Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Do Me A Favor 33

Journal by pudge

This is a new thought on the previous journal entry.

The next time someone complains about local jobs, taxes, roads, schools, etc., and attacks the President or U.S. Congress, ask them what the name of their state Senator or Representative is.

If they don't know, encourage them to find out, and talk to them about it. As we who read this space know, such things are almost always controlled far more by the local legislators than the U.S. Congress, let alone the President.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do Me A Favor More

Do Me A Favor

Comments Filter:

  • jobs (Score:2)

    by jamie ( 78724 )
    So why has Bush told us, over and over, that we need to pass his tax cuts so that we can make the economy strong and create more jobs? He's sold us on a trillion dollars' worth of policy that way. Was he promising something he couldn't deliver?

    • Re:jobs (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      I've always maintained I don't give the President much credit or blame for the economy. I think some policies are better than others, and I think tax cuts do more benefit than various alternatives. But I favor tax cuts a lot more because of the principle of liberty behind them (keep more of my own money, have a smaller federal government [assuming you cut government to match revenue] so power is consolidated more locally, etc.) than for the economic benefits.

      To answer your question more directly: yes, I
      • OK, I'm gonna pass over the fact that Bush somehow ends up doing everything you agree with for completely the wrong reasons, and zero in on this:

        But I favor tax cuts a lot more because of the principle of liberty behind them (keep more of my own money, have a smaller federal government [assuming you cut government to match revenue] so power is consolidated more locally, etc.) than for the economic benefits.

        Um. What?

        Why would you assume that? Clearly cutting spending and cutting taxes have nothing to

        • Re:jobs (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          Why would you assume that? Clearly cutting spending and cutting taxes have nothing to do with each other.

          Of course they do. Revenue and expenditures have everything to do with each other. That is why we have this thing called a "deficit."

          That doesn't mean they always go along with each other, but they should, and it is my primary criticism of the Bush administration that they have not. This is not news to you.

          But I would rather have tax cuts and no spending cuts than no tax cuts, at least in the sho
          • Badgers and expenditures have everything to do with each other. That is why we have this useful measurement of reality called a "badgispend." (One "badgispend," as I'm sure you're aware, equals one free/libre dessert-toppinged badger times one billion dollars in government expenditure.)

            That doesn't mean they always go along with each other, but they should.

            (See what I mean?)

            But I would rather have tax cuts and no spending cuts than no tax cuts, at least in the short term, because it will eventually f

            • Re:jobs (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) *
              (See what I mean?)

              Not remotely.

              Your understanding of cause and effect seems limited.

              That you think so reflects a lot more on you than it does me.
          • Kerry when promising (OMG, a politician PROMISING) at the #2 presidential debate on taxing ONLY folks making more than $200,000/yr; he runs his mouth off and says

            "And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too."

            Frelling Trial Lawyer...

          • Re:jobs (Score:2)

            by ces ( 119879 )
            Personally I'm for paying off as much of the Federal debt as possible. Basicly beyond whatever is the absolute minimum necessary to provide liquidity to capital markets (and that could be provided mostly with short-term instruments) I would like to see it eliminated.

            The only long-term Federal debt I consider even remotely acceptable is for non-defense capital spending.

            I think this is simply good policy and that it gives the government more options when a crisis occurs.

            One thing that really worries me is
      • yes, I think all Presidential candidates far overestimate the amount they can actually influence the economy

        I'd have to disagree - they don't overestimate - they oversell the amount they can influence the economy. They _know_ they have no real control over it. But since the president has very few constitutional duties he has to pretend that he somehow has his fingers in everything and can do immediate good or harm.

        Take, for example, the tax cuts over the last several years. The first of which was su

        • Re:jobs (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          I'd have to disagree - they don't overestimate - they oversell the amount they can influence the economy.

          I meant overestimate in their statements. We agree.

          And off on a tangent... you could contend that the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans actually delayed job creation - encouraging the jobless recovery. If you as a business owner know that tax relief is not permanent, wouldn't you want to maximize your income while you can?

