Talk about twisting the meaning...

[vol_in_ar]

I suppose the only logic is that one sees the money as the government's to begin with, all is spending - what they give to you by not taxing it from you.

that's the democrat's philosophy

 

[TennTradition]

that's the democrat's philosophy

I am probably in favor of a stronger/bigger government than many (yes, trUT, I think this is the right usage ) on this board, but a philosophy like that is useless.

 

[utgibbs]

The government taking less money away from its people, is not spending. The Bush tax cuts increased revenue. The Economy does not remain static when taxes are increased or lowered.

False.

Are people really still eating "supply side?" That's worse than eating Kettle Chips! For goodness sakes, is it any wonder I have to harp on about a real world outside the back door?

 

[IPorange]

I really do like kettle chips more than pringles...

 

[lawgator1]

He specifically said spending cuts in the tax code and listed the exact examples I said.

He wrapped in it other spending cuts we need.

It was an intentional attempt to make it sound like he's all about cutting spending - including "spending" on the rich.

Ironically, he started the talk by saying we need a balanced approach. For some reason, he could not say he advocated raising taxes.

Actually, I think its an effort to portray both spending cuts and repeal of the Bush tax increases or closure of loopholes on the wealthy as equally important components of resolving the long term budget problem.

One thing that has always sort of mystified me is that the rank and file GOP, when faced with this issue, seem to knee jerk react as against the notion of repealing these tax cuts. This, even though the vast majority of people, even in the GOP, are themselves paying higher taxes because of it.

It is not possible to link that up dollar for dollar,of course. I mean, no one can say that the guy making $100,000 a year is paying exactly $50 more a year in taxes to offset a particular $50 in the tax breaks that Bush handed out to the very top.

Yet, one would think that it would dawn on the former that the latter is doing better and better, whilst he is merely treading water.

And, the argument that the tax cuts create jobs is so far a farce. The corporations and businesses to which the top earners are tied, either as owners or executives, are not hiring. Enormous cash balances are being maintained. If the plan was that the tax breaks for the top of the wealthy would "free up" cash to hire people, it would seem that is an epic fail.

 

[tigervol9802]

I can't help but think that if a Bachmann called tax deductions spending that she would be hammered as a moron.

It's simply moronic to say we can cut spending through the tax code by eliminating some deductions.

I was confused by that as well when I first heard him say it. Then I realized that's he's igniting full-blown class warfare to try to get reelected.

 

[Lexvol]

Is there any doubt that he truly believes that it is the government's money to begin with? I'm pretty sure that he has publicly stated that this is not about stimulating the economy...it is about redistributing wealth.

 

[CSVol]

Sorta sounds like calling the expiration of temporary tax breaks "tax increases".

 

[volinbham]

Sorta sounds like calling the expiration of temporary tax breaks "tax increases".

While that drives me a bit nuts it is much more inaccurate than that.

When tax breaks expire, taxes do increase albeit back to former levels.

As TT pointed out, increasing taxes is never a reduction in spending or conversely decreasing taxes is never spending.

 

[Lexvol]

While that drives me a bit nuts it is much more inaccurate than that.

When tax breaks expire, taxes do increase albeit back to former levels.

As TT pointed out, increasing taxes is never a reduction in spending or conversely decreasing taxes is never spending.

It is glorified "car salesman/trade in value talk".

 

[droski]

Actually, I think its an effort to portray both spending cuts and repeal of the Bush tax increases or closure of loopholes on the wealthy as equally important components of resolving the long term budget problem.

One thing that has always sort of mystified me is that the rank and file GOP, when faced with this issue, seem to knee jerk react as against the notion of repealing these tax cuts. This, even though the vast majority of people, even in the GOP, are themselves paying higher taxes because of it.

It is not possible to link that up dollar for dollar,of course. I mean, no one can say that the guy making $100,000 a year is paying exactly $50 more a year in taxes to offset a particular $50 in the tax breaks that Bush handed out to the very top.

Yet, one would think that it would dawn on the former that the latter is doing better and better, whilst he is merely treading water.

And, the argument that the tax cuts create jobs is so far a farce. The corporations and businesses to which the top earners are tied, either as owners or executives, are not hiring. Enormous cash balances are being maintained. If the plan was that the tax breaks for the top of the wealthy would "free up" cash to hire people, it would seem that is an epic fail.

i'm just shocked you think this kind of rhetoric is honest and appropriate. just shocked.

 

[Cartervol]

I guess it's good we don't have a one sided congress anymore or this would already be done. This administration has already shown they don't give a damn about what we think.

 

[sjt18]

Agreed there is revenue and there is spending. Raising taxes (by eliminating deductions) is not reducing spending. This is either cynical double talk by the Pres or some fundamental misunderstanding.

I believe it is more fundamental philosophy than a misunderstanding. Statists believe that wealth is corporate and should be subject to democratically determined or gov't dictated distribution. At a very basic level, folks like Obama reject the notion of individual property rights. The bigger problem emanating from that starting point is that no other right matters if your property is not protected. Free speech isn't of much value if the gov't has the right to confiscate your property to prevent you from saying things they don't like.

In short, I believe these people really do believe that the wealth belongs to the "country" (collective) and they as representatives of the "country" have a right to distribute and confiscate as they see fit.

 

[KiffinKiller]

I believe it is more fundamental philosophy than a misunderstanding. Statists believe that wealth is corporate and should be subject to democratically determined or gov't dictated distribution. At a very basic level, folks like Obama reject the notion of individual property rights. The bigger problem emanating from that starting point is that no other right matters if your property is not protected. Free speech isn't of much value if the gov't has the right to confiscate your property to prevent you from saying things they don't like.

In short, I believe these people really do believe that the wealth belongs to the "country" (collective) and they as representatives of the "country" have a right to distribute and confiscate as they see fit.

I'm not sure what you mean in reference to the subject of the thread. Can you clarify?

 

[volinbham]

I'm not sure what you mean in reference to the subject of the thread. Can you clarify?

Can't speak for him but this is one of the two options I presented in the OP - a philosophical believe that the government allows you to keep some of your earnings; that the earnings belong to the government but the tax code is used to determine how much you can keep.

 

[BigPapaVol]

False.

Are people really still eating "supply side?" That's worse than eating Kettle Chips! For goodness sakes, is it any wonder I have to harp on about a real world outside the back door?

Shocking that you'd take a definitive position on something that can't be supported.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KiffinKiller]

Can't speak for him but this is one of the two options I presented in the OP - a philosophical believe that the government allows you to keep some of your earnings; that the earnings belong to the government but the tax code is used to determine how much you can keep.

Ok. thanks. His post seemed more like some randomly inserted enveloping opinion on government.

 

[sjt18]

I'm not sure what you mean in reference to the subject of the thread. Can you clarify?

Yes. I hope so.

One of the clearer dividing lines between statists/Progressives and libertarians in our country concerns the ideal of "rights". Are rights fundamentally individual or group? Generally, conservatives and libertarians believe in individual rights. Progressives and other statists/leftists believe in group rights.

If you believe property rights are endowed by our creator to the individual then you believe that taxes are the gov't taking of private wealth. If you believe that property rights are corporate or national then you taxes are the gov't taking what belongs to them and leaving you with what they arbitrarily consider "fair".

IMHO, the latter is just a well dressed form of slavery. One of the classic definitions of a slave is someone whose labor as a commodity belongs to someone else and who cannot own property themselves.

 

[YorkVol]

False.

Are people really still eating "supply side?" That's worse than eating Kettle Chips! For goodness sakes, is it any wonder I have to harp on about a real world outside the back door?

Don't bring your anti kettle chip attitude to York, we're the Snack Factory Tour Capital of the World!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[YorkVol]

Actually, I think its an effort to portray both spending cuts and repeal of the Bush tax increases or closure of loopholes on the wealthy as equally important components of resolving the long term budget problem.

One thing that has always sort of mystified me is that the rank and file GOP, when faced with this issue, seem to knee jerk react as against the notion of repealing these tax cuts. This, even though the vast majority of people, even in the GOP, are themselves paying higher taxes because of it.

It is not possible to link that up dollar for dollar,of course. I mean, no one can say that the guy making $100,000 a year is paying exactly $50 more a year in taxes to offset a particular $50 in the tax breaks that Bush handed out to the very top.

Yet, one would think that it would dawn on the former that the latter is doing better and better, whilst he is merely treading water.

And, the argument that the tax cuts create jobs is so far a farce. The corporations and businesses to which the top earners are tied, either as owners or executives, are not hiring. Enormous cash balances are being maintained. If the plan was that the tax breaks for the top of the wealthy would "free up" cash to hire people, it would seem that is an epic fail.

They won't create the jobs until someone starts buying their widgets and we can't afford the widgets because too much of our income goes to taxes. My city tax just went up 11% and school tax 5.5%. They'll probably raise state taxes(maybe not the GOP is in control) and a repeal of the Bush era tax cuts is really an increase in my federal taxes. Add in the higher health care costs, gas prices, utilities and groceries and this middle class family isn't buying any widgets for a long time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile