http://gamingtrend.com
September 02, 2014, 06:54:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ryan's Deficit Plan  (Read 2193 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« on: April 05, 2011, 04:43:55 PM »

Well, someone from the GOP finally decided to put forth a deficit cutting plan that wasn't written up just to score political points.  Miracles will never cease.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42420995/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Alright, this is a somewhat legitimate plan and therefore deserves a serious response.

What I Like:

1.  Finally, someone is willing to discuss cuts in Medicare/Medicaid.  There's little doubt that this is one of the most serious problems with the budget and has to be addresses in any long-term plan.  Kudos to Ryan.

2.  He cuts funding for Homeland Security, my least-favorite government agency. 

3.  Some other entitlement cuts, like farm subsidies.

4.  He cuts entitlements for those who are more well off.  Talk with many elderly Republicans and they all want to cut spending, but ask them for any of their Social Security or Medicare benefits and they scream bloody murder.  Fucking hypocrites.


What I Don't Like.

1.  Upper-bracket tax cuts and revenue projections are absolute bunk and make this proposal DOA.  It's an absurdity to think you can cut the upper bracket to 25% and not see a reduction in tax collections.  I'm in agreement that we need to cut the corporate tax rate so long as we eliminate all the loopholes that have 3 out of 4 companies not paying any taxes because we could see a net revenue gain by doing so.  But these lies - yes, lies - about cutting the personal tax rate somehow increasing revenue has got to stop.  Stop with this bullshit and I might take proposals more seriously. 

2.  The Medicare/Medicaid cuts leave the Baby Boomers alone.  The Boomers largely created this problem and yet their generation (stopped at 1960) isn't impacted whatsoever by these cuts.  Uh, no.  If we're cutting benefits, then those who caused the problem need to feel some pain.  I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for that generation of entitled freeloaders.

3.  Military spending isn't substantially cut.  Horseshit.  We spend as much on our military as everyone else combined (almost).  We need to see real, substantial cuts in military spending. 

4.  It really doesn't address medical spending outside of Medicare/Medicaid.  Cuts in entitlements mean more out-of-pocket costs for people.  Without some health care plan to ensure that there's some baseline health care covered for the middle class we could have serious social problems down the road.

5.  It uses many of the same fake assumptions the Democrats are guilty of. 


So it's not a bad proposal to consider, but it needs a lot of work to be something that's fairer, effective and realistic. 

Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2011, 06:33:08 PM »

How about pay cuts for the Senate and House?  It's not like they're getting the job done, after all.  :p
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3389



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2011, 09:55:00 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 05, 2011, 04:43:55 PM


2.  The Medicare/Medicaid cuts leave the Baby Boomers alone.  The Boomers largely created this problem and yet their generation (stopped at 1960) isn't impacted whatsoever by these cuts.  Uh, no.  If we're cutting benefits, then those who caused the problem need to feel some pain.  I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for that generation of entitled freeloaders.

Untrue. Those of us who are currently aged 54 and under get thrown under the bus. I turn 54 next week, and I was born in the peak year of the boom (1957), which ended in 1964, not 1960. So it catches something under half of us boomers (those from 1946-56 are safe, those from 1957-64 are sacrificed).

As an entitled freeloader I'm looking forward eagerly to my socialized medicine and will not cheerfully surrender it.

Regarding military spending, I read elsewhere that he would roll it back to 2008 levels, which would amount to a 13% cut. That's pretty big if it's true.

Big picture, this proposal is just posturing inasmuch as it relies entirely on spending cuts and rules out tax increases entirely. It's a predictable opening gambit from the Republicans, but both parties know that balancing the budget will require a mix of cuts and taxes. Naturally they want to force the Democrats to take up the tax side.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2011, 04:31:55 AM »

Say what you will about Ryan's proposals, but at least he's proposing tough reforms now. Unlike President Obama, whose 2012 budget once again punts on any significant reforms.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2011, 12:25:16 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on April 06, 2011, 04:31:55 AM

Say what you will about Ryan's proposals, but at least he's proposing tough reforms now. Unlike President Obama, whose 2012 budget once again punts on any significant reforms.

And I gave him credit for his willingness to take on Medicare/Medicaid.  But most of the rest of his proposal is pretty much shit - cutting taxes for the rich, reducing overall tax revenue (but not accounting for that), not touching military spending.  If you score the tax cuts for the rich rather than fudge the numbers to make those revenue neutral, this actually increases the deficit until the Medicare/Medicaid cuts kick in. 

So don't heap too much praise on his "tough reforms", which really amounts to the wealthiest people getting more and everyone else getting less.

Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2011, 12:36:08 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on April 05, 2011, 09:55:00 PM

Untrue. Those of us who are currently aged 54 and under get thrown under the bus. I turn 54 next week, and I was born in the peak year of the boom (1957), which ended in 1964, not 1960. So it catches something under half of us boomers (those from 1946-56 are safe, those from 1957-64 are sacrificed).

Ok, fair enough.  Now why should many boomers have their cake and eat it too?

Quote from: Ironrod on April 05, 2011, 09:55:00 PM

As an entitled freeloader I'm looking forward eagerly to my socialized medicine and will not cheerfully surrender it.

Nothing personal, but the so-called "Greatest Generation" (cough, bullshit!) and the Boomers made this budget mess.  It started in the early 70s and really escalated when Reagan started borrowing money like a nobody's business to pay for a massive increase in the federal budget while decreasing taxes for the wealthy.  Those who were fortunate enough to have stocks/bonds in the 80s made a huge amount of money hand over fist on an economy predicated on borrowing heavily from future generations.  Income gaps have grown ever since, along with the deficit.  Previous generations had a good time on my money and I'm pissed off that I'm supposed to pay for it.

Quote from: Ironrod on April 05, 2011, 09:55:00 PM

Regarding military spending, I read elsewhere that he would roll it back to 2008 levels, which would amount to a 13% cut. That's pretty big if it's true.

It's not.  Most of those "savings" come from the winding down of the wars that Obama started accounting for in his budget (whereas Bushy Jr. didn't).  There aren't any real cuts.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2011, 01:19:11 PM »

Maybe I shouldn't have even bothered in considering this a serious proposal.  It gets worse.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/paul-ryans-multiple-unicorns/

Quote
So Ryan is claiming that unemployment will plunge right away; that by 2015 it will be down to the levels at the peak of the 1990s boom (and far below anything achieved under the sainted Ronald Reagan); and that by 2021 it will be below 3 percent, a level we haven’t seen in more than half a century. Right.

Quote
Ryan is assuming that everything aside from health and SS can be squeezed from 12 percent of GDP now to 3 1/2 percent of GDP. That’s bigger than the assumed cut in health care spending relative to baseline; it accounts for all of the projected deficit reduction, since the alleged health savings are all used to finance tax cuts. And how is this supposed to be accomplished? Not explained.

Quote
This isn’t a serious proposal; it’s a strange combination of cruelty and insanely wishful thinking.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3389



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2011, 06:03:39 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 06, 2011, 12:36:08 PM

Quote from: Ironrod on April 05, 2011, 09:55:00 PM

Untrue. Those of us who are currently aged 54 and under get thrown under the bus. I turn 54 next week, and I was born in the peak year of the boom (1957), which ended in 1964, not 1960. So it catches something under half of us boomers (those from 1946-56 are safe, those from 1957-64 are sacrificed).

Ok, fair enough.  Now why should many boomers have their cake and eat it too?

Not sure exactly what you mean by that...but Medicare has been part of our social compact for 50 years, which is essentially the entire lifetime of everyone here. I've paid into Medicare and Soc Sec all my life and expect to benefit from that when my turn finally comes around (a scant 11 years from now). Those of us who grew up during Johnson's Great Society were promised that we would not be abandoned in old age, and lived accordingly.

Quote from: Blackadar on April 06, 2011, 12:36:08 PM


Nothing personal, but the so-called "Greatest Generation" (cough, bullshit!) and the Boomers made this budget mess.  It started in the early 70s and really escalated when Reagan started borrowing money like a nobody's business to pay for a massive increase in the federal budget while decreasing taxes for the wealthy.  Those who were fortunate enough to have stocks/bonds in the 80s made a huge amount of money hand over fist on an economy predicated on borrowing heavily from future generations.  Income gaps have grown ever since, along with the deficit.  Previous generations had a good time on my money and I'm pissed off that I'm supposed to pay for it.

