Forum:Manic progressives and the tax cut


 * I can explain this. There are a large number of dipshit liberal bloggers who seriously hate Obama for reasons they can't fully articulate. There are a couple of names for them - "manic progressives" is a particularly descriptive one. Anyway, after the tax compromise, these folks got so upset that they decided they were going to primary Obama to push him to the left...somehow. All the names on the CP list are people who have been mentioned, with Feingold being a particularly popular one. Most of the work on that section has been done by Rob Smith, who I'm sure keeps tabs on sites like DailyKos and would know this. Colonel of Squirrels医药是医药，和那个不是医药. 19:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me, in two years time no one will be thinking of the tax cut extensions. It's not like it was a core liberal tenet anyway; if the budget were balanced and it wasn't eating into specific other liberal policies no one would care. It's not like the Iraq war or anything. Also, victories with DADT and START sort of put things in perspective. Obama would probably not have got those victories if he spent the lame duck session fighting on the tax law. DickTurpis (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand why they made list--even though the 'liberal backlash' is a myth--but I can't comprehend the rankings. Most glaring, Bernie Sanders is currently ineligible for the nomination since he's not registered as a Democrat.  You'd have to be very deluded to think Obama doesn't have a lock on the nomination.   --Leotardo (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh goody. The payroll tax holiday is the only tax most working class scum & cp:lumpenproletariat pay. A recent CBO report says, "In calendar year 2010 (i.e., now) Social Security's outlays (i.e. b enefits) will exceed tax revenues (i.e. the payroll tax) (that is, the trust funds' receipts excluding interest) for the first time since the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983."
 * Now, since the GOP's only consistent stand is for tax cuts, and against tax increases, imagine in two years during an election cycle when Obama & the Dems want to allow tax increases to expire on the poor, the lumpenproletariat, those least able to afford it. How then, will benefits be paid? The payroll tax is not now meeting the payments, per the CBO. nobsdon't bother me 22:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Firefly was another example of a failed attempt to bring science fiction back into the mainstream primetime market, yet despite all the attempts of cp:fanboys to keep it for a full season and beyond, the show failed miserably and was dropped by Fox. Nevertheless, within a few years, Serenity, a full length movie was made, taking up where this failed series ended. This is nearly unprecedented; the only comparable example is Police Squad, which ran less than half a dozen episodes and was made into a successful Naked Gun franchise. A different studio picked up the film this time, and wasn't allowed to use the same title of even the sets, which had to be reconstructed in their entirety. Serenity, like the show that spawned it, failed, while The Naked Gun led to 2 successful sequels. Is there any explanation for this discrepancy in the series? DickTurpis (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Dick, just as we've seen the Bush 10 year "temporary" tax cuts were not temporary at all, likewise the 2% payroll tax "holiday" will also become permanent. Now, the problem is, the payroll tax before the "holiday" is not sufficient to pay benefits. How will the shortfall be made up? (1) tax increases, or (2) benefit cuts, or (3) pay benefits from general revenues, or (4) borowing, or (5) a combination of the above. Another optoin exists: make permanent a workers choice to designate upto 2% of thier ordinary Social Security contributions to a private IRA or 401(k). It appears Obama has, through the backdoor, signed onto Social Security privatization. nobsdon't bother me 22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Running with Dick's point to stay on the thread's topic, how are you guys ranking these people, Rob? You're moving Dean and Hillary up and down notches; is there some sooper sekrit decoder ring I need to e-mail Zoho for to understand the complexity?  --Leotardo (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy's pretty much ranking the GOP candidates, whereas I've been monitoring the co-intel on the Dems. The Dems are ranked pretty much according to how I've analyized the data. Another may soon emerge: Bill Richardson. Al Franken I don't know what to do with, yet.  nobsdon't bother me 21:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to translate. Rob knows nothing about liberalism, or politics for that matter. He thinks all registered Democrats are further left than Michael Moore. Therefore, using his "co-intel" (which is a Robism for "shit I made up off the top of my head") the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination are obviously the far far left. The more unelectable and wacko the more likely they are to beat Obama in a primary fight that exists only in Rob's head. Who needs facts or research when