DescentBB

.....and deficit spending serves no purpose, ever........then, how did we ever survive the 1950s? A glance backwards to the years that brought us Elvis and the like will show this:

1. A massive deficit, relative to GDP due to war costs after WWII
2. More deficit spending for infrastructure, education and scientific research, along with a slight increase
in spending for social programs.(hmmm, starting to sound like, say, Obama's suggestions?)
3. A top Federal Income tax bracket of 90%


now, it would seem, via hindsight, that this Communistic recklessness, wrought by the tax and spend liberal Dwight Eisenhower, seemed to work out pretty damned well. We ushered in a couple decades of steady growth in domestic and foreign trade, became the world leader in science and technology, the rich didn't lose their wealth, profits were made, employment was solid and the middle class expanded since incomes steadily increased. How so? How could such a foolish model work so well?

You're not going to win an argument for deficit spending with me. Spending money you don't have is a bad idea before it ever gets to the political arena. Some people may believe that the benefits outweigh the hazards, because they're so intent on or interested in the benefits, but it's like an addict trying to weight the benefits and hazards of their addiction, they're not perceiving it correctly, and the hazards just don't seem that important to them. This country is so far in debt that it shouldn't even be thought of as debt anymore, but as a political and economical impairment--something that limits or controls our options.

Government is too big, and then it's fat in addition to that. Your argument turns a blind eye to that and postulates that it'll lead to prosperity. Really? Waste and bad policy leads to prosperity? Cut the government, and let people keep more of what they earn to invest in their future. And maybe return to a currency that actually allows one to invest in the future without having to depart from the national currency.

This country is so far in debt that it shouldn't even be thought of as debt anymore, but as a political and economical impairment--something that limits or controls our options.

I agree with this. Luckily we own our house and cars and have minimal debt. Every credit card pusher that calls me, I sit and talk with . I could be wholly wrong, but I think the economic structure worldwide is fixing to change. There been a huge push to buy up all the gold in the last 5-10 years, and as TB pointed at, that has caused gold to rise to 1400 an ounce and the dollar to drop 30%. Last time that happened we got the Federal Reserve Note. So, in light of that, the best place to be in that transition is to be a homeowner and debt free.

I think a more useful statistic would be what percentage of *total* income people paid *in* *practice*. The tax rate for only your income falling in the highest bracket is an unintuitive statistic that's hard to reason about it. Plus, it fails to take into account deductions, loopholes, etc.

I conjecture that the reason why it worked back then is because people, in practice, paid a comparable percentage of their total income then as they did now.

callmeslick wrote:.. if Taxes are the sure death of our society...and deficit spending serves no purpose, ever..

A much better question from my perspective is: If a false premise serves your purposes then who do you serve?

I’ve never said or implied either one of those things, or know anybody I would have to defend having said those things…

So I will just say this…

When taxes become immoral or unjust they are the end of freedom.

And when deficit spending gets out of control, the economy can/will suffer.

It’s mostly a matter of degree.

(the litmus test for taxes imho is when they place a undue burdon on the payer, and/or provide for others needs before the needs of the payer)

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You're not going to win an argument for deficit spending with me.

of course not, your mind is made up and thus closed for business.

Your argument turns a blind eye to that and postulates that it'll lead to prosperity. Really?

yes, really. And, I'm not 'postulating' a damned thing, it is proven that it worked. Kennedy was able to lower tax rates(although still at levels far higher than what some folks whine about now) because of one simple fact: Eisenhower's policies had led to an expanded tax base with more prosperous citizens in the middle classes and upper classes.

Waste and bad policy leads to prosperity? Cut the government, and let people keep more of what they earn to invest in their future. And maybe return to a currency that actually allows one to invest in the future without having to depart from the national currency.

funny, I'm able to invest quite well with the current set-up. Even at my current conservative portfolio, my first quarter reports seem to indicate a 20% annual return. I made around 100% return on investment in 2009,
and 65% last year. You seem entirely blind to two points:
1. Cutting the government will hurt the people who need the help the most.
2. Some folks are making a killing the past few years(and those folks, on a tangental point, will line the
coffers of the Obama re-election campaign because they know he's one of the few out there with a clue)

Jeff250 wrote:I think a more useful statistic would be what percentage of *total* income people paid *in* *practice*. The tax rate for only your income falling in the highest bracket is an unintuitive statistic that's hard to reason about it. Plus, it fails to take into account deductions, loopholes, etc.

