The tough questions!

[ReverendHellh0und]

Says the man on Military Pension and Social Security.

I think anyone who served regardless of political leaning earned that pension, and didn't we all pay into Social security? I'd love to see the ROI on that one! :roll:

 

[Kushinator]

Obviously there was an energy crisis that made it a pain in the *** durring the 70's. Yet if we look on the other side of this equation, it also made it a pain in the *** for oil exporting nations being as we consumed a higher % of world oil production during that time.

Had it kept up during the 1980's it would still have had pain in the *** effects, although the probability of it foregoing another decade would probably be impossible. Yet the 1980's economy had the ever daunting task of serving as a market correction period.

I really dont have an opinion per say on either as i was still young in the 80's and non existent in the 70's.

 

[tecoyah]

I think anyone who served regardless of political leaning earned that pension, and didn't we all pay into Social security? I'd love to see the ROI on that one! :roll:

I agree he certainly deserves the benefits he receives....there is no question. I in fact, did not imply otherwise, though you did a great job if implying far more negativity than my reply held.

He stated:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride
I think some of you people that are caling for tax increases don't pay any taxes in the first place.............

To which I replied:

Originally Posted by tecoyah
Says the man on Military Pension and Social Security.

The implied sentiment was directed at the fact he also pays no taxes at this point for the benefits received....not whether he was entitled to them.


Now...go ahead and play kissy face circ!e J@rk with your buddy all you want, but please refrain from placing words into my mouth....I have no Idea where your fingers have been.

 

[Navy Pride]

Says the man on Military Pension and Social Security.

I paid into the SS but would be willing to give it up if some type of satisfactory program could replace it.........



You can put me down I just consider the source but don't you ever complain about military people who worked that *** off long hours, risked their lives, missed holidays and birthdays as well as your children being born to protect people like you...

You could not carry their jock straps.........You should apologize to any military retiree receiving a pension.........shame on you..........

 

[Navy Pride]

I agree he certainly deserves the benefits he receives....there is no question. I in fact, did not imply otherwise, though you did a great job if implying far more negativity than my reply held.

He stated:


To which I replied:



The implied sentiment was directed at the fact he also pays no taxes at this point for the benefits received....not whether he was entitled to them.


Now...go ahead and play kissy face circ!e J@rk with your buddy all you want, but please refrain from placing words into my mouth....I have no Idea where your fingers have been.

How the hell can you make a statement like that? You know nothing about my income or what taxes I pay......... I probably pay more taxes then you do..........

 

[tecoyah]

I paid into the SS but would be willing to give it up if some type of satisfactory program could replace it.........



You can put me down I just consider the source but don't you ever complain about military people who worked that *** off long hours, risked their lives, missed holidays and birthdays as well as your children being born to protect people like you...

You could not carry their jock straps.........

Again...I have no problem with those who Serve, the Military itself, or the undeniable need for its existance. I also did not complain about your benefits in any way, but rather pointed out that you have them.

You however...I might take issue with, but it has nothing to do with your Service in the Galley.

 

[tecoyah]

How the hell can you make a statement like that? You know nothing about my income or what taxes I pay......... I probably pay more taxes then you do..........

OK...do you pay taxes on your Pension and Social Security benefits?

That is what my comment so clearly stated...nothing more. Read it again...several times if that helps...and if I am wrong in my assumption, I apologize.

 

[Navy Pride]

Again...I have no problem with those who Serve, the Military itself, or the undeniable need for its existance. I also did not complain about your benefits in any way, but rather pointed out that you have them.

You however...I might take issue with, but it has nothing to do with your Service in the Galley.

You know you are hijacking this thread and its against the rules........Could you concentrate like a laser beam and try and stay on subject.....


The people in the galley work their *** off and perform a necessary function and I doubt if you could hack it there..........Oh by the way I have never worked in the galley in my 21 years in the Navy...........

 

[Ikari]

Could you concentrate like a laser beam and try and stay on subject.....

Laser radiation is diffraction limited, there is always some spread to a beam as it propagates through space.