No argument from me. We are undertaxed for the services that we want and need and the time is ripe to bring spending and revenue back into line, as we did once before during the Clinton administration (who was, btw, the first boomer president). Just be careful how broad a brush you use to apply the tar. Only a small elite got rich and had a good time from the policies you outlined. The vast majority of us struggled the same as anyone else. Just how many boomers struck it rich from Republican irresponsibility?

About 11%.

Quote
Boomers are getting nervous about retirement. Only 11 percent of those surveyed said they were strongly convinced that they would be able to live in comfort.

A total of 55 percent said they were either somewhat or very certain they could retire with financial security. But 44 percent expressed little or no faith they would have enough money when their careers end.

Further underscoring the financial squeeze, 1 in 4 boomers still working said they will never retire. That’s about the same number as those who say they have no retirement savings.

I don't think taking their Medicare away is prudent. Better to make it sustainable instead. I'm just enough of an optimist to hope that will eventually be the outcome when all the posturing is out of the way. (And yes, I expect to give up some benefits and pay a higher share of the costs).
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 06:06:49 PM by Ironrod » Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2011, 06:56:53 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on April 06, 2011, 06:03:39 PM

Not sure exactly what you mean by that...but Medicare has been part of our social compact for 50 years, which is essentially the entire lifetime of everyone here. I've paid into Medicare and Soc Sec all my life and expect to benefit from that when my turn finally comes around (a scant 11 years from now). Those of us who grew up during Johnson's Great Society were promised that we would not be abandoned in old age, and lived accordingly.

No argument from me. We are undertaxed for the services that we want and need and the time is ripe to bring spending and revenue back into line, as we did once before during the Clinton administration (who was, btw, the first boomer president). Just be careful how broad a brush you use to apply the tar. Only a small elite got rich and had a good time from the policies you outlined. The vast majority of us struggled the same as anyone else. Just how many boomers struck it rich from Republican irresponsibility?

The point is that there's no reason that all Boomers shouldn't also feel the pain of Medicare/Medicaid cuts.  I'm not asking for certain generations (who already greatly benefited) to pay more than their share.  But they damn well need to stop getting a free/easier ride than the rest of us.  Sorry President Johnson couldn't deliver on a 40 year old promise, but that's not my problem.

But hey, a rising tide lifts all boats, right?  Too bad those without are drowning.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2011, 07:14:31 PM »

I think my biggest problem with the Republican approach to health care is that the past 20 years has proven that free market mechanisms cannot control health care costs, and instead lead to an ever increasing rate of increase.  Obamacare isn't serious about addressing that either, but it lays the framework for a future that can address it.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2011, 08:22:52 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on April 06, 2011, 07:14:31 PM

I think my biggest problem with the Republican approach to health care is that the past 20 years has proven that free market mechanisms cannot control health care costs, and instead lead to an ever increasing rate of increase.  Obamacare isn't serious about addressing that either, but it lays the framework for a future that can address it.

I tend to agree about your first point in that goes back to what I believe is the single most damaging factor to Republicans......greed.

Unfortunately NObamacare will not snuff it out either.

.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3389



View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2011, 09:26:58 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 06, 2011, 06:56:53 PM

Quote from: Ironrod on April 06, 2011, 06:03:39 PM

Not sure exactly what you mean by that...but Medicare has been part of our social compact for 50 years, which is essentially the entire lifetime of everyone here. I've paid into Medicare and Soc Sec all my life and expect to benefit from that when my turn finally comes around (a scant 11 years from now). Those of us who grew up during Johnson's Great Society were promised that we would not be abandoned in old age, and lived accordingly.

No argument from me. We are undertaxed for the services that we want and need and the time is ripe to bring spending and revenue back into line, as we did once before during the Clinton administration (who was, btw, the first boomer president). Just be careful how broad a brush you use to apply the tar. Only a small elite got rich and had a good time from the policies you outlined. The vast majority of us struggled the same as anyone else. Just how many boomers struck it rich from Republican irresponsibility?

The point is that there's no reason that all Boomers shouldn't also feel the pain of Medicare/Medicaid cuts.  I'm not asking for certain generations (who already greatly benefited) to pay more than their share.  But they damn well need to stop getting a free/easier ride than the rest of us.  Sorry President Johnson couldn't deliver on a 40 year old promise, but that's not my problem.

But hey, a rising tide lifts all boats, right?  Too bad those without are drowning.

I certainly expect to see higher copays and more restrictions than my 81-year-old MIL is currently enjoying. She is the typical example of someone in her last year or two of life running up enormous, yet invisible, medical bills. She would have died 10 years ago without access to cutting-edge implantable pacemaker technology...I do not expect that kind of automatic entitlement myself.

I haven't heard anybody (seriously) insist that Medicare is untouchable, except maybe as an opening negotiation position. The suggestion that we should terminate Medicare to pay for yet another millionaire tax cut is a comparable ploy. They can't possibly be serious.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Jaddison
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2011, 11:24:55 PM »

I am not a liberal or a Democrat but isn't clear that if Ryan's proposal was enacted as is the net effect 20 years down the pike would be the poor and elderly dying off much quicker while the wealthy who can afford health care would live longer lives?  There is precious little in the plan that addresses job creation or even renewing the countries sagging infrastructure...instead it guts renewing the infrastructure.  To me it seems more like a plan to ensure the wealthy remain very wealthy until the country crumbles.
Logged
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 685



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2011, 12:01:24 AM »

Quote from: Jaddison on April 07, 2011, 11:24:55 PM

I am not a liberal or a Democrat but isn't clear that if Ryan's proposal was enacted as is the net effect 20 years down the pike would be the poor and elderly dying off much quicker while the wealthy who can afford health care would live longer lives?  There is precious little in the plan that addresses job creation or even renewing the countries sagging infrastructure...instead it guts renewing the infrastructure.  To me it seems more like a plan to ensure the wealthy remain very wealthy until the country crumbles.

Winnah!

Ale
Logged
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12466


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2011, 12:01:03 PM »

Quote from: Jaddison on April 07, 2011, 11:24:55 PM

To me it seems more like a plan to ensure the wealthy remain very wealthy until the country crumbles.

This...from a Republican budget proposal?  I'm SHOCKED!
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2011, 02:07:49 PM »

Quote from: Gratch on April 08, 2011, 12:01:03 PM

Quote from: Jaddison on April 07, 2011, 11:24:55 PM

To me it seems more like a plan to ensure the government keeps us under their thumb, and spends spends spends until the country crumbles.

This...from a Democratic budget proposal?  I'm SHOCKED!

FTFY
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Larraque
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2392


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2011, 03:21:00 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on April 08, 2011, 02:07:49 PM

Quote from: Gratch on April 08, 2011, 12:01:03 PM

Quote from: Jaddison on April 07, 2011, 11:24:55 PM

To me it seems more like a plan to ensure the government keeps us under their thumb, and spends spends spends until the country crumbles.

This...from a government budget proposal?  I'm SHOCKED!

FTFY

FTFY... again!
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2011, 06:42:33 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on April 06, 2011, 08:22:52 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub on April 06, 2011, 07:14:31 PM

I think my biggest problem with the Republican approach to health care is that the past 20 years has proven that free market mechanisms cannot control health care costs, and instead lead to an ever increasing rate of increase.  Obamacare isn't serious about addressing that either, but it lays the framework for a future that can address it.

I tend to agree about your first point in that goes back to what I believe is the single most damaging factor to Republicans......greed.

Unfortunately NObamacare will not snuff it out either.

.

It does lay the a framework though (which is more than the Ryan plan does):

Quote
The Affordable Care Act’s central hope is that Medicare can lead the health-care system to pay for value, cut down on overtreatment, and cut out treatments that simply don’t work. The law develops Accountable Care Organizations, in which Medicare pays one provider to coordinate all of your care successfully, rather than paying many doctors and providers to add to your care no matter the cost or outcome, as is the current practice. It also begins experimenting with bundled payments, in which Medicare pays one lump-sum for all care related to the successful treatment of a condition rather than paying for every piece of care separately. To help these reforms succeed, and to help all doctors make more cost-effective treatment decisions, the law accelerates research on which drugs an...

...If those initiatives work, they head over to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which can implement cost-controlling reforms across Medicare without congressional approval — an effort to make continuous reform the default for Medicare, even if Congress is gridlocked or focused on other matters. And if they don’t work, then it’s up to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, a funded body that will be continually testing payment and practice reforms, to keep searching and experimenting, and when it hits on successful ideas, handing them to the IPAB to implement throughout the system.