I conjecture that the reason why it worked back then is because people, in practice, paid a comparable percentage of their total income then as they did now.

you would be wrong. I'll give one piece of evidence. The return I filed last week showed that I paid 12.7% of my gross income in Federal Taxes, after a host of write-offs and exemptions. That was for a not-small amount, which I'll choose to keep private. I dare say that under the 1956 code, I would have paid around double that much, or more. Far more stuff has been put into the tax law in the past 50 years by way of potential tax dodges.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:.. if Taxes are the sure death of our society...and deficit spending serves no purpose, ever..

A much better question from my perspective is: If a false premise serves your purposes then who do you serve?

gonna duck reality on this one, huh, Will??

Apparently, Spidey is going to keep you company, spouting rhetoric in the face of historical FACTS.

Lol…ok so fine, just because you didn’t break your neck the first time you fell off a bridge, doesn’t guarantee you won’t the next time.

Your “facts” are very dubious, and you seem to forget a lot of other “facts” that made the economy different at the time.

callmeslick wrote:you would be wrong. I'll give one piece of evidence. The return I filed last week showed that I paid 12.7% of my gross income in Federal Taxes, after a host of write-offs and exemptions. That was for a not-small amount, which I'll choose to keep private. I dare say that under the 1956 code, I would have paid around double that much, or more. Far more stuff has been put into the tax law in the past 50 years by way of potential tax dodges.

That's not evidence--that's just conjecture about how much you would have paid 50 years ago, which is what is in question to begin with.

Are the right statistics not available? To make a compelling case that the amount of taxes that the highest earners pay has dramatically decreased, do this: pick and fix some very high income in today's dollar, say $500k/year, adjust it for inflation 50 years ago, and then find statistics on what average percentage of their income these earners historically paid in taxes last year versus 50 years ago.

It's not even that I'm convinced that you're wrong. I just don't see any compelling reason to think that you're right.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:.. if Taxes are the sure death of our society...and deficit spending serves no purpose, ever..

A much better question from my perspective is: If a false premise serves your purposes then who do you serve?

gonna duck reality on this one, huh, Will??.

I don't know anyone who has made the extreme argument you are so gleeful to argue against.
I do believe deficit spending has it's merits when used wisely, the Louisiana purchase was a pretty good deal...
I think the wisdom of the last few decades or more is about as weak as your needing to assign the false premise to your bait. So you go ahead and beat up on your straw man with your devastating wiffleball swing.

Jeff250 wrote:Are the right statistics not available? To make a compelling case that the amount of taxes that the highest earners pay has dramatically decreased, do this: pick and fix some very high income in today's dollar, say $500k/year, adjust it for inflation 50 years ago, and then find statistics on what average percentage of their income these earners historically paid in taxes last year versus 50 years ago.

It's not even that I'm convinced that you're wrong. I just don't see any compelling reason to think that you're right.

under 1956 tax law, corrected for inflation, all earnings over roughly $1,150,000 would be taxed at 90%.
Writeoffs were FAR less numerous, no 'energy credits', far less agricultural subsidies, personal exemptions were about the same(if corrected), capital gains were taxed at double the current rate.

I would just like to see some empirical evidence.

To put this all in perspective:

"BOSTON (MarketWatch) — The International Monetary Fund has just dropped a bombshell, and nobody noticed.

For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China. According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now. "

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/imf-bo ... atest_news

In short, our illustrious leaders in Washington don't really have a clue as to how to grow a economy. On the other hand:

"Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and is rising.

Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of China’s"

Strange how a dirt eating country can rise up and beat the number one economic engine of the world. Lets keep concentrating on shipping jobs out of this country so others can benefit and grow. With people like Obama running things, I'm sure we won't mind when the Chinese Fifth fleet is seen off the coast of California.

Woodchip, with all due respect, the comments regarding Obama and China's takeover are a steaming pantload. We've been on this trajectory for over 30 years, and it's just that most folks were too blind, too dumb and too selfish to see it coming. So, now you blame Obama because he hasn't reversed 30 years of bad policy in two and a half years? Yeesh.

callmeslick wrote:Woodchip, with all due respect, the comments regarding Obama and China's takeover are a steaming pantload. We've been on this trajectory for over 30 years, and it's just that most folks were too blind, too dumb and too selfish to see it coming. So, now you blame Obama because he hasn't reversed 30 years of bad policy in two and a half years? Yeesh.