you've got a random, malfunctioning, paranoid semblance of something that could generously be referred to as a brain? DickTurpis (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that Obama has embraced Reaganomic trickledown his challenger will indeed be from left. nobsdon't bother me 18:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not going to have a challenger, retard. In fact, I will bet you 10 to 1 odds that none of the 4 people you have as the more likely candidate than Obama is nominated (my only condition is that Obama is alive to run in 2012; if not bets are off, as Hillary at least could be a front runner then). So you want to put down $10 on the chance of winning $100 based your "analysis" of the data? I would hope you would. Not only do you have 10 times more to gain than I do, you have 4 candidates to my 1. If you have any confidence in your insight whatsoever you should jump at this. I am completely serious. DickTurpis (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. DickTurpis makes the most transparently deliberate non-sequitur in the entire history of talking to Rob, and yet Rob is still successfully baited into another of his infamous screeds. How can he not see it? How???? -One 10:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy: Rob doesn't read what a discussion is about. He just prepares his little speeches and posts them as replies to some section that mentions his name. People replying to him is simply an invitation for him to post his next speech. It's his little form of trolling. --Sid (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I could have responded to discssion about the tax cut compromise earlier, but placed my two cents after Leotardo for contiguity. Point is: No tax cut is "temporary." Legislators always must vote yea or nay to extend later. A nay vote is a vote to increase taxes. This is the GOP "trap" pundits in the know complained about. How was it resolved? with Obama agreeing to another "temporary" cut, this time on the poor. Does anyone seriously believe, in two years, Republicans will advocate tax increases on the poor? yet Dems certainly will, unless in the meantime the House passes a bill allowing workers to designate 2% of thier payroll tax withholding to a private retirement account. nobsdon't bother me 21:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus Fucking Christ, you are literally retarded, aren't you. Tax cuts are temporary, in that they can expire. The recent ones would have at the end of the year would have if they had not been extended by a separate vote. Additionally, you argue that in 2 years Democrats will vote to raise taxes on the middle class and poor, and the Republicans won't, when the exact opposite happened earlier this month. The Democrats in the House passed an extension for tax cuts on all but the wealthiest, and the Republicans voted against it. I'm fully aware that the news story is well beyond your reading level, and if I could I would summarize it in pictures for you. And shut the fuck up about the goddamn payroll tax/retirement account bullshit. It has nothing to do with anything and, as always, you don't know what you're talking about. DickTurpis (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ewwkay, Dick. The "tax trap" Repubs set for Obama & the Dems reulted in Obama setting another tax trap. I gusss that didn't happen. Neither was the ten year "temporary taxcut" extended to 12 years. That didn't happen either. And the payroll tax cut, the only tax low life working class scum pay, will be raised by President Obama during his bid for re-election in 2012. And the new budget chairman Paul Ryan has no influence over bills written or how the GOP House votes on them. nobsdon't bother me 18:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 10 year tax cuts were extended to 12 years. I just said that. Say something worthwhile already or shut the fuck up. As for the payroll tax being raised during Obama's 2012 bid (the one you think he won't be the nominee for, by the way), do you really think his his strategy is to campaign on raising taxes on the lower classes? I guess you can argue that it will be a necessity by 2012, but I think it's more likely that he'll campaign on extending the tax cuts for only those making less than x hundred thousand dollars per year, because, you know, that's what he's done every single goddamn time. Republicans of course will oppose it, but if Reagan and the Bushes have taught us anything it's that Republicans talk about reducing the deficit, but will in the end only make it bigger. Since this is speculative anyway, and your ability to make predictions is about on par with that of my trying to read the future in the shit my cats leave in the litter box, your assertions are utterly irrelevant. Talk to me when Mike Gravel is the Democratic nominee in 2012. DickTurpis (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you agree, a "temporary" tax cut is not temporary at all. And President Obama has indeed signed onto Paul Ryan's Roadmap for the Future (see pg. 64):
