BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

[Lagboltz]

Why do you say nothing when Pocket takes personal pot shots at me but become indignant when I point out his tactic?

Why do you keep bringing up Pocket? Just cut the personal crap?

Let's look at some earlier statements:

There is no causal link between PIT rates and revenue, in either direction. That is a fact, not an opinion. - Gen

That is what I have been saying. - Lag

But that's not what the NYT's is saying... And you've been citing their claim that increasing rates will CAUSE an increase in revenue.

Do you have any evidence of a causal link between PIT rates and revenue?

Let's look at the reply to the earlier statement you cite:

You got it wrong. I'm saying that the NYT site shows that it will increase revenue. I'm accepting their projections as accurate, but I have no proof that their projections are accurate. ​

Considering your effort consisted of copying and pasting suggestions and projections you found at the NYT's, I guess I'll have to find a different website and do the same... That way neither of us will have put in more time, effort, or thought than the other... That will keep it fair.

You are not correct here. I choose about half the options, that took a bit of time to compromise and see what I thought would best balance the budget. As you will see by my comments below, I agree that you did not put in any effort or thought, and did a simple copy and paste without thinking about what you were doing.

Proposed Federal Budget Cuts
Agency and Activity Annual Savings
....
....

You said in Post #103 that a family of four could get over $9,000 aid via a SNAP program, Section 8 Housing and many other assistance programs. Now you are denying that.

This is what you said earlier:

The average monthly benefit from SNAP is $101 per person, your hypothetical family would therefore be getting roughly $4,848 per year in SNAP benefits.

Section 8 Housing would cover the family's rent above 30% of their income, so they could live in an apartment/home that rents for $600 a month and pay only $250/mo, the program would cover the other $350/mo. The annual benefit from such a program would therefore be $4,200. (Chances are that a suitable apartment/home for a family of four would be closer to $800/mo, so the potential benefit is much greater but I have used the median rent of $600 for apartments in my hometown of Cincinnati.)

Those two programs alone provide the hypothetical family with an annual benefit of at least $9,048 in government assistance, well above my $7,500 estimation, and there are many other government assistance programs that such a family would qualify to receive.​

This is what you are proposing now:
Cato's program you are now proposing eliminates half of food stamps, and all of HUD! You claimed that $9,000 would more than offset a flat tax of $1,500. Now it's down to $2,400. The Cato plan says nothing about flat taxes that you have been pushing. You are being terribly inconsistent with your previous claims.

My comments on the Cato Plan.
Department of Agriculture - I disagree with cutting food subsidies. (So do you according to your post #103)
Department of Commerce - Agreed
Department of Defense - Agreed
Department of Education - Eliminate fraud and cut it in half.
Department of Energy - Agreed
Department of Health and Human Services - Disagree with most of it, except
- Cap Medicaid to GDP +1%.
- Yes, cut error rate.
- Yes, cut fraud.
Department of Housing and Urban Development - Disagree with most of it.
- (So do you according to your post #103)
Department of Justice - Agreed
Department of Labor - Is Cato sure they want to do this job killer that only amounts to 8.6 Billion.
Social Security - See below.
Department of Transportation - Probably have to do this
- The downside is that the US will fall further behind in mass transportation. But the US is falling behind on so many other things anyway.
Department of the Treasury - This will hit poor families the hardest.
- The credit chould remain but capped so that it doesn't surpass the paid tax.
- Yes, End refundable part.
Other Savings - I disagree with about half of it.

Conclusion:
Social Security - Something has to be done because people are living longer. So there is a trade-off: work longer and pay the same (FICA), pay more and maintain the current retirement age, or accept less yearly retirement benefit. Or of course some combination of the three. I have no opinion because I am already retired. Younger people should be very interested, but they don't seem to be to concerned that the government is spending their contributions and giving IOU's without any good way of drawing on the IOU's.

SNAP and HUD. As I mentioned this is an inconsistency on your part.

Federal Income Tax - What happened to your flat tax???

I didn't actually bother reading it, that would have taken extra time and effort on my part which wouldn't be fair.

Of course you didn't bother reading it. But I did, and I think you are no longer serious and are just wasting our time.