The law also goes after bad and wasted care: It cuts payments to hospitals with high rates of re-admission, as that tends to signal care isn’t being delivered well, or isn’t being follow up on effectively. It cuts payments to hospitals for care related to infections caught in the hospitals.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2011, 10:43:41 PM »

Quote from: Larraque on April 08, 2011, 03:21:00 PM

Quote from: Zekester on April 08, 2011, 02:07:49 PM

Quote from: Gratch on April 08, 2011, 12:01:03 PM

Quote from: Jaddison on April 07, 2011, 11:24:55 PM

To me it seems more like a plan to ensure the government keeps us under their thumb, and spends spends spends until the country crumbles.

This...from a government budget proposal?  I'm SHOCKED!

FTFY

FTFY... again!

WINNAR.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5100



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2011, 03:23:42 PM »

Every great calamity begins with small steps.

Quote
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services said today that it affirmed its ‘AAA’ long-term and ‘A-1+’ short-term sovereign credit ratings on the U.S. Standard & Poor’s also said that it revised its outlook on the long-term rating of the U.S. sovereign to negative from stable.

Most of Congress continues to think they can get away with rinky dink tweaks of the budget, but our debt is about to get more expensive. Unfortunately, it will take a major event like a default to make them consider fundamental changes to government services like entitlement programs, military spending, and massive subsidies to groups like farmers.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2011, 04:29:36 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on April 18, 2011, 03:23:42 PM

Every great calamity begins with small steps.

Quote
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services said today that it affirmed its ‘AAA’ long-term and ‘A-1+’ short-term sovereign credit ratings on the U.S. Standard & Poor’s also said that it revised its outlook on the long-term rating of the U.S. sovereign to negative from stable.

Most of Congress continues to think they can get away with rinky dink tweaks of the budget, but our debt is about to get more expensive. Unfortunately, it will take a major event like a default to make them consider fundamental changes to government services like entitlement programs, military spending, and massive subsidies to groups like farmers.



And taxing the super-wealthy more than 17%.

Quote
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42633769...ur_retirement/

Yep, it all has to be addressed.  Entitlements, discretionary spending, military, taxes and (probably) real health care reform. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9216


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2011, 04:43:05 PM »

Tax reform to fix the Bush era travesties is sorely needed.  The super rich have seen their tax rates go from 26 percent in 1992 to currently 17 percent.  That's a much steeper incline than the tax rates for the rest of us.

GE made 5.1 billion in profits last year in the US and hasn't paid federal taxes in 2 years.   Something's seriously broken when that kind of crap happens.  
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5100



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2011, 05:35:48 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on April 18, 2011, 04:43:05 PM

Tax reform to fix the Bush era travesties is sorely needed.  The super rich have seen their tax rates go from 26 percent in 1992 to currently 17 percent.  That's a much steeper incline than the tax rates for the rest of us.

Kennedy is the one to blame. I can't believe he campaigned against the 90% tax on "the rich". They're rich. They should only be allowed to keep 10 cents on the dollar. Anything more is just being greedy. The problem of course is reality. Historical tax revenue as a percent of GDP is steady over the last 60 years regardless of the top tax rate. We have a spending problem in the country, not a revenue problem.

Quote from: hepcat on April 18, 2011, 04:43:05 PM

GE made 5.1 billion in profits last year in the US and hasn't paid federal taxes in 2 years.   Something's seriously broken when that kind of crap happens.  

Because GE should be punished for following the tax rules and making a profit (that is used to pay dividends which are taxed) and providing thousands of jobs (whose incomes are taxed) and creating thousands of products (that provide sales tax revenue) that many of us use. That's just not fair.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9216


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2011, 05:43:15 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on April 18, 2011, 05:35:48 PM


Because GE should be punished for following the tax rules and making a profit (that is used to pay dividends which are taxed) and providing thousands of jobs (whose incomes are taxed) and creating thousands of products (that provide sales tax revenue) that many of us use. That's just not fair.

Following and exploiting are two very different words in the english language.  Establishing offshore accounts in order to avoid paying US federal taxes is just one of the many ways to exploit tax laws.  I know that legally, they're within their rights because they've hired the best tax lawyers available to help them find the loopholes that exist in anything created by humans.  However, there's a reason that the word exploit is generally viewed as a negative word that means an entity isn't playing fair.   Corporate taxes exist, do they not?  If so, shouldn't they result in SOME taxation at the corporate level?  If you feel that they shouldn't, let's just abolish corporate taxation altogether.

And giving the companies that employ huge numbers a pass when it comes to federal taxes may sound all cuddly and good when you phrase it  in such ways as "but they're the ones giving people the jobs that let them generate tax income!", but the reality is that they're pushing the onus of responsibility for footing the bill for all the luxuries and services they enjoy onto those same employees at the end of the day.  You can't tout the former without admitting the latter.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 05:45:47 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5100



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2011, 06:14:21 PM »

Looks like Eric Holder should have hired a couple of those GE tax lawyers.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
McBa1n
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2011, 06:19:22 PM »

What'd be nice to know is what 'loopholes' congress wants to close.
When one of them are asked about it - you see a deer in the headlights.

Sure it's great companies like GE create jobs blah blah, but you have to admit getting off without paying taxes on that level of profit is ridiculous. GE employees do need to drive on roads and stuff and there is infrustructure to conduct commerce that is required. Sure the employees are paying those taxes, but what about the entity that is really benefitting it?
Something is grossly wrong.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9216


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2011, 06:23:53 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on April 18, 2011, 06:14:21 PM

Looks like Eric Holder should have hired a couple of those GE tax lawyers.

is there supposed to be something about this that is cogent to my post?   icon_confused

wait...are you insinuating that GE and Eric Holder are...ACTUALLY ONE AND THE SAME!  I always wondered why GE and Eric Holder were never seen in the same photos or even in the same room at the same time!   eek
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2011, 08:02:13 PM »

Wait, what's this.......http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/24/john-stossel-ge-obama-cozy-government-business-handing-favors-folks-connections/

Nah, can't be  icon_confused
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3909



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2011, 08:14:08 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on April 18, 2011, 08:02:13 PM


I really don't get your  icon_confused. Are you mad because GE is trying to get government contracts? Or because Obama has named John Stossell to government positions? News flash, big corporations live on getting Government contracts. Look up Haliburton, Boeing, Black Water, Motorola, Lockheed Martin, Northrop, the list goes on and on.
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2011, 08:24:06 PM »

No, I just love how Obama and the Dems try to make it look like it's the Repubs in bed with big corporations when it doesn't get any closer than GE and Obama.

Didn't the GE CEO just go with Obama to Brazil? Doesn't GE stand to gain $$$ from Brazil getting the green light to drill for oil? and under Obama's watch?

A bit hypocritical of the left, methinks.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9216


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2011, 08:28:30 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on April 18, 2011, 08:24:06 PM

No, I just love how Obama and the Dems try to make it look like it's the Repubs in bed with big corporations when it doesn't get any closer than GE and Obama.

Didn't the GE CEO just go with Obama to Brazil? Doesn't GE stand to gain $$$ from Brazil getting the green light to drill for oil? and under Obama's watch?

A bit hypocritical of the left, methinks.

dems may be in bed with them at times, but bush was actively having sex with them.  

obama wants to reform corporate tax laws.  something the repubs find outrageous. 
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8799



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2011, 08:28:40 PM »

Quote from: Scraper on April 18, 2011, 08:14:08 PM

News flash, big corporations live on getting Government contracts. Look up Haliburton, Boeing, Black Water, Motorola, Lockheed Martin, Northrop, the list goes on and on.

How about one-stop shopping?  GovConWire - News on the Business of Government Contracting.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2011, 08:46:01 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on April 18, 2011, 08:28:30 PM

Quote from: Zekester on April 18, 2011, 08:24:06 PM

No, I just love how Obama and the Dems try to make it look like it's the Repubs in bed with big corporations when it doesn't get any closer than GE and Obama.

Didn't the GE CEO just go with Obama to Brazil? Doesn't GE stand to gain $$$ from Brazil getting the green light to drill for oil? and under Obama's watch?

A bit hypocritical of the left, methinks.

dems may be in bed with them at times, but bush was actively having sex with them.  

obama wants to reform corporate tax laws.  something the repubs find outrageous. 

Both sides are getting on my nerves more and more.

We need a hero  crybaby  Truthiness!  icon_razz
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3613


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2011, 09:16:27 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on April 18, 2011, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: hepcat on April 18, 2011, 04:43:05 PM

GE made 5.1 billion in profits last year in the US and hasn't paid federal taxes in 2 years.   Something's seriously broken when that kind of crap happens.  

