Author Topic: Flip Flop (Read 1956 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #75 on:** April 27, 2004, 11:27:24 AM »

well... now I see why you didn't want to show your source... "buzzflash.com" the banner add is for Deans new book and advertises to be "worse than watergate".

This site is a very political one with what appears to be very selective and.... suspect data. They give no source for their data so it is impossible to check.

lazs

Sixpence · « **Reply #76 on:** April 27, 2004, 11:28:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
well... now I see why you didn't want to show your source... "buzzflash.com" the banner add is for Deans new book and advertises to be "worse than watergate".

This site is a very political one with what appears to be very selective and.... suspect data. They give no source for their data so it is impossible to check.

lazs

Show me your links or data disproving them.

lazs2 · « **Reply #77 on:** April 27, 2004, 11:53:31 AM »

we can play this game forever...

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

will give the opposite view for starters. Unlike your site tho it does site SOME sources other than the top of its head and microsoft excel.

I am saying that "buzzflash" doesn't seem very reputable and has no documentation or sources for it's missleading data.

Government sites are confusing and hard to navigate with no search engines or ways to get data pertenent to this discussion that I can tell..

soo... it appears that we are stuck with either believeing the left wing site you show or the right wing one I show.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #78 on:** April 27, 2004, 12:01:56 PM »

http://www.presidentreagan.info/revenues.cfm

This site gives a matrix that explains the revenue by year of the Reagan years and the tax rate decreases or increases by year.

The source is the IRS so it is questionable.

lazs

Sixpence · « **Reply #79 on:** April 27, 2004, 12:06:18 PM »

Ahh, read your fine print on your graph, IRS and JEC calculations, not actual numbers. And does not include "revenue inhancers"

What you call tax increases for Regan are increases for social security and medicare which are supposedly insurance. The fact that the increases affect the people who are using them is... well.... logical.

Sure, but it was never used for that, he took the money and used it to fill in the holes in his budget, you got taxed!!, then had to get taxed again to pay for it!

You don't get it, when you put yourself in debt, you increase your tax burden.

That link is just talk, no numbers, no data, just a calculation

lazs2 · « **Reply #80 on:** April 27, 2004, 12:24:24 PM »

No... the cost of social security and medicare went up. If you have problems with paying for it then you can't blame Reagan.

If you don't like the fact that the money that is suppossed to be earmarked for social security and medicare is being spent on other social programs then I would put to you that more democrats voted to do so than Republicans... We either need to pay for the program or dump it.

The link I gave has the numbers for revenue and for tax cuts/increases during Regans terms... the source is the IRS.

your site has no source or numbers that I can see, just "percent change" of some nebulous "revenue hike" "spending hike". It doesn't explain where anything came from or went.

When we dig into it we find Regan tried to rescue social security and medicare. This was a mistake in my opinion... he shoulda let them fail but I don't think that would be possible in the U.S. or.... he coulda left em for the next guy to figure out a way to fund.

lazs

Sixpence · « **Reply #81 on:** April 27, 2004, 12:39:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
No... the cost of social security and medicare went up. If you have problems with paying for it then you can't blame Reagan.

Yes I can, cause he did it w/o having to get Congress to approve it.

If you don't like the fact that the money that is suppossed to be earmarked for social security and medicare is being spent on other social programs then I would put to you that more democrats voted to do so than Republicans

The republicans held the power until 1986

We either need to pay for the program or dump it.

Amen, the budget he proposed was even bigger than he got, we would have had to borrow more money.

The link I gave has the numbers for revenue and for tax cuts/increases during Regans terms... the source is the IRS.

No it isn't, it's from the JEC

your site has no source or numbers that I can see, just "percent change" of some nebulous "revenue hike" "spending hike". It doesn't explain where anything came from or went.

it shows alot, you just don't want to know

When we dig into it we find Regan tried to rescue social security and medicare.

By quadrupling your payment, then stealing the money?

he coulda left em for the next guy to figure out a way to fund

That's what he did! Congress has since changed the laws so S.S. cannot be raided again. However, it has not addressed others(like the military retirement fund)

Cutting taxes is fine, but you must first pay off your debt and cut spending. If you cut taxes first and you increase spending, you force yourself to borrow and go deeper in debt, and increase your tax burden. Sometimes I wonder if they really want the debt paid off, seeming there is a killing being made on the interest paid on it. 30% of it being paid overseas, I believe this is our wealth leaving the country.

lazs2 · « **Reply #82 on:** April 27, 2004, 01:03:53 PM »

wait a minute... Regan didn't start social security or medicare. they were underfunded insurance programs that he had to pay for on his watch... if the programs could be "raided" then blame the people who set em up not Regan.... and.. to me, "raiding" means ... when people who never paid a dime into em are getting benifiets then the insurance is being "raided"

The numbers given are from the IRS according to the matrix. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/tax_stats/

I still don't get any sources or real numbers from your site. It appears to be all made up or partial data.