 

[Lagboltz]

It is no surprise that in a day of expanding entitlement programs that reward sloth the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. how about we try prorgrams that reward work.

I'm all for that if someone knows how to do it.

With programs that reward work those who live paycheck to paycheck will be less inclined to become leaches, or is it leeches?

LOL. Yeah I think it's both.

But if they cannot be counted on to save (and I have more faith in them than you do) then morally they do become our responsibility, but not under the rules of the constitution. I propose that we do accept responsibility for the poor morally but not under the umbrella of the federal government.

How do we do that? Yes there are many agencies run by charitable contributions, but not nearly enough. They are way maxed out where I live.

There is sound economic evidence that regulations designed to help very often hurt far more - regulations like minimum wage and rent caps.

What I prefer are laws and regulations that make America stronger. Whatever we do, we don't want millions of desperately poor people around. Hopefully the economy will improve and more jobs become available and that will help. A large part of the poor population are simply irresponsible. How do you handle it; reason? punishment? You suggest reward, and that's best, but how is that done without government getting involved? When they turn to crime, jail time per inmate cost twice as much as a minimum wage.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think you are no longer serious and are just wasting our time.

You wasted my time and now I wasted yours... That's fair.

 

[Lagboltz]

You wasted my time and now I wasted yours... That's fair.

However I did learn a lot about how conservatives think. I was hoping for a more technical discussion, that would dig down deeper, but I gather that you are no longer interested in that.

 

[GenSeneca]

However I did learn a lot about how conservatives think.

That's odd since I'm not a Conservative.

Perhaps you should ask one of them if you want to know how they think but do try and remember, when attempting to apply your 'one size fits all' stereotype to others, that each individual is unique.

I was hoping for a more technical discussion, that would dig down deeper, but I gather that you are no longer interested in that.

You were never interested in having an honest discussion:

I'm not pretending to make a valid argument here.

Congratulations...

If you ever do manage to formulate a valid argument, one you're capable of defending, let me know.

 

[Lagboltz]

That's odd since I'm not a Conservative.

Perhaps you should ask one of them if you want to know how they think but do try and remember, when attempting to apply your 'one size fits all' stereotype to others, that each individual is unique.

I don't know about your the rest of your politics, but the vigorous flat tax stance is generally the sign of a conservative. Sorry I pigeonholed you.

You were never interested in having an honest discussion:

Quote: Originally Posted by Lagboltz
It doesn't personally bother me that you are paying more taxes than I am.

GenSeneca:
An individual's income has no bearing on the validity of their statements, so these continued appeals to wealth and poverty are pointless logical fallacies.

Quote: Originally Posted by Lagboltz
I'm not pretending to make a valid argument here.​

​

As you can see, my last quote was only referring to the phrase "continued appeals to wealth and poverty" and I agreed that I wasn't making a valid argument only in that narrow context, not in the context of the entire discussion. From that you generalized that I was never intent on an honest discussion in any context. You misread my intention which I thought was clear.

If you ever do manage to formulate a valid argument, one you're capable of defending, let me know.

This excerpt is fresh off the press, Aug, 2011, from a report by the CBO "The Budget and Economic Outlook: an Update. Page 12.

If various provisions of the 2010 tax act expire as scheduled, the provisions of the Budget Control Act are fully implemented, and other laws affecting spending and revenues also remain unchanged, the budget deficit will drop sharply over the next three years, from 8.5 percent of GDP this year to 6.2 percent in 2012, 3.2 percent in 2013, and 1.6 percent in 2014, CBO projects.

I think the CBO projection is a good defense of my argument. At least it shows that I intend to have an honest discussion. You mentioned several times NYT projection was "wishful thinking". Do you have the same opinion of the Congressional Budget Office projection?

I think I have formulated a valid argument. Now do you care to address the questions I have about the CATO budget? -- the discrepancies between the CATO plan and your statements that government assistance would still exist. Also you never mentioned what flat income or capital gains tax you thought would work.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't know about your the rest of your politics, but the vigorous flat tax stance is generally the sign of a conservative.

According to what? My guess is that you've been conditioned to believe that anyone who opposes Progressive policies is a Conservative, that's why you and Openmind have been trying to apply a stereotype to me that doesn't fit.