Because GE should be punished for following the tax rules and making a profit (that is used to pay dividends which are taxed) and providing thousands of jobs (whose incomes are taxed) and creating thousands of products (that provide sales tax revenue) that many of us use. That's just not fair.


GE owns property within the United States that benefits from the protection of government-funded military, police, firefighting, and medical systems.  It ships products on roads and highways maintained by the government, across railways whose safety is overseen by federal regulators, and through airspace protected and administrated by the government.  It relies on the American judicial system to protect its patents and intellectual property rights.  Its cafeterias serve food certified by FDA.  Statistically speaking, its workers are the product of a government-funded K-12 educational system, and many rely on municipal mass-transit services to get to and from work.

These services are not free.  They are paid for, at least in part, by federal taxes.  Corporate taxes are not a "punishment for success" as Conservatives like to claim -- they're a revenue stream for the long list of benefits and protections that distinguish the United States from a regulation-free libertarian paradise like Somalia.  By choosing to contort the tax code in ways that escape paying any federal taxes at all, GE is claiming that it should be allowed to enjoy all the benefits of doing business in the U.S. while bearing none of the responsibility, and passing the cost onto ordinary tax payers like you and me.

Please elaborate some more on your idea of "fair."

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2011, 09:45:37 PM »

@AA yes, but it is in the best interest of us all to be gainfully employed. and politicians love to slap their name on anything pro-job.

should big corporation be less greedy and think more about the average worker and the country and our future? Absolutely. but I guess thats only in a perfect world.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3909



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2011, 02:15:33 AM »

Using Zeke's foxnews outrage example, the writer is apparantly mad because Obama wants GE to make a high speed train rail and wind turbines (Something that makes total sense with $4 gas being the norm).

On the other hand republicans are in bed with Haliburton and Defense Contractors. People who make huge profits from war (Foxnews conveniently leaves this detail out). Which in turn kills US soldiers needlessly and lines the pockets of Dr Evil, Oops I mean Dick Cheney.

The point is, our defense spending is HUGE. It needs to be trimmed along with everything else. But no one will have the balls to do.
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2011, 02:19:17 AM »

Are you stuck in the past, Scraper? Is that the best you can come up with...dredging up super-old stuff like that?

 The last thing we should be cutting is our defense budget.

But then again it isn't going to be a war that destroys us...Obama and the Dems are doing us in right now from the inside out.

 icon_razz
« Last Edit: April 19, 2011, 02:21:51 AM by Zekester » Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5100



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2011, 02:24:01 AM »

The rich are not rich enough to solve our problems.

Quote
A dominant theme of President Obama's budget speech last Wednesday was that our fiscal problems would vanish if only the wealthiest Americans were asked "to pay a little more." Since he's asking, imagine that instead of proposing to raise the top income tax rate well north of 40%, the President decided to go all the way to 100%.

Let's stipulate that this is a thought experiment, because Democrats don't need any more ideas. But it's still a useful experiment because it exposes the fiscal futility of raising rates on the top 2%, or even the top 5% or 10%, of taxpayers to close the deficit. The mathematical reality is that in the absence of entitlement reform on the Paul Ryan model, Washington will need to soak the middle class—because that's where the big money is.

Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

We recognize that 2008 was a bad year for the economy and thus for tax receipts, as payments by the rich fell along with their income. So let's perform the same exercise in 2005, a boom year and among the best ever for federal revenue. (Ahem, 2005 comes after the Bush tax cuts that Mr. Obama holds responsible for all the world's problems.)

In 2005 the top 5% earned over $145,000. If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. The rich, in short, aren't nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama's entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12466


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2011, 02:24:33 AM »

Quote from: Zekester on April 19, 2011, 02:19:17 AM

Uhh, no. The last thing we should be cutting is our defense budget.

We spend more on defense than every other nation in the world combined.  If we're tightening the belt everywhere else - as is proposed - there's certainly some room for cuts in defense as well.
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5100



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2011, 02:26:43 AM »

Quote from: Zekester on April 19, 2011, 02:19:17 AM

The last thing we should be cutting is our defense budget.

Why? Because defense contractors might lose jobs in the districts of powerful members of Congress? Even when the Pentagon wants to cut certain programs Congress goes into a tizzy and forces them to continue building shit the military doesn't even want just to maintain jobs.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.198 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.061s, 2q)