          You could argue that, but I ain't buying it. Most of the cuts expired j
          • You could argue that, but I ain't buying it. Most of the cuts expired just recently, and the businesses knew that Bush and the GOP were still going to be controlling things. So if they are thinking that long term, they'd have to figure that they would be renewed, I would think.

            The GOP might not have won the house/senate in 2002 - it was relatively close - so it's hard to say that they knew that.

            though their rollback was responsible explosive deficit growth under Bush 43

            That's overreaching.

            Bush 43

            • Re:jobs (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) *
              Bush 43 changed the upper bracket back to Bush 41's pre-tax increase levels (roughly). What I'm saying is that changing taxes that much did increase the deficit explosively.

              What I am saying is that this statement doesn't add up, because we have a deficit of at least $350b even without that change.

              Changing the tax rates back to end-of-Clinton levels now will not fix things because we're a trillion or so further in the hole than we were in '01 and have more expenses in the form of interest on that debt.
              • What I am saying is that this statement doesn't add up, because we have a deficit of at least $350b even without that change.

                What I'm saying is that if there never were tax cuts in the first place we wouldn't necessarily have a $350B deficit. We have a $350B deficit because the tax cuts are costing not 87B but $266B in revenue in 2004. Check out the CTJ [ctj.org]'s report [ctj.org] on the tax cuts. And since they just passed extensions to most of those cuts I'll use the bottom sets of numbers.

                So you're saying interest

                • Re:jobs (Score:2)

                  by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                  What I'm saying is that if there never were tax cuts in the first place we wouldn't necessarily have a $350B deficit.

                  I already subtracted the cost of the revenue from the actual deficit, $422b, to get the rough estimate of $350b.

                  We have a $350B deficit because the tax cuts are costing not 87B but $266B in revenue in 2004.

                  This is what I was initially responding to, your statement: "Bush 41's tax increases on wealthy americans eventually being responsible for deficit reduction under Clinton - though the
                  • Fair enough - I partially changed my argument mid-stream. These numbers only provide the top 1% which does not encompass the top two brackets. So it could be as much as 40-60% higher if extended to the top 2%.

                    So, I'll revise my statement - the tax cuts were largely responsible for the explosive deficit growth. The cuts that mostly benefitted the top 2% of income earners (top two brackets, capital gains reduction, estate tax, etc...) were responsible for a significant part of that explosive growth.

                    Th

                    • Re:jobs (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      So, I'll revise my statement - the tax cuts were largely responsible for the explosive deficit growth. The cuts that mostly benefitted the top 2% of income earners (top two brackets, capital gains reduction, estate tax, etc...) were responsible for a significant part of that explosive growth.

                      And as best we can tell, might be responsible for a significant part of the recovery.

                      The tax cuts had the effect of increasing the tax burden by the bottom 95% by 3.8% - and correspondingly the burden of the top 5%
                    • And as best we can tell, might be responsible for a significant part of the recovery.

                      Or it might just have been Alan Greenspan wise stewardship. As I pointed out earlier - we've come out of recession without tax cuts in the past. tax cut != economic boom. If you can raise taxes and get a boom, then why does cutting taxes help a bust? Seems like voodoo to me.

                      Good.

                      That's right, you support (or almost support) a flat-tax don't you?

                      If we don't cut taxes, the economy won't recover to the point whe

                    • Re:jobs (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      Or it might just have been Alan Greenspan wise stewardship.

                      It's likely a combination. We know that many business owners have directly credited tax cuts with the ability to buy more equipment or hire more workers.

                      If you can raise taxes and get a boom, then why does cutting taxes help a bust?

                      The boom was going to happen regardless.

                      That's right, you support (or almost support) a flat-tax don't you?

                      I support the repeal of the income tax amendment, but a flat tax would be preferable to what we have no
                    • It's likely a combination. We know that many business owners have directly credited tax cuts with the ability to buy more equipment or hire more workers.

                      There were equipment tax credits, so that part makes sense. But I don't really see how hiring people has anything to do with tax cuts. Hiring someone will either increase your profitability or it won't. If you hire someone with the intent to increase your profits, you'll make more money than you did previously - - tax cut or not. So why/how?

                      That's

                    • Re:jobs (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      If you hire someone with the intent to increase your profits, you'll make more money than you did previously - - tax cut or not.

                      You assume most businesses either have the money required to hired employees without tax cuts, or will spend money they don't have now in order to later increase their revenue later. That assumption is false.

                      A tiered sales tax system combined with a sufficiently large capital gains tax would probably be enough to fund our government and still place the burdon on those who can
                    • You assume most businesses either have the money required to hired employees without tax cuts, or will spend money they don't have now in order to later increase their revenue later. That assumption is false.

                      I'm saying that a business would not hire people if not to become more profitable. Most businesses get their financing from outside of the government. Taxes go against profits. If you want to make more money grow your business - don't complain that taxes are too high.

                      "Those who can afford it" is

                    • Re:jobs (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      I'm saying that a business would not hire people if not to become more profitable. Most businesses get their financing from outside of the government. Taxes go against profits. If you want to make more money grow your business - don't complain that taxes are too high.

                      Taxes go against profits. You use profits to grow your business. If you have fewer profits -- such as happens when you pay taxes -- you have less ability to grow your business. This is a simple truism.

                      What I'm suggesting is that a nation
                    • Who cares what you think? What business is it of yours what I can or cannot afford, and why should anyone but me get to decide that?

                      Hah - of course it's none of my business - but I don't want to think about what you can afford - I don't care what you can afford. I'm not trying to punish rich people, I'm just trying to maximize revenue. Fact - the more money you have, the more you're willing to pay for things - so I'm saying get your revenue where it's there to be had. And I'd add that it's none of the

                    • Re:jobs (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      I don't want to think about what you can afford - I don't care what you can afford

                      Yes, you do. You want to base my taxes on your opinion of what I can afford.

                      I'm saying get your revenue where it's there to be had

                      Yes, you will take it because you CAN. This is not freedom, this is not liberty.

                      And I'd add that it's none of the governments business as to how much money I make - and yet it's a crime not to tell them

                      And yet, it could be argued that it is a crime for them to compel you to tell them. I
                    • Yes, you do. You want to base my taxes on your opinion of what I can afford.

                      No, no I really do not. I want to base everyones taxes on what they're currently paying into the system. Affordability is arguable, people are currently managing to live with the system. And part of me says that a completely flat tax would work if every transaction of any form were taxed.

                      the conflict between the 4th Amendment and the 16th

                      The 4th is pretty clearly directed at protecting the rights of suspected criminals.

                    • Re:jobs (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      No, no I really do not. I want to base everyones taxes on what they're currently paying into the system.

                      You were previously arguing FOR basing it on affordability!

                      Affordability is arguable, people are currently managing to live with the system.

                      Homeless people manage to live with the system too.

                      The 4th is pretty clearly directed at protecting the rights of suspected criminals. The 16th is not.

                      Tell that to the Supreme Court, who used it to come up with a right to privacy that protects the right to a
    • AFAICT, Bush and his nearly independent Federal Reserves are both averted the massive depression.

      Now, it is the race for the congress to find an appropriate stimulatant for the US (and World) economy. Bush did mention in last nite debate that "Congress and I passed all appropriation bills." (did I get that one right?) necessary to boost the economy.

      That effort must be good to avert the stock market crash of March 2000.

      I'm sold.

      • Re:jobs (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) *
        I think Bush did a good job with what little he did, and the Fed did a fantastic job. But I think most of the credit goes to America itself: private businesses and consumers doing what they normally do and not losing faith and keeping the economy going. Bush and the Fed have something to do with helping America do that, but it is America doing that which counts the most.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Close