Why the Left hates Sarah Palin?

[StillBallin75]

I fail to see nothing other than the tax revenue increase and job growth AFTER tax rate cuts. Why do you have such a problem understanding that reality?

Hmm. I see tax cuts coupled with a big deal of increased government spending under both Reagan and Bush. Let me put it this way. If you kept taxes the same, and you increased government spending dramatically, you would STILL get greater tax revenue because the economy has expanded due to spending, and thus the tax base has expanded. When you couple government spending with tax cuts, the effect is even greater and you're going to increase productivity and get more revenue. You said Reagan increased the debt by 1.7 Trillion. Where did u think that 1.7 Trillion went? MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, it played a part in jumpstarting the economy and putting people back to work. Again, you have not proven that tax cuts ALONE increased revenue.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that people keeping more of what they earn is a good thing?

It IS a good thing BY ITSELF. However when taxes are lowered and spending increases or stays the same, you're going to get what's called a DEFICIT. And guess what. DEFICITS AND DEBTS MUST EVENTUALLY BE PAID BACK.

You ought to be happy keeping more of what you earn?

Sure. Until we have to start paying down the debt because we've been deficit spending too much.

Further you ought to be more worried about how the govt. spends the money they get vs. whether or not tax cuts are warranted.

Don't you get it? Taxes and spending are INTERRELATED. They do not exist in isolation. Yes I am worried about how the government spends its money. But it also doesn't take a genius to tell you that increasing spending when you take in less revenue eventually leads to disaster.

 

[disneydude]

tax cuts help real people

They do when they are properly tailored. When they are structured in the typical Reagan/Bus GOP "Trickle Down" manner, they only help the corporations and their wealthy cohorts.

 

[StillBallin75]

Seems like a win, win to me, the govt. gets more revenue and the people get to keep more of their own money. Why does this bother you?

It would be TOTALLY AWESOME if IT WERE ACTUALLY TRUE. Just because your argument is attractive doesn't make it correct. You have shown that tax revenue increased AFTER tax cuts. Guess what also increased? Government spending, the population, the fact that the economy grows at a natural rate, looser monetary policy, all of which could have contributed to the increased revenue. I would LOVE for your argument to actually be true. It's great! I get to keep more of my money, and the government gets more money and gets to spend more and make the constituents happier. But you know what they say, "If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't." And most empirical evidence has shown it to be false.

 

[Conservative]

StillBallin75;1059230645]Hmm. I see tax cuts coupled with a big deal of increased government spending under both Reagan and Bush. Let me put it this way. If you kept taxes the same, and you increased government spending dramatically, you would STILL get greater tax revenue because the economy has expanded due to spending, and thus the tax base has expanded. When you couple government spending with tax cuts, the effect is even greater and you're going to increase productivity and get more revenue. You said Reagan increased the debt by 1.7 Trillion. Where did u think that 1.7 Trillion went? MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, it played a part in jumpstarting the economy and putting people back to work. Again, you have not proven that tax cuts ALONE increased revenue.

Again, does it matter whether or not tax cuts caused the increase in govt. revenue, it put more money in real people's pockets and that spurred the largest component of GDP. Govt. revenue did grow. I disagree that govt. spending is the biggest factor in economic growth and govt. revenue. Any govt. revenue increase is reduced by the amount of tax dollars it takes to pay for that govt. entity spending the money. Not so in the private sector. You seem to have a problem with keeping more of your money. When you get a job, get a family you will think differently.

It IS a good thing BY ITSELF. However when taxes are lowered and spending increases or stays the same, you're going to get what's called a DEFICIT. And guess what. DEFICITS AND DEBTS MUST EVENTUALLY BE PAID BACK.

Tax cuts that grew govt. revenue should have no impact on govt. spending when we have trillions of dollars in debt. How do you pay back debt by increasing spending? The key to paying back the debt is putting 16 million americans back to work and that isn't going to happen with tax increases and spending cuts. Spending cuts and tax cuts will grow the economy enough to pay down the debt. Going back to 2006 levels of spending would be a good start.

Sure. Until we have to start paying down the debt because we've been deficit spending too much.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent you from sending more of your money to the IRS to help with that debt. how many liberals are doing that? Here seems to be the part of the Govt. Financial statement that you ignore. Do we really need a 3.6 trillion dollar govt?

