DescentBB

Well Obama's environmental ruination of our country goes apace. With his energy czar Steven Chu saying,:

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,”

Mr Chu must be deliriously happy about our present cost for fuel. Obama himself must be feeling more than satisfied with the curtailment of oil production with his banning of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and the resultant loss of jobs and income in the region. Now we have further excitement for the White House and the band of merry eco freaks who reside there. EPA regulations are now bringing to fruition Dear Leaders comment about coal fired plants:

" If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” Obama told the paper in January. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

So today the news is reporting:

"Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations."

Does anyone here still not understand why our country is in a recession heading for the Great Depression number two? When you hear about corp. taxes being the 2nd highest in the world and restrictive regulations choking our economy, the closing of the power plants is just another step in the process of why you don't have a job, why you are effectively paying more hidden taxes with increased fuel and energy cost and why our country is headed for pauper status. The sooner the "drooling idiots flying over the white cuckoo nest" are booted out, the better off you and I will be.

Why do you think it is acceptable to continue pursuing oil after a dangerous accident but it is not acceptable to continue pursuing nuclear power after a dangerous accident?

non sequitur

No, I'm looking at a logical inconsistancy.

null0010 wrote:Why do you think it is acceptable to continue pursuing oil after a dangerous accident but it is not acceptable to continue pursuing nuclear power after a dangerous accident?

Who's not pursuing nukes? Obama is all for that even tho nuclear radiation is not something you clean off with soap detergent.

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:Why do you think it is acceptable to continue pursuing oil after a dangerous accident but it is not acceptable to continue pursuing nuclear power after a dangerous accident?

Who's not pursuing nukes? Obama is all for that even tho nuclear radiation is not something you clean off with soap detergent.

I'm not asking Obama; I'm asking you.

Whether we like it or not, raising the price of oil is the only way to get lazy and complacent Americans off of their addiction to oil and gas guzzling cars. If we don't, we're just kicking the can down the road for another generation to deal with. We can put off the inevitable, oil is running out, but not eliminate the fact we will have to face oil going away someday.

Same with coal, or even natural gas. We tear up the earth and pollute our air and water to get our energy, but all things will come back to haunt us. We really need a new solution to generating energy, and forcing the issue may be necessary. People tend to like a stable and comfortable rut in life and it takes a massive change to drive people out of their little ruts.

If there is anything that will drive more low income Americans into literal starvation and onto the streets- driving up the cost of gasoline is it.

woodchip wrote:Does anyone here still not understand why our country is in a recession heading for the Great Depression number two?

well, for starters we aren't in a recession and haven't been by any standard definition of same for over two years. As for the crystal ball crap, the first gaffe makes your prediction suspect, to say the least.

When you hear about corp. taxes being the 2nd highest in the world

and yet, many massive corporations pay close to nothing in taxes. High rates, with tons of loopholes, incentive payments and writedowns, does not equate to high revenue collection. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

the closing of the power plants is just another step in the process of why you don't have a job, why you are effectively paying more hidden taxes with increased fuel and energy cost and why our country is headed for pauper status. The sooner the "drooling idiots flying over the white cuckoo nest" are booted out, the better off you and I will be.

actually, the closing of those plants(with plans to reopen, if I read it correctly) is a step toward a more modern, efficient infrastructure, something the nation needs desperately. The only way you are going to grow jobs is to actually efficiently produce things the world needs. If you think the US, as a whole is heading to pauper status, you are utterly clueless. We still control more capital, as a whole populace than likely the rest of the world combined. At any rate, we are massively wealthy, with core resources that aren't going anywhere. The problem, as I see it isn't with the 'drooling idiots' you cite, it's the countless morons that think we can stay rooted in the past, not use our government and tax revenues to prepare for the future and everything's going to just come up roses because, well,dammit, because we are America. A more idiotic bill of goods couldn't be devised, yet the rubes seem to buy it every time, of late.......

I got no problem with that, if's that's really the case. It's inevitable we change if just not for an overcrowding of people and ideas. I hope my worries of being sold off wholesale as the slaves of old are totally unfounded. Still, I hardly see a real effort to strengthen. All I see are efforts or results that continually put us in debt. I've never once heard debt put in a good light .

callmeslick wrote:...
and yet, many massive corporations pay close to nothing in taxes. High rates, with tons of loopholes, incentive payments and writedowns, does not equate to high revenue collection. Look it up, if you don't believe me....

and yet the dems and current administration want to raise tax rates. In light of the problem you identify raising rates is like performing brain surgery with sledgehammer.
They use tax revenue as inefficiently as they raise it.

Feds can raise taxes to 100% and without a balanced budget amendment, they would still operate at a deficit

flip wrote:I got no problem with that, if's that's really the case. It's inevitable we change if just not for an overcrowding of people and ideas. I hope my worries of being sold off wholesale as the slaves of old are totally unfounded. Still, I hardly see a real effort to strengthen. All I see are efforts or results that continually put us in debt. I've never once heard debt put in a good light .

we went into a deep debt to pay for WWII, and added to it to rebuild the national infrastructure and re-tool industry after the war. Any good light seen there?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
and yet, many massive corporations pay close to nothing in taxes. High rates, with tons of loopholes, incentive payments and writedowns, does not equate to high revenue collection. Look it up, if you don't believe me....

and yet the dems and current administration want to raise tax rates. In light of the problem you identify raising rates is like performing brain surgery with sledgehammer.
They use tax revenue as inefficiently as they raise it.

who is proposing raising the corporate rate? They are proposing returning the personal income tax rates back to the levels which are capable of paying for the programs that our government spends for.

woodchip wrote:Feds can raise taxes to 100% and without a balanced budget amendment, they would still operate at a deficit

explain, as on the surface, this makes little or no sense.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Feds can raise taxes to 100% and without a balanced budget amendment, they would still operate at a deficit

explain, as on the surface, this makes little or no sense.

He's saying that the Federal budget expenses will always exceed the level of Federal income taxes because Congress is a bunch of stupid doody heads.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Feds can raise taxes to 100% and without a balanced budget amendment, they would still operate at a deficit

explain, as on the surface, this makes little or no sense.

Because the people in charge have no self control and have always spent more than they take in, at least on a federal level. Doesn't matter how much they take in, the more there is the more programs will be developed to spend the excess on.

Succinctly put Null.

On the surface, a balanced budget amendment makes perfect sense, but I find myself apprehensive because sometimes you might need to ability to run a deficit.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
and yet, many massive corporations pay close to nothing in taxes. High rates, with tons of loopholes, incentive payments and writedowns, does not equate to high revenue collection. Look it up, if you don't believe me....

and yet the dems and current administration want to raise tax rates. In light of the problem you identify raising rates is like performing brain surgery with sledgehammer.
They use tax revenue as inefficiently as they raise it.

who is proposing raising the corporate rate? They are proposing returning the personal income tax rates back to the levels which are capable of paying for the programs that our government spends for.

and I'm suggesting if the corporate welfare and all the other exemptions that are nothing but a return on some campaign contribution were eliminated then we wouldn't need to make everyone pay more to cover the shortfall caused by special consideration for some...

when you raise rates across the board the middle class is the only one that actually pays the increase. The poor and the rich get exemptions in return for their political support and the politicians spend their campaign funds every election cycle trying to fool the middle class into believing it was the other party's fault that the middle class got screwed!

I think the current rates are high enough to sustain any kind of semi-efficient government so the shortfalls should be dealt with by cutting spending and waste. Waste includes tax exemptions that aren't warranted and subsidies that are ridiculous. Those things alone would balance the budget.

we went into a deep debt to pay for WWII, and added to it to rebuild the national infrastructure and re-tool industry after the war. Any good light seen there?

Gotta be the man to beat the man. It's what pisses me off right now, and you know damn well Slick if the rhetoric changed the direction would too. I defer to Cuda here.

The tongue also is a fire

null0010 wrote:On the surface, a balanced budget amendment makes perfect sense, but I find myself apprehensive because sometimes you might need to ability to run a deficit.

absolutely you'd need the ability to run a deficit at times. everyone does. You do, I do, the Government does. the difference in what you and I and the Government do is.

1. that you and I cannot just will ourselves more money IE: raise taxed. we must work longer hours, find a new Job, or take a second job. in effect earn what we want
2. we cannot continue to spend above our income level without it affecting our personal quality of life. either with a repossession or a foreclosure or the inability to continue to purchase at that level.