Regan never claimed he was going to increase revenue only decrease taxes on middle class... which he did. The fact that taxes were so high and at the negative side of the "laffer" curve was why revenue incresed... if, congress had used this increase in revenue to decrease debt instead of finding more socialist programs to half fund we would have achieved your goal of reducing the debt.

The problem is... how do you cut off a giveaway prigram once the people have gotten a taste of "free" stuff?

The answer is to not start new socialist programs and to spend additioal time in researching the pros and cons of the ones we allready have so that we can eliminate as many as quickly as possibel.

lazs

Sixpence · « **Reply #83 on:** April 27, 2004, 01:16:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

wait a minute... Regan didn't start social security or medicare. they were underfunded insurance programs that he had to pay for on his watch

Of course they were underfunded, he stole the money!!

if the programs could be "raided" then blame the people who set em up not Regan

So if a crook robs your house, I should blame you for having a house?

and.. to me, "raiding" means ... when people who never paid a dime into em are getting benifiets then the insurance is being "raided"

I have made that argument many times, S.S. for the retired only, that being said, he would have done the same thing. If he was really trying to save S.S., he would have changed it, not raid it.

Regan never claimed he was going to increase revenue only decrease taxes on middle class... which he did.

Then inacted "revenue inhancers' which offset the tax cut.

The fact that taxes were so high and at the negative side of the "laffer" curve was why revenue incresed... if, congress had used this increase in revenue to decrease debt instead of finding more socialist programs to half fund we would have achieved your goal of reducing the debt.

What are you talking about? It was his spending budget they approved, actually, what he wanted to spend was even higher.

The answer is to not start new socialist programs and to spend additioal time in researching the pros and cons of the ones we allready have so that we can eliminate as many as quickly as possibel.

The answer is not to increase spending period, then pay the debt, then cut taxes and spending.

lazs2 · « **Reply #84 on:** April 27, 2004, 01:27:30 PM »

Hold it... the democratic congress raided social security and medicare not Regan... He had no power to do so. The democrats also are the ones that set up those programs originally so that they could be "raided" by both your and my defenition of the term.

in the end... we do agree that spending has to be stopped first. I would add the caveat that emergency spending would be excluded but emergency would have to have very strict terms. J7ust doing that would probly result in being able to pay off the debt while at the same time decreasing taxes... decreasing taxes would still be a good idea if spending were frozen as taxes are too high now to stimulate growth.

if the rate of debt payment dropped because of decreased taxes then spending would have to be cut. social programs would need to be dropped.

lazs

Sixpence · « **Reply #85 on:** April 27, 2004, 02:02:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

Hold it... the democratic congress raided social security and medicare not Regan

republicans had control of congress until 1987

He had no power to do so.

He sure did, and the current president has hinted on trying to get his hands on it during war time or recession.

The democrats also are the ones that set up those program

To help you support yourself after retirement, and this is the thanks they get.

in the end... we do agree that spending has to be stopped first. I would add the caveat that emergency spending would be excluded but emergency would have to have very strict terms.

It's not the emergency, but how and where that money goes during the emergency that is the problem, we tend not to know exactly where the money is going during those times.

J7ust doing that would probly result in being able to pay off the debt while at the same time decreasing taxes

That's what I am trying to explain, by paying off the debt, we are decreasing taxes. Remember, a billion a day goes to pay the interest, that's our tax money. By lowering the payment, we lower our tax burden. We decrease spending.

decreasing taxes would still be a good idea if spending were frozen as taxes are too high now to stimulate growth.

Decreasing taxes is never a bad idea(albeit I would rather see most of it aimed at small business), but the debt is a tax consuming monster. If you cut spending w/o decreasing taxes, and that money is used to pay the debt, then what you are doing is actually reducing taxes. Once you have paid off the debt, we have now cut taxes by one billion a day. Then we can reduce taxes even more because we cut spending already and do not have the debt.

Here is some reading on the laffer curve. The math is kind of hard to follow, but you understand what they are saying. But I look at it this way, you show me a billionaire that doesn't want to make another billion because of taxes, i'll show you an idiot.

http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/fest/files/Monissen.htm

lazs2 · « **Reply #86 on:** April 27, 2004, 02:48:15 PM »

six.. no.. the democrats in congress voted to raid SS. And... so far as I know there is no way that any president can spend SS money now or ever on his own. He can suggest.

