Millionaire Surtax - Democrats Cave

[TurtleDude]

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.

billions spent and no improvement

great waste of money

 

[FFDP666]

we know that billions upon billions has been spent on that and we don't have much to show for it other than intergenerational dependency

and subsidizing poverty tends to increase it-which is exactly what was intended in the first place

when LBJ got the civil rights act passed (with GOP help against racist dems like al gore) LBJ was quoted as saying something to the effect of that bill would "wrap up the nigger vote for a century for the dems" hard for me to believe LBJ really was the great egalitarian who saw blacks as equals. rather he was a good machiavellian who did what he did so his party would gain power

I can show you facts and figures on how these programs might have had an effect. Sure there could have been other causes, but they certainly didn't keep people in poverty, or else that number would not have dropped like it did.

 

[StillBallin75]

Nice one! If he is alluding to the F-117, F-22, and B-2, or SR-17 because of the fact that they've been retired it would be an epic failure. Those particular jets did exactly what they were supposed to do.......unfortunately the countries they were designed to either spy on or bomb the **** out of don't exist anymore so they aren't needed. I do think the plug was pulled too fast on the F-22 though considering it's a Mig Killer and plenty of countries still use that airframe.

Getting a bit nitpicky here, but the F-22 and B-2 have not been retired, while the F-117 and SR-71 were retired because they simply became obsolete.

In other news, LMR and FFDP666's avatars are confusing the **** outta me.

 

[FFDP666]

billions spent and no improvement

great waste of money

you dumb? the number of people in poverty dropped in the 70's to its lowest point. after that programs in the "war on poverty" were cut by people like Reagan, which could account for the numbers not improving. but even with that being said, these programs still make the people in poverty's lives better by any measurement. Also...did you ever answer my question? are the majority of these people just lazy?

 

[FFDP666]

Getting a bit nitpicky here, but the F-22 and B-2 have not been retired, while the F-117 and SR-71 were retired because they simply became obsolete.

In other news, LMR and FFDP666's avatars are confusing the **** outta me.

Both Disturbed's mascot's face...pretty sweeet.

 

[FFDP666]

What policies were coming out of congress then? Who controlled the purse? And who had to compromise principle to not get rolled?

the policies in congress had nothing to do with the boom in the economy, it was going along good anyway plus the dot com boom added to a great period of economic growth. who controlled the purse? the republicans were in congress for most of the 90's but i don't see what that has to do with the point i made.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Getting a bit nitpicky here, but the F-22 and B-2 have not been retired, while the F-117 and SR-71 were retired because they simply became obsolete.

In other news, LMR and FFDP666's avatars are confusing the **** outta me.

LOL! I knew that was going to happen. The F-117 isn't obsolete from what I understand it just doesn't have a purpose anymore, kind of overkill for the kinds of wars we are fighting right now. The B-2 I could have sworn was retired after the Clinton administration(could be confusing it with the F-117) thought I remembered hearing about the stealth program ending. The SR-71 is older, been in use since the 60s but I don't know if I'd call a MACH3/+70k ceiling jet obsolete, it doesn't really have much left to do since the fall of the USSR. The F-22 was scrapped because it was developed to fight soviet Migs, the idea was that the soviets don't exist but then again China, Cuba, and other former allies to the USSR still use them.......oh well I guess if a problem arises we can recommission and mass produce.

 

[TurtleDude]

you dumb? the number of people in poverty dropped in the 70's to its lowest point. after that programs in the "war on poverty" were cut by people like Reagan, which could account for the numbers not improving. but even with that being said, these programs still make the people in poverty's lives better by any measurement. Also...did you ever answer my question? are the majority of these people just lazy?

me dumb-no I am not a welfare socialist

I don't need government to take care of me either

tell me what the rate of black illegitimate births were before "the great society" started and after

thanks

 

[StillBallin75]

LOL! I knew that was going to happen. The F-117 isn't obsolete from what I understand it just doesn't have a purpose anymore, kind of overkill for the kinds of wars we are fighting right now. The B-2 I could have sworn was retired after the Clinton administration(could be confusing it with the F-117) thought I remembered hearing about the stealth program ending. The SR-71 is older, been in use since the 60s but I don't know if I'd call a MACH3/+70k ceiling jet obsolete, it doesn't really have much left to do since the fall of the USSR. The F-22 was scrapped because it was developed to fight soviet Migs, the idea was that the soviets don't exist but then again China, Cuba, and other former allies to the USSR still use them.......oh well I guess if a problem arises we can recommission and mass produce.

I'm no military expert, but from what I know off the top of my head the F-22 has made the F-117 obsolete. The F-117 was essentially a strike/ground attack aircraf that wasn't capable of maneuvering or dogfighting - the Raptor can do both. And the F-22 has not been retired/scrapped, production has simply stopped due to the limited utility of air superiority fighters in the wars we are currently fighting.

