RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubegramarye wrote >>
I don't call them Marxists. I just call them fools.
Well said.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics
Columbus Tea Party President Steven Carr on healthcare, national debt, & taxes
[104 posts] [23 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
hugh59
Aboard the ultimate power in Olde Towne East
Login to Send PM
pilsner wrote >>
As far as taxes, what planet is Steven Carr on? George W. Bush sThe highest marginal tax rate is 32% whereas it was 70% when Reagan took office and 90% when JFK took office. Republican Eisenhower supported a high marginal tax rate---high taxes on the rich made possible free or inexpensive college education.Reagan drastically cut taxes on the rich and actually raised taxes on working people, particularly the FICA tax which is regressive.
For decades, conservatives have spent money like drunken sailors and cut taxes for the wealthy and Wall Street when they control power.
When out of power, the conservatives have been raising hell about rising debt and high taxes. But most of the national debt was run up during Reagan, Bush41, and George W Bush's watch.Hmmmm, tax policy. The top federal tax rate is 35% and will go back To 39.6% next year when the Bush tax cuts expire. A 4.6% rate cut is hardly slashing the rates.
Tax policy should be about raising revenues, not enacting social goals. The Reagan tax cuts actually caused federal tax revenues to increase. The problem with deficits during the Reagan years is that spending increased even faster. The Clinton tax increases were not enough to strangle the economy. They were enough to make tax professionals (like Bill Gate's dad) rich (or even richer than they had been). The Clinton tax increases were just enough to make tax avoidance planning beneficial. Better yet, Clinton added a new level of complexity to the tax laws.
So what do you want? Do you want a tax system that raises the most money (hopefully in a way that minimizes the ability of the wealthy to avoid the tax) or do you want to punish the wealthy (who will then hire talented tax counsel to find ways to avoid paying the tax)?
As a conservative, I am mad as hell at the Republicans in Congress and at Bush. They betrayed the people who voted for them expecting responsible fiscal policy. They had no real policy for cutting spending. They spent the taxpayer's money trying to bribe their own constituents into reelecting them.
I want a government that works. I want a government that handles the basic tasks of governing well. When possible, I want government to take on additional problems.
What we have now is a monstrosity that promises us wonderful things, costs a fortune, and gives us terrible service.
Posted 2 years ago # -
hugh59
Aboard the ultimate power in Olde Towne East
Login to Send PM
By the way, I've seen a few drunken sailors in my time. They were little quick to spend their money, but at least it was THEIR money. The GOP congress made drunken sailors look like tightwads. Problem is, the current Congress is making the GOP look like tightwads. We are DOOMED!
Posted 2 years ago # -
pilsner
Login to Send PM
I want everyone to pay their fair share for the use of the commons (roads, courts to enforce contracts, education system, etc).
I want a stable, growing economy like the U.S. had post WWII through the 1970's. We had an economy based on economic fundamentals. There were no asset bubbles. There were no bank failures.
The average CEO made 30 times more than the average worker because high marginal tax rates essentially capped executive pay. Instead, that money was reinvested into companies which led to more people being hired. Executive compensation back then did not rely on a their company's next quarter stock price.
A strong economy is driven by demand. The source of demand is wages of ordinary workers who spend practically all their incomes.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/106979/why_the_economy_grows_like_crazy_amid_high_taxes?page=entire
Posted 2 years ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
hugh59 wrote >>
By the way, I've seen a few drunken sailors in my time. They were little quick to spend their money, but at least it was THEIR money. The GOP congress made drunken sailors look like tightwads. Problem is, the current Congress is making the GOP look like tightwads. We are DOOMED!http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/business/global/16rating.html
Posted 2 years ago # -
hugh59
Aboard the ultimate power in Olde Towne East
Login to Send PM
pilsner wrote >>
I want everyone to pay their fair share for the use of the commons (roads, courts to enforce contracts, education system, etc).
I want a stable, growing economy like the U.S. had post WWII through the 1970's. We had an economy based on economic fundamentals. There were no asset bubbles. There were no bank failures.