As much as it pains me to say it Slick is right

I wouldn't go that far. Slick may be right that we've been on this course for 30 years, but arguing that Obama can't reverse 30 years of problems in 2 years belies the fact that this administration is not taking steps to solve the problem.

but arguing that Obama can't reverse 30 years of problems in 2 years belies the fact that this administration is not taking steps to solve the problem.

Yes, and the public's unwillingness to acknowledged higher secular authority.

the USA gave the wealthy a lot of leeway to build their wealth in the form of tax breaks, incentives and subsidies. It's time the wealthy gave back.

and not in the form of donating .05% of their wealth to charity.

Gave back to what? You and I? Or the bottomless ★■◆●ing money pit that is the Federal government? I don't want anybody's money, on behalf of myself (I have no right to it) or the Federal government. All I ask is that our laws ensure that money is earned equitably and not by manipulating of the system and screwing over the average citizen (like the bull★■◆● that caused the housing crisis, and the following bailout). Where are you getting this the wealthy owe the USA bull★■◆●? It sounds pretty thin to me. I would hope the U.S. should have gotten what it wanted out of the bargain, without being an Indian giver and now demanding more than was in the contract. Was it a bad contract? Too ★■◆●ing bad. Fix it for the future.

Ferno wrote:the USA gave the wealthy a lot of leeway to build their wealth in the form of tax breaks, incentives and subsidies. It's time the wealthy gave back.

and not in the form of donating .05% of their wealth to charity.

The USA or the politicians? The USA provided no tax breaks, politicians did and they received what they sought from the exchange, votes, contributions and party support toward their re-elections. There is no unpaid debt from the sale of those tax breaks, the bastards got their re-election and contributions. There should be some form of embezzlement charge raised against the politicians for taking our tax revenue and using it to buy themselves re-elections though. That is where you are owed something!

Those tax breaks are paid for by the middle class. The poor don't make enough to take any more from and the rich bought exclusions to avoid paying too much and the rest of us are stuck having to pay for whatever the politicians can fool enough of you into supporting!

Without changing the way the system works it will continue to be worked the same way.
Why give more to the politicians who so blatantly put their own interests far above the interests of the people they were hired to look out for?
That is a really bad strategy.

If the taxes aren't being used wisely don't go along with the request for more taxes levied by the people who are using them unwisely. Fight for a real change in the way they are used.

Where does the government’s authority to regulate wealth derive from?

give back to the USA as a whole. they could help partially fund the department of education, for example.

Spidey wrote:Where does the government’s authority to regulate wealth derive from?

it comes, indirectly, from the power to levy taxes. As Will alluded to, but(IMHO) drew the wrong conclusions from, the middle class working people in the US are getting WAY disproportionately hosed in favor of the wealthy, especially inherited wealth. Essentially, despite the hue and cry from some on the right, we have ALREADY had massive income/wealth redistribution going on for decades. And, essentially, small amounts of cash flow from tens of millions of citizens to further enrich several hundred thousand. Never struck me as fair, but the rubes keep agreeing to it, so........

The government has the right to collect taxes for the sole purpose of paying for its costs. So am I to gather that the government is using a right it has, to exercise a right it does not?

(already know the answer)

Spidey wrote:The government has the right to collect taxes for the sole purpose of paying for its costs.

Where do you gather this from?

Gee whiz, that's just common sense! What do you mean where did he gather this from?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Gee whiz, that's just common sense! What do you mean where did he gather this from?

What government documents, laws, portions of the Constitution, sections of the Federalist Papers, or other similar parchments are used to support this idea?

I don't know. Can you yourself explain why it should legitimately be otherwise, since you seem to have some idea? Taking money away from citizens when its not specifically for governmental necessities strikes me as being amoral. If this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, then why on earth would the people be taxed if it weren't only to fund necessary government expenses? That's my thinking on it. I guess that kind of flies in the face, possibly, of funding for various extra-administrational pursuits--science research, maybe, and certainly forms of social engineering (which I am opposed to on moral grounds anyway). It might even exclude tariffs, but I'd have to think about that. What do you think? Is that right?

