Repubs. focus on debt wrong?

#127
#127
We have two major problems.

The debt is too high and China is keeping their dollar priced way before FMV which is causing us to lose jobs to them.

We have to fix both. If all we fix is the debt and our dollar gets stronger then we only add to the problem with the exchange rate.
 
#128
#128
tvolsfan said:
In other words, you're in favor of cutting spending, just not in the programs you like?
Click to expand...

Not many people are willing to make the neccessary cuts. Democrats and Republicans both want to protect their favorites. Chances are with a debt as big as the US has, eveyone is going to have to give.

But what are the chances of that happening?
 
#129
#129
tvolsfan said:
In other words, you're in favor of cutting spending, just not in the programs you like?
Click to expand...

In favor of cutting spending on by far the largest section of discretionary spending (and, for that matter, off the books borrowing - the War budget).

I could cut the War budget alone and save more than any of your discretionary cuts combined.

Any other discussion about "cutting spending" is simply engaging in meaningless politics.
 
Last edited:
#130
#130
volinbham said:
He disagrees with what you believe should be subject to taxation.
Click to expand...

So he doesn't disagree with my maxims. :hi:

The debate you are trying to engage in has been a non-starter from the beginning. It is about applying the maxims in our own historic era. If anything we are both guilty then for extrapolating what AS would do on an institution we both agree he would not approve of. In addition, I've been pretty open as to my disagreements with Smith on what to tax.

Here is a list. Let me know if I miss anything out:

Rents (AS favorite / utgibbs prefers to lump it as part of income for STP)
Consumption (AS likes / utgibbs dislikes in the main)
Profits (AS dislikes / utgibbs prefers to lump as income for STP)
Wages (AS dislikes / utgibbs prefers STP in our own historic time)
Tariffs (AS likes / utgibbs likes)
 
Last edited:
#131
#131
utgibbs said:
In favor of cutting spending on by far the largest section of discretionary spending (and, for that matter, off the books borrowing - the War budget).

Any other discussion about "cutting spending" is simply engaging in meaningless politics.
Click to expand...

I take it your 800 pound gorilla is keeping you up tonight, huh?
 
#132
#132
utgibbs said:
In favor of cutting spending on by far the largest section of discretionary spending (and, for that matter, off the books borrowing - the War budget).

I could cut the War budget alone and save more than any of your discretionary cuts combined.

Any other discussion about "cutting spending" is simply engaging in meaningless politics.
Click to expand...

While I agree our "nation building" has been one giant embarrassment (all due respect to the troops" we could put military spending at zero and we would still have a budget deficit. Social security has to be reformed too if there will ever be a balanced budget in the long run.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#133
#133
DefenseisDesire said:
While I agree our "nation building" has been one giant embarrassment (all due respect to the troops"we could put military spending at zero and we would still have a budget deficit. Social security has to be reformed too if there will ever be a balanced budget in the long run.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Sorry for any typos im doing this on my phone
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#134
#134
utgibbs said:
So he doesn't disagree with my maxims. :hi:

The debate you are trying to engage in has been a non-starter from the beginning. It is about applying the maxims in our own historic era. If anything we are both guilty then for extrapolating what AS would do on an institution we both agree he would not approve of. In addition, I've been pretty open as to my disagreements with Smith on what to tax.

Here is a list. Let me know if I miss anything out:

Rents (AS favorite / utgibbs prefers to lump it as part of income for STP)
Consumption (AS likes / utgibbs dislikes in the main)
Profits (AS dislikes / utgibbs prefers to lump as income for STP)
Wages (AS dislikes / utgibbs prefers STP in our own historic time)
Tariffs (AS likes / utgibbs likes)
Click to expand...

A non-starter? You are the one that began the nonsense by saying your view is consistent with that of AS. :blink:
 
#135
#135
DefenseisDesire said:
While I agree our "nation building" has been one giant embarrassment (all due respect to the troops" we could put military spending at zero and we would still have a budget deficit. Social security has to be reformed too if there will ever be a balanced budget in the long run.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some analysis, actually, of this alleged "Social Security" problem.

If there is a "problem" (I'm highly dubious, btw) the solutions are trivial.
 
#136
#136
volinbham said:
A non-starter? You are the one that began the nonsense by saying your view is consistent with that of AS. :blink:
Click to expand...

Which clearly it is as your own link testifies.

That I have to apply my maxims to our current historical condition is simply.... obvious.

The fact is our orientations are almost in lock-step, and even the "what to tax" issues are certainly far from leagues apart as well.
 
#137
#137
utgibbs said:
Which clearly it is as your own link testifies.

That I have to apply my maxims to our current historical condition is simply.... obvious.

The fact is our orientations are almost in lock-step, and even the "what to tax" issues are certainly far from leagues apart as well.
Click to expand...

The "what to tax" issue is highly critical since you argued AS would support a progressive tax on corporations based on profitability. He clearly was against such taxation. Sheesh. You bring up AS as support for your view of how to tax corporations. It's pointed out to you that the tax base of profits is something AS did NOT support. You say AS isn't relevant then argue you and AS are concert when it comes to taxation thus it is relevant.

Quite the contortion to work towards a GSM moment.
 
#139
#139
volinbham said:
The "what to tax" issue is highly critical since you argued AS would support a progressive tax on corporations based on profitability. He clearly was against such taxation. Sheesh. You bring up AS as support for your view of how to tax corporations. It's pointed out to you that the tax base of profits is something AS did NOT support. You say AS isn't relevant then argue you and AS are concert when it comes to taxation thus it is relevant.

Quite the contortion to work towards a GSM moment.
Click to expand...

Quite an interesting recap actually. I think you had to do quite a contortion job to come up with it. But I didn't have to work for a GSM moment, you provided it.

Real recap.

utgibbs maxims: Simple, transparent, progressive

AS maxims (provided by volinbham): Adam Smith on Taxes - by Tom Walton - Budget & Tax News

If I have applied my maxims (that AS unequivocably shares) to our historic circumstances that was, well, obvious.

And for even further clarity:

Rents (AS favorite / utgibbs prefers to lump it as part of income for STP)
Consumption (AS likes / utgibbs dislikes in the main)
Profits (AS dislikes / utgibbs prefers to lump as income for STP)
Wages (AS dislikes / utgibbs prefers STP in our own historic time)
Tariffs (AS likes / utgibbs likes)

Have never said we were "in concert;" but have always mainted we share the same orientation. Progressive taxation is certainly a maxim of Adam Smith - clear and unambiguous.
 
Last edited:
#141
#141
DefenseisDesire said:
Seriously?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Actually, I've taken an initial look at it, and it is just as thought.

The program is self-funding for 26 years without question, and its 75-year projected deficit is 0.6% of GDP.

The propaganda campaign ongoing has been to lump it with Medicare and Medicaid. Health care costs are projected to go up, and go up dramatically.

Move to a single payer system, and those cost would be controlled, as our own projections of the growth of NHS systems worldwide suggest.
 
#142
#142
utgibbs said:
Move to a single payer system, and those cost would be controlled, as our own projections of the growth of NHS systems worldwide suggest.
Click to expand...

How do you control those costs? Are you going to regulate people's behavior?
 
#143
#143
MG1968 said:
How do you control those costs? Are you going to regulate people's behavior?
Click to expand...

Prevention + education is of course key. Sensible tax schemes, like STP, will help ensure revenues are raised justly and efficiently.

But if you are worried about regulating or manipulating people's behavior, I'm all for getting rid of the marketing industry (sorry, volinbham). Shall we join forces to reach our political goals?
 
#144
#144
utgibbs said:
Prevention + education is of course key. Sensible tax schemes, like STP, will help ensure revenues are raised justly and efficiently.

But if you are worried about regulating or manipulating people's behavior, I'm all for getting rid of the marketing industry (sorry, volinbham). Shall we join forces to reach our political goals?
Click to expand...

No, I'd sooner kiss a Wookiee than aid you in destroying the individual freedoms I spent 13 years in the military defending.
 
#145
#145
MG1968 said:
No, I'd sooner kiss a Wookiee than aid you in destroying the individual freedoms I spent 13 years in the military defending.
Click to expand...

Freedom is a great horse, but where you riding it?

I'm trying to provide a basic human right to every American. When the dice of fate roll up bad health, it seems ridiculous to say one is "defending freedom for all" by denying them this basic right.
 
#146
#146
utgibbs said:
Freedom is a great horse, but where you riding it?

I'm trying to provide a basic human right to every American. When the dice of fate roll up bad health, it seems ridiculous to say one is "defending freedom for all" by denying them this basic right.
Click to expand...

your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you
 
#147
#147
utgibbs said:
Quite an interesting recap actually. I think you had to do quite a contortion job to come up with it. But I didn't have to work for a GSM moment, you provided it.

Real recap.

utgibbs maxims: Simple, transparent, progressive

AS maxims (provided by volinbham): Adam Smith on Taxes - by Tom Walton - Budget & Tax News

If I have applied my maxims (that AS unequivocably shares) to our historic circumstances that was, well, obvious.

And for even further clarity:

Rents (AS favorite / utgibbs prefers to lump it as part of income for STP)
Consumption (AS likes / utgibbs dislikes in the main)
Profits (AS dislikes / utgibbs prefers to lump as income for STP)
Wages (AS dislikes / utgibbs prefers STP in our own historic time)
Tariffs (AS likes / utgibbs likes)

Have never said we were "in concert;" but have always mainted we share the same orientation. Progressive taxation is certainly a maxim of Adam Smith - clear and unambiguous.
Click to expand...

The same orientation (progressiveness) and the details are far apart. My guess is AS would be appalled at your view of taxation and the uses of the proceeds.
 
#148
#148
utgibbs said:
Prevention + education is of course key.
Click to expand...

Yep. If we just let people know obesity and smoking are bad for them, I imagine we'll barely need to even provide healthcare anymore.
 
Last edited:
#149
#149
volinbham said:
The same orientation (progressiveness) and the details are far apart. My guess is AS would be appalled at your view of taxation and the uses of the proceeds.
Click to expand...

Highly dubious.

AS was an Enlightenment figure who truly believed the market would lead to equality.

He would be appalled at today's state of affairs. In fact, he deplored capital flight (but assumed it could never happen as entrepreneurs would be motivated by nationalism to keep production within borders), corporations as we have discussed, he would be unequivocably against corporate personhood which he would regard as anathema, he favored protectionism, etc. He would be appalled to see the want amidst the enormous productive capacity of the world.

You have been trying pass off a red herring as fine turbot. But the truth is, the orientation is unambiguous, and even the details are far closer to me than your fealty to neoliberalism.
 
Last edited:
#150
#150
utgibbs said:
Freedom is a great horse, but where you riding it?

I'm trying to provide a basic human right to every American. When the dice of fate roll up bad health, it seems ridiculous to say one is "defending freedom for all" by denying them this basic right.
Click to expand...

Why don't we just keep healthcare private but make all health care post tax at 5% flat and take that money and form a high risk pool for people who would not qualify. They still have to purchase the insurance or they don't get any but their rate is a normal rate with the tax money offsetting the difference. This way all peple can have insurance and it does not become government ran.

There is already a high risk home and auto pool that is paid for by all insurers. This is not a new concept.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top