*coughs*

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I agree he certainly deserves the benefits he receives....there is no question. I in fact, did not imply otherwise, though you did a great job if implying far more negativity than my reply held.

He stated:


To which I replied:



The implied sentiment was directed at the fact he also pays no taxes at this point for the benefits received....not whether he was entitled to them.


Now...go ahead and play kissy face circ!e J@rk with your buddy all you want, but please refrain from placing words into my mouth....I have no Idea where your fingers have been.

So testes.... Why are you looking for a circle jerk? :lol:

He already paid those taxes and into those programs. Served his countries and the pension was part of his contract.


He was refering to those who are either in school, below poverty line, or other tax sheltered entitlement groups.


You lump him in because he gets a military pension in with these groups?

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und
Right so you say that GDP is the only factor pertaining to economy.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Try to demonstrate just a hint of honesty.
Show where I said this or retract.

How about you go pound sand troll,

You claimed that growth was the end all be all when you stated:

"I have defended my assertion. I otherwise stand by my post"

Why don't you addres some other aspects of what is a and what is not a good economy rather than engage in peurile trollish behavior.

: )

Everyone can see the truth.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

: )

Everyone can see the truth.

Yup they sure can, and no one cares. Nice "debating with you"....

 

[stevenb]

How the hell can you make a statement like that? You know nothing about my income or what taxes I pay......... I probably pay more taxes then you do..........

Oh sweet! Can we all break out our W-2 penii and compare?

I pay more in taxes than my friends make per payperiod. It's frustrating and annoying, but I understand that the more you make the more you pay. It's just the way it is in this country.

Personally, since I'm a libertarian... you guys probably know all the things I'd do to accomplish the end goal of this question. If not, refer to Ikari's posts, I don't feel like doubleposting him.

 

[Iriemon]

Ok, but to be fair, you have to attribute higher levels of growth to population increasing on the average during those times in the 50's and 60's. Not all of it, but to deny that it (population increase) has a major effect would be wrong.

Sorry to say Rev, but real growth is about the most important factor in measuring the economy health. No growth means ****ing problems, it means people are losing their ***'s...

I wont even bring up how monetary inflation factors into this equation...:mrgreen:

Observant point. There may have been a slightly higher growth rate in the 50s and 60s, on the other hand, the boomers were born from 45-60, so it would have been the 1965-1980 time frame they were entering the workplace.

On the other hand, even with a slightly stronger growth rate, IMO it is pretty tough to try to argue that tax rates have a significant effect on economic growth, given the top tax rate in the 50s was 91%, in the 60s and 70s it was 70%.

 

[Iriemon]

Here's the thing. Tax rate of 0% produces no money for the government because no one pays anything. Tax rate of 100% produces no money for the government because no one can earn anything, so what would be the point? So the truth of the matter is that government revenue as a function of tax rate will climb from zero as you begin to increase your tax rate greater than 0% to some point where it will turn over. After taxation grows too greatly and you have cut into people's buying power, it will begin to decline. You can't tax to 100% and expect to make money for the government, you can't tax at 0% and expect to make money for the government. There is a maximum at which you can tax and create the greatest amount of revenue for the government, and moving up or down on the tax rate from there will decrease the amount of money the government can get through taxes. Now where that peak is, it's not well known. There are many factors to go into it, and I doubt the government is really interested in experimentation to figure out where that maxim lies. Specific situations can yield different results, it all depends on where you are starting from. It is possible if your tax rate is too high to cut it and generate more revenue. it is possible if your tax rate is too low to raise it and generate more revenue.

Though me personally, I'd rather be on the tax rate being too low side of the curve. Adjust government spending so they can balance the budget.

That is a good synapsis of the Laffer curve theory.

However, given we had better growth in the 50s and 60s when the top tax rate was 91% and 70%, that argues that we are a long way from being at the point of diminishing returns with a top tax rate of 35%.

 

[Iriemon]

Yup they sure can, and no one cares. Nice "debating with you"....

You're reputation is well established (and deserved) here.

