What's new
By:

Reduce Spending and Raise Taxes?

GoJazz

GoJazz

Well-Known Member
So I was at Chili's and (no Paul Millsap didnt come in) we were talking about our current government financial crisis. I proposed raising taxes and reducing spending. My Democrat friends looked at me like I was crazy for saying to reduce spending and my republican friends looked at me like I was crazy for saying to raise taxes?

So my question to all of you is... Is that so crazy? Seems to me its only logical to attack the problem on both sides. I know at my home personally when we have debt we try to reduce our spending and increase our earnings but I guess for some reason for the government to do the same would be absolute crazyness...
 
The rich own the government and media, and don't want their taxes raised. The poor and middle class don't want their taxes raised, and they're the voters. And no politician wants to risk their career by advocating a cut on x program or a rise in taxes for x.

So while I'm sure that there are some smart people out there that can come up with great plans. I don't see any politician or political party that has the groanal fortitude to carry that particular plan out.
 
GoJazz said:
So I was at Chili's and (no Paul Millsap didnt come in) we were talking about our current government financial crisis. I proposed raising taxes and reducing spending. My Democrat friends looked at me like I was crazy for saying to reduce spending and my republican friends looked at me like I was crazy for saying to raise taxes?

So my question to all of you is... Is that so crazy? Seems to me its only logical to attack the problem on both sides. I know at my home personally when we have debt we try to reduce our spending and increase our earnings but I guess for some reason for the government to do the same would be absolute crazyness...
Click to expand...

Depending where you are on the Laffer curve raising taxes could reduce government revenue rather than increase it. It could also prevent an economic recovery.

laffer-curve1.jpg


"Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always needs the money it gets."
 
Millsapa said:
Depending where you are on the Laffer curve raising taxes could reduce government revenue rather than increase it. It could also prevent an economic recovery.
Click to expand...

Based on recent US history, our rates could definitely rise quite a bit before we aproach equilibrium.
 
I think the first thing they should do is eliminate benefits for all of Congress and the Senate. How can they be objective about healthcare when they are held to the same standard as the rest of us. Make the job true public service. 95% of them are rich enough to do it without pay anyway. All that saved money could buy us 1 or 2 more missiles to fire at Libya or another country with no air force.
 
Millsapa said:
Depending where you are on the Laffer curve raising taxes could reduce government revenue rather than increase it. It could also prevent an economic recovery.
Click to expand...

The Laughter curve is unprovable ********. Ronny raised taxes, spent bucket loads of borrowed money and taxed that too, raised SS taxes more than once, and got little Arty to convince America this b.s. graphic means something.

There is no proof that raising or lowering taxes helps solve a recession, neither is there for spending for that matter. China and the rest of the developing world is pulling us out of this one, but the spenders will rattle off The Krugman Solution or something for the next 30 years.

Too bad the Keynesian Endpoint is near.
 
franklin said:
The Laughter curve is unprovable ********. Ronny raised taxes, spent bucket loads of borrowed money and taxed that too, raised SS taxes more than once, and got little Arty to convince America this b.s. graphic means something.

There is no proof that raising or lowering taxes helps solve a recession, neither is there for spending for that matter. China and the rest of the developing world is pulling us out of this one, but the spenders will rattle off The Krugman Solution or something for the next 30 years.

Too bad the Keynesian Endpoint is near.
Click to expand...

There is supporting evidence for it.

REAGAN: Four times in this century we have had across-the-board tax cuts, all of which have resulted in such an increase in prosperity that the government -- even in the first year -- got increased revenues, not less.

When Reagan implemented across the board tax rate cuts he doubled the revenue by the end of his term. Those revenues were spent on defense and an increased social entitlement burden but nevertheless his policies preceded the result.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise by you.
 
I found a 2006 Youtube video from Krugman. I'm pretty sure this guy knows what he is talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_k&feature=related
 
Millsapa said:
What "recent US history" would that be?
Click to expand...

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts were followed by falling, not rising, tax revenues, indicating that tax increases would mean increased revenues, so we are not at the equilibrium point of the Laffer curve.
 
One Brow said:
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts were followed by falling, not rising, tax revenues, indicating that tax increases would mean increased revenues, so we are not at the equilibrium point of the Laffer curve.
Click to expand...

Not true. Reagan rate cuts resulted in a roaring economy and a doubling in revenues by the end of his second term.
 
GoJazz said:
So my question to all of you is... Is that so crazy?
Click to expand...

Both sides want to slow deficit growth without causing an economic contraction. Conventional wisdom is that decreasing spending is contractionary. So is raising taxes. (Note: Painting it in the broadest terms possible, obviously not all spending cuts would be contractionary nor would all tax increases, but the bastardization of real economic theory leads to those points of conventional wisdom depending on your viewpoint).

Your position is unpopular because it's a contractionary double-whammy to the audience.
 
Millsapa said:
Not true. Reagan rate cuts resulted in a roaring economy and a doubling in revenues by the end of his second term.
Click to expand...

Honest question to test your knowledge in this period of US economic history vs. just parroting what someone told you. Without looking it up, do you know a) who Paul Volcker is, b) what he did during early 1980s, c) who appointed him, and d) who fired him?

Extra credit if you can figure out how Paul Volcker relates to revenue levels.
 
This is the biggest problem is that we are going to continue to overspend unless we touch the big four. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. So, yes we are still in big trouble until these are drastically changes. But, we cannot continue with the Bush tax cuts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhAO1RWCeEQ

My question to Tim Pawlenty is who are these people that he is talking to?
 
Peter Schiff was right. Interesting videos if you haven't checked them out. Pretty much predicting the collapse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq1N70vym1g&feature=related
 
trigg3r said:
Peter Schiff was right. Interesting videos if you haven't checked them out. Pretty much predicting the collapse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq1N70vym1g&feature=related
Click to expand...



I love how most of these clowns sit around and push the drug. Which is spend, spend, spend, buy, buy, buy, debt, debt, debt, everything is going to make you rich don't worry about the future just line my pockets.

Everyone laughed in the face of the truth.
 
trigg3r said:
Peter Schiff was right. Interesting videos if you haven't checked them out. Pretty much predicting the collapse.
Click to expand...

Those videos lost a lot of people money when they decided that Schiff was the sole Oracle of truth. He was becoming famous for sage financial advice at the same time that he was killing all his clients in the market.

For example, if you have a wsj account you can read: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327685671031439.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top