 * Personal Choice in Retirement Accounts. Beginning in 2012, the proposal allows each worker younger than 55 to shift a portion of his or her Social Security payroll tax payment into a personal retirement account, chosen from a group of investment funds approved by the government (see below). When fully phased in, the personal accounts will average 5.1 percentage points of the current 12.4-percent Social Security payroll tax....The personal investment component is phased in to allow a smooth transition. Initially, workers are allowed to invest 2 percent of their first $10,000 of annual payroll into personal accounts, and 1 percent of annual payroll above that up to the Social Security earnings limit...." nobsdon't bother me 18:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The temporary tax cuts are temporary in that they expire. They can be extended - indefinitely, if it comes to that. In that they have an expiration date they are still temporary, but this hardly matters to the discussion (I use the term in the loosest sense of the word) so you might as well quit harping on it. It doesn't matter. As for the personal choice accounts they will do 2 things: 1) not work, and 2) bankrupt social security even more quickly, with less money going into the system. Sounds like a great idea to me. Anyway, you going to take me up on that wager above? I suggest we each choose some sort of charitable organization the other will have to donate to. I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds; you can't do much better than that. DickTurpis (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so this discussion has made progress. The 2% reduction in trust fund revenues results in lowering of the long term growth of federal debt -- you know, the sort of thing that sparked the 2008 global financial catastrophe. So it is a major structural reform. As to a challenger, I assume you're referring to an inter-party challenge. True, he may not; but we need to strengthen the malcontents in the Democratic party, build thier confidence, and give voice to thier valid concerns.  nobsdon't bother me 15:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering you have Obama as the 4th most likely Democratic nominee, I would assume you see a challenge as almost inevitable, and a successful challenge as probable. You clearly have no confidence in this (you'd have to be an idiot to, but, well...oh) as you've ignored my wager. (I also note you have among Obama's disadvantages his inability to speak without a teleprompter; you're not seriously still taking this position are you? Did you not see any of the dozen debates during the election cycle, or him taking on the entire Republican caucus?) But since you're just making look CP look more ridiculous than it already does (quite a feat) I can't really complain. Maybe you could put the transitional flying kitty as the frontrunner, or perhaps a jar of smooth peanut butter? I'll talk to you about personal choice accounts later on your own talk page. We're already too far off topic here, and keeping an otherwise dead thread from being archived. DickTurpis (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob, care to comment (yes, I know you wont) on how Obama using a teleprompter to 'speak' (even though it's untrue as DickT has pointed out) is a negative for him but palin having buzzwords written on her palm because she is too fugging thick to remember 4 phrases for 20 minutes doesn't rate a mention? What is it with you lot? Exactly why are you so dishonest? Surely you know you're doing it so why do you pretend? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I said elsewhere, I'm an Obama man now. When Obama said that Reaganomic supplyside trickledown taxcuts for millionaires and billionaires was "good for the American people", I'm sure it was cp:Bill Ayers who loaded it into the teleprompter. As to Obama's ranking as No. 4, it's no more ridiculous than the pundits who rank Palin as the top GOP frontrunner. nobsdon't bother me 02:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it mostly conservative sources that call her that? Like, say, Newsmax? --Kels (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, perhaps you can help us further down the page. On CP in the last week liberalism is both "inherently evil" and a "mental disorder" - are the two mutually exclusive (e.g. does God punish the mentally ill if they don't have the mental faculties to know the crimes they commit are evil?) and which do you think it is more?  --Leotardo (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are rewarded with a Social Security Disability checks. Which begs the question, should Obama round-up all the mentally incapacited that Reagan dumped in the street, and throw them back in loonie bins? If so, do they have the right to vote? And if not, who will ACORN register next election? nobsdon't bother me 05:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just how thick are you Rob? Perhaps you should learn what "Begs the question" means before engaging in oral podiatry. 20:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good link. ty. nobsdon't bother me 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All liberals receive Social Security Disability checks? Where's mine? And when are you going to either take me up on my 10 to 1 wager or formally decline (hopefully expressing why you won't take a bet when you consider Obama's chances of being the 2012 nominee are less than 20%)? DickTurpis (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many mentally disabled people recieve SSI checks, which include a good deal of liberals or people who vote for liberal candidates; if I had to lay odds, Obama will not face a major leftist primary challenger within the Democratic party; however, the time is now for political operatives and disinformatrion specialists to engender the impression among naive commie libs that such a reality is feasible (in the grand tradition of wp:Donald Segretti, wp:Gordon Liddy and other Nixonian wp:Dirty tricks]ters). nobsdon't bother me
