Tax Cut (speaking of dumb conservatives)

Great Debates
1

Please point out the flaw in the following:

Assume an economic downturn, possibly a recession.
Which results in lower personal income, lower corporate income.
Which results in lower-than-projected federal tax revenue.
So, 10-year-projections are out the window, and all bets are off re: surpluses.
Therefore, a tax cut now will lock in rates that we don’t know will cover projected spending.
Result: we’re back to deficits.

And didn’t that whole “tax cuts will stimulate the economy, thereby resulting in offsetting gains in income/tax revenue” / laffer curve / trickle-down B.S. get thoroughly repudiated in the Reagan years?

2

Gosh. If there are problems, we can always raise taxes again. This ain’t a constitutional ammendment or anything!

I haven’t noticed any depressions for the past 18 years, have you? :confused:

3

jsc1953:

Tax revenues did increase during the Reagan years.

Unfortunately, spending did as well, and at a faster rate than revenues did.

Bush’s budget proposal was to hold spending growth down to 4%, which is higher than the rate of inflation. Hopefully, the Republican majority in Congress will act responsibly, something the Democratic majority failed to do in the 80’s.

How so? Why is that more “locked in” than the spending numbers are?

4

It’s total bullshit stem to stern. If it was a boat it’d sink. If it was a liquid, it wouldn’t pour, if it was a car it wouldn’t start. If it was a mocking bird it wouldn’t sing. If it came from a liberal trying to hide his own ineptness behind an agresive and fashionable anti-conservative stance I wouldn’t be surprised.

Yeah, OK. Sure, since we’re assuming.

Say what? 10 years is plenty of time for two full business cycles. The numbers could just as easily be higher. The models take this into account, and the projections are subject to change as new data comes in.

What do you think? They have some dork with a graph looking at one number? Economic projections are based on diverse data, and don’t assume straight line growth.

We didn’t know before. That’s why it’s a projection and not a fact.

Really? You seem to think that a degree of uncertainty somehow proves failure. That’s false. Your conclusion doesn’t follow, and your sophomoric economics model is devoid of intelligent or logical conclusions that follow from data.

A couple of quarters of sub par performance aren’t particularly suggestive of anything. We had a slow down in '94 and the nineties were pretty kick-ass. Slowdowns/recessions/soft landings are all realities of a healthy economy.

No, not really, not the wealth effect either. These things all have tangible effects, the trick is figuring out their emphasis and interreaction.

I suppose your economic model comes from the “Cat in the Hat.”

And from this blathering, half-assed, fallacious, bullshit you conclude conservatives are dumb.

Perhaps they grade on the curve on your side of the fence.

Wipe your nose, chucklehead.

5

Just a reminder:

Despite the cries of “We have a budget surplus!” coming from Capitol Hill over the last few years, the National Debt has continued to increase. This is because our Federal “surplus” only qualifies as a surplus when you add in the annual windfalls we’ve been getting from the Social Security program. Social Security surplusses cannot be used to pay down the National Debt – in fact, they make the National Debt go up, because Social Security surplusses are required to be invested in U.S. Treasury securities. In order to decrease the National Debt, it is not enough just to have an overall “surplus.” It is not, even, enough to have a surplus in the non-Social-Security parts of the Federal Budget (called “on-budget items” by the U.S. Treasury). You must have more of an on-budget surplus than the Social Security surplus.

Remember that the next time someone brags about the Federal surplus to you.

6

Easy, Scylla. Mayhap you’re being a bit harsher than warranted?

7

Whoowhee, just a tad. Good thing I don’t take this personally.

8

andros:

Perhaps. “Dumb conservatives,” is as rude and bigoted an appellation “Stupid Wop,” “Greedy Jew,” or worse. I’m appalled by the smug cowardice of tossing that in.

I’m sure one can go to a message board primarily visited by the religious right, bash gays, and get away with it. It doesn’t make it right. Nor is this trend.

9

Only in that it’s Congress’ job to draft a budget, thereby reviewing spending, every year. Tax rates are not subject to annual review. And once they’re lowered, they’re difficult to raise.

10

:shrug: If you say so. I suspect many Jews and Italians would disagree with you.

I’m not saying that jsc was justified in calling conservatives dumb (tho to be fair, he didn’t necessarily call ALL conservatives dumb). Seems to me that he is guilty of no more than not understanding the reasoning behind the proposed Bush tax cuts. Perhaps if that reasoning is explained to him, he will be less inclined to make silly blanket statements. But the fact remains that he is most likely suffering from a mild case of ignorance.

And what are we here to fight again?

11

I was “inspired” by the “are conservatives dumber than liberals” thread

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=63228

in choosing the title for this one. I regret the offense you obviously have taken.

12

::Breathing out::
Perhaps there is a slight possibility that I was maybe just a little bit testy there.
You’ll need to be more careful of screwing with conservatives when the market’s down, though :wink:

13

I think we have a record…most qualifications per actual words in a sentence. :slight_smile:

Let’s shake hands & return to our corners.

14

[Moderator Hat ON]

You were getting close to the line there, Scylla. While “wipe your nose, chucklehead” may not be the most offensive remark I’ve ever seen, it’s not the most decorous comment either.

