How not to pay down the deficit

[Guns Guns Guns]

Have you heard about Newt Gingrich's tax plan?


It gives millionaires an average $600,000 tax break and adds $1 trillion to the federal deficit in a single year.


In other words, it's just like most of the GOP presidential tax plans out there, as Republicans continue their race to see who can come up with the biggest tax cuts possible for millionaires.


In the Tax Policy Center's analysis of Gingrich's plan to create an optional 15 percent flat tax for families, the nonpartisan group found that the top 0.1 percent (who make an average of more than $8 million) "would get about a quarter of the windfall."


Low-income families would choose to stick with the Bush/Obama tax cuts.


The rich could take shelter in a new Gingrich plan that would make their investments tax free and cut effective rates on their income by half.


Here's a graph compiled with TPC data that shows tax savings along the Y-axis for certain incomes groups listed along the X-axis.

​

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...or-the-rich-in-a-very-very-tall-graph/249878/

 

[Damocles]

This assumes a zero sum game. We need the economy to grow if we plan on spending like drunken Obamas all the time. There is no way to tax ourselves into prosperity. If the top 1% were taxed at 100% they'd pay three frickin' months of our bills... Not even close to paying off that debt. Our policy needs to get business growing at a rapid rate or we'll never be able to afford the largesse that has been promised by our government to foolish idiots who think blessings come from DC.

Why doesn't Obama drive towards energy independence rather than ideologically bowing to "Green" technology that does not exist?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

This assumes a zero sum game. We need the economy to grow if we plan on spending like drunken Obamas all the time...

It does? If tax cuts produced economic growth, you'd have a point. They haven't. But you want to pretend that more of the same will grow the economy?

There is no way to tax ourselves into prosperity. If the top 1% were taxed at 100% they'd pay three frickin' months of our bills... Not even close to paying off that debt.

There's no way to cut our way to prosperity, either. Revenues must increase as costs go up. A balanced approach applied long-term is what's lacking in Newtzis' plan. Tax increases on those who've reaped the disproportionate windfalls of the past 10 years coupled with spending cuts will eventually restore the balance.

Our policy needs to get business growing at a rapid rate or we'll never be able to afford the largesse that has been promised by our government to foolish idiots who think blessings come from DC. Why doesn't Obama drive towards energy independence rather than ideologically bowing to "Green" technology that does not exist?

Funny that you think tax cuts get business moving after 10 years of application have failed to do anything of the sort. Consumer demand gets business moving, not tax cuts. And Obama is notorious for caving on energy issues. You have even called him Bush III, haven't you?

 

[Damocles]

It does? If tax cuts produced economic growth, you'd have a point. They haven't. But you want to pretend that more of the same will grow the economy?

If spending like idiots produced the results the Obama promised we wouldn't have to worry about it, but they haven't. You want to pretend that more of the same will grow the economy?

There's no way to cut our way to prosperity, either. Revenues must increase as costs go up. A balanced approach applied long-term is what's lacking in Newtzis' plan. Tax increases on those who've reaped the disproportionate windfalls of the past 10 years coupled with spending cuts will eventually restore the balance.

There is a way to target tax cuts to incentivize growth. When even Bill Clinton knows that raising taxes on anybody in a crisis like this one is a mistake, it takes special people to ignore the real negatives of tax hikes.

Funny that you think tax cuts get business moving after 10 years of application have failed to do anything of the sort. Consumer demand gets business moving, not tax cuts. And Obama is notorious for caving on energy issues. You have even called him Bush III, haven't you?

Funny that you think that overspending and more borrowing will cut the deficit after over 10 years of application (yeah, Bush did it too), but have failed to do anything of the sort.

Demand will be created when people have jobs. We need the economy to grow rather than stagnate, tax increases on job creators can, and have in the past, stagnated growth.

We need to stop assuming that borrowing more will solve a debt crisis and work to actually grow the economy rather than assume that tax increases already shown to be incapable of covering the bills can "fix" everything. It can't. Again, if government simply seized 100% of the earnings of the top 1% they could pay three months of the bills and we'd have no jobs.

Can you tell me how still more incredibly foolish and inefficient government spending will create the jobs it has been incapable of creating for the past decade?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

If spending like idiots produced the results the Obama promised we wouldn't have to worry about it, but they haven't. You want to pretend that more of the same will grow the economy?

No, and I haven't said I did. Obama and the 112th Congress have continued most of Bushs' follies, to little effect.

There is a way to target tax cuts to incentivize growth.

There is? Give an example and provide some evidence that it will work, then.

When even Bill Clinton knows that raising taxes on anybody in a crisis like this one is a mistake, it takes special people to ignore the real negatives of tax hikes.

"Bill Clinton knows that raising taxes on anybody in a crisis like this one is a mistake"? How so?

I think it takes "special" people (think Special Olympians) to pretend that tax cuts work, in the face of 10 years' worth of evidence that they don't.

Funny that you think that overspending and more borrowing will cut the deficit after over 10 years of application (yeah, Bush did it too), but have failed to do anything of the sort.

Please, link to the post where I said "that overspending and more borrowing will cut the deficit".

Demand will be created when people have jobs. We need the economy to grow rather than stagnate, tax increases on job creators can, and have in the past, stagnated growth.

Can you give some examples of tax increases stagnating growth?

"Job creators" have enjoyed 10 years of tax cuts, and I don't see any growth, or jobs.

How, then, can you reasonably argue that more tax cuts will create jobs or growth?

We need to stop assuming that borrowing more will solve a debt crisis and work to actually grow the economy rather than assume that tax increases already shown to be incapable of covering the bills can "fix" everything. It can't. Again, if government simply seized 100% of the earnings of the top 1% they could pay three months of the bills and we'd have no jobs.

Again, a balanced, long-term application of increased taxes (like allowing tax cuts for the rich to expire and closing loop-holes) and reduced spending will reverse the current debacle. Nobody said it would be easy or quick.

Can you tell me how still more incredibly foolish and inefficient government spending will create the jobs it has been incapable of creating for the past decade?

No, because more incredibly foolish and inefficient government spending will not create the jobs it has been incapable of creating for the past decade, and I never said it would.

 

[Damocles]

No, and I haven't said I did. Obama and the 112th Congress have continued most of Bushs' follies, to little effect.

Here we agree. Obama has not only continued them, he's doubled down on them.

There is? Give an example and provide some evidence that it will work, then.

It worked well for R. Reagan. GDP increased substantially due to targeted tax cuts. Even Obama realizes this and just now, now that he faces reelection he's decided to try for it.

"Bill Clinton knows that raising taxes on anybody in a crisis like this one is a mistake"? How so?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...inton_now_is_not_the_time_to_raise_taxes.html

Bill Clinton on CBS' "Late Show" with Letterman: "There's two different issues. Should you raise taxes on anybody right today -- rich or poor or middle class? No, because there's no growth in the economy.

"Should those of us who make more money and are in better position to contribute to America's public needs and getting this deficit under control pay a higher tax rate when the economy recovers? Yes, that's what I think."

I think it takes "special" people (think Special Olympians) to pretend that tax cuts work, in the face of 10 years' worth of evidence that they don't.

Again, it takes "special" people to think that still more deficit spending is the way to fix things after 10 years' worth of evidence that they don't.

Please, link to the post where I said "that overspending and more borrowing will cut the deficit".

It is what you support when you pretend that the minimal gain from "taxing the rich" will fix the deficit.

Can you give some examples of tax increases stagnating growth?

During the beginning of the Depression taxes were increased on the top tax brackets leading to stagnation in job growth and extending the Depression.

"Job creators" have enjoyed 10 years of tax cuts, and I don't see any growth, or jobs.

Nor will you with tax increases that do not even remotely come close to covering the deficit. We need economic growth to cover the deficit, nothing else will suffice.

How, then, can you reasonably argue that more tax cuts will create jobs or growth?

By simply pointing out that incentivizing growth through targeted tax breaks for hiring has worked in the past, as explained above.

Again, a balanced, long-term application of increased taxes (like allowing tax cuts for the rich to expire and closing loop-holes) and reduced spending will reverse the current debacle. Nobody said it would be easy or quick.

Again, first we need economic growth. Without that the tax increases would have a negative and debilitating effect on the economic growth.

No, because more incredibly foolish and inefficient government spending will not create the jobs it has been incapable of creating for the past decade, and I never said it would.

Yet you continue to support policy that leads us down that path, why is that?

Increase taxes when there is a boom in the economy, not while there is a stagnating growth economy. We need growth first and foremost, without it the cycle of debt simply creates still more of a debt crisis.

 

[Damocles]

I may not like all of Clinton's policy, but he's right here. You tax when there is a boom in the economy, not while we are stagnating.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Here we agree. Obama has not only continued them, he's doubled down on them...

Are you saying Obama has doubled the Bush tax cuts and spending?

It worked well for R. Reagan. GDP increased substantially due to targeted tax cuts. Even Obama realizes this and just now, now that he faces reelection he's decided to try for it.

Are you forgetting Reagan's tax increases?

He also closed loop-holes and broadened the tax base.

Evidence is here:

Reagan followed his 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases.In 1982 Reagan agreed to a rollback of corporate tax cuts and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. The 1982 tax increase undid a third of the initial tax cut. In 1983 Reagan instituted a payroll tax on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics


As I said, a balanced approach blending tax and spending cuts seems to work.


BTW, Reagan also increased spending and debt, didn't he?

Reagan significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...inton_now_is_not_the_time_to_raise_taxes.html

Bill Clinton on CBS' "Late Show" with Letterman: "There's two different issues. Should you raise taxes on anybody right today -- rich or poor or middle class? No, because there's no growth in the economy. "Should those of us who make more money and are in better position to contribute to America's public needs and getting this deficit under control pay a higher tax rate when the economy recovers? Yes, that's what I think."

So you regard Bill Clinton as a visionary on taxes and the economy? Interesting.

Again, it takes "special" people to think that still more deficit spending is the way to fix things after 10 years' worth of evidence that they don't.

It takes a determined Dancin' Dalai to pretend I said "that still more deficit spending is the way to fix things" when in fact, I haven't.

It is what you support when you pretend that the minimal gain from "taxing the rich" will fix the deficit.

If that was what I'd said, you'd have a point. In fact, as a cursory reading of the thread reveals, I actually said that a combination of raising taxes, closing loop-holes, and cutting spending would fix the deficit.

During the beginning of the Depression taxes were increased on the top tax brackets leading to stagnation in job growth and extending the Depression...

Did Bill Clinton say that on TV, or do you have another source for that assertion?

Nor will you with tax increases that do not even remotely come close to covering the deficit. We need economic growth to cover the deficit, nothing else will suffice.

And tax cuts alone have failed to produce economic growth, haven't they? Hence, I advocate the balance approach.

By simply pointing out that incentivizing growth through targeted tax breaks for hiring has worked in the past, as explained above.

And as I "simply pointed out" with authoritative citations, Reagan also raised taxes and increased spending.

Again, first we need economic growth. Without that the tax increases would have a negative and debilitating effect on the economic growth.

Based on what evidence?

BTW, Boehner & Co. are poised to allow the payroll tax cuts to expire.

Yet you continue to support policy that leads us down that path, why is that?

I don't, so why keep pretending I do?

Increase taxes when there is a boom in the economy, not while there is a stagnating growth economy. We need growth first and foremost, without it the cycle of debt simply creates still more of a debt crisis.

The last time we had a "boom" in the economy, taxes on the rich were higher, weren't they?

And yet you ignore the fact that I advocate a long-range combination of tax increases, closing loop-holes spending cuts and patience?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I may not like all of Clinton's policy, but he's right here. You tax when there is a boom in the economy, not while we are stagnating.

Is that what is called "cherry-picking"?

Are you assuming I supported Bill Clinton?

 

[Damocles]

Are you saying Obama has doubled the Bush tax cuts and spending?

Mostly the spending.

Are you forgetting Reagan's tax increases?

Are you forgetting that it was a compromise to allow the targeted tax breaks I spoke of?

He also closed loop-holes and broadened the tax base.

Yup. But that part actually lowered tax rates for certain groups, specifically targeting job creators.

Evidence is here:

Reagan followed his 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases.In 1982 Reagan agreed to a rollback of corporate tax cuts and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. The 1982 tax increase undid a third of the initial tax cut. In 1983 Reagan instituted a payroll tax on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics


As I said, a balanced approach blending tax and spending cuts seems to work.


BTW, Reagan also increased spending and debt, didn't he?

Reagan significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Again, yes. We understand that. Which doesn't change the reality that the targeted tax cuts worked, the GDP increased a bit over threefold. That is the type of growth we need to get out of our debt crisis.

So you regard Bill Clinton as a visionary on taxes and the economy? Interesting.

Can you point to where I said that?

It takes a determined Dancin' Dalai to pretend I said "that still more deficit spending is the way to fix things" when in fact, I haven't.

Yet, though you haven't said it you continue to support the policy that promotes it.

If that was what I'd said, you'd have a point. In fact, as a cursory reading of the thread reveals, I actually said that a combination of raising taxes, closing loop-holes, and cutting spending would fix the deficit.

Not without massive growth. Period. There is zero chance of "fixing" the deficit without growth.

Did Bill Clinton say that on TV, or do you have another source for that assertion?

Obviously didn't bother going to the link. There was video. You are incapable of debating honestly if you remain deliberately ignorant.

And tax cuts alone have failed to produce economic growth, haven't they? Hence, I advocate the balance approach.

No, you advocate tax hikes specifically targeted at the job creators.

And as I "simply pointed out" with authoritative citations, Reagan also raised taxes and increased spending.

And as I pointed out, due to compromise to receive the targeted tax cuts I speak of.

Based on what evidence?

BTW, Boehner & Co. are poised to allow the payroll tax cuts to expire.

Which, IMO, is foolish.

I don't, so why keep pretending I do?



The last time we had a "boom" in the economy, taxes on the rich were higher, weren't they?

Duh, taxes were raised while we were in a boom.

And yet you ignore the fact that I advocate a long-range combination of tax increases, closing loop-holes spending cuts and patience?

Again, you advocate to tax the "rich" now, which would increase our stagnation. If we do not learn from history we will repeat it, and that is one I don't want to repeat.

Raise taxes when the crisis is over and we have growth that will not be strangled by current tax rate hikes targeted at those you expect to create the jobs that will grow the economy.

 

[Damocles]

Is that what is called "cherry-picking"?

Are you assuming I supported Bill Clinton?

It was a positive statement about what I agree with somebody on, why do you assume the statement had anything at all to do with you?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It was a positive statement about what I agree with somebody on, why do you assume the statement had anything at all to do with you?

stop talking about me damo.......wait

 

[Bonestorm]

This assumes a zero sum game. We need the economy to grow if we plan on spending like drunken Obamas all the time. There is no way to tax ourselves into prosperity. If the top 1% were taxed at 100% they'd pay three frickin' months of our bills... Not even close to paying off that debt. Our policy needs to get business growing at a rapid rate or we'll never be able to afford the largesse that has been promised by our government to foolish idiots who think blessings come from DC.

Why doesn't Obama drive towards energy independence rather than ideologically bowing to "Green" technology that does not exist?

This response is hilarious. Heaven forbid you say a bad word about Newt's dumbass tax proposals.

 

[Damocles]

This response is hilarious. Heaven forbid you say a bad word about Newt's dumbass tax proposals.

When and if he is the candidate I will. Heaven forbid that you ever hold Obama accountable for his policy.

 

[Bonestorm]

When and if he is the candidate I will. Heaven forbid that you ever hold Obama accountable for his policy.

If you want to have a discussion about Obama's policies, I'm game. Start a thread. I've said many many many times already that I think his economic policies are shit.

You're deflection is so damned transparent. You should at least pretend to take on the substance of the thread.

 

[Bonestorm]

So were have a deficit problem that the Republicans think is the biggest problem EVAH and Newt Gingrich adopts a tax plan that cuts revenues by $1 trillion when revenues are already at their lowest level as a percentage of GDP since the 1940s. And he's the front-runner. That's awesome.

 

[Don Quixote]

Have you heard about Newt Gingrich's tax plan?


It gives millionaires an average $600,000 tax break and adds $1 trillion to the federal deficit in a single year.


In other words, it's just like most of the GOP presidential tax plans out there, as Republicans continue their race to see who can come up with the biggest tax cuts possible for millionaires.


In the Tax Policy Center's analysis of Gingrich's plan to create an optional 15 percent flat tax for families, the nonpartisan group found that the top 0.1 percent (who make an average of more than $8 million) "would get about a quarter of the windfall."


Low-income families would choose to stick with the Bush/Obama tax cuts.


The rich could take shelter in a new Gingrich plan that would make their investments tax free and cut effective rates on their income by half.


Here's a graph compiled with TPC data that shows tax savings along the Y-axis for certain incomes groups listed along the X-axis.

​

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...or-the-rich-in-a-very-very-tall-graph/249878/

since newt the grinch is a 1%er, why would not he propose a significant tax cut for himself

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

since newt the grinch is a 1%er, why would not he propose a significant tax cut for himself

Why, indeed? The real question is, why do some of the 99% bark their approval for this insanity?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]