While the U-2 can essentially do everything the SR-71 can do at lower cost (aside from the Mach 3 thingy). Budgetary issues definitely contributed to the retirement of the Blackbird though.

/armchair generalizing.

 

[LaMidRighter]

the policies in congress had nothing to do with the boom in the economy, it was going along good anyway plus the dot com boom added to a great period of economic growth. who controlled the purse? the republicans were in congress for most of the 90's but i don't see what that has to do with the point i made.

Okay:
1) Congressional actions have a quick impact on the economy once signed by the president. That's the power of the purse, they can slow down or quicken an economy with policy almost immediately.
2) Presidents have some sway because of their votes, programs they lobby for however tend to take longer to leverage an economy either way because of the nature of the congresses power over money.
3) The dot com bubble was nothing more than economics at work. Because of the improvements in communications technology and the ease of information sharing everyone wanted to get in on the boom, it did influence the economy but not in such a way as to dismiss policy. The reason it was a bubble though is because the share prices of the companies were backed by literally paper and a name. There were typically no hard assets but rather ad dollars based on services, once the interest started to level off the effect was nullified.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'm no military expert, but from what I know off the top of my head the F-22 has made the F-117 obsolete. The F-117 was essentially a strike/ground attack aircraf that wasn't capable of maneuvering or dogfighting - the Raptor can do both. And the F-22 has not been retired/scrapped, production has simply stopped due to the limited utility of air superiority fighters in the wars we are currently fighting.

While the U-2 can essentially do everything the SR-71 can do at lower cost (aside from the Mach 3 thingy). Budgetary issues definitely contributed to the retirement of the Blackbird though.

/armchair generalizing.

I tend to agree. The thing about the F-177 is it's radar limiting capabilities, the F-22 isn't so much about being invisible as just shocking the **** out of the poor troops trying to stop it.

 

[FFDP666]

Okay:
1) Congressional actions have a quick impact on the economy once signed by the president. That's the power of the purse, they can slow down or quicken an economy with policy almost immediately.
2) Presidents have some sway because of their votes, programs they lobby for however tend to take longer to leverage an economy either way because of the nature of the congresses power over money.
3) The dot com bubble was nothing more than economics at work. Because of the improvements in communications technology and the ease of information sharing everyone wanted to get in on the boom, it did influence the economy but not in such a way as to dismiss policy. The reason it was a bubble though is because the share prices of the companies were backed by literally paper and a name. There were typically no hard assets but rather ad dollars based on services, once the interest started to level off the effect was nullified.

oh and now government spending affects the economy? oh but only when its YOUR GOVERNMENT spending, not Obama's....i guess i can't argue with most of what you said, but you made the point that because of the republican welfare reforms more people moved off of welfare or out of poverty, i am saying that the great economy in the 90s was the main reason for that more than anything else. If you are saying that something congress did had a great effect on the economy, you'll have to point that out for me, before i can address it straight forward.

 

[FFDP666]

me dumb-no I am not a welfare socialist

I don't need government to take care of me either

tell me what the rate of black illegitimate births were before "the great society" started and after

thanks

that is a cultural thing, they make their own decisions. the government giving a black family more money for food, (lol) does not make the black males start screwing every woman in sight...

 

[Mycroft]

Ok, well, lets cut oil subsidies, and use that to pay for the tax extension, or cut military spending, or cut tax benefits for corporations making huge profits, but no, can't do THAT, but we CAN for some reason, cut programs that actually help everyday Americans

These would be a start, imo...but I would characterize all of these suggestions as programs that help everyday Americans.

Anyway, do you have examples of other cuts in spending that the Democrats would be willing to support? So far, I haven't seen them come up with ANY significant spending cuts on their own...only tax increases.

When do you think they will realize they have to chose?

 

[FFDP666]

These would be a start, imo...but I would characterize all of these suggestions as programs that help everyday Americans.

Anyway, do you have examples of other cuts in spending that the Democrats would be willing to support? So far, I haven't seen them come up with ANY significant spending cuts on their own...only tax increases.

When do you think they will realize they have to chose?

Well, my stance, is not reflect the democratic party's stance really. My basic idea for the budget, is simple enough. start the cuts at areas that LEAST effect the every day American, or those who have little money. in my view, the military budget is a huge area to start, the wars, the contractors, the weapon research etc. then you have domestic spending, i would say money to people/businesses that in no way need the cash is a good place to start, farm subsidies, oil subsidies to companies for example that are recording high profits. There are plenty of small little bits to pick apart to, i mean, you hear everyday of some stupid government study program funded by tax payers that makes no sense. after you get through those, if you REALLY NEED TO yes, cut welfare programs, but save those for last, and only cut what is necessarily. but i think if we go by a basis for bigger cuts for the military and the other stuff i mentioned, we could avoid deep cuts into the programs in which many American's use on a daily basis to live on.

