democrat deathmatch redux

[corplinx]

Alright, the democrat debate from the other night is back on my mind again (you guys did watch, right?). I have been thinking about the actual substantive ideas presented. Here is a shakedown:

On Iraq:
Some suggested sending more troops to Iraq. This seems naive to me because of the fact that more troops would be seen as a more threatening occupying force and might possibly convince North Korea that our resources are spread to thin. I am sure that there are sound strategic reasons for not sending more troops. I am pretty sure that these candidates know this but also know that by the time that any of them is sworn in that the need for more troops will have diminished. Its a win-win issue.

Some candidates proposed pulling out of Iraq immediately. I think this is a bad idea.

On the US Economy:
All I heard was criticism and no actual ideas for improving the economy. The big problem with the US economy right now is one of investment. Unfortunately, the democrat candidates have fallen so deep into the "any tax cut is a tax cut for the wealthy" demagoguery that the solution is beyond them. That is, eliminating the capital gains tax and taxes on dividends. They said Bush hasn't led on the economy. Actually he has, they just haven't followed. We could have had a much faster recovery cycle if these guys hadn't played politics with our economy and jobs. The blame is _solely_ on the senatorial democrats. The slow recovery is their fault and they are passing the buck.

On the budget:
Every single one of the candidates wants to raise taxes. I think taxes are high enough. I think we should balance the budget through increasing prosperity versus raising taxes. Prosperity increasing and program growth reductions during the Bill Clinton/Newt era gave us the first balanced budget in ages. I would like to see at least one candidate for president who has even a minor clue about economics.

On social spending:
Some of the candidates want to socialize health care. I won't debate the merits or constitutionality of nationalized health care at this point, but I would like to point out that we should probably fix social security before tacking on another massive entitlement program. Otherwise I see taxes and spending growing further out of control.


I have a feeling Clark can sweep the rest of these guys if he actually has a clue and a real plan.

[DavidJames]

"They said Bush hasn't led on the economy. Actually he has, they just haven't followed. We could have had a much faster recovery cycle if these guys hadn't played politics with our economy and jobs. The blame is _solely_ on the senatorial democrats"

Maybe you can explain what you are talking about. Explain what Bush has proposed, what the Republicans have submitted to congress and how the minority democrats have forced their views on the majority Repubs. Then explain how if that hadn't happened, the economy would have been better.

Show your work :)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Show your work :)

But its so much funner just to spout off at the mouth without slowing down for supporting arguements.


Seriously though, I have long been of the opinion that the key to speeding up the recovery from the last downturn is to somehow stimulate investment. A downturn plus 9-11 has definitely crimped investment.

Normally I don't approve of government trying to micromanage the economy (interest rate tweaks, tax breaks, etc). However, I think in the aftermath of 9-11 in the midst of economic stagnation, the government should not ony have reduced interest rates but also cut capital gain and dividend taxes.

It was proposed, it was opposed, and I think it was a damn shame.

[SRW]

Originally posted by corplinx


Normally I don't approve of government trying to micromanage the economy (interest rate tweaks, tax breaks, etc). However, I think in the aftermath of 9-11 in the midst of economic stagnation, the government should not ony have reduced interest rates but also cut capital gain and dividend taxes.

It was proposed, it was opposed, and I think it was a damn shame.


It was opposed because this is a tax break for the rich, never mind that the people who would benefit most are small business owners, (who by the way employ almost 50% of the workforce, those bad people). Why should we help them? All they ever do is reinvest in their business to hire more people. That is silly after all if people are hired and working they just might vote for Bush and we cannot have that.

[DavidJames]

"But its so much funner just to spout off at the mouth without slowing down for supporting arguements."

True :D

"Seriously though, I have long been of the opinion that the key to speeding up the recovery from the last downturn is to somehow stimulate investment. A downturn plus 9-11 has definitely crimped investment."

I agree, but we disagree on the stimulus. Companies are not going to invest the savings from capital gains and dividend tax cuts unless the people doing the buying believe they will have jobs, much less money to buy the stuff. Putting money in your and my hands, enough money, is what I believe would provide the stimulus.

[jj]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I agree, but we disagree on the stimulus. Companies are not going to invest the savings from capital gains and dividend tax cuts unless the people doing the buying believe they will have jobs, much less money to buy the stuff. Putting money in your and my hands, enough money, is what I believe would provide the stimulus.

And convincing people that the economy will futher tank, lay off bunches of them using 9-11 panic as a lame excuse, and make everyone feel threatened, and we get an economy oh, about like we have here, now.

Odd, that, eh?

[Reager]

Originally posted by SRW



It was opposed because this is a tax break for the rich, never mind that the people who would benefit most are small business owners, (who by the way employ almost 50% of the workforce, those bad people). Why should we help them? All they ever do is reinvest in their business to hire more people. That is silly after all if people are hired and working they just might vote for Bush and we cannot have that.

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we just eliminate taxes for the rich? Then the rest of us will be swimming in dough!! :)


Mike

[SRW]

Originally posted by mfeldman


Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we just eliminate taxes for the rich? Then the rest of us will be swimming in dough!! :)


Mike

Gee you must be a government worker.