From that you generalized that I was never intent on an honest discussion in any context.

The sum of our discussion has led me to believe you are not interested in honesty. You couldn't defend the PIT as being fair, at least not according to the dictionary definition of the word, so you stopped trying and shifted to attacking the Flat Tax, which I only offered because it is fair, according to the dictionary definition of the word.

You also had a "graph" that plotted GDP and Tax Rates, suggesting a causal link between the two, but when challenged on your fallacious assertion, you said that you were not trying to claim the existence of a causal link between tax rates and GDP. You never did explain why you would put the two on the same graph if you knew there wasn't a causal link between them. It was obvious that your "graph" was meant to intentionally mislead people to believe such a link did exist. Additionally, I showed that your "smoothing out of the numbers" effectively hid important data which directly contradicted the conclusion you were hoping people would draw from your "graph".

Then there were your claims that raising the PIT rate would only affect the wealthiest 2%, a claim which I showed was a lie, so you shifted to a different claim, that it would only affect people above $250k, another claim which I showed was a lie, and when you could no longer offer a defense for your claims, you went on the attack.

At every turn you have lied, then offered more lies to cover up the first lies, then when caught lying again, you go on the offensive hoping to distract from the fact that you'd been lying. That is not the pattern of someone who wishes to have an honest discussion.

You mentioned several times NYT projection was "wishful thinking". Do you have the same opinion of the Congressional Budget Office projection?

Yes, there are simply too many historical examples of projected revenue being wrong to honestly claim otherwise. Can you prove the existence of a causal link between PIT rates and revenue? Previously you have said no, you agreed with me there was no such causal link, yet you contradict your own statements every time you point to revenue projections which are based on the existence of such a link.

So which is it, either you believe there is no causal link, in which case you should agree that projections are wishful thinking, or you actually do believe there is a causal link between rates and revenue, in which case you'd better be prepared to offer evidence of it's existence.

I think I have formulated a valid argument.

I haven't seen it... What I have seen are suggestions and projections from other sources, none of which you came up with on your own. Do you have any original ideas, i.e. that you actually thought of and didn't copy from others?

Now do you care to address the questions I have about the CATO budget?

Ask CATO, it's their budget, not mine.

the discrepancies between the CATO plan and your statements that government assistance would still exist.

Again, the CATO plan is not mine. You copied and pasted a plan that you didn't create, so I did the same.

Now if you want to discuss discrepancies, then start with the fact that you have stated that there is no causal link between rates and revenue, yet you contradict that statement by holding up revenue projections which are predicated on the existence of such a causal link.

Also you never mentioned what flat income or capital gains tax you thought would work.

What's the point? You don't appear interested in considering options that differ from your own, therefore it would be a waste of my time.

 

[Lagboltz]

According to what? My guess is that you've been conditioned to believe that anyone who opposes Progressive policies is a Conservative, that's why you and Openmind have been trying to apply a stereotype to me that doesn't fit.

I already apologized once. I will apologize again if you like: I'm sorry I pigeonholed you.

The sum of our discussion has led me to believe you are not interested in honesty. You couldn't defend the PIT as being fair, at least not according to the dictionary definition of the word, so you stopped trying and shifted to attacking the Flat Tax, which I only offered because it is fair, according to the dictionary definition of the word.

I did defend it. I said a flat tax was not fair for the poorest classes. And you commented on it that they would still get $9000 in aid. Look back at my prior posts. Now you continue to say it's fair without committing yourself to a budget that would include government supplementary aid. You are the one not being fair.

You also had a "graph" that plotted GDP and Tax Rates, suggesting a causal link between the two, but when challenged on your fallacious assertion, you said that you were not trying to claim the existence of a causal link between tax rates and GDP. You never did explain why you would put the two on the same graph if you knew there wasn't a causal link between them. It was obvious that your "graph" was meant to intentionally mislead people to believe such a link did exist. Additionally, I showed that your "smoothing out of the numbers" effectively hid important data which directly contradicted the conclusion you were hoping people would draw from your "graph".

Look at post #35. The last paragraph very succinctly states what the point of the graph is.