The democrats formed SS and they did a poor job.. they will get no thanks from me or anyone else trying rto live on it... No way is it a good way to use your hard earned retirement money. Being a government program all it's safeguards are moot. They can be voted away in a blink. It would be hard to get out of the mess that the democrats got us into over it tho now. Most of johnsons "great society" welfare is now considered human rights now too. Voting for democrats will only give us more of these types of programs. Socialism by anyones standards. No wonder they want the populace disarmed.... can you imagine how pissed the average person will be when (if) he figures it out? Believe me... the democrats can imagine it so... the sooner we are disarmed the better they will like it.

other than that we are reaching an agreement. High taxes are bad. deficet spending is bad at a certain point. I believe I understand the laffer curve even with my limited math ability. it is in one sense very simple and logical. If all you are concerned with is taxes and revenue from taxes it is probly fairly accurate.

lazs

Sixpence · « **Reply #87 on:** April 27, 2004, 05:20:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
six.. no.. the democrats in congress voted to raid SS. And... so far as I know there is no way that any president can spend SS money now or ever on his own. He can suggest.

With Reagan wielding the veto pen in the White House, any budget standoff between House Democrats and Senate Republicans would have been tipped in the Republicans' favor. In other words, the GOP controlled two of the three bodies required to pass a budget. Therefore, Republicans dominated the budget process, and they deserve a larger share of responsibility for whatever deficits were passed on their watch.

The democrats formed SS and they did a poor job

Are you saying that no republicans had a hand in S.S.? Many republicans want to save S.S. Again, I could get into why S.S. is not working because of where it goes. I am told that immigrants come to this country and collect S.S., but I digress, w/o S.S. many would have to collect welfare, at least with it we set up a budget for it and you are putting money into it. I think you should have a choice to pay into it. If you don't, you do not collect. However, this could create a problem in the future is those who do not invest soundly end up broke at retirement. Then it is either welfare, or work til you drop dead. As a postal employee, you have FERS, they match you dollar for dollar up to 5% of your pay that you save and offer 3 investment options, no risk(low interest), low risk, and high risk(which keeps it's money in the S&P) This sounds much better than S.S. to me, although it would use tax dollars, it would give incentive to save by rewarding you for saving your own money.

ng a government program all it's safeguards are moot. They can be voted away in a blink.

Anything can be voted away if the voters do not pay attention.

t would be hard to get out of the mess that the democrats got us into over it tho now.

You can point fingers at who you want, there is plenty to go around with the blame pie, especially when a party ignores everything they preach and go along with careless spending because the president is in their party.

No wonder they want the populace disarmed

Do not fool yourself that it is only democrats. Here in Massachusetts, it is not as strict as you think. We had a law here that many on the right would like, if you got caught with an illegal handgun, you did a mandatory year in jail. Mandatory, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, jail. Now I will admit, it is tough to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun(you can get one if you have a clean record and have a need, like to protect a business), but shotguns and rifles? I think they sell them at walmart. We got drunk when were about 16, we took a shotgun from my friend's house(his older brothers hunted alot) and went down the marsh. Well, the gun jammed, so me and kenny turned to take a piss, BOOM!, we turn and they are both standing there...w/o the gun. They were both screwing around with it and it went off sending it flying off into the brush, took us about 20 min to find it, we wisely decided to bring the gun back. Another friend's dad was a taxidermist, he used to bring us to the marsh to shoot, we got in a little bit of trouble. People would use the marsh as a dump, unfortunately, but it provided lots of targets. We were blasting away, toilet bowl..BOOM!, washing maching..BOOM! Well, we didn't notice the game warden and state police walking up behind us. So don't be fooled, Massachusetts has it's share of gun wielding snapperheads. And we like having our guns. Now if they will just let us shoot the goose turding in the park, i'll be happy. I've been thinking of joining the NRA, seriously.

lazs2 · « **Reply #88 on:** April 27, 2004, 05:33:21 PM »

well.. i suppose we will just have to disagree with who got us into the SS mess but..

on the gun thing... all you have to do is look at the voting records of democrats and republicans on gun laws and you will see that democrats by a huge margin are for disarming America. You really should join the NRA because their magazine that you would get free of charge will give you info on who backs what bill and on voting records of politicians... They also rate politicans A through F on their stand on gun control... it is rare that a democrat ever gets better than a D. If keeping your 2nd rights is important to you then you shouldn't vote with the women.

lazs

KBall · « **Reply #89 on:** April 30, 2004, 05:37:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
I cannot find a copy of the bill, do you have one?

I would recommend reading it completely. The proposed plan is quite different from what is being said by liberal unions.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/proposed/2003033101.pdf