What has changed between then and now?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I guess the explanation that St Hubbins and I gave you was invisible.

I didn't see any explanation. To my knowledge, there isn't one, except that Democrats are retardedly stupid. How can the principle 6 months ago be, that raising tax rates during an economic recession is bad for the economy, suddenly change amid an even worse economic condition? It's completely irrational and illogical.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I didn't see any explanation. To my knowledge, there isn't one, except that Democrats are retardedly stupid. How can the principle 6 months ago be, that raising tax rates during an economic recession is bad for the economy, suddenly change amid an even worse economic condition? It's completely irrational and illogical.

Your knowledge is a shallow subject. Review post 12.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your knowledge is a shallow subject. Review post 12.

Review post 13 & 14... the point made was refuted.

"....it would have been a blow to our economy just as we’re climbing out of a devastating recession." ~Barack Obama (Dec '10)

WHAT HAS CHANGED????

 

[Bonestorm]

Review post 13 & 14... the point made was refuted.

"....it would have been a blow to our economy just as we’re climbing out of a devastating recession." ~Barack Obama (Dec '10)

WHAT HAS CHANGED????

Asked and answered. What has changed is the Republicans decided the economy right now doesn't matter and that deficits have to be addressed immediately and are threatening to cause the united States government to default on its debt if their deficit reduction demands are not met. In a world where deficit reduction is the primary concern, tax increases are a necessity.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

LOL, Dixie seems to think the goal is to convince him.


The goal is to goad him into ever more hysterical displays of stupidity, which are then disseminated as evidence of GOP intransigence.


Hey Dix, I solved the "crisis"....why can't you?



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=w3xl746t

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Asked and answered. What has changed is the Republicans decided the economy right now doesn't matter and that deficits have to be addressed immediately and are threatening to cause the united States government to default on its debt if their deficit reduction demands are not met. In a world where deficit reduction is the primary concern, tax increases are a necessity.

The Republicans have not made any argument that the US will default on its debt. This is a scare tactic being tossed out by LIBERALS not Republicans. We will NOT default on our debt, regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.... that ain't going to happen, and is not an option.

Again, on tax increases... if you want to increase revenues, you have to either lower the top marginal tax rates to encourage investment and growth, which will produce more taxable income to gain revenues from, OR... you have to increase the middle class tax rates. That's the only two ways to use the tax code to gain more revenue. As I pointed out earlier, a taxation of 100% on the highest 2%, would give you enough revenue to pay for 3 months of this year's budget. Completely dismantling the military and closing all military bases, would give you enough to fund the government for about 6 more months. You are still shy of funding the current budget by several hundred billion dollars... what else are you going to cut?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL, Dixie seems to think the goal is to convince him.


The goal is to goad him into ever more hysterical displays of stupidity, which are then disseminated as evidence of GOP intransigence.


Hey Dix, I solved the "crisis"....why can't you?



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=w3xl746t

LOL... and you are a fucking goofy ass clown! Your "goal" is to convince the American voting public, and I don't think you are doing that. In fact, I think you are doing a LOT to show the American voting public, just exactly how devoid of principle you are, and how you continually lie and manipulate the conversation. My prediction is, this will not bode well for you in the upcoming elections.

 

[Bonestorm]

The Republicans have not made any argument that the US will default on its debt. This is a scare tactic being tossed out by LIBERALS not Republicans. We will NOT default on our debt, regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.... that ain't going to happen, and is not an option.

Actually, we will default on out debt if the debt ceiling is not raised. Our revenues are insufficient to service the debt and to cover even mandatory spending. If the debt ceiling is not raised, we will default. And the Republicans have taken the position that they will not raise the debt ceiling unless the deficit is significantly addressed exclusively through spending cuts. Basically, the Republican view is that default is preferable to any tax increases whatsoever. It's insane, but that's their position.