What do you call rich? The Rich are the top 5% of earners. That starts at $160,000. Sure the super rich need to pay a higher % and a progressive tax makes sense. But the people who pay the lions share of taxes are not the super rich but the upper middle class.

For example a my dentist, has his own practice, he makes a good living but he also is a small business owner. On the income he earns he pays his receptionist, his nurse, oral hygienist and also pays rent on the office space, pays an accountant and through the nose for insurance. But he is rich so why give him a tax break?

Now not the same with the corporate attorney or VP pulling in 160,000, who is not generation jobs. I have no problem with them paying a fair tax.

[Reager]

Originally posted by SRW


Now not the same with the corporate attorney or VP pulling in 160,000, who is not generation jobs. I have no problem with them paying a fair tax.


I think everyone should pay a fair tax (and, yeah, fair does not mean "equal"). But our president seems to think that corporate CEO's who pull in $16,000,000 are the ones who shouldn't pay taxes.


Mike

[SRW]

Originally posted by mfeldman



I think everyone should pay a fair tax (and, yeah, fair does not mean "equal"). But our president seems to think that corporate CEO's who pull in $16,000,000 are the ones who shouldn't pay taxes.


Mike

I must have missed that proposal, where did you see that?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by SRW


I must have missed that proposal, where did you see that?

My wife apparently thinks that proposal is out there also. Of course, she has a brain injury to blame........

[SRW]

Originally posted by corplinx


My wife apparently thinks that proposal is out there also. Of course, she has a brain injury to blame........

Oh so she must be an adviser to one of the 9...

[Reager]

Originally posted by SRW


I must have missed that proposal, where did you see that?

Oh please. Let's not pretend I was being anything other than a bit facetious, it only reflects poorly on you. It's indisputable that Bush's tax cut directly benefit the wealthy (that they may indirectly benefit the rest of us is open to debate....serious debate).

Mike

[corplinx]

Originally posted by mfeldman


It's indisputable that Bush's tax cut directly benefit the wealthy

Actually, that is in dispute. The first year of Bush's tax cut, everyone got......... 300 bucks! Now, 300 bucks was good back to school money for working families. However, this amount of money was marginal at best to someone who pays over 30k a year in federal income taxes already.

So yes, I dispute that the bush tax cut directly benefitted the wealthy since the refund portion of it wasn't scaled.

Mind you, I think the refund was a good idea even though I don't agree with how it was carried out. I think it was a powerful symbolic statement.

So, where are these mystical tax cuts that gave the wealthy a tangible benefit but left out joe twelve-pack?

[SRW]

Originally posted by mfeldman


Oh please. Let's not pretend I was being anything other than a bit facetious, it only reflects poorly on you. It's indisputable that Bush's tax cut directly benefit the wealthy (that they may indirectly benefit the rest of us is open to debate....serious debate).

Mike


Ok seriously show me how the Bush tax cuts benifit the rich, if you can make the statment please back it up. Also show me how tax cuts for small business hurts the economy.

[Reager]

Originally posted by corplinx


So, where are these mystical tax cuts that gave the wealthy a tangible benefit but left out joe twelve-pack?

You conveniently forgot his second round of cuts..not to mention cuts in dividend taxes, capital gains, and the estate tax. Please, explain how eliminating the estate tax doesn't give a "tangible benefit" to the wealthy, when estate taxes don't even apply to estates worth less than a million dollars.

Mike

[Reager]

Originally posted by SRW


Ok seriously show me how the Bush tax cuts benifit the rich, if you can make the statment please back it up.

All of a sudden this thread is about backing up statements? That's a lark.

Also show me how tax cuts for small business hurts the economy.

I never said tax cuts for small business hurt the economy.

Mike

[corplinx]

Originally posted by mfeldman


You conveniently forgot his second round of cuts..not to mention cuts in dividend taxes, capital gains, and the estate tax. Please, explain how eliminating the estate tax doesn't give a "tangible benefit" to the wealthy, when estate taxes don't even apply to estates worth less than a million dollars.

Mike

The second round of tax cuts cut the rate for the middle bracket. The child tax credit is another one that mostly benefits the middle class. The third round tax cuts cut the middle bracket _again_ and finally gave the upper bracket a small cut.

The other taxes you mentioned never passed!

Once again, people who say "tax cuts for the wealthy" leave it to those who disagree to research that ill-assumption.

If anything Bush has finally realized the Clinton 92 tax cut the middle class was promised.

[Reager]

Huh? Estate tax exemptions are increasing and [the estate tax] will be completely repealed by 2010 (it will come back the next year, but will probably made permanent if Republicans have their way). That you can't even ackowledge that shows you're obviously living in some sort of fantasy world.

Mike

Edited to add: [the estate tax]

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by corplinx
The first year of Bush's tax cut, everyone got......... 300 bucks!Nnnno. "Everyone" did not get three-hundred dollars.Mind you, I think the refund was a good idea even though I don't agree with how it was carried out. I think it was a powerful symbolic statement. The so-called refund was actually a credit which, by design, must be repaid. The little trick did give the appearance of returning dollars to taxpayers though, so yes, symbolic is the appropriate term.