 

[Iriemon]

Obviously there was an energy crisis that made it a pain in the *** durring the 70's. Yet if we look on the other side of this equation, it also made it a pain in the *** for oil exporting nations being as we consumed a higher % of world oil production during that time.

Had it kept up during the 1980's it would still have had pain in the *** effects, although the probability of it foregoing another decade would probably be impossible. Yet the 1980's economy had the ever daunting task of serving as a market correction period.

I really dont have an opinion per say on either as i was still young in the 80's and non existent in the 70's.

The economy was OK in the 70s. Real growth slowed to about 3.2% for the decade, but that is significantly better than we are seeing this decade.

The 70s were characterized by a growing inflationary spiral, that was ignited by the cost of the Vietnam war but more importantly a Fed that prioritized lowering unemployment over containing inflation.

Nixon tried prize freezes, which was a total failure.

Ford tried the WIN "whip inflation now" campaign with little buttons, which was a total failure.

Carter appointed Volker to be the Fed chairman and put the brakes on the money supply. Volker did that in 79-80, which not unexpected sent interest rates skyhigh and the economy into a recession in 1980. It was not particular good timing for Carter. But Volker's methods ultimately worked; the inflation spiral broke and inflation came down in the first half of the 80s.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You're reputation is well established (and deserved) here.

As is yours troll.,

 

[Iriemon]

As is yours troll.,

Thank you!

 

[tecoyah]

OK...it seems obvious from the poll, it's agreed we need to lower the deficit...and soon (Like Now).

How do you propose we do so?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

OK...it seems obvious from the poll, it's agreed we need to lower the deficit...and soon (Like Now).

How do you propose we do so?

Cut the size of gvt by 50% reduce entitlement programs for starters

 

[Iriemon]

OK...it seems obvious from the poll, it's agreed we need to lower the deficit...and soon (Like Now).

How do you propose we do so?

Everyone has their pet preferences.

The modern "conservatives" have been telling us for years about how they want to cut spending, while electing candidates who just run up trillions in debt.

What I want to hear is modern "conservatives" answer this one:

Until the cut spending, should the Govt

1. Continue borrowing
2. Raise taxes

To a man, probably about 10 of them, the modern "conservatives" have gone into a tizzy about this question, which seems pretty simple to mean but for some reason not one modern "conservative" has had the ability to answer it.

 

[Panache]

Everyone has their pet preferences.

The modern "conservatives" have been telling us for years about how they want to cut spending, while electing candidates who just run up trillions in debt.

What I want to hear is modern "conservatives" answer this one:

Until the cut spending, should the Govt

1. Continue borrowing
2. Raise taxes

To a man, probably about 10 of them, the modern "conservatives" have gone into a tizzy about this question, which seems pretty simple to mean but for some reason not one modern "conservative" has had the ability to answer it.

Well, its good to know you no longer consider me to be a conservative. Since I have answered your question perhaps you will do me the courtesy of answering mine.

Suppose you are heavily invested in a company, but the people selected to run the company are ******* away the money you invested in it and are accumulating huge debt.

In this scenario, obviously it would be ideal for the people running your company to not act like irresponsible idiots, but until that happens, would you choose to:

1: Invest more money in this company so that they can piss that away too

2. Let a company that you are heavily invested in go even further into debt

 

[Kushinator]

Observant point. There may have been a slightly higher growth rate in the 50s and 60s, on the other hand, the boomers were born from 45-60, so it would have been the 1965-1980 time frame they were entering the workplace.

On the other hand, even with a slightly stronger growth rate, IMO it is pretty tough to try to argue that tax rates have a significant effect on economic growth, given the top tax rate in the 50s was 91%, in the 60s and 70s it was 70%.

I was only considering the increased cost of living when children are born. More food, clothing, accessories, heath care, etc... that paved the way for the consumer driven economy.

An increased growth in nuclear families also paved the way for new housing, and those new "gizmo's" such as washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, and televisions to be demanded and obtained.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, its good to know you no longer consider me to be a conservative. Since I have answered your question perhaps you will do me the courtesy of answering mine.

Where did you answer my question?