the nomination; 2) the challenger gets a boost by being in the debates (assuming he/she doesn't disgrace himself/herself); 3) the undecided voters break 4:1 or greater for the challenger. I don't think you'll find many incumbents who had such ratings and relatively small gaps over their challengers and then got re-elected.

By the way, the Tea Party is also polling at lows on the polling I've seen:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148940/Tea-P ... ssion.aspx

But what I get is not that Obama is not getting blame, rather that everyone involved is getting blame. That includes Obama, the Congressional Democrats ('Progressive' or 'Blue Dog') and the Congressional Republicans ('Moderates' or 'Tea Party').

But such things don't fit in with your narrative or your partisan desires, Steve.

Not at all Owen. I think about 18% of the electorate views itself as Tea Party. That's fine.

Ask these questions:

1. Do you believe the government should borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends?

2. Which is more true: that taxes are too low or the government spends too much?

3. On federal taxes, what is a "fair" level for "the rich" to pay, understanding that they must pay State and local taxes as well?

4. How do you define "rich?"

I think when these sorts of issues come up, Obama winds up looking like exactly what he is--a free-spending liberal,. who believes the government is the essential problem solver for most every problem. I can't wait for the debates. Instead of a young man spouting platitudes against a wandering old man who refused to engage in debate, we'll have a President defending his miserable record against someone with the facts on his/her side. It will be highly entertaining.

rickyp wrote:

Overall support for Tea Party movement is now 25%, a new low

Steve, can you explain this trend?

I did. I am completely unfazed by this.

"Tea Party" will not be on the ballot. "Obama" will be.

The "Tea Party" isn't responsible, by the time of the election, for what, $6T in new debt? More?

I think "Taxed Enough Already" might make a comeback when people realize a necessary reaction to Obama's penchant for spending will be . . . more taxes.

Obama = "more spending" = "more debt" = "more interest payments" = "more taxes"

Once the electorate is disabused of the fairy tale that "the rich" can be taxed enough to make up for Obama's borrowing, He may be lucky to stay above 30%.

Steve, I did say, in reference to the 'Obama v named Republican' polls that there's a long time to go. It just looks to me like the GOP have a problem in that none of the main challengers for the nomination are doing better than 'generic Republican' against Obama. Sure they will build profile over the next year. But they could also generate more antipathy along the way.

And yes, I suspect there will be a very negative campaign. Obama's guys are doing it. But looking at clips of the debate last week, it was pretty much a given that the Republicans will run a negative campaign too. Oh well.

You haven't 'explained' why the Tea Party approvals have fallen. You've rationalised why it doesn't matter to you. But that's not the same thing. Sure, they are not responsible for the government, but they were partly responsible for the way that the whole debate went on in Congress.

I don't know how the next election will go. Obama has a tough fight (as it appeared that Bush II did in 2004, and Reagan did a year before his re-election), but I don't know that it's going to be so easy to call.