I am simply saying that the causality of trickle-down has not been proven. I am not saying that one thing is causing another. ​

The smoothing of the graph had no influence on the conclusion because the data was so noisy to begin with. Look at this unsmoothed graph. http://www.slate.com/id/2245781/ The data wildly oscillates in places where the tax is unchanged. You specifically mentioned the years 1982-1984. That has no more statistical significance than the oscillations from 1950-1960 or 1970 to1980. The tax was stable during those periods, so you did not prove your point at all.

To top it off in the same post, #47you showed a graph that was not relevant, but was strongly peaked and very strongly showed that it did not prove your point. It's only relevance is that it illustrates that you don't know much about statistics, correlation, or how to interpret graphs.

Then there were your claims that raising the PIT rate would only affect the wealthiest 2%, a claim which I showed was a lie,

It was not a lie according to the definition of lie. It was a mistake on my part. Yes, in post #64 you pointed out my error and in post #65 I immediately acknowledged my error and more accurately pointed out what Obama was actually referring to.

so you shifted to a different claim, that it would only affect people above $250k, another claim which I showed was a lie, and when you could no longer offer a defense for your claims, you went on the attack.

I did not shift my claim because what I said that about the 2% in error. This is Obama's plan as I always knew it. Google it if you don't believe me:

People making less than $250,000 will not see their taxes increase, and people making less than $200,000 will receive some type of tax cut.​

At every turn you have lied, then offered more lies to cover up the first lies, then when caught lying again, you go on the offensive hoping to distract from the fact that you'd been lying. That is not the pattern of someone who wishes to have an honest discussion.

I did not lie and you know that.

Lie: A false statement deliberately presented as being true​

Again, I said something about the 2%, but quickly corrected myself. You made a reasonable retort, and I acknowledged it. You are being disingenuous. I have not willfully lied.

Yes, there are simply too many historical examples of projected revenue being wrong to honestly claim otherwise. Can you prove the existence of a causal link between PIT rates and revenue? Previously you have said no, you agreed with me there was no such causal link, yet you contradict your own statements every time you point to revenue projections which are based on the existence of such a link.

So which is it, either you believe there is no causal link, in which case you should agree that projections are wishful thinking, or you actually do believe there is a causal link between rates and revenue, in which case you'd better be prepared to offer evidence of it's existence.

For the third time I simply said I could not prove the casual link, but I accepted the projections that I referenced. You are again ignoring my clarification. I gave you the CBO projections as an alternate source.

I haven't seen it... What I have seen are suggestions and projections from other sources, none of which you came up with on your own. Do you have any original ideas, i.e. that you actually thought of and didn't copy from others?

I didn't copy the plan from others, and you know it. I used a convenient framework to make my own decisions and instantly see the results. That is no different in principle than using a spread sheet with external budget data and formulae for making a plan.

Ask CATO, it's their budget, not mine.

Again, the CATO plan is not mine. You copied and pasted a plan that you didn't create, so I did the same.

Let me say it again: I created my personal plan using somebody else's JavaScript application and data. You are the one who simply copied and pasted something. What makes it ironic is that you don't even believe in the plan you randomly posted!

You never had much to say except for repeating sound bites, which are devoid of any intellectual depth: "fair tax", "don't steal from the wealthy", "skin in the game", "government monopoly on the legal use of force", "wishful thinking", etc. I really don't expect much from you anymore.

Now if you want to discuss discrepancies, then start with the fact that you have stated that there is no causal link between rates and revenue, yet you contradict that statement by holding up revenue projections which are predicated on the existence of such a causal link.

You are not correct again. I said a causal relation between the PIT rates and GDP was not proven. That is what was on my graph -- GDP, not revenue. However the CBO projection shows the CBO thinks there is a causal relation between PIT and revenue. I would put my stock on the CBO report more than anyone else on this forum. You say you don't believe it.

Like economics, trajectories of hurricanes are notoriously difficult to predict. A few years ago 4 hurricanes were projected to come very near. I would have been a fool to ignore them even though the accuracy of prediction was questionable. The CBO projection no doubt has a small associated error but trend is no doubt accurate. You still are foolish to ignore it.

What's the point? You don't appear interested in considering options that differ from your own, therefore it would be a waste of my time.

It would not be a waste of your time. You owe it to yourself as a taxpayer to understand what the budgetary problems are so you can push for a better tomorrow.

But frankly, I do not think you know how to develop or understand the options and it is obvious that you don't care. It is increasingly apparent that you are obsessed with taking my posts out of context to try to make me out as a liar so you have a phony excuse not to commit to a plan yourself except making a mockery of yourself with a stupid joke with the CATO plan. Well my friend, that makes you a liar. You don't need to try to blame me for your disinterest. Blame yourself.

 

[Openmind]

According to what? My guess is that you've been conditioned to believe that anyone who opposes Progressive policies is a Conservative, that's why you and Openmind have been trying to apply a stereotype to me that doesn't fit.

Actually, Seneca, I picture you as a liberterian. . .the Ron Paul kind, the "infowar" kind, only smarter than the average "infowar addict."
But, that's just an opinion. . .certainly never pretended to know for sure!

 

[GenSeneca]

Actually, Seneca, I picture you as a liberterian.

I'm a Capitalist. I tend to side with the Libertarians most often but I also side with Conservatives and "Liberals" on specific issues. For example, when the "Conservatives" wanted to ban people from burning the American flag, I sided with the "Liberals" on that issue.

...the "infowar" kind, only smarter than the average "infowar addict."

I can't tell if you meant that as a compliment or an insult... My opinion of Alex Jones and his cult following of InfoWarriors is incredibly low, so it's like telling me that you think I'm smarter than the average mental patient.

But, that's just an opinion. . .certainly never pretended to know for sure!

If you don't know, just ask me.

Now I'd like to know why you skipped over my statements regarding our need to cut government spending... Our current spending is estimated to be roughly 24% of GDP, meanwhile our actual revenue is closer to the historical average of 18% of GDP. Proposals like the one that Lagz offered from the CBO start with an assumed baseline of revenue being at 20% of GDP, an unrealistic starting point I'll come back to in a moment.

I do see the appeal to having a "balanced" approach of cutting spending and raising taxes, however, some basic facts must be totally ignored to make these suggestions sound plausible. As I said, spending is roughly 24% of GDP, the "balanced" approach suggests cutting 2% in spending, which brings the total spending to 22% of GDP. Next comes the suggestions to raise taxes, presumably to fill the gap and cause revenue to go from it's 20% of GDP baseline projection to the 22% of GDP necessary to balance the budget.

Going back to the baseline of having revenue projected to be 20% of GDP, this projection is unlikely at best. In the last 40 years tax revenue has only reached 20% of GDP three times, three years in a row, all during the same economic bubble, and revenue peaked at an historic high of 20.9% of GDP during that time.

A more realistic baseline would be about 18% of GDP, that is about the historical average. Problem number two with the "balanced" approach is the fact that revenue has never reached 22% of GDP, ever... Even when the highest marginal rates were 70%, tax revenue never exceeded 19.7% of GDP (because there is no causal link between tax rates and revenue).

Based on historical data, using the "balanced" approach of reducing spending to 22% of GDP, the statistical odds of having a balanced budget is about 0.0% - regardless of tax rates.

If we reduce spending to 20% of GDP, the statistical odds of having a balanced budget are a whopping 13.3%.

If we reduce spending to 18% of GDP (the historical average) the statistical odds of having a balanced budget is roughly 50/50.

If we reduce spending to 16% of GDP (which is 0.3% below the historical minimum) or less, the statistical odds of having a balanced budget are nearly 100%.

Again I see the appeal in believing that raising taxes will increase revenue enough to close the gap between spending and revenue but believing that we can increase revenue to be a record breaking 22% of GDP, and maintain it year after year, is wishful thinking.

So place your bets but remember, you're gambling with the future of your children and grandchildren.

 

[Lagboltz]

Our current spending is estimated to be roughly 24% of GDP, meanwhile our actual revenue is closer to the historical average of 18% of GDP. Proposals like the one that Lagz offered from the CBO start with an assumed baseline of revenue being at 20% of GDP, an unrealistic starting point I'll come back to in a moment.

I think it would be great if government spending could be reduced from 24% to 16% of GDP. That results in spending at 2/3 what we are currently at. The major question is what do we reduce and if it is important how do we replace it with something else. The CBO and I were working within the constraints of proposals that various legislators were offering. My proposal was for even more spending cuts than the CBO considered. We clearly have to go outside those current constraints.

 

[GenSeneca]

I did defend it.

You abandoned your attempts at defending the PIT laws as being fair. No honest person could argue that laws which are biased, discriminatory, and show favoritism meet the dictionary definition of Fair: impartial, without bias or favoritism.

I am simply saying that the causality of trickle-down has not been proven.

The causality of trickle up theory has also not been proven... in fact, the belief that increasing tax rates CAUSES an increase in revenue has been shown to be false.

I am not saying that one thing is causing another.

You speak out of one side of your mouth to say you agree that increasing tax rates doesn't CAUSE an increase in revenue, yet you speak out of the other side of your mouth when saying you believe revenue projections which are entirely based on this causal link you just said didn't exist... This is like me pointing out that lowering tax rates doesn't have the causal effect of increasing revenue only to then offer a source that says the exact opposite and claim that I've not reversed myself. It would be dishonest of me to do so, just as it's dishonest of you to do so.

You specifically mentioned the years 1982-1984. That has no more statistical significance than the oscillations from 1950-1960 or 1970 to1980. The tax was stable during those periods, so you did not prove your point at all.

You were claiming that lowering tax rates hurt economic growth and the numbers I offered directly contradicted your claim:

In 1982 the GDP growth rate had fallen to -2% and the top marginal rate was lowered from 69.13% to 50%.
By 1983 the GDP growth rate had risen to 4.5%
By 1984 the GDP growth rate had risen to 7.2%

Taxes were lowered and GDP grew rapidly.​

Any honest person would see that I proved my point.

I did not lie and you know that.

Lie: A false statement deliberately presented as being true​

Again, I said something about the 2%, but quickly corrected myself. You made a reasonable retort, and I acknowledged it. You are being disingenuous. I have not willfully lied.

I have looked at his "plan" and I've seen no evidence that Obama plans a seventh bracket. Until you can offer proof that Obama's plan includes a seventh tax bracket, so that only people above $250k will be impacted by his tax increase, I have no choice but to consider your statements to be willful deceptions on your part.

For the third time I simply said I could not prove the casual link,

Do you believe the causal link exists, Yes or No?

If yes, then let me know which you would prefer... I can offer an example of when taxes went up and revenue went down, or I can offer an example of when taxes went down and revenue went up, either one should suffice in debunking your belief and, if you're honest, you would have to then acknowledge that no such causal link exists.

I accepted the projections that I referenced.

Yes, you accepted projections that directly contradicted statements you made about the existence of a causal link between rates and revenue.

I didn't copy the plan from others, and you know it.

Then tell me, which of the options that you selected did you write yourself?

I created my personal plan using somebody else's JavaScript application and data.

And then you copied and pasted what someone else had prepared and offered it as your own.

You are not correct again. I said a causal relation between the PIT rates and GDP was not proven. That is what was on my graph -- GDP, not revenue.

Read closely...

There is no causal link between PIT rates and revenue, in either direction. That is a fact, not an opinion. - Gen

to which you replied,

That is what I have been saying. - Lag

It sure looks like you were agreeing with me that there is no causal link between PIT rates and Revenue, it wasn't until you found projections based on the existence of a causal link you claimed didn't exist that you reversed your position.

However the CBO projection shows the CBO thinks there is a causal relation between PIT and revenue.

From the CBO report:

If that higher level of spending is coupled with revenues that are held close to their average share of GDP for the past 40 years (rather than being allowed to increase, as under current law), the resulting deficits will cause federal debt to skyrocket. To prevent debt from becoming unsupportable, policymakers will have to substantially restrain the growth of spending, raise revenues significantly above their historical share of GDP, or pursue some combination of those two approaches.​

As I said to Openmind, the "average share of GDP for the past 40 years" has been roughly 18% of GDP - regardless of tax rates. CBO baseline starts at 20% and goes up to 22% of GDP in their scoring, that's not just "significantly above their historical share of GDP" but new record levels of revenue which must then be maintained for at least 10 years in a row.

Even when our highest tax rates were 70% the revenue to the government didn't exceed 19.7% of GDP. IF there were a causal link between tax rates and revenue, the years in which we had a 70% top marginal rate would hold the record for highest % of revenue relative to GDP in the last 40 years, but they don't. Any rational person should see this as reason enough to question the existence of a causal link between rates and revenue before betting the future of the country on it's existence.

I just want you and Openmind to know that you're gambling the farm here... not only your farm, but your children's farm and their children's farm. If you throw the dice and crap out, as history suggests you will, the CBO says our "federal debt will skyrocket" and that it will become "unsupportable", that is the legacy you will leave to future generations.

It would not be a waste of your time. You owe it to yourself as a taxpayer to understand what the budgetary problems are so you can push for a better tomorrow.

I understand our budgetary problems well enough to know that people like you refuse to listen to facts and instead listen only to fiction.

But frankly, I do not think you know how to develop or understand the options and it is obvious that you don't care.

I offer solid facts, based on historical data, while you offer fanciful projections that any honest person should realize sounds too good to be true.. because they are.

 

[Lagboltz]

I have looked at his "plan" and I've seen no evidence that Obama plans a seventh bracket. Until you can offer proof that Obama's plan includes a seventh tax bracket, so that only people above $250k will be impacted by his tax increase, I have no choice but to consider your statements to be willful deceptions on your part.

Almost all your post was answered in post #128, but I discovered one area of confusion. Obama's campaign promise was for tax increases over $250,000. Web references today are very sparse because news sources generally don't keep records that long that can be directly found by a search engine. But the two most reliable sources remaining are PolitiFact and transcripts from the Saddleback Presidential Forum

Of course Obama couldn't keep that tax promise. Also at Saddleback Obama said 3 or 4% had an income above $250,000. However the 2005 Census Bureau says there are only 1.7% earning $250,000 and above. So I was fairly close in remembering it was 2%.

 

[Dr.Who]

. Eventually, other nations will stop buying our debt, then the whole system collapses, and all those people who you think can't get by with a penny less than what their getting from the government now, won't be getting any pennies at all from our government in the future.

I was just reading today how China's growth may be one giant precarious illusion. Their infrastructure sucks and they engage in so many dangerous practices that they have perhaps 120,000 riots per year as a result. They spend more on domestic security than they do on external security - think about that.

Something is going to change. If they do not have a peaceful transition from the atrocious conditions they have now to better conditions then they will have a revolution or a collapse or both. In any event they will have to sell off US assets at below market rates. Given how much of our debt China owns when they do that it will devalue our borrowing power to such an extent that we will be having an upheaval almost as great as theirs.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm all for that if someone knows how to do it.

Start a thread called "Ways to Encourage Work"

Of course the very first answer will be that removing restrictions on jobs is the #1 thing to do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that rules that make it hard to get or give jobs are a problem.

How do we do that? Yes there are many agencies run by charitable contributions, but not nearly enough. They are way maxed out where I live.

The number of poor is not less than it was before gov programs so obviously the charitable programs did just as well. Now that it is a hundred years after the invention of the Alms Houses we could certainly do a whole lot BETTER.

The main reason that you don't see charities today providing basic needs is because the gov is doing that. There is no such thing as a charity to provide health insurance because there is no need for such a thing.

Charities that provide clothes are not maxed out. But charities that provide food are. Which reflects the lack of donations. And of course people don't donate as much as they could because they know that most of the poor are actually fat, they know that food stamps exist, and they know that most of the people who go to food pantries for food are actually using it so that they can make their mortgage payments easier. I am not saying that people should stop giving to food pantries. People should just not be under the illusion that they are providing food to starving people in a country where virtually no one starves.

And what about countries with larger gov programs? They do not have any less poverty as a result - in fact often more.

Worldwide the number 1 cause of starvation and human suffering is wars between governments or similar organizations.

Number two cause is gov programs that encourage sloth and waste.

Number three is drought which does not cause starvation in the US.

#4 is disability

#5 is self determined laziness. I also think this is the smallest reason which is why I don't blame the poor for being lazy when too few of them choose laziness entirely independently.

I do not believe that a lack of government programs would drive anyone into criminality. Even being poor is not the cause of criminality. But a culture that glorifies criminality and thinks that the "five pillars of character" in any way address the problem is in trouble.