Again, on tax increases... if you want to increase revenues, you have to either lower the top marginal tax rates to encourage investment and growth, which will produce more taxable income to gain revenues from, OR... you have to increase the middle class tax rates. That's the only two ways to use the tax code to gain more revenue. As I pointed out earlier, a taxation of 100% on the highest 2%, would give you enough revenue to pay for 3 months of this year's budget. Completely dismantling the military and closing all military bases, would give you enough to fund the government for about 6 more months. You are still shy of funding the current budget by several hundred billion dollars... what else are you going to cut?

You're entirely full of shit, but at least you have acknowledged (implicitly) that your dumbass question has been answered.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually, we will default on out debt if the debt ceiling is not raised. Our revenues are insufficient to service the debt and to cover even mandatory spending. If the debt ceiling is not raised, we will default. And the Republicans have taken the position that they will not raise the debt ceiling unless the deficit is significantly addressed exclusively through spending cuts. Basically, the Republican view is that default is preferable to any tax increases whatsoever. It's insane, but that's their position.

No, we will NOT default. Our debt is not more than our revenues. We take in enough to pay our debts and we would do so, as opposed to defaulting. What would have to happen is, government services would have to be cut, we wouldn't be able to spend on those as we had planned, but our debts would be serviced regardless.

The question has NOT been answered, I am still waiting. What has changed between December 2010, when the President said it would be "devastating to the economy" to raise taxes, and now?

 

[apple0154]

Let's also get a grasp on reality here... If you taxed the top 2% at a rate of 100%... it would fund the current budget for about 3 months. If you completely dismantled our military, you could add another 6 months of funding for the current budget. So...No military and take ALL the wealth from the so-called "rich" and you still couldn't come up with the money needed to fund the current budget, you would still fall 3 months short for JUST this year alone. What are you going to cut then? Better yet, what will you cut next year?

Entitlements are the problem, not too little taxation of the rich, not too much military spending... ENTITLEMENTS!

Entitlements are not the problem if by entitlements you are referring to SS and medical care and welfare. Do you have any idea how other countries operate? Any idea, at all?

There are numerous countries with "entitlements", aka: social programs, many feel are extravagant compared to US entitlements and, guess what, those countries are surviving so it's nonsense to say the US can't afford social programs.

You keep bringing up the silly "tax the wealthy 100%" nonsense but never mention it's the cumulative effect that is being experienced now. It's the years and years of tax cuts that have finally caught up and it will take years and years to pay down the deficit and now is just as good a time to start as any.

Remember, medical care/expenses are the biggest concern of many, be it a young family, the middle aged or the elderly. Also, many people's medical coverage is dependent on their job. ObamaCare is a step in the direction to rid the US of that archaic system. Dozens of countries have implemented programs ensuring people continue to receive medical coverage regardless of their employment status while in others countries medical care is simply "there". No forms. No monthly contributions/bills. No paperwork. If one is ill they go to the hospital/doctor. The question, the concern over affordability is no more a concern than questioning if one can afford to breathe the air. And when people come to realize that's how medical care should be and that it's quite possible to have such a system just like the dozens of other countries slight tax increases will not be a concern either.

Once people realize the Repubs have misrepresented and outright lied about government medical....well, the Repubs will have to find something else to bitch about.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, we will NOT default. Our debt is not more than our revenues. We take in enough to pay our debts and we would do so, as opposed to defaulting. What would have to happen is, government services would have to be cut, we wouldn't be able to spend on those as we had planned, but our debts would be serviced regardless.

We cannot pay our debt and cover all mandatory spending. So not only would the entirety of discretionary budget programs immediately cease (not a mere cut of government services) but Social Security recipients, Mediare and Medicaid recipients and the like would see severe, immediate benefit cuts. Under the circumstances, we would default.

The question has NOT been answered, I am still waiting. What has changed between December 2010, when the President said it would be "devastating to the economy" to raise taxes, and now?

The question has been answered several time. The Republicans have decided that the deficit is more important than the economy.

 

[wanderingbear]

The tax brakes for corporations need to be ended, and taxes raised on the wealthy at the same time help for the poor,elderly,and disabled needs to be increased.But the conservatives are bound and determined to steal from the poor and give it to the wealthy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We cannot pay our debt and cover all mandatory spending. So not only would the entirety of discretionary budget programs immediately cease (not a mere cut of government services) but Social Security recipients, Mediare and Medicaid recipients and the like would see severe, immediate benefit cuts. Under the circumstances, we would default.

No, I am sorry, we wouldn't default. We CAN pay our debts because we have enough revenue to pay them, and then we would have to cut other programs and services.... but our DEBTS will be paid.

The question has been answered several time. The Republicans have decided that the deficit is more important than the economy.

The question hasn't been answered... what has changed since December, when the president said it would be "devastating to the economy" to raise taxes? All you have answered with, is the change in rhetoric from Republicans... but how did that change principle? If it was "devastating to the economy" to raise taxes then, how did it change? Because of something Republicans have said? That doesn't make much sense to me, can you explain it in more detail? Because, the economy isn't in much better shape than it was in December, some would argue it's in worse shape... so why would tax increases not be "devastating to the economy" now? What changed that fundamental principle?

 

[Bonestorm]

No, I am sorry, we wouldn't default. We CAN pay our debts because we have enough revenue to pay them, and then we would have to cut other programs and services.... but our DEBTS will be paid.

We'd have to cut the entire discretionary budget. All of it. Plus severe cuts to mandatory spending. That is not going to happen.

The question hasn't been answered... what has changed since December, when the president said it would be "devastating to the economy" to raise taxes? All you have answered with, is the change in rhetoric from Republicans... but how did that change principle? If it was "devastating to the economy" to raise taxes then, how did it change? Because of something Republicans have said? That doesn't make much sense to me, can you explain it in more detail? Because, the economy isn't in much better shape than it was in December, some would argue it's in worse shape... so why would tax increases not be "devastating to the economy" now? What changed that fundamental principle?

Tax increases will still be devastating to the economy. What has changed is the priority of the economy. It is now secondary to the deficit. Where the deficit is the primary concern, tax increases are necessary notwithstanding that they will have a negative impact on the economy. It's insanity, but that's the game the Republicans are playing.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We'd have to cut the entire discretionary budget. All of it. Plus severe cuts to mandatory spending. That is not going to happen.

That WOULD happen before we defaulted on our debts to foreign countries. To claim that it wouldn't is completely ignorant of how these things work. You may very well fool some Americans into believing the scare tactic, but people who have any level of common sense whatsoever, know and understand that we are NOT going to ever default on our debts.

Tax increases will still be devastating to the economy. What has changed is the priority of the economy. It is now secondary to the deficit. Where the deficit is the primary concern, tax increases are necessary notwithstanding that they will have a negative impact on the economy. It's insanity, but that's the game the Republicans are playing.

Tax increases are NOT necessary. In fact, they will have the opposite effect of what we need to happen. You claim to want more revenues, but increasing taxes is not the way to get there, even Obama admits that to Joe the Plumber... it's not about increasing revenues, it's about 'fairness' or wealth redistribution. So you are going to insist we do something that is A.) By your own admission, bad for the economy... and B.) Will not increase revenues to the Federal government. All I want to know is, why has the principle (as stated by Obama 12/10) changed? You haven't come up with an answer that makes sense.

 

[Liberty]

The concept of spending cuts is completely foreign to them; their fix for everything is to raise taxes. But even if everyone was taxed at 90%, they still wouldn't have enough money for their government programs. Liberalism is insatiable.

Sooner or later, they will have to face reality. While I don't think modest tax increases should be off the table, that wouldn't make drastic, painful cuts any less necessary.

They're criminals.

They're trying to bring this country to it's knees, and get rid of (the constitution) any good thing about our constitution.

And make us the total slave.

 

[Bonestorm]

That WOULD happen before we defaulted on our debts to foreign countries. To claim that it wouldn't is completely ignorant of how these things work. You may very well fool some Americans into believing the scare tactic, but people who have any level of common sense whatsoever, know and understand that we are NOT going to ever default on our debts.