 

[Henrin]

that is a cultural thing, they make their own decisions. the government giving a black family more money for food, (lol) does not make the black males start screwing every woman in sight...

Decisions could and are decided on benefit where ever that benefit resides. This can be reflected very easily in culture occurrences of the people as a while or a group of people in society. Its not unreasonable nor is it unsupported to say that benefits from government cause culture changes be them on the rich or the poor or anyone in between.

 

[upsideguy]

The democrats need to grow some ****ing balls. I'm tired of them being ******s, we'd get so much **** done if the people with at least half decent ideas were't so ****ing spineless.

The party of fools vs. the party of wimps. God help us!

 

[LaMidRighter]

oh and now government spending affects the economy? oh but only when its YOUR GOVERNMENT spending, not Obama's....i guess i can't argue with most of what you said, but you made the point that because of the republican welfare reforms more people moved off of welfare or out of poverty, i am saying that the great economy in the 90s was the main reason for that more than anything else. If you are saying that something congress did had a great effect on the economy, you'll have to point that out for me, before i can address it straight forward.

Not exactly where my argument is going. What I mean is total monetary policy, not necessarily spending. For instance no one is arguing seriously that there should be no regulations whatsoever, but the problem is when there are too many regulations it chokes off production. Same for spending, there are things the government are supposed to spend money on and others that were never granted within the framework of the constitution. I am willing to accept both to a degree if there is accountability, since neither the constitutional nor the extra constitutional spending is fiscally in the best interest of the tax payers of our country I'm a fan of cutting off the tap so to speak until governments on all levels get the message that they have to budget properly as do all of us. As for the booming '90s, it's a complicated issue and no one person, entity, or situation was solely responsible. For instance, Clinton had the sense to not block some key reforms that freed up money, the policies came from the Congress, and the overall effect was that many gains from the '80s started to pay off, as well the dot coms were booming which increased consumption throughout the market. Let's also not forget that there was a relatively new IRA, and 401k market that was starting to become big, these also freed up dollars that normally would have gone to alternative investment vehicles which changed the entire consumer market. Basically there were many things happening then that aren't now.

Again, taxing the rich won't solve the stagnation. What we need is to figure out what Washington can cut without creating economic distress, then we get the debt in order and a balanced budget needs to be an immediate and legally binding goal(You would then see more people on board with temporary and conditional tax increases). After those issues are solved we need to get to a point where regulation is addressed, those that are necessary stay, those that hurt go. Off the top of my head that would be not only agreeable to both sides(if either had the stones to do it) and would put us all on a recovery track.

 

[FFDP666]

Not exactly where my argument is going. What I mean is total monetary policy, not necessarily spending. For instance no one is arguing seriously that there should be no regulations whatsoever, but the problem is when there are too many regulations it chokes off production. Same for spending, there are things the government are supposed to spend money on and others that were never granted within the framework of the constitution. I am willing to accept both to a degree if there is accountability, since neither the constitutional nor the extra constitutional spending is fiscally in the best interest of the tax payers of our country I'm a fan of cutting off the tap so to speak until governments on all levels get the message that they have to budget properly as do all of us. As for the booming '90s, it's a complicated issue and no one person, entity, or situation was solely responsible. For instance, Clinton had the sense to not block some key reforms that freed up money, the policies came from the Congress, and the overall effect was that many gains from the '80s started to pay off, as well the dot coms were booming which increased consumption throughout the market. Let's also not forget that there was a relatively new IRA, and 401k market that was starting to become big, these also freed up dollars that normally would have gone to alternative investment vehicles which changed the entire consumer market. Basically there were many things happening then that aren't now.

Again, taxing the rich won't solve the stagnation. What we need is to figure out what Washington can cut without creating economic distress, then we get the debt in order and a balanced budget needs to be an immediate and legally binding goal(You would then see more people on board with temporary and conditional tax increases). After those issues are solved we need to get to a point where regulation is addressed, those that are necessary stay, those that hurt go. Off the top of my head that would be not only agreeable to both sides(if either had the stones to do it) and would put us all on a recovery track.

Just because a regulation hurts a business, does not mean it should be done away with. For example, a energy producer could have huge gains if we lifted environmental regulations on them, but then we would have massive air pollution and such. Look at China, they were able to achieve huge economic growths, but parts of their environment are so messed up, people can't even breath the air. Now granted those are both more extreme examples, but some regulations have to be in place, regardless if it costs a business extra cash. And of course I'm sure there are examples of idiotic or pointless regulations, but I don't see over regulation as the main problem. Although I support the surtax on millionaires that was being discussed, I am starting to think that you folks have a point when it comes to cutting first, as that would show a serious interest in getting the deficit under control and such. The reason I support the surtax is because its only purpose was to pay for the payroll tax cut extension, so in effect, its already clear what the money would be used for. But say, a congressmen were to present a bill which included tax increases, but had that tax revenue going toward the right things, i would support that, but i do not support blindly raising taxes/revenue as i do not trust the government to automatically do the right things with that money.