The answer to that is very simple, but I am reluctant to let Null drag me into one of his non sequiturs…

The Federal government has very specific duties defined by the constitution, therefore any money derived by said government must be used to perform those and only those duties…it really doesn’t have to be “written” down somewhere…it’s already implied.

Any usage of monies outside that parameter, would be performing a un-constitutional act, therefore…

Not everything in the world is spelled out in black and white…if I let you sleep over at my house, it’s assumed that you have the right to use the bathroom…so to ask “where is that written” is not a very good argument.

No wait…this is what I was trying to avoid.

Beeeep…

PS…look up “implicit”.

What about the Taxing and Spending Clause and the General Welfare Clause?

Taxing and Spending Clause wrote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises

General Welfare Clause wrote:to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Those seem to pretty much grant the Federal Government the ability to levy taxes and spend the money obtained on anything that can be tied to the general welfare of the citizenry.

That's a pretty weak argument. That says "Welfare of the Unites States", not "anything that can be tied to the general welfare of the citizenry." The Louisiana purchase is a good example of something that is for the "general Welfare of the United States". Its true that the governing authorities are given some leeway there, but that's no justification for using tax money on social programs, etc--things that are not necessities.

Providing for the general welfare of the United States, seems to be well within the powers granted by the constitution…is that supposed to be an argument?

I don’t see how that makes the case for spending money outside of the duties of the government, or regulating one’s wealth. But it’s a fair enough question, if you don’t understand what “general welfare” means.

Now if you are trying to make the case that somehow providing for a “specific” person’s welfare can be considered providing for the general welfare…that would be a different argument.

null0010 wrote:What about the Taxing and Spending Clause and the General Welfare Clause?

Taxing and Spending Clause wrote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises

General Welfare Clause wrote:to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Those seem to pretty much grant the Federal Government the ability to levy taxes and spend the money obtained on anything that can be tied to the general welfare of the citizenry.

And they have been used/abused to the point that Nancy Pelosi's grandchildren get to fly free on airforce jets to attend family functions where the rest of the citizens have to drive or buy tickets on commercial airlines.
So just because the politicians in charge can use "general welfare" as an excuse it doesn't mean it should work that way.
The general welfare clause has been abused more than Michael Vicks dog.

So don't get surprised when people start asking WTF?

Will Robinson wrote:And they have been used/abused to the point that Nancy Pelosi's grandchildren get to fly free on airforce jets to attend family functions where the rest of the citizens have to drive or buy tickets on commercial airlines.

got links to this, because I smell a bit of partisan BS?
Plus, Nancy Pelosi is last year's whipping target.......

So don't get surprised when people start asking WTF?

people have been asking WTF for, like, forever. However, since most seem almost determined to remain unfocused and easily led by poseurs and ideologues, certain realities don't change. Now, don't get me wrong about endorsing wasteful or corrupt spending, but the General Welfare clause can easily stretch to cover a huge range of things, from land purchases to Social Security. Further, while I stated that our tax code and regulatory climate have led to an ongoing wealth transfer from the middle to the top, I don't think that is right, or justifiable. It's just a fact, and while I would like to suggest that it is an unintended outcome of the policies, I don't believe that anymore. I am convinced that the folks designing these policies do so at the bidding of those financing the campaigns, knowing full well the long-term effect on the population.

callmeslick wrote: got links to this, because I smell a bit of partisan BS?

I know you aren't asking for links after you refused to provide links. Is that a little bit hypocritical of you.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And they have been used/abused to the point that Nancy Pelosi's grandchildren get to fly free on airforce jets to attend family functions where the rest of the citizens have to drive or buy tickets on commercial airlines.

got links to this, because I smell a bit of partisan BS?
Plus, Nancy Pelosi is last year's whipping target.......

Actually a bit of truth to Wills statement:

"Pelosi’s family has traveled with her a few times, but they had to reimburse the government for the cost of their tickets, as stipulated in the Pentagon’s letter. "
http://factcheck.org/2008/12/nancy-pelo ... sonal-jet/

Heretic wrote:

callmeslick wrote: got links to this, because I smell a bit of partisan BS?

I know you aren't asking for links after you refused to provide links. Is that a little bit hypocritical of you.

BS. I provided many links to obscure stuff, I just didn't link commonly available info. I never heard about these free trips for grandchildren and would love to line up a free ride for my grandson, so any factual linkage would be great. Otherwise, I suspect that Will is fabricating 'facts'.

Google is your friend.