remorse

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
From Spike's opinion piece:

The problem with tax cuts is that people don't spend them in ways that get the economy moving. The Wall Street Journal reports that only 10 to 20 percent of the money remanded to taxpayers in the 2008 tax rebate actually got spent. The other 80 to 90 percent ended up in people's personal savings, were used to pay off creditors, or were simply absorbed by inflation and higher living costs.
I was under the impression paying down debt, thus improving credit scores and avoiding bankruptcies, was a good thing. Is this guy trying to tell me that it's best to rack up more debt while still keeping around the old debt as well? Debt service is really fucking expensive. Just because the Obama budget can spend literally double what it brings in in income doesn't mean I can do the same. That's a good way to end up with another foreclosure on the books.
 

spike

New Member
i like most people would prefer to bring home more than i do. but to penalize those who do simply BECAUSE they do is twisted. thats the primary reason i support the flat tax. everyone pays the same tax rate period

I think progressive tax has been around since the 1800s. Good luck.

I was under the impression paying down debt, thus improving credit scores and avoiding bankruptcies, was a good thing. Is this guy trying to tell me that it's best to rack up more debt while still keeping around the old debt as well?

No, it looks like they were saying that tax cuts don't get the economy moving as well as other things. It's not advocating racking up more personal debt.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
The way he phrased it, it sure did seem like paying creditors is a bad thing.

I can see where it could be interpreted that way but what I got out of it is that paying off creditors doesn't stimulate the economy, not that it's necessarily a bad thing. :shrug: I thought it was a good point but I still want my tax cut.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
That doesn't sound Jewish. How about I just call you Shlameel? :p :lol2:


will you wear the laverne wig, or the shirley wig?

i got new straps for the pommel horse.

yeah, i figured you'd like that shit.

just call me "master yehouda" and everything will work out fine.
 

H2O boy

New Member
are you personally willing to subsidize someone else? are you willing to take your money and let someone with a lesser job have it just because they work at mcdonalds and you work at where ever you work? is the fact that this person earns a smaller income than you enough in and of itself to compel you to make up the difference?

still avoiding the tough ones i see






I think progressive tax has been around since the 1800s. Good luck.

that doesnt make it right. would you advocate to bring back other things legal in the 1800s?

i thought you were all about change anyway. maybe you dont want to change the tax structure for some reason. wonder what that could be
 

spike

New Member
still avoiding the tough ones i see

You're talking about progressive taxes right? They've been around since the 1800's. Been paying them for a long time.

i thought you were all about change anyway. maybe you dont want to change the tax structure for some reason. wonder what that could be

I'm for changing things that need changing. You seem to be just looking for reasons to whine. I realize you don't like pay taxes and have even advocated breaking the law on that subject. As if you want to pick and chose which laws are important.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565/output/print

A Turning Tide?

Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.


Howard Fineman
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 10, 2009 | Updated: 8:37 a.m. ET Mar 10, 2009

Surfer that he is, President Obama should know a riptide when he's in one. The center usually is the safest, most productive place in politics, but perhaps not now, not in a once-in-a-century economic crisis.

Swimming in the middle, he's denounced as a socialist by conservatives, criticized as a polite accommodationist by government-is-the-answer liberals, and increasingly, dismissed as being in over his head by technocrats.

Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK's. But, in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.

They have some reasons to be concerned. I trace them to a central trait of the president's character: he's not really an in-your-face guy. By recent standards—and that includes Bill Clinton as well as George Bush—Obama for the most part is seeking to govern from the left, looking to solidify and rely on his own party more than woo Republicans. And yet he is by temperament judicious, even judicial. He'd have made a fine judge. But we don't need a judge. We need a blunt-spoken coach.

Obama may be mistaking motion for progress, calling signals for a game plan. A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list. A genial, amenable guy, he likes to appeal to every constituency, or at least not write off any. A beau ideal of Harvard Law, he can't wait to tackle extra-credit answers on the exam.

But there is only one question on this great test of American fate: can he lead us away from plunging into another Depression?

If the establishment still has power, it is a three-sided force, churning from inside the Beltway, from Manhattan-based media and from what remains of corporate America. Much of what they are saying is contradictory, but all of it is focused on the president:

* The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only immediate job-creation.
* The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is too complex and indirect.
* The president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with the "stim" but with the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks.
* The administration is throwing good money after bad in at least two cases—the sinkhole that is Citigroup (there are many healthy banks) and General Motors (they deserve what they get).
* The failure to call for genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical claim that everyone would have to "give up" something.
* A willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial details, from the stim to the vague promise to "reform" medical care without stating what costs could be cut.
* A 2010 budget that tries to do far too much, with way too rosy predictions on future revenues and growth of the economy. This led those who fear we are about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler who'd rather redesign the canoe.
* A treasury secretary who has been ridiculed on "Saturday Night Live" and compared to Doogie Howser, Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in "Home Alone"—and those are the nice ones.
* A seeming paralysis in the face of the banking crisis: unwilling to nationalize banks, yet unable to figure out how to handle toxic assets in another way—by, say, setting up a "bad bank" catch basin.
* A seeming reluctance to seek punishing prosecutions of the malefactors of the last 15 years—and even considering a plea bargain for Bernie Madoff, the poster thief who stole from charities and Nobel laureates and all the grandparents of Boca. Yes, prosecutors are in charge, but the president is entitled—some would say required—to demand harsh justice.
* The president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail, seemingly unwilling or unable to patiently, carefully explain how the world works—or more important, how it failed. Using FDR's fireside chats as a model, Obama needs to explain the banking system in laymen's terms. An ongoing seminar would be great.
* Obama is no socialist, but critics argue that now is not the time for costly, upfront spending on social engineering in health care, energy or education.​

Other than all that, in the eyes of the big shots, he is doing fine. The American people remain on his side, but he has to be careful that the gathering judgment of the Bigs doesn't trickle down to the rest of us.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565
 

H2O boy

New Member
are you personally willing to subsidize someone else? are you willing to take your money and let someone with a lesser job have it just because they work at mcdonalds and you work at where ever you work? is the fact that this person earns a smaller income than you enough in and of itself to compel you to make up the difference?


that doesnt make it right. would you advocate to bring back other things legal in the 1800s?

cat got your tongue?
 

spike

New Member
are you personally willing to subsidize someone else? are you willing to take your money and let someone with a lesser job have it just because they work at mcdonalds and you work at where ever you work? is the fact that this person earns a smaller income than you enough in and of itself to compel you to make up the difference?

"You're talking about progressive taxes right? They've been around since the 1800's. Been paying them for a long time."

Maybe you had trouble undterstanding that so.....Yes, if you consider paying progressive taxes as "subsidizing someone else" then I have been doing it for quite some time and don't have any problem continuing to do so.

that doesnt make it right. would you advocate to bring back other things legal in the 1800s?

Depends on what thing legal in the 1800s you're talking about. Maybe you could relate the logic you used yo translate:

"I think progressive tax has been around since the 1800s. Good luck."

into

"would you advocate to bring back other things legal in the 1800s?"

You see the first sentence relates a fact and wishes you luck getting it changed while the second somehow makes the ridiculous assumption that I want to "bring back things that were legal". How does that work in your mind exactly?
 

spike

New Member
This is not being reverted on and i didn't suggest we revert anything. I just stated the fact that it's been that way since the 1800s and wished you luck getting it changed.

Since we've had a progressive tax since the 1800s we would actually have to revert back to the 1800s to NOT have a progressive tax. This means that it's actually you who is suggesting we revert back to the 1800s. So let me ask you this...

we should revert everything back to the 19th century or just the things you like?
 
Top