PDA

View Full Version : taxing vs borrowing



llotter
08-01-2011, 07:26 PM
Friedman says that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend. So, the Stupid Party gives The Moron a $2.5 trillion credit line to buy every voter in the country.

Bad deal for conservatives.

Gayle in MD
08-02-2011, 04:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Friedman says that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend. So, the Stupid Party gives The Moron a $2.5 trillion credit line to buy every voter in the country.

Bad deal for conservatives. </div></div>

Only a moron like Milton would say something that stupid.

He was the Fascist who promoted The Shock doctrine.

He destroyed Chile.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
08-02-2011, 05:05 AM
What about this one:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Try a spending surge, because deficits don't matter"</span>
-Barack Hussein Obama Junior- </div></div>

GOOD GOLLY! (http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/view.php/42029/deficits-don-t-matter-wrong-obama.)

cushioncrawler
08-02-2011, 05:53 AM
I think tax and spend iz about equal to borrow and spend. Praps not equal if the borrowing iz from overseas.
But if i were king there would be no borrowing and no taxing.
Milton wouldnt understand.
mac.

eg8r
08-02-2011, 06:34 AM
I always thought gayle was referring to Obama when she would quote "deficits don't matter". /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

llotter
08-02-2011, 11:00 AM
The line between being silly and being stupid is usually pretty wide but you and softie manage to straddle the divide with no trouble at all. You both unfailingly attack the messenger with lies and half-truths and usually an excess of words. I still enjoy reading your posts, however, just as much as enjoy Dilbert every morning.

Soflasnapper
08-02-2011, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What about this one:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Try a spending surge, because deficits don't matter"</span>
-Barack Hussein Obama Junior- </div></div>

GOOD GOLLY! (http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/view.php/42029/deficits-don-t-matter-wrong-obama.)
</div></div>

This is a paraphrase disguised as a quote, a common trick we see from you, although to be fair, it is sometimes unclear that you know the difference.

Since this is a dynamite 'quote,' I thought it would show up in a search. What I found was your citation, and one other, referring to a Meet the Press appearance by the president where he didn't say this at all, but it was paraphrased as the heading as supposedly exactly what he meant.

If you wish to be accurate (RIIIIIIGHT!), you will not use this as a purported quotation any longer, as those words were never spoken by him. Or you could show us where he DID say that, with better documentation.

LWW
08-02-2011, 12:05 PM
Your internet must not use the google.

MINE DOES (http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/view.php/42029/deficits-don-t-matter-wrong-obama.)


Anything else I can help you with?

What's funny is that you seem to believe that since your attempts at prestidigitation fool charlotte, snoopy, and stench then they must fool everyone.

Soflasnapper
08-02-2011, 01:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Friedman says that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend. So, the Stupid Party gives The Moron a $2.5 trillion credit line to buy every voter in the country.

Bad deal for conservatives. </div></div>

Heard a common sense country guy giving Hannity the business on this issue. Goes like this:

If we've had good upbringings, we've been taught we need to pay our bills. America has been under the spell of a theory that we can continue to spend without paying fully for our spending, because borrow and spend is the same (really, better) than tax and spend. Wrong.

This man said the ONLY way to get the American people ready to trim the spending is to tax them for it fully. No discounts, getting 33% off of spending by not paying for it with taxation, via borrowing the difference.

We've had an equivalent of a sale on spending. A reduced price of spending leads to a greater demand for spending. A higher price for spending will reduce the public's tolerance for it.

And the TParty refuses.

LWW
08-02-2011, 04:24 PM
That is so wrong headed I don't know where to start.

The answer is to not spend as much.

We cannot raise taxes high enough to fix this without spending.

According to FORBES there are 449 US billionaires. Let's assess an additional $1,000,000.00 tax against them for 2011.

There are also supposedly 2,886,200 US millionaires. Let's assess them an extra $1,000,000.00 this year.

Combined, you have raised a tad over $3,335B.

That would balance the US budget for 2011/12 ... and completely decimate the US economy as well as cause a flight of currency and wealth out of this country unlike anything ever witnessed in the history of the world.

Next myth please.

Soflasnapper
08-03-2011, 03:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is so wrong headed I don't know where to start.

The answer is to not spend as much.

We cannot raise taxes high enough to fix this without spending.

According to FORBES there are 449 US billionaires. Let's assess an additional $1,000,000.00 tax against them for 2011.