 

[FFDP666]

Not exactly where my argument is going.

I meant the "oh and now government spending affects the economy? oh but only when its YOUR GOVERNMENT spending, not Obama's." MOSTLY in jest.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I meant the "oh and now government spending affects the economy? oh but only when its YOUR GOVERNMENT spending, not Obama's." MOSTLY in jest.

No biggie, I took it as such.

Just because a regulation hurts a business, does not mean it should be done away with. For example, a energy producer could have huge gains if we lifted environmental regulations on them, but then we would have massive air pollution and such. Look at China, they were able to achieve huge economic growths, but parts of their environment are so messed up, people can't even breath the air. Now granted those are both more extreme examples, but some regulations have to be in place, regardless if it costs a business extra cash. And of course I'm sure there are examples of idiotic or pointless regulations, but I don't see over regulation as the main problem. Although I support the surtax on millionaires that was being discussed, I am starting to think that you folks have a point when it comes to cutting first, as that would show a serious interest in getting the deficit under control and such. The reason I support the surtax is because its only purpose was to pay for the payroll tax cut extension, so in effect, its already clear what the money would be used for. But say, a congressmen were to present a bill which included tax increases, but had that tax revenue going toward the right things, i would support that, but i do not support blindly raising taxes/revenue as i do not trust the government to automatically do the right things with that money.

Some things environmental are overkill, I don't mind smog controls but the regulator should have to prove their case simply because it is an additional burden. Many of the things I absolutely agree with are laws about chemical and chemical solid dumping, anyone could prove immediate and permanent harm from the practice of throwing it into the water tables. For the air quality arguments I think currently regs are harsh but there is obviously a need, it's just to pinpoint said need and where it ends. Etc.

 

[FFDP666]

No biggie, I took it as such.

Some things environmental are overkill, I don't mind smog controls but the regulator should have to prove their case simply because it is an additional burden. Many of the things I absolutely agree with are laws about chemical and chemical solid dumping, anyone could prove immediate and permanent harm from the practice of throwing it into the water tables. For the air quality arguments I think currently regs are harsh but there is obviously a need, it's just to pinpoint said need and where it ends. Etc.

Well, then I think the main reason for the most recent environmental laws, are based off of the whole Global Warming/Climate change thing, which, to say the least, is a HUGE debate for the left and the hard right in America. I would say in short, that since a vast majority of scientists are in agreement with a substantial amount of evidence for man made climate change, environmental regulations to counter it, are necessary. So, even though, we COULD argue about the impact, or the truth to global warming, for the sake of this argument, if man made global warming is totally 100% happening, we need to take steps, even business costly steps to overt it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Well, then I think the main reason for the most recent environmental laws, are based off of the whole Global Warming/Climate change thing, which, to say the least, is a HUGE debate for the left and the hard right in America. I would say in short, that since a vast majority of scientists are in agreement with a substantial amount of evidence for man made climate change, environmental regulations to counter it, are necessary. So, even though, we COULD argue about the impact, or the truth to global warming, for the sake of this argument, if man made global warming is totally 100% happening, we need to take steps, even business costly steps to overt it.

My big problem is using consensus as science. I'm not a theory guy when it comes to regulation more of a hard facts guy, when the dispute is this large I can't look the other way.

 

[FFDP666]

My big problem is using consensus as science. I'm not a theory guy when it comes to regulation more of a hard facts guy, when the dispute is this large I can't look the other way.

do we have to do a global warming debate...cause, dude, the words; long, tiresome, never ending, and gets us nowhere in the end, come to mind. but maybe some other time...

so...3 percent surtax going to kill jobs?

 

[LaMidRighter]

do we have to do a global warming debate...cause, dude, the words; long, tiresome, never ending, and gets us nowhere in the end, come to mind. but maybe some other time...

so...3 percent surtax going to kill jobs?

I don't even get into the GW debate to be honest, too passionate of an issue with way too many landmines. I think it's a hoax as presented and would rather we find a way to get more science minded scientists on it. So far all we have is a dichotomy of paid "experts", some for the government and some for the energy industry. We can't solve the debate in that climate.

As for jobs being affected, I think it's probable. Couldn't say how many, what percentage, or even where but it would be mainly from small businesses having to cut back to meet the additional burden. My biggest problem is the principle of constantly asking for more from one group for the reasons stated, I think for real debt reduction that we could see explicitly put to paper we all would be okay with some minor increases, but as I stated earlier government must cut spending first and show a real budget that is accountable and fiscally sound.