U.S. Treasury
Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service


Receipt 2010

Individual Income tax 898.5
Corporate Taxes 191.4

Total 1089.9

SS/Unemploy/Other 864.8

Excise Taxes 66.9


2021.6

Expenses

Defense 696.1
International Affairs 45.2
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy 11.5
Natural resources/env 41.6
Agriculture 23.2
Commerce -82.9
Transportation 92.5
Community Dev 24.5
Education/Train/Social 125.1
Health 369
Medicare 451.6
Income Security 624
Social Security 706.7
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice 55.2
General Govt. 18.1
Net Interest 196.9


Total 3537.6

Don't you get it? Taxes and spending are INTERRELATED. They do not exist in isolation. Yes I am worried about how the government spends its money. But it also doesn't take a genius to tell you that increasing spending when you take in less revenue eventually leads to disaster.

When you have revenue projections how do you create your budget? As for your other statement, we were doing so well as you recognized that tax revenue went up thus less revenue didn't come in with those tax cuts.

 

[StillBallin75]

Conservative, let me put it to you another way. I'll give you a hypothetical. We have a stable economy, where GDP growth, let's say, is pretty stable at 3 or 4 percent per year. Tax rates are constant, government spending is indexed to population growth, and we run a balanced budget. In such a case where everything is stable, tax revenues will go up naturally just because the economy is growing and the tax base has increased. Now you throw in a tax cut. Revenues increase even more, but we begin to run deficits.

The point of this exercise is to show you that tax revenues are SUPPOSED to increase year over year in a natural environment. Thus it becomes even harder to prove that tax cuts cause greater revenues, when revenues are SUPPOSED to increase naturally.

 

[Conservative]

It would be TOTALLY AWESOME if IT WERE ACTUALLY TRUE. Just because your argument is attractive doesn't make it correct. You have shown that tax revenue increased AFTER tax cuts. Guess what also increased? Government spending, the population, the fact that the economy grows at a natural rate, looser monetary policy, all of which could have contributed to the increased revenue. I would LOVE for your argument to actually be true. It's great! I get to keep more of my money, and the government gets more money and gets to spend more and make the constituents happier. But you know what they say, "If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't." And most empirical evidence has shown it to be false.

Actually my argument is supported by Treasury data. Sounds a lot like a kid in the candy store, give them more money in that candy store and they spend more. What you are saying is the govt. just cannot help itself given all that money they have to spend it. What liberals love to do is buy votes with higher taxes on others.

 

[Conservative]

Conservative, let me put it to you another way. I'll give you a hypothetical. We have a stable economy, where GDP growth, let's say, is pretty stable at 3 or 4 percent per year. Tax rates are constant, government spending is indexed to population growth, and we run a balanced budget. In such a case where everything is stable, tax revenues will go up naturally just because the economy is growing and the tax base has increased. Now you throw in a tax cut. Revenues increase even more, but we begin to run deficits.

The point of this exercise is to show you that tax revenues are SUPPOSED to increase year over year in a natural environment. Thus it becomes even harder to prove that tax cuts cause greater revenues, when revenues are SUPPOSED to increase naturally.

What you and other liberals fail to recognize is the actual role of the Federal govt. Indexing govt. spending indexed to population growth ignores again doesn't address the role of the govt. How much of the attached is Fed. vs State responsibility. We don't need a 3.6 trillion dollar govt and that is the point. In a stable world govt. revenue will grow and when you cap spending or get it back to where it belongs you then begin to reduce the debt.

Expenses

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest

 

[StillBallin75]

Again, does it matter whether or not tax cuts caused the increase in govt. revenue, it put more money in real people's pockets and that spurred the largest component of GDP.

You don't seem to realize that government spending also affects the "Personal Consumption" component of GDP, meaning government spending also puts money in people's pockets, but at a cost, just like tax cuts.

I disagree that govt. spending is the biggest factor in economic growth and govt.

One government dollar spent on the economy has a greater impact than a dollar's worth of tax cut. Again, look up government spending multiplier vs. tax multiplier. Mathematically speaking, the former will always be greater than the latter.

You seem to have a problem with keeping more of your money. When you get a job, get a family you will think differently.