There are also supposedly 2,886,200 US millionaires. Let's assess them an extra $1,000,000.00 this year.

Combined, you have raised a tad over $3,335B.

That would balance the US budget for 2011/12 ... and completely decimate the US economy as well as cause a flight of currency and wealth out of this country unlike anything ever witnessed in the history of the world.

Next myth please. </div></div>

Your myth, right there.

Combined, you have raised a tad over <s>$3,335B</s> $2,886.649B

You must have not remembered your talking point, which you parroted incorrectly.

What's in discussion is returning to Clinton's rates, which takes an additional $1 trillion from the top brackets over 10 years. This by no means solves the problem (nor does it cause calamity or capital flight, by historical evidence) but is a sizable amount of money still.

Tax breaks, preferred tax rates, subsidies to everyone through the tax code, big and small, added up net negative to the Treasury an amount almost equal to the whole deficit amount-- $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures, this year alone. Goes up every year.

As Alice Rivlin explained, with the weak economy, we should not increase the tax burden any more than we should decrease spending. But both tax expenditures and spending must be ramped down over time, once the economy is sound enough to bear the drag on demand.

Over the long term, if we get the deficit to 2.5 or 3% of gdp, that is likely sustainable.

Ron Paul has a proposal to have the Treasury debt bought by the Fed in one or more of the QEs just retired, unpaid. Torn up, more or less. Sounds crazy, but he's gaining supporters. It is trillions of dollars, so by itself, it would substantially reduce our total debt, and put us far below the old ceiling, and still further below the $2.5 trillion extension.

Why is that remotely conceivable? The Federal government is really the beneficial owner of those bonds, right now. All net proceeds from them will be returned to the Treasury, by law. So rather than pay the coupon yield and then get it back, just cancel the instrument.

LWW
08-03-2011, 04:24 AM
Obviously the meaning of the word combined confused you.

Now ... if you can't solve the problem by taking "MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES" and bankrupting them, how are you going to solve the problem by raising taxes a few percent. Especially when history shows that such increases in rate actually decreases total revenue.

Your point was we can fix this by taxation of the rich.

My point is that you can't even come close to fixing it by taxation of the rich.

You argue that I'm wrong ... by agreeing with my contention that we can't even come close to fixing it by taxation of the rich, while desperately continuing to claim that we can fix this by taxation of the rich.

Wow. Just WOW!

Qtec
08-03-2011, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now ... if you can't solve the problem by taking "MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES" and<span style='font-size: 14pt'> bankrupting them,</span> </div></div>

Who is advocating that? Geez, don't get so hysterical.

Q

LWW
08-03-2011, 05:15 AM
Nobody you insufferable nit.

The point was that no level of taxation can fix this problem ... get it through your anesthetized brain that their aren't enough rich to tax in order to solve this, even if you took unimaginable amounts from them.

The problem is that your beloved state raped the last generation, is raping this generation, is raping their children, and is sentencing future generations to rape ... and the moonbat crazy left is cheering it on.

Gayle in MD
08-03-2011, 09:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What about this one:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Try a spending surge, because deficits don't matter"</span>
-Barack Hussein Obama Junior- </div></div>

GOOD GOLLY! (http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/view.php/42029/deficits-don-t-matter-wrong-obama.)
</div></div>

This is a paraphrase disguised as a quote, a common trick we see from you, although to be fair, it is sometimes unclear that you know the difference.

Since this is a dynamite 'quote,' I thought it would show up in a search. What I found was your citation, and one other, referring to a Meet the Press appearance by the president where he didn't say this at all, but it was paraphrased as the heading as supposedly exactly what he meant.

If you wish to be accurate (RIIIIIIGHT!), you will not use this as a purported quotation any longer, as those words were never spoken by him. Or you could show us where he DID say that, with better documentation.

</div></div>

Yes, the usual RW lamebrain tactic, ascribing a stupid statement made by a Repiglican, to a Democrat.

"The deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

Is our children on here learning, as George Bush would say?

Nope!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Soflasnapper
08-03-2011, 11:23 AM
Obviously the meaning of the word combined confused you.

HA! You still don't get it when I do the math?

Your $449 MILLION should have been $449 BILLION to make your claim work. I tell you, show you the actual sum, and you think I made a mistake? Box of rocks? McFly? McFly? LOL.

I never mentioned anything about restricting the tax increases to millionaires and billionaires. If the Clinton era rates were applied to the people under the top bracket, the 10 year figure is $3 trillion, on top of the $1 trillion gained by that hike on the top bracket.

And you missed the other point, even though it was fairly clear.

No, you cannot do this all with tax hikes. You cannot do this all with tax hikes on the rich, either, as a subset of the first cannot.

However, with tax hikes across the board, which begin to take you in the right direction a bit, you can decrease the public's appetite for the spending, bringing that down more easily with less resistance. The one leads to the other.

That was the point of the caller. Not a futile try to make up all the difference in tax hikes, but using the tax hikes to re-educate the taxpayers as to the real cost of the level of spending they favor. Paying full price for that, instead of getting a discount (by being taxed far less than spending), decreases demand for spending, as should be obvious. Something costs more, people demand it less.

llotter
08-03-2011, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Friedman says that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend. So, the Stupid Party gives The Moron a $2.5 trillion credit line to buy every voter in the country.

Bad deal for conservatives. </div></div>

Heard a common sense country guy giving Hannity the business on this issue. Goes like this:

If we've had good upbringings, we've been taught we need to pay our bills. America has been under the spell of a theory that we can continue to spend without paying fully for our spending, because borrow and spend is the same (really, better) than tax and spend. Wrong.

This man said the ONLY way to get the American people ready to trim the spending is to tax them for it fully. No discounts, getting 33% off of spending by not paying for it with taxation, via borrowing the difference.

We've had an equivalent of a sale on spending. A reduced price of spending leads to a greater demand for spending. A higher price for spending will reduce the public's tolerance for it.

And the TParty refuses. </div></div>

I don't know what Hannity said in response but obviously that 'common sense country guy' as you called him, lacked any common sense at all.

If it were only true that people paid their bills, we wouldn't have nay problem at all. But the theory we have actually been operating under is one that allows half the people can ride for free and another 40% can ride for half fare. So that dumb country guy's upbringing did not cover the truth that he, do doubt, is riding for free and expects his benefactors to work harder so he can continue to reap the all benefits without paying at all.

There is nothing more obnoxious than a blowhard free-rider complaining that others aren't paying enough. And to add insult to injury, he bases his logic on how everyone should pay their bills. Not, that fact that you labeled this idiot as a 'common sense' guy, says much about you as anything.

Gayle in MD
08-03-2011, 12:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Friedman says that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend. So, the Stupid Party gives The Moron a $2.5 trillion credit line to buy every voter in the country.

Bad deal for conservatives. </div></div>

Heard a common sense country guy giving Hannity the business on this issue. Goes like this:

If we've had good upbringings, we've been taught we need to pay our bills. America has been under the spell of a theory that we can continue to spend without paying fully for our spending, because borrow and spend is the same (really, better) than tax and spend. Wrong.

This man said the ONLY way to get the American people ready to trim the spending is to tax them for it fully. No discounts, getting 33% off of spending by not paying for it with taxation, via borrowing the difference.

We've had an equivalent of a sale on spending. A reduced price of spending leads to a greater demand for spending. A higher price for spending will reduce the public's tolerance for it.

And the TParty refuses. </div></div>

I don't know what Hannity said in response but obviously that 'common sense country guy' as you called him, lacked any common sense at all.

If it were only true that people paid their bills, we wouldn't have nay problem at all. But the theory we have actually been operating under is one that allows half the people can ride for free and another 40% can ride for half fare. So that dumb country guy's upbringing did not cover the truth that he, do doubt, is riding for free and expects his benefactors to work harder so he can continue to reap the all benefits without paying at all.

There is nothing more obnoxious than a blowhard free-rider complaining that others aren't paying enough. And to add insult to injury, he bases his logic on how everyone should pay their bills. Not, that fact that you labeled this idiot as a 'common sense' guy, says much about you as anything.

</div></div>

LOL, Bush didn't pay anny of his charges on the Naitional credit card he ran up like nobody ever has.

You righties fail to notice that we're STILL paying down BUSH'S DEBTS, WITH INTEREST! And the accumulating loss in revenue due to the devastation of the Bush Tax Cuts!!!

Add it up Sherlock! Oh, that's right, forgot you righties can't add, either.

LOL, the fact that you yap about liberty, yet you admit to invading other people's personal space, (breaking Federal Laws in doing so, BTW) and intruding your unsought views into their lives, during a personal, private moment, proves how ignorant of the laws and the Constitution you are.... and how hypocritical you are when you pretend to understand the COTUS!

No wonder you don't understand economics.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif