Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

retrofade

Paul Ryan will not seek re-election

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, pokebball said:

No.  I think the corp cut was necessary.  I thought the personal cut was stupid.  It should be raised.

Well then I misunderstood you. (Probably because I don't ever remember you arguing against the personal cut, though I know you were a big proponent of the corp cut.) Of course, you also said the cries of debt were misplaced and that I was being illogical when I said that the economic growth projections — the lofty projections that were the only thing that could make the numbers work — wouldn't come close to being realized. But I digress.

Here's the thing. I was in agreement with you about the need for corp tax reform, though admittedly, I wouldn't have been as generous, I'm sure. And if it was just that, it wouldn't have been an irresponsible bill, especially if it was offset with some cuts or a raise in personal income taxes. But the cuts will never come, of course, and the income tax cuts will be all-but-impossible to undo. 

The debate will continue, I'm sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The tax cuts are a huge victory and were badly needed.  Small business owners have confidence at an all time high, big business is making capital investments.  

The national debt was blown so high as to never be able to be repaired in you kids lifetime all ready.

I suspect most would agree with you, in some form or fashion. I think most pay lip service on both sides to their concern over the deficit, but really don't give a shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NVGiant said:

Didn’t you cheer the tax cuts and claim victory? Oh, you did? Hoorah! 

There is no shortage of hypocrisy to go around. 

I claimed victory on the tax cuts!   The gov't has taken more than its share of my earnings during my lifetime.  I'll take any break I can get!  

And this massive spending bill they just passed was several months AFTER the tax cuts took effect.  OVERSPENDING is the problem.  And thats definitely a bi-partisan issue.  THeir all guilty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, pokerider said:

I claimed victory on the tax cuts!   The gov't has taken more than its share of my earnings during my lifetime.  I'll take any break I can get!  

And this massive spending bill they just passed was several months AFTER the tax cuts took effect.  OVERSPENDING is the problem.  And thats definitely a bi-partisan issue.  THeir all guilty. 

Yes they are both guilty. Absolutely that is true. And what did you think was going to happen after the tax cuts? A reasoned conversation followed by sensible cuts?

And saying it’s a spending problem is just spin. The problem is that revenues don’t match expenditures. Period. One has to go up, the other has to come down. Neither side is serious about that reality.

Most fascinating to me is that A trillion dollar deficit in the worst economy in 80 years sent the right into a fury with teabags on their heads. A few years later, a trillion dollar deficit in a good economy, and only a few care. 

Its all so interesting to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I suspect most would agree with you, in some form or fashion. I think most pay lip service on both sides to their concern over the deficit, but really don't give a shit. 

Nobody gives a shit, really.  I remember in the 10th grade we would check the national debt calculator once a week while Bush was president and our teacher would lament over the state of it and what it would mean.  That was back at 8 trillion.  There is no plan or policy that will make an impact now aside from things like you or blues have mentioned, massive spending cuts to defense and entitlements which will NEVER happen.

So what is a little more debt when it means most people have more money, small businesses are benefiting, their owners have more confidence and our largest corporations are making capital investments?  Interesting read on why at this point budget deficits do not really matter.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2017/09/24/forget-the-protests-of-conservatives-deficits-really-dont-matter/#e71782137079

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Nobody gives a shit, really.  I remember in the 10th grade we would calculator once a week while Bush was president and our teacher would lament over the state of it and what it would mean.  That was back at 8 trillion.  There is no plan or policy that will make an impact now aside from things like you or blues have mentioned, massive spending cuts to defense and entitlements which will NEVER happen.

So what is a little more debt when it means most people have more money, small businesses are benefiting, their owners have more confidence and our largest corporations are making capital investments?  Interesting read on why at this point budget deficits do not really matter.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2017/09/24/forget-the-protests-of-conservatives-deficits-really-dont-matter/#e71782137079

I know the arguments. I do think the deficit concerns have been overhyped to a point. They tend to be used against the party in power, of course, and used brilliantly by the right in recent years. And I guess it could be interpreted that this is what I am doing now, especially if you ignore the economic context of my arguments (deficit spending in a bad economy is necessary, etc., etc.). 

That said, we're starting to move into some pretty scary territory. Putting the deficit up well past a trillion dollars in a good economy is pretty irresponsible. If the next recession is anything like the last, we won't have many tools left in the toolbox to help mitigate the damage. 

The good news is that I think we'll get to put Blues' economic theories to the test during the next recession. Maybe he is right that government intervention only makes the problem worse. I hope he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NVGiant said:

Well then I misunderstood you. (Probably because I don't ever remember you arguing against the personal cut, though I know you were a big proponent of the corp cut.) Of course, you also said the cries of debt were misplaced and that I was being illogical when I said that the economic growth projections — the lofty projections that were the only thing that could make the numbers work — wouldn't come close to being realized. But I digress.

Here's the thing. I was in agreement with you about the need for corp tax reform, though admittedly, I wouldn't have been as generous, I'm sure. And if it was just that, it wouldn't have been an irresponsible bill, especially if it was offset with some cuts or a raise in personal income taxes. But the cuts will never come, of course, and the income tax cuts will be all-but-impossible to undo. 

The debate will continue, I'm sure. 

I think this is called confirmation bias.

The budget that the Dems just had wet dreams over was the 2nd largest spending bill ever past.  The cuts have to come.  I don't accept this premise.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I think this is called confirmation bias.

The budget that the Dems just had wet dreams over was the 2nd largest spending bill ever past.  The cuts have to come.  I don't accept this premise.

You don't accept what premise? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

They do. Eventually. But it won't be until it's a crisis. 

I am just not sure we will ever see a crises before emerging tech changes the game and the landscape changes in ways we can not really imagine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're talking about the reducing the federal deficit and you're not talking about some combination of the following factors then you're an intellectually unserious individual: full stop.

1. Raising taxes

2. Lowering military spending

3. Lowering entitlement spending

Obviously Democrats and Republicans disagree on how much to do from each of those three buckets, but if you hear someone talking about fixing the federal deficit and they aren't talking about some combination of those three things then they're either lying or not very smart. The overwhelming majority of the cost side comes from the latter two things and revenue obviously comes from the first one.

There's no other way to describe Paul Ryan other than a complete fraud for passing a gigantic tax cut, mostly slanted towards corporations and the very rich, during a good economy after decades of pretending to care about deficits. You cannot be a "fiscal conservative" who cares about budget deficits and do this. Economic stimulus measures like cutting taxes (or increasing spending) are generally done to kickstart a bad economy. To run huge deficits during a GOOD economy is a sign of irresponsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

If you're talking about the reducing the federal deficit and you're not talking about some combination of the following factors then you're an intellectually unserious individual: full stop.

1. Raising taxes

2. Lowering military spending

3. Lowering entitlement spending

Obviously Democrats and Republicans disagree on how much to do from each of those three buckets, but if you hear someone talking about fixing the federal deficit and they aren't talking about some combination of those three things then they're either lying or not very smart. The overwhelming majority of the cost side comes from the latter two things and revenue obviously comes from the first one.

There's no other way to describe Paul Ryan other than a complete fraud for passing a gigantic tax cut, mostly slanted towards corporations and the very rich, during a good economy after decades of pretending to care about deficits. You cannot be a "fiscal conservative" who cares about budget deficits and do this. Economic stimulus measures like cutting taxes (or increasing spending) are generally done to kickstart a bad economy. To run huge deficits during a GOOD economy is a sign of irresponsibility.

We needed a tax cut mostly slanted towards corporations.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pokebball said:

We needed a tax cut mostly slanted towards corporations.

The corporate tax cut long term will increase tax collection for two reasons.

1)  Corporations who were going to leave this country will now stay.  Without a competitive tax rate with the rest of the world, it was becoming untenable to do business here.  A 20%ish tax rate is better than 0%.

2)  Increased investment will lead to bigger profits and more tax liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CPslograd said:

The CBO has revised its net cost of the tax cuts to 440 billion by the way.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-revenues-deficits-paying-for-themselves/

The tax cut was too much for the benefits to overcome the costs without a reduction in spending.

Which does not mean that spending cuts need to be accompanied by tax increases. That simply isn’t the case. Tax cuts can, and have throughout history, increased revenue at a faster pace over a decade than tax increases. Our problem is in spending, every time, period. 

Our weak president had no interest in spending cuts, so congress couldn’t even discuss them. He wanted spending increases. And since the only hard thing he was willing to get done, let alone had the political ability to get done, was tax cuts; we’re going to have two years of a GOP government and absolutely no plan for anything in year two.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

The corporate tax cut long term will increase tax collection for two reasons.

1)  Corporations who were going to leave this country will now stay.  Without a competitive tax rate with the rest of the world, it was becoming untenable to do business here.  A 20%ish tax rate is better than 0%.

2)  Increased investment will lead to bigger profits and more tax liability.

It could have been smaller and still elicited huge benefits. But you’re right in your post.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nocoolnamejim said:

If you're talking about the reducing the federal deficit and you're not talking about some combination of the following factors then you're an intellectually unserious individual: full stop.

1. Raising taxes

2. Lowering military spending

3. Lowering entitlement spending

Obviously Democrats and Republicans disagree on how much to do from each of those three buckets, but if you hear someone talking about fixing the federal deficit and they aren't talking about some combination of those three things then they're either lying or not very smart. The overwhelming majority of the cost side comes from the latter two things and revenue obviously comes from the first one.

There's no other way to describe Paul Ryan other than a complete fraud for passing a gigantic tax cut, mostly slanted towards corporations and the very rich, during a good economy after decades of pretending to care about deficits. You cannot be a "fiscal conservative" who cares about budget deficits and do this. Economic stimulus measures like cutting taxes (or increasing spending) are generally done to kickstart a bad economy. To run huge deficits during a GOOD economy is a sign of irresponsibility.

You don’t need to raise taxes to raise revenue. This is an empirical fact for the past 50 plus years.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...