Actually, people who have any idea what they are talking about know and understand that if the debt ceiling is not raised the United States government will default on its debt.

Tax increases are NOT necessary. In fact, they will have the opposite effect of what we need to happen. You claim to want more revenues, but increasing taxes is not the way to get there, even Obama admits that to Joe the Plumber... it's not about increasing revenues, it's about 'fairness' or wealth redistribution. So you are going to insist we do something that is A.) By your own admission, bad for the economy... and B.) Will not increase revenues to the Federal government. All I want to know is, why has the principle (as stated by Obama 12/10) changed? You haven't come up with an answer that makes sense.

To significantly reduce the deficit, tax increases are necessary. It's as simple as that. And the Republicans have said that they will force the United States to default on its debt unless the deficit is reduced significantly. Under the circumstances, tax increases are necessary notwithstanding that they will harm the economy. It isn't too complex, Dixie.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

LOL... and you are a fucking goofy ass clown! Your "goal" is to convince the American voting public, and I don't think you are doing that. In fact, I think you are doing a LOT to show the American voting public, just exactly how devoid of principle you are, and how you continually lie and manipulate the conversation. My prediction is, this will not bode well for you in the upcoming elections.

I'm willing to take my chances, given your track record as a predictor.


Thanks for your ample contribution to the cause. Your posts, whether you know it or not, have changed lots of minds.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually, people who have any idea what they are talking about know and understand that if the debt ceiling is not raised the United States government will default on its debt.

No, actually... people with half a fucking brain who aren't spewing liberal bullshit out all orifices, know and understand we will NOT DEFAULT on our debt obligations! Not unless the entire country goes completely under and we simply don't have any other choice, and that isn't likely to happen. As I correctly stated, our debt obligations would be paid first from revenues we already receive, and we have enough revenues to service the debt... then we would have to decide which services and programs to cut and defund, and that would be unpleasant... but doable. Now you can bow up and lie to the people all you like, retard, I really don't give a flying shit...I am betting most of them reject your stupidity on the basis that it's STUPID!

To significantly reduce the deficit, tax increases are necessary. It's as simple as that. And the Republicans have said that they will force the United States to default on its debt unless the deficit is reduced significantly. Under the circumstances, tax increases are necessary notwithstanding that they will harm the economy. It isn't too complex, Dixie.

Again, you are being STUPID! Tax increases can't reduce the deficit when the deficit FAR exceeds the most extreme tax rate you could impose! IDIOT! You can tax the top earners 100% and it's not enough to fund one fiscal quarter of the current budget! Raising taxes is never going to generate the kind of money you need to balance a $1.6 trillion deficit, even IF raising top marginal rates DID increase revenues, which they DON'T!

Libtards view taxation in STATIC terms... You see where the top percentile pay X dollars in taxes this year, so you figure raising their rates by 2-3% will increase revenues by X+2~3% and that simply isn't what happens, because we don't live in a vacuum, every action taken by government has a reaction by the public, people behave differently, behaviors change when you raise and lower tax rates, and Libtards fail to consider that. When we increase tax rates on upper income earners, they simply earn less income, because they are discouraged from it. To realize an INCREASE in revenue, you have to LOWER the upper income tax rate, to ENCOURAGE income earning....thus MORE revenue. To spark economic growth, you have to lower or eliminate capital gains taxes, so that people with capital to invest, will do so. You think in static terms because you are a clueless idiot, a mind-numbed imbecile of the left, who doesn't have enough sense to think for yourself. Some Communist has filled you full of this class warfare bullshit, and you've believed it because you are gullible idiot who wanted to believe.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The medium-term budget outlook is perfectly fine if Congress adheres to the law as it's currently written.

That means no repealing the health care law, for one, but more significantly it means allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and (unfathomably) allowing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors to fall to the levels prescribed by the formula Congress wrote almost 15 years ago.
































http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...s-does-nothing-the-deficit-will-disappear.php