 * Rob, you need to get your facts straight. The concept of "charitable choice" was part of the era, formed a coalition to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Business improved intermittently thereafter but still remained at depression levels through most of the 1930s except for a short recovery in 1936–37. They must be working to bring the vrykul successfully allied with the Scourge! If a mother gives birth to a child while on public assistance, states are allowed to establish "family caps" in order to deny further benefits the family may have been eligible for before the reform. But manufacturing demand stimulated by WWII led to the level it had been at 1929. The 1929-1949 recession had within it a recession from 1937-1943; 1933 to 1937 were recovery years stimulated by the New Ordeal, America experienced 2 deep recessions, or essentially a second depression within the Great Depression, and World War II, a calamity that claimed the lives of 55 million people worldwide. They involved the move away from cash assistance and toward social services or work activity assistance. The reforms of 1996 ended the generous benefits to welfare mothers and require them to take jobs. 21:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, but you may be refering to AFDC & welfare queens. I'm speaking of the droves of people suffering from bi-polar & PTSD (the so-called "duel diagnosis", or "double whammy" in technical, social-psychological bureaucratise jargon). These tormented souols qualify for "a loonie check", or Social Security Disability payments, not to mention Suboxone, Oxycodone, Klonopin, Vicadin, etc. etc. etc. which entities such as the Department of Veteran Affairs passes out like candy.  nobsdon't bother me 02:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So cp:Presidential Election 2012 is part of a disinformation campaign, and you're a political operative along the lines of Segretti and Liddy (is that supposed to be a good thing?)? Delusions of grandeur much? You realize no one reads CP, especially not the naive commie libs you're trying to convince, so it's not exactly the best place to plant misinformation (then again misinformation is about the only information at CP, so I guess it's right at home there).
 * While we're on the topic, how is someone calling Palin the Republican front runner as ridiculous as saying Obama is running 5th when polls consistently show Palin doing very well among Republicans (maybe not frontrunner but near the top) while Gravel, Feingold, and Sanders are polling not at all? DickTurpis (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so Ed Rendell, Dan Rather, and wp:Clarence B. Jones don't know what they're talking about, and the Dallas News didn't publish Former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold says he is exploring challenge to Obama the other day. And someone who admires or compares himself to Donald Segretti suffers from delusions of granduer (what does granduer mean?) As to naive commie libs, why are we having this disucssion then? So Obama is the front runner among Dems, while Palin is not the frontrunner among Repubs. Now again, who is it, that is spreading deliberate disinformaton hoping to influence the outcome?  nobsdon't bother me 02:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. You really are illiterate. The article you link to has (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) predictions of what will happen next year. So one minor news site makes an unfounded prediction that in 10 months Feingold will announce that he will consider running, and that's enough to make him ahead of Obama in CP rankings? Rob, we get it. You're an idiot. We know this. You don't have to go out of your way to convince us with every single comment you ever make. Now what did Rendell, Rather, and Jones say that you're obliquely referencing? Your posts make no sense. Are you saying they endorse your predictions for Gravel and company? Because they don't. So why bring them up? You just admitted above that your using CP to run a disinformation campaign to convince liberals that Obama is vulnerable in the 2012 nomination. Does Andy know you're consciously using the Trusworthy Encyclopedia for spread disinformation? Let me put 2 questions to you' let's see if you can give a straightforward answer (I'm guessing "no")
 * 1) Do you believe what you posted on the 2012 election page, that Obama has less than a 20% chance of being the Democratic nominee, and guys like Gravel, Feingold, and Sanders are more likely to get it?