The Government has the ability to do both, and to make matters worse, they have a let them eat cake mentality while doing it. they spend like a drunken sailor with absolutely no care as the the consequences of their spending, and while at the same time taking the perks to the tune of tens of thousands dollars each of your and my dollars while doing so. if you want to drain the swamp you could do it easily. eliminate ALL pay for everyone that is an elected official. give them a house, transportation, and room and board. eliminate all lobbying and $$ associated with said lobbyists. eliminate all $$ from any speaking engagement. if you wish to serve this nation then serve. do it because you have a heart for it. not because you crave the power of the wealth.

While I don't know if I'd vote for her if she ran, this is one of the reasons I have respect for Palin whether you agree with her politics or not. she took office because she was sick of what she saw and set about changing it. at first on a local, then a state, now a national level.

null0010 wrote:On the surface, a balanced budget amendment makes perfect sense, but I find myself apprehensive because sometimes you might need to ability to run a deficit.

IMO one big problem with balanced budget amendments is that they tend to force balance per fiscal year, which is the wrong time scale. The budget should be balanced over a full economic cycle -- taking in surplus during fat years, and using up that surplus during lean years. Balancing annually means the surplus never gets carried over, and therefore isn't available when it would actually be useful.

What's the effect of how it's being done now? Or better said I guess, what's the benefit?

Lothar wrote:

null0010 wrote:On the surface, a balanced budget amendment makes perfect sense, but I find myself apprehensive because sometimes you might need to ability to run a deficit.

IMO one big problem with balanced budget amendments is that they tend to force balance per fiscal year, which is the wrong time scale. The budget should be balanced over a full economic cycle -- taking in surplus during fat years, and using up that surplus during lean years. Balancing annually means the surplus never gets carried over, and therefore isn't available when it would actually be useful.

The surplus was called a rainy day fund here in Michigan and used to even the low years. Unfortunately, over the 8 years we had a Dem. Govenor the surplus is now long gone.

Thats what happens when it easy to change taxes.

callmeslick wrote: well, for starters we aren't in a recession and haven't been by any standard definition of same for over two years.

We aren't in a recession??

That's some amazing stuff you're smoking.

fliptw wrote:Thats what happens when it easy to change taxes.

Absolutely. The weakest part of our system is the ease with which our so called representatives can cover their mistakes and finance their power plays by demanding more tax payer revenue whenever they want to.

A FairTax type of system would eliminate so much of the waste, abuse and corruption because the representatives would be unable to create special exemptions and other shelters for their favored supporters and they wouldn't be able to so easily tap into the taxpayers wallets to fund their pork-for-votes operations.

ThunderBunny wrote:If there is anything that will drive more low income Americans into literal starvation and onto the streets- driving up the cost of gasoline is it.

That's true. I wasn't advocating the idea, just pointing out the reality of what's in store for the U.S. in the future. But if the Dems are stupid and short-sided enough to let gas prices rise to the point of destroying the economy and people's lives without first coming up with a plan to wean us of off it, they're cutting of their noses to spite their faces and they don't deserve to be in office. Conservatives should be happy the Dems are not thinking of the consequences of letting gas prices rise to equal that of Europe's, because if that happens, they'll be voted out in very short order. People like and need their cars and trucks, so we'll continue to be the world's gas pigs.

Will, the Fair Tax Act would not solve our problem revenue wise. There is NO WAY a national sales tax could generate enough revenue to replace the income tax, unless of course you kill off Social Security, Medicare and a large chunk of Military and Foreign spending. Think about it, people just couldn't spend enough of their income to replace it and I doubt they would want to anyway. Plus the burden would be put on the poor and middle class, because they spend the most of their disposable income on products and foodstuffs. The rich could not possibly spend enough to make up the difference. But there's the rub, the rich don't want to pay more taxes, so they'd be happier than sh*t to loose the income tax. The only GOOD thing about it would be the elimination of the IRS.

That was one flaw I saw in it. It would be too tempting to hoard your money and let it accumulate. Considering the house of cards that it is, it has to be continually moving and the Fairtax might stagnate things initially. Maybe it would be beneficial to have a Fairtax for a certain number of years to let people build up their capital but it's not an end all solution.

Oh, Will Robinson will argue the point until he's blue in the face flip, but I just don't see the Fair Tax Act as a good solution the way it's set up now. I enjoy living in a state that has no sales tax too. Damn pennies.

TC have you ever taken your specific concerns about the FairTax and gone to the web site to see if they are even valid concerns?
I think not because I already spot misinformation behind what little specifics you raise!

I never said it was the panacea to the economic situation. Although it would be a real stimulus to the economy and greater than even all the promises behind the "stimulus" we are paying trillions for now! The way it is set up it is a revenue neutral transition but the positive economic results are there to be had.

I did say the FairTax will neuter Congress in a major way in terms of their ability to squander our tax revenue by way of hundreds if not thousands of pages of exemptions and exceptions and subsidies and rebates and refunds and...etc...etc...
There are thousands of reasons the tax code is literally stacks upon stacks of pages and none of those reasons are good for us!

So please take a real concern and go look it up and test your complaint against the truth instead of just declaring with prideful ignorance that that you just know its a bad idea!

Here, lets play a little game in reality-land instead of TC's ideologue-land:
I'll post a specific positive and you either prove it false or post a specific negative that you can prove.

Under the FairTax approximately 3/4 of the underground economy, the part that is untaxed income, sole proprietors under reporting income, drug dealers not reporting income, illegal immigrants not reporting income, etc. etc., would become 'above ground economy' earnings and be taxed for the first time.
That number was roughly 5% of GDP , 628 Billion, in 1990 that would suddenly be taxable.

Your turn....

That didn't take long.

Yes, it could provide a quick stimulus to the economy, but only short term. Between energy prices and healthcare, we are going to be squeezed. Once people started coughing up wads of cash to pay for health insurance and healthcare, there goes discretionary spending amongst older middle class consumers, and older consumers like discretionary spending, when they have the money that is. So if they spend it on doctors and hospitals, they won't have anything left to spend elsewhere. And if they intend to put a sales tax on health care expenditures, that might cause a little revolt amongst the seniors, who would really like to retire in security and health. Healthcare is the one problem that will bankrupt us all if it's not solved, and unfortunately, Obama did not solve it. But I do agree on one thing. Yes, it would get Congress out of the loop, the one bonus thing going for it.

But how would a national sales tax be administered? Someone's got to create some bureaucracy or another to administer it. It can't run by itself, so you will still have the government with their fingers in the till. If their fingers are in the till, they will find a way to grab more.

tunnelcat wrote:That didn't take long.

Yes, it could provide a quick stimulus to the economy, but only short term. Between energy prices and healthcare, we are going to be squeezed. Once people started coughing up wads of cash to pay for health insurance and healthcare, there goes discretionary spending amongst older middle class consumers, and older consumers like discretionary spending, when they have the money that is. So if they spend it on doctors and hospitals, they won't have anything left to spend elsewhere. And if they intend to put a sales tax on health care expenditures, that might cause a little revolt amongst the seniors, who would really like to retire in security and health. Healthcare is the one problem that will bankrupt us all if it's not solved, and unfortunately, Obama did not solve it. But I do agree on one thing. Yes, it would get Congress out of the loop, the one bonus thing going for it.

But how would a national sales tax be administered? Someone's got to create some bureaucracy or another to administer it. It can't run by itself, so you will still have the government with their fingers in the till. If their fingers are in the till, they will find a way to grab more.

You fail. Nothing that you just posted is caused by a transition to the FairTax. And please back up your claim that it would only be a short term stimulus?!? What data, calculation or even hypothesis do you base that on? Please explain how it works!
The example I gave is clearly a constant continuous stimulus for example.
You are just lobbing up a smoke screen of fears based on no knowledge of the proposed system. Why?

By the way, the few legitimate questions you touch on are in the FAQ at the web site, along with many many more you will probably think of if you continue to try so, with no disrespect intended, read the FAQ at least.
And you acknowledge the Congress would be dealt a blow but think that through alittle bit! The blow would be a MAJOR change for the good that would touch on so many things they currently do so corruptly and wastefully with our revenue right now. That change ALONE is well worth the price of admission not to mention all the other benefits it could bring.

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote: well, for starters we aren't in a recession and haven't been by any standard definition of same for over two years.

We aren't in a recession??

That's some amazing stuff you're smoking.

No, he's exactly right. By any economist's definition of "recession," we haven't been in one since 2009 or so. The economy is growing, albeit slowly.

Will Robinson wrote:But how would a national sales tax be administered? Someone's got to create some bureaucracy or another to administer it. It can't run by itself, so you will still have the government with their fingers in the till. If their fingers are in the till, they will find a way to grab more.

You fail. Nothing that you just posted is caused by a transition to the FairTax. And please back up your claim that it would only be a short term stimulus?!? What data, calculation or even hypothesis do you base that on? Please explain how it works!
The example I gave is clearly a constant continuous stimulus for example.
You are just lobbing up a smoke screen of fears based on no knowledge of the proposed system. Why?

By the way, the few legitimate questions you touch on are in the FAQ at the web site, along with many many more you will probably think of if you continue to try so, with no disrespect intended, read the FAQ at least.
And you acknowledge the Congress would be dealt a blow but think that through alittle bit! The blow would be a MAJOR change for the good that would touch on so many things they currently do so corruptly and wastefully with our revenue right now. That change ALONE is well worth the price of admission not to mention all the other benefits it could bring.

Prove that instituting a national sales tax won't hit the middle class and poor the hardest. Prove that the rich and all the rest of us buying loads of stuff will make up for the loss of income tax revenues. Prove that we could all spend enough to get our butts out of debt if we just didn't have all that nasty income tax. Prove that taxing already expensive medications isn't going to put a hardship on seniors. Prove that people won't just cut back on buying things to avoid the tax. Prove that a black market won't form to circumvent said tax.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:But how would a national sales tax be administered? Someone's got to create some bureaucracy or another to administer it. It can't run by itself, so you will still have the government with their fingers in the till. If their fingers are in the till, they will find a way to grab more.

You fail. Nothing that you just posted is caused by a transition to the FairTax. And please back up your claim that it would only be a short term stimulus?!? What data, calculation or even hypothesis do you base that on? Please explain how it works!
The example I gave is clearly a constant continuous stimulus for example.
You are just lobbing up a smoke screen of fears based on no knowledge of the proposed system. Why?

By the way, the few legitimate questions you touch on are in the FAQ at the web site, along with many many more you will probably think of if you continue to try so, with no disrespect intended, read the FAQ at least.
And you acknowledge the Congress would be dealt a blow but think that through alittle bit! The blow would be a MAJOR change for the good that would touch on so many things they currently do so corruptly and wastefully with our revenue right now. That change ALONE is well worth the price of admission not to mention all the other benefits it could bring.

Prove that instituting a national sales tax won't hit the middle class and poor the hardest. Prove that the rich and all the rest of us buying loads of stuff will make up for the loss of income tax revenues. Prove that we could all spend enough to get our butts out of debt if we just didn't have all that nasty income tax. Prove that taxing already expensive medications isn't going to put a hardship on seniors. Prove that people won't just cut back on buying things to avoid the tax. Prove that a black market won't form to circumvent said tax.

I already did, in advance, when I told you to read the FAQ...

And you aren't even reading what I wrote with any level of comprehension, proof of that is bringing up a black market as a means to avoid taxation! Underground economy/blackmarket, same thing in the context of this discussion. The FairTax brings in revenue from a blackmarket that the current system can't even find!
Only barter can avoid it...just like it works to avoid the IRS now so no difference if you want to go there.

Prove to me you've read the FAQ's by coming back here and correcting your misinformation and baseless assumptions yourself.

The one big plus for the fair tax is it will now take in revenues from the underground economy. All those people who use the cash only system will now pay into the system. I suspect there is a whole army of them that will make sad panda faces if a fair tax is ever enacted.

Top Gun wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote: well, for starters we aren't in a recession and haven't been by any standard definition of same for over two years.

We aren't in a recession??

That's some amazing stuff you're smoking.

No, he's exactly right. By any economist's definition of "recession," we haven't been in one since 2009 or so. The economy is growing, albeit slowly.

thank you, TG.

tunnelcat wrote:Prove that instituting a national sales tax won't hit the middle class and poor the hardest. Prove that the rich and all the rest of us buying loads of stuff will make up for the loss of income tax revenues. Prove that we could all spend enough to get our butts out of debt if we just didn't have all that nasty income tax. Prove that taxing already expensive medications isn't going to put a hardship on seniors. Prove that people won't just cut back on buying things to avoid the tax. Prove that a black market won't form to circumvent said tax.

minor quibbles......