The average CEO made 30 times more than the average worker because high marginal tax rates essentially capped executive pay. Instead, that money was reinvested into companies which led to more people being hired. Executive compensation back then did not rely on a their company's next quarter stock price.
A strong economy is driven by demand. The source of demand is wages of ordinary workers who spend practically all their incomes.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/106979/why_the_economy_grows_like_crazy_amid_high_taxes?page=entireSounds like we want a lot of the same things. Let me pick one little nit: I think that there were some economic headaches and some bubbles between 1945 and the 70s; we just don't remember them.
I think the pay of corporate executives is almost criminal. That money belongs to the shareholders (that is, US, since a great many of us have some interest in market equities either directly or indirectly). We need to have jobs here in the US where people are making the goods that we consume here. I don't want cheaply made nonsense from China that is contaminated with lead or cadmium or who knows what.
Posted 2 years ago # -
pilsner
Login to Send PM
hugh59 wrote >>
By the way, I've seen a few drunken sailors in my time. They were little quick to spend their money, but at least it was THEIR money. The GOP congress made drunken sailors look like tightwads. Problem is, the current Congress is making the GOP look like tightwads. We are DOOMED!C'mon Hugh. You're too smart for me to explain this....it's necessary for government to increase spending during recessionary times. Bush left office with the economy collapsing and in the midst of a financial panic. It was Bush and the Republicans who said we could fight two wars costing trillions of dollars and at the same time cut taxes for the rich.
Liberal/Democrats support spending priorities that benefit the people (Healthcare, Social Security, Education funding).
Conservative/Republicans tend to support spending for wars and corporate interests.
Posted 2 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
pilsner wrote >>
So it's so much smarter to strap college graduates with $40,000 of debt to pay for tuition when they hit the job market?That's not the question. The question is whether that $40,000+ bill should be paid by me and others with above-median incomes, or whether people should be responsible for their own debts. In addition, we already subsidize a great deal of higher education through the states, and I'm generally OK with that.
On the other hand, if you're burning $120,000 to major in general liberal arts at a third-rate private school out in a cornfield, why exactly should society pick up the tab for that?
It's smarter to allow for-profit health insurance executives to skim hundreds of billion$ from our healthcare system in compensation, dividends and advertising expenses? And at the same time allow 50 million people to go uninsured and millions of families to face bankruptcy just because someone in their family got sick or had a bad accident?
Again it's smarter, and more just, than sticking others with the tab, which is what a government-imposed solution would inevitably be. Also, if you don't like your insurance company, you're free to find another; if we're all forced onto a governmental system, that would no longer be the case. In addition, I'd rather deal with businessmen running the insurance industry than legislators. Or do you want reproductive health coverage to do a 180-degree turn every time the political pendulum changes direction?
Oh, and the "billion$" is a cheap and amateurish trope.
Posted 2 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
pilsner wrote >>
hugh59 wrote >>
By the way, I've seen a few drunken sailors in my time. They were little quick to spend their money, but at least it was THEIR money. The GOP congress made drunken sailors look like tightwads. Problem is, the current Congress is making the GOP look like tightwads. We are DOOMED!C'mon Hugh. You're too smart for me to explain this....it's necessary for government to increase spending during recessionary times. Bush left office with the economy collapsing and in the midst of a financial panic. It was Bush and the Republicans who said we could fight two wars costing trillions of dollars and at the same time cut taxes for the rich.
Liberal/Democrats support spending priorities that benefit the people (Healthcare, Social Security, Education funding).
Conservative/Republicans tend to support spending for wars and corporate interests.First off, national security benefits the people and is the primary responsibility of government.
Second, health care, social security, and education funding benefit some people. For others, they're a serious imposition. I've done the math with respect to how much lower my taxes could be if Medicare, Medicaid, and social security went the way of the dinosaurs.
Thirdly, there is basically only one school of economics (Keynesianism) that actually thinks you can spend your way out of a recession.
Posted 2 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
byJody wrote >>
If we really can't afford the blue piece, when are we going to talk about the red piece? (It's all relative)
sourceFirst, we absolutely should talk about the red piece, *and* the blue piece, *and* the green piece. It's just that after we talk about it, we would hopefully come back with the conclusion that at least part of the red piece is necessary, whereas the blue and green pieces are not. People *can* pay for their own health care; it's more problematic if national defense is a subscription service.
Posted 2 years ago # -
SusanB
Hungarian Village, Columbus' fastest growing Gayborhood!
Login to Send PM
Also, if you don't like your insurance company, you're free to find another;
Some of us may be free to switch insurance companies, I am not. As a breast cancer survivor I'm an insurance "untouchable". I am stuck with Anthem forever (or until I'm 65), unless something changes.Posted 2 years ago # -
pilsner
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
pilsner wrote >>
Liberal/Democrats support spending priorities that benefit the people (Healthcare, Social Security, Education funding).If that's true then why, in your opinion, do some common people not support Liberals / Democrats?
I think for many reasons. Republicans have been masterful at exploiting wedge issues that the corporate media loves to serve up. And, many working/middle class people have taken for granted government programs they benefit from.
The Dem Party is currently the big tent party and has a lot of conservative/corporate Dems which muddles things up for voters.
I prefer FDR's Democratic Party. He made it extremely clear he was on the side of the people and called out the economic elites.
Posted 2 years ago # -
pedex
Login to Send PM
Didn't Kilroy vote yes to reconfirm Bernanke? I believe she did, corruption confirmed. Same with the health bill.
****************
that little chart above as usual is a bit misleading
Both medicare/medicaid and SS are partially funded by payroll taxes above and beyond federal income taxes and other taxes like import tariffs and the defense budget as usual is far higher than what that graph indicates. Up until this year SS was paying for itself and the surplus has been borrowed against for decades. The "defense" budget figure doesn't include base maintenance and construction, replacement costs for equipment, intelligence costs, and a whole bunch of other items buried elsewhere in the budget. Can't have a reasonable discussion about any of this unless your going to have some honest legit figures to work with which our govt refuses to do, cooking the books is official policy and has been for a long long time. Even when some semi honest numbers are used the reality is also usually ignored, employment and U-3 vs U-6 for example is a classic case of deliberate deception done in plain view.
Posted 2 years ago # -
byJody
Rural NW Columbus
Login to Send PM
My point in relating the military and healthcare spending is that we spend way more on both than is necessary. We have to find ways to do BOTH more efficiently! Less high tech, more high touch.
Some of the Red Piece is necessary and some is a big hand job for the Military-industrial complex. (Way more Americans are at risk of death via untreated diabetes than from a Missile attack; It's just not as profitable to combat).
2009 Programs spending more than $1 billion (this is all high tech, not human costs like actual troops salaries and benefits)
Missile Defense $9.4 billion
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $6.9 billion
Carrier Replacement Program $4.2 billion (this I agree with)
F-22 Raptor $4.1 billion
Virginia class submarine $3.9 billion
Future Combat System $3.3 billion
DDG 1000 Destroyer $3.2 billion
C-17 $3.0 billion
V-22 Osprey $2.7 billion
Space-Based Infrared System $2.3 billion
F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion
MH-60R/S $1.9 billion
EA-18G Growler $1.8 billion
Chemical Demilitarization $1.6 billion
Stryker $1.3 billion
Littoral combat ship $1.3 billion
CH-47 Chinook $1.2 billion
P-8A Poseidon $1.2 billion
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle $1.2 billion
UH-60 Black Hawk $1.1 billion
E-2C/D Hawkeye $1.1 billion
Trident II Ballistic Missile $1.1 billion
Mobile User Objective System $1.0 billionMaybe we can vote on the necessity of some of these items. We need evidence based military - what is really necessary to defend $300 million americans and what is just a cool (expensive) gadget?
Posted 2 years ago # -
hugh59
Aboard the ultimate power in Olde Towne East
Login to Send PM
The article about high taxes promoting economic growth confuses cause and effect. The economy boomed after the second world war in spite of the high tax rates, not because of them. A lot of the insane things built into our tax code are there because congress wanted allow the rich to have a way to avoid the 91% top marginal rate. A lot of the tax dodges that exist today had their start during that period.
The writer knows less about the economy than I do. Economies where people keep reinvesting too much (as opposed to taking profits out and spending them) eventually start making bad investment decisions. There were boom and bust cycles in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s that the writer is ignoring.
But I am just a tax lawyer, what do I know about tax law?
Posted 2 years ago # -
pilsner
Login to Send PM
Yes, and our military is being used to protect the interests of transnational corporations in many cases. It's not necessarily used to protect us, the citizens.
Americans need to wake up to the fact that we have a lot of blood on our hands.
2 to 3 million Vietnamese were killed during the Vietnam War. And, for what? It stayed Communist and now we do business with them. That was a war of U.S. aggression.
Between 100,000 to 1 million Iraqis have been killed because of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. 5 million people are war refugees. There are Iraqi children prostituting themselves in Syria today to survive because of another U.S. war of agression.
Add up all these wars of aggression and the U.S. track record is pretty high up there on the list.
Posted 2 years ago # -
pilsner
Login to Send PM
hugh59 wrote >>
The article about high taxes promoting economic growth confuses cause and effect. The economy boomed after the second world war in spite of the high tax rates, not because of them. A lot of the insane things built into our tax code are there because congress wanted allow the rich to have a way to avoid the 91% top marginal rate. A lot of the tax dodges that exist today had their start during that period.
The writer knows less about the economy than I do. Economies where people keep reinvesting too much (as opposed to taking profits out and spending them) eventually start making bad investment decisions. There were boom and bust cycles in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s that the writer is ignoring.
But I am just a tax lawyer, what do I know about tax law?I give you credit for reading the article with hopefully an open mind, Hugh. Your critiques may have some validity and will make me think more about it.
Here's another article by Beinhart. Any feedback would be appreciated:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/106410/tax_cuts:_the_b.s._and_the_facts/
btw, I admire that you aren't a doctrinaire conservative/Republican and don't follow the Rush Limbaugh/John Boehner viewpoints entirely. They'd never be outraged by CEO pay.
Personally, I'm disgusted with the ObamaCare bill as a progressive Democrat. Again, I think it's pathetic and unconstitutional. It's pathetic in that it has mandates but no public option or Medicare buy-in. It's unconstitutional because it forces people to buy a for-profit product. What's next, mandatory gym memberships for fat people?
Honestly, I hope Scalia and company strike ObamaCare down and we get Medicare for All.
Posted 2 years ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
pilsner wrote >>
btw, I admire that you aren't a doctrinaire conservative/Republican and don't follow the Rush Limbaugh/John Boehner viewpoints entirely. They'd never be outraged by CEO pay.Since this thread is nominally about tea party types, perhaps it's informative that the tea party types themselves don't necessarily support Republicans, and that conservative views may not be Republican views ( and vice versa ).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100318/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_teaparty
But Tea Partiers insist that they are not beholden to the GOP and warn that Republican candidates counting on an endorsement from them in November may well be disappointed.
Interviews with Tea Partiers across the country paint a picture of a genuine, amorphous, conservative grassroots movement united by three core principles: constitutionally limited government, free market ideology and low taxes. The American Constitution is a rallying cry and many now dub themselves "constitutional conservatives."
They are angry not just at what they describe as the socialist policies of U.S. President Barack Obama. They also feel Republican politicians have betrayed the party's ideals. For many in the movement, purging the party of moderate Republicans is a major goal.
"I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Now if we have a Republican lined up to come to our meetings, I don't even want to go," said Nate Friedl, 41, a member of the Rock River Patriots, a Tea Party group in southern Wisconsin.Posted 2 years ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.