Us liberals don’t like a crappy market, either, by the way…

[Moderator Hat OFF]

15

That’s gracious of you. Sorry about the chucklehead thing.

16

::smiling from ear to ear::

Thanks Scylla:)

17

For what?

I overreacted, he graciously apologized. I look like a rabid asshole, and then I get warned. Meanwhile I hijacked the thread.

Now, you thankme?

18

jsc1953:

A budget includes both spending and income. If they’re drafting a budget, they’ll tailor the two to converge properly, by tweaking either or both of those factors.

If there’s enough popular support for specific items, and there’s clearly not enough money to pay for them, then they ought to be able to convince their constituents that a tax increase is necessary.

Chaim Mattis Keller

19

Someone PLEASE explain this logic. I still don’t get it. The argument, apparently, is that the U.S. should not lower taxes, because the money MIGHT be needed if the economy tanks.

Okay, fine. So what are the Democrats planning to do with that money? After all, they want it to be available in case the economy tanks, right?

Then how come they want to spend it? The Democratic proposal is to take the surplus and devote 1/3 to debt reduction (about the same as Bush), 1/3 to tax relief, and 1/3 to NEW spending programs. This money is not going into the Social Security Trust Fund, it’s not going into the bank to be used in the future. It’s getting spent on new entitlements.

So, in either case, the money is gone. But in the Democrat’s case, the money’s gone but taxes are still where they are today. So, if taxes DO have to be raised in the future, under which program would it be easier to do so?

Anyway, if the Democrats are all for fiscal responsibility and triggers, why don’t they offer a trigger on SPENDING? There’s going to be a new prescription drug program for Seniors. Why not scale it to the size of the deficit? As the deficit grows, the deduction limit for drugs goes up. Save a few hundred billion there. How about a trigger that mandates that government increase spending rates to no more than the rate of inflation in any year where the surplus is less than 50 billion? Or better yet, how about pegging federal budget to the growth rate in GNP? If we’re in a recession, why shouldn’t government’s have to scale back just like private businesses do?

Since the 1970’s, Democrats have been using infled CBO long-range economic projections to justify increased spending programs. Now the Republicans want to use those projections for a tax cut, and suddenly every Democrat in the government is singing the dangers of these projections.

If you want to make an argument that the surplus should be used for spending, fine. At least have the courage of your convictions to say so. But the Democrats won’t do that, because they’ve cynically decided that there is more political capital in claiming to be fiscally responsible, even though they know damned well that their program is more dangerous than Bush’s.

20

The debt to asset ratio in the US is certainly acceptable to me, and always has been. If you look at in the light of your own personal debt ratio, i.e your income compared to what you owe for houses, cars, etc. then you can see that the US certainly operates within it’s means.

I’m not saying we should continually increase our debt, and yes I would even agree we should keep it in check, but to ever think we should pay it all off and be debt free is ridiculous. There’s no logical or sound reason for it. In fact, we should always have a modest amount of debt. Especially when you lay the burden of paying off that debt on my back and the money I work very hard for. The government has bills to pay? Guess what? So do I! And as far as I’m concerned, my debt is more important! How many of you don’t work hard for what you make? From some of the comments I’ve seen on this board I’m inclined to believe some people would be happy if everyones paycheck were just thrown into a barrel and doled out to everyone according to his/her needs? Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

Taxes are too high. Everything is taxed. Social security and medicare payments that come out of my paycheck are too high. If you work for a company then you are lucky enough to have %7 (%7.5?) of your social security payments offset by that company. If you are self employed you have to bear the full burden. When income taxes were first levied several members of congress wanted to put a cap on it of %1.5 but they were shot down for that recommendation. Why? Because those in opposition feared that if they did that then congress would waste no time in raising it to that rate. HA! Now look at us.

Yes, I want good roads to drive on, although I’ve yet to see a state in this country that actually builds roads to last. The technology and know how is certainly available to do it. Yes, I want fire/police (although we are severly over policed imo)/etc. And in all fairness, one persons pork spending is another persons livlihood. But still, do we really need to study bovine emissions? Or should I ask do I NEED TO PAY FOR SUCH A STUDY? I think not. Give me good roads and someone to put out the fire when I accidentily set my house aflame from my weekend bbq and pay for your own cow fart study.

It’s my money. I worked for it. I want to pay taxes to have a solid infrastrcture, but for me to have to pay for some of the things congress spends money on is equivalent to strong arm robbery. And I believe that is a felony in all places in this country.

Do I think tax relief is the right thing to do? Hell yes I do! I also think abolishment of many taxes is certainly in order. I happen to live in a state that also taxes your groceries. What kind of sick $!#@ is that?

Income tax
FICA/Medicare
State tax
City Tax
Property tax
Sales tax
taxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtax

As the british comedian so eloquently put it “So how are you americans getting along now with no taxes?” I for one consider Bush’s tax reduction proposals a pitance compared to the relief I think is needed. Give me back my money, damnit!

hmmmph
<the author considers himself a staunch libertarian. are democrats dumber then republicans? no, I’d say they’re pretty equal and equally evil>