Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread

[Kirkland Laing]

[Kirkland Laing]

[Kirkland Laing]

[Gandalf]

Good chart. It shows you that when taxes are high the economy works better for middle class earners. Real incomes have declined for 40 years, it is no coincidence that this starts with taxes for the rich being depleted. Austerity started 40 years ago and still they are waging the lunatic war.

Tax cuts on the rich don't help the ordinary man. It is in insane logic to assume that it does.

[Gandalf]

I see the tax hike for top earners as a red herring. If it happens it won't personally affect me but it irritates me that it is the center piece of the conversation, particularly b/c it is a drop in the bucket. It raises 80 billion. Great, now where does the other 900 billion come from to balance the budget? Even discretionary spending is a pointless discussion. Until there is a serious discussion on mandatory spending then the whole discussion of debt/deficit reduction is a farce.

Taxing the rich and military spending reduction. It is insane that people say entitlements need to be reduced when military spending is more than pretty much the combined forces of the entire galaxy. Certain issues are just never put on the table.

[VictorCharlie]

I see the tax hike for top earners as a red herring. If it happens it won't personally affect me but it irritates me that it is the center piece of the conversation, particularly b/c it is a drop in the bucket. It raises 80 billion. Great, now where does the other 900 billion come from to balance the budget? Even discretionary spending is a pointless discussion. Until there is a serious discussion on mandatory spending then the whole discussion of debt/deficit reduction is a farce.

Taxing the rich and military spending reduction. It is insane that people say entitlements need to be reduced when military spending is more than pretty much the combined forces of the entire galaxy. Certain issues are just never put on the table.

Miles, you are factually wrong here. We have a 1 trillion dollar deficit. The proposed tax hikes would possibly create 80 billion annually. The bulk (2.5 trillion/60% of budget give or take) of our spending is mandatory spending (entitlements and interest on the debt). Defense (700 billion) falls in discretionary spending (1.3 trillion give or take). So if you got rid of the entire DoD and raised the top marginal rates to 40% w/o no other changes to the tax system you would still have a deficit. In fact even if you got rid of ALL disrectionary spending you would still only be in the break even department. So again if you are not having a discussion about entitlement spending then you are not having an intellectualy honest discussion about reducing debt/deficit. The fact that you have no problem empowering the state to take 80% of another persons income b/c you think they make too much really just confirms your own bigotry. Now Kirk's take is grow the economy to raise the appropriate revenue and he believes it will happen relatively fast with the right amount of focused deficit spending. I'm not personally a fan of keynesian economics but more importantly I'm not as optimistic as Kirk. Let's get the spending pegged at 18% GDP (our historical average of revenue to GDP) and then hope for a miraculous economic boom. I can agree to large defense cuts because they are needed and could compromise to tax hikes but only if entitlements are on the table. W/o them the conversation is pointless. Well unless you think we are about to see some pretty historic economic growth.

[El Kabong]

You know what...fuck taxes, I'm just going to go up to Warren Buffet shoot him in the head and then redistribute his money evenly throughout the land.






.....oh wait you mean the people I'll be giving money to will blow and end up back where they were before they had the money?!?!?