 * 2) Do you believe that Sarah Palin is not among the frontrunners for the Republican nomination at this time?
 * A simple yes/no will suffice. DickTurpis (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) A challenger is unlikely to wrest the nomination, but can cost him the general election (as Reagan did to Ford, Teddy did to Carter, and Buchanan did to GHW Bush).
 * 2) Palin is not the number one frontrunner among GOP candidates, but is pedelled as such in many mainstream commie lib disinformation rags and news outlets.
 * Here's Rather's comments, Rendell, and Ralph Nadar ("He's a con man.") nobsdon't bother me 03:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy shit. You stayed on topic. I honestly didn't think this was possible. Now, do I really need to explain to you the difference between "Obama could face a primary challenger in 2012" and "Obama is at least a 5 to 1 underdog to be the nominee in 2012, and Mike Gravel is a much more likely candidate." Those are 2 very different statements. But since you are admittedly running a disinformation campaign and not reporting facts, I guess it doesn't matter (as if anything on CP does). As for Palin, do you admit that she is currently a frontrunner, if not the frontrunner? As in, in the top 4? That obviously can change, but she is polling well among Republicans (can;t say the same for Gravel in the Dems). It's quite dated, but this poll for example, has her way ahead of the competition. Others show her in the lead, but Romney seems to be ahead in more of them. Wikipedia summarizes a bunch of polls. Some have Palin in the lead, while almost all of them have her in the top few. Calling her "the frontrunner" might be an exaggeration, though she does get much more press than all the others, which is a big factor. Which commie outlets are calling her that? (And does everyone you disagree with automatically become a commie? You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.) DickTurpis (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which commie outlets? These fucking commies, bitch! --Kels (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These enemies of freedom seem pretty optimistic about her chances too, and even compare her to St. Regan! Obviously a site spreading misinformation on behalf of LIEberals. --Kels (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this very commie front has Mitt Romney as the frontrunner. Why are we not toeing the commie line like our fellow travelers? Do we not realize we're betraying the glorious people's revolution? DickTurpis (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

the budget

 * Hey lookie, WP has two pages on nonsequiturs, wp:Non sequitur (logic) and wp:Non sequitur (literary device). Now, which of the two does this recent DNC talking point belong to:
 * "Republicans opposes Unemployment Compensation extensions (temporary, or emergency spending) and favor Taxcuts for the Rich (permanent spending)." nobsdon't bother me 16:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For someone who claims to work in prisons Rob should look up schizotypal personality disorder and schizoaffective disorder. I'm sure the DSM criteria will seem familiar. 16:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we have to make exceptions for you, Rob, due to your obviously subnorm intelligence but most people when reading that part in the Bible spot the unspoken corollary, "don't be chiding others when they do their good works in secret either." Something for you and the Assfly to go away to the naughty corner and think about, eh? -- 17:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, that actually isn't a non-sequitur in either sense.... That's simply a statement representing how the DNC views the Republican party's stance..... Not that this is in any way pertinent to the discussion at hand. 17:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yah well revenues are a matter of permanent law and do not require annual action, that is to say, it's nondiscretionary. Whereas emergency supplemental appropriations are discretionary. It's apples and oranges. And the commies who spew this garbage know it's a bogus argument. nobsdon't bother me 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bogus argument? ROTFLMFAO.  Mr Pot, please step over here there's someone I'd like you to meet.  You can call him Mr Kettle.  And please don't mention the fact Mr Kettle is black, he may point out that fact you are also black. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So by your definition the inverse of that argument (that Republicans oppose extending unemployment benefits, and favor extending tax cuts for the rich) is also a "non-sequitur". Yes, one is discretionary and one is not, but that doesn't mean there is no connection between the two. If you look at long term deficit reduction, which will actually make more of a difference? Obviously the Democrats' plan. DickTurpis (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be assuming taxpayers now with $250K in taxable income would earn, report, and pay an additional $700B in taxes over the next ten years at the higher rates. That is a lare assumption. Conversely, the economic scholarship and concensus, based on past experience and rational expections says that $700B would never materialize in the US Treasury, or for that matter, in the aggregate GDP output figures. nobsdon't bother me 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the numbers, but I'm not sure your implication that all rich people are tax cheats holds up. Aren't they mostly conservative, and therefore incapable of engaging in cp:deceit? Obviously revenues would have to go up at least some sort of measurable amount; you can't have everyone suddenly magically earning just enough less than the previous year for their taxes to remain exactly the same. That would be a bit suspicious. We're just talking about restoring the tax level that existed 10 years ago. They were paying more then, so I see no reason why they wouldn't be doing so again. So maybe it'd be $500 billion instead of $700 billion. Either way that is going to do more to reduce the deficit than cutting off unemployment benefits. DickTurpis (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Point is, there is a strong liklihood the $700 billion in new wealth will not even be created. That postulate, if true, however would not stop $700 billion from being addded to permanent government spending, the deficit, and the national debt.  nobsdon't bother me 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're arguing that $700 billion in increased revenues for the federal government increases the debt by $700 billion? Do you know anything about anything? Please, you've proved to all of us what an moron you are. Drop the sales pitch, we've already bought it. DickTurpis (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Raising rates to where an anticipated $700 billion in revenues will come in does not guarantee $700 billion will come in. Example: in my state, the Democrats raised the cigarette tax last year, supposedly it would produce $30 million in revenues. Guess what? It hasn't produced anywhere near that (or jack shit) in revenues but the Dems spent $30 million anyway to create new, permanent spending programs. Spending programs with a baseline of $30 million that need a source of revenue from somewhere. And it won't come from the cigarette tax or the income tax. nobsdon't bother me 15:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. So we agree that anticipating $700 billion in revenues does not guarantee those revenues. But in this case, it guarantees at least some substantial increase, as it's based on income, which is generally consistent, not cigarette taxes, which can be more easily circumvented though online or out-of-state purchasing, or by giving up on smokes entirely (which, let's face it, is partially what the tax is for). Especially at a time like now, when people with high incomes are seeing those incomes grow substantially, much of that revenue is assured. Is someone making $400,000 a year suddenly going to decide to take a pay cut of $150,000 in order to not see their taxes on that extra amount rise by 5%? Of course not. Will they try to cheat in order to pay as little as possible? Sure. But, by and large, they can't cheat out of all of it. People pay less when rates go down; conversely, they pay more when rates go up. If no one is going to pay any more taxes if the rates go up, why object to them?
 * As for the spending, this assumes a $700 billion spending increase goes along with the extra projected $700 billion in revenues. It appears that the government will spend what it will spend, regardless of what it takes in. The increase on incomes $250,000 and over will just lead to more money coming in. Or was there to be some $700 billion spending increase that was contingent on the expiration of the tax cuts? If so, please show me a reliable source indicating this. If not then we're looking at hundred of billions in deficit reduction that is now off the table for at least 2 years. DickTurpis (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The $250K+ class generally is an entrepenuriual class whose income does not derive from a bi-weekly payroll. This class of income earners generally are the people responsible for innovation--the lifeblood of economic growth. Thier income tends to be the result of invetment, i.e. employing other people, and capital accumulation, that is, to produce and preserve the capital necessary to allow other potential entrepenuers and employers to borrow what's necessary to employ people. The $250K+ earners, at least those who are of the entrepenurial class, tend to not direct thier resources into wasteful cp:personal consumption expenditures; that is anathema to the very essence of capitalist accumulation, and capitalist gain. IOW, the $250K+ crowd tend to distribute thier time and resources to produce income when, and where, the best opportunities for gain (and gain in this sense means not only personal profit, but affording others employment, because helping them to find employment is the only way a greedy capitalist can gain personally. And of courss all rich millionaires understand this; ignorant M arxist hatemongers and class warriors, to nobodies benefit, can't grasp this fundemental principal.

The budget is made up of discretionary & nondiscretionary spending. More than 90% is non discretionary, or permanent spending. Like Social Security. Or Obamacare. Congress does not have to vote annually to fund these programs. Defense for example, is non-discretionary, but certain developmental programs or contracts are reviewed annually and tweaks are made. So spending basically is on auto-pilot. The overall problem is, the U.S government has made more promises (old age retirement benefits, subsidized mortgage interest rates for middle income earners, FDIC, student loans, prescription drugs, healthcare, etc. etc . etc.) than the U.S. government, or the U.S economy, is able to deliver. nobsdon't bother me 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what any of that has to do with cutting the deficit, but I'll agree with you on some of that anyway. Of course, if this is the group of people responsible for creating jobs, then why aren't they creating any? I guess your argument is that if we raise taxes on their incomes we'll see fewer jobs created because money they could spend on investment and entrepreneurship will instead go to taxes. And there is perhaps some truth to that; spending is good for the economy. Of course, the Republican House's strategy is to create jobs by cutting spending, potentially laying off thousands of government workers. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work. Likewise your assertion that these are not the people who engage in cp:personal consumption expenditures (I love it when you link to a CP article that doesn't exist, it really shows just how in tune with that trainwreck of an encyclopedia you are) seems hollow. I suppose it's the people earning $30,000 who are buying $100,000 cars for themselves? But nevermind. As you point out, most expenditures are non-discretionary (though hardly 90%) so cutting spending is not easy. Raising taxes is about the only way to close the gap. We're not talking about the top bracket 91% rate that existed long ago, but an increase in the top bracket of 4.6% (35% to 39.6%, if I have my numbers right). Someone earning $400,000 a year is therefore paying about $7000 more in taxes. I suppose that if that money weren't going to the government if would go to job creation? Like, hiring 1/3 of a new employee? Anyway, since you seem to be the one arguing that we need to cut government spending to create jobs, and cut taxes to reduce the deficit, perhaps you can explain how those all work, and the best way to balance the budget without destroying the economy? DickTurpis (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Job creation has somewhat rebounded now that uncertainty over costs (i.e. taxes & healthcare benefits) has receded. Cutting $100B or $200B of discretionary spending to reduce a $1T ($1,000B) deficit is cosmetic. 2011 will be a recovery year, with $600B in Federal Reserve quantative easing, $112B in payroll tax holiday, and $1.8T corporate cash coming off the sidelines (in Federal Reserve parlance, corporations holding cash is called, "negetive business investment", or simply not hiring people; "positive business investment" then would be borrowing, or going in to debt, to meet a payroll). Those three combined total $2.5T in stimulus. Paul Krugman ought not bitch anymore that the $1T Bush & Obama spent over the past three years wasn't enough (unless he wants to bitch that the private sector doing all the stimulus spending deprives Congressmen from building voting constituencies). $2.5T in stimulus, or roughly 1/6 of the nations total output, equals what the federal government collects in taxes.


 * So how much, though, is $600B in Federal Reserve quantative easing (or Federal Reserve notes, that is to say, dollar bills, used to purchase $600B in Congressionally authorized Treasury debt)? Well, if total GDP output is $14,600B (14.6T) growing at 2.8% per annum, that means only $400 billion in new wealth is being created (the captial necessary to hire new workers). But the Congress & Treasury has already committed to borrowing 18 months of gains coming out of total output in the current recovery. Doesn't leave much for private sector borrowing during the next term of Congress. And since the federal government has already spent any gains coming out of the current recovery, high income earners may have to borrow money from elsewhere to pay higher taxes. Doesn't make any economic sense, at least for somebody with experience and knowledge how to create jobs, wealth, and increased output in the U.S. economy.  nobsdon't bother me 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)