I have not revealed anything about my personal financial habits. I am stating a simple truth: I would love it if i got more of my money back. But everything has a cost, including tax cuts. Tax cuts are not FREE.

Tax cuts that grew govt. revenue should have no impact on govt. spending when we have trillions of dollars in debt.

Tax cuts alone do not grow gov't revenue. We have debated this all day. It is simply untrue.

How do you pay back debt by increasing spending?

Increased spending, if done right, increases economic productivity. Look up government spending multiplier. The government spending multiplier is always greater than 1, meaning for every dollar the government spends, the economy produces about 1.4 dollars. Eventually when you dig yourself out of a recession, you can start increasing tax rates a little bit to make some of that money back.

The key to paying back the debt is putting 16 million americans back to work and that isn't going to happen with tax increases and spending cuts.

Agreed. Unfortunately Tax Increases and spending cuts are how we decrease the deficit.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent you from sending more of your money to the IRS to help with that debt. how many liberals are doing that?

Actually some: Some Of The Rich Ask For Higher Taxes : NPR

Here seems to be the part of the Govt. Financial statement that you ignore. Do we really need a 3.6 trillion dollar govt?

When did i ignore the fact that the government is large and bloated? However the sad truth is that you still need to increase spending and cut taxes to get yourself out of a recession.

 

[StillBallin75]

What you and other liberals fail to recognize is the actual role of the Federal govt. Indexing govt. spending indexed to population growth ignores again doesn't address the role of the govt. How much of the attached is Fed. vs State responsibility. We don't need a 3.6 trillion dollar govt and that is the point. In a stable world govt. revenue will grow and when you cap spending or get it back to where it belongs you then begin to reduce the debt.

Expenses

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest

I don't disagree that the federal government is bloated. We don't need a 3.6 trillion dollar gov't. No disagreement there. The reason I used that in my hypothetical situation is that it is reasonable to assume that as the population grows, government spending will also grow along with it under natural circumstances. However that was a hypothetical situation, not reality. It was used to illustrate a point. I don't disagree that the federal budget is too large and unsustainable.

 

[StillBallin75]

Actually my argument is supported by Treasury data.

It is not and I have repeatedly attempted to show you why, to no avail.

Sounds a lot like a kid in the candy store, give them more money in that candy store and they spend more. What you are saying is the govt. just cannot help itself given all that money they have to spend it. What liberals love to do is buy votes with higher taxes on others.

This is irrelevant to my argument. I am saying that it would be GREAT if tax decreases actually led to more revenue. Honestly, who wouldn't want that? But it is simply not true. Politicians on both sides love to tax less and spend more. That is why we have a debt.

 

[Z3n]

Sarah Palin is a folksy bourgeois puppet. No opinions really. Honestly would she even be a candidate for the Grand Old Party if she wasn't attractive? If she looked like Hillary Clinton with those terrible ideas would she even be a national conversation?

 

[winston53660]

What ever happened to jallman? he loved Palin

 

[Redress]

tax cuts help real people

And reducing the deficit doesn't?

 

[TurtleDude]

They do when they are properly tailored. When they are structured in the typical Reagan/Bus GOP "Trickle Down" manner, they only help the corporations and their wealthy cohorts.

you speaking from experience or from talking points

 

[TurtleDude]

And reducing the deficit doesn't?

the only way to do that is massive spending cuts

libs use tax hikes as an excuse to spend even more

 

[TurtleDude]

What ever happened to jallman? he loved Palin

he got banned a couple months ago IIRC

 

[TurtleDude]

Sarah Palin is a folksy bourgeois puppet. No opinions really. Honestly would she even be a candidate for the Grand Old Party if she wasn't attractive? If she looked like Hillary Clinton with those terrible ideas would she even be a national conversation?

you make a sound point

if she looked like Molly Yard or Madeline Albright she never would have been picked

just like if Obama was some white guy he never would have been at harvard law let alone president with his resume

 

[Z3n]

I remember a very interesting research poll on CNN talking about how if Obama was a caucasian he would have lost a lot of primary states to Clinton.

 

[winston53660]

he got banned a couple months ago IIRC

Hmmm bummer I liked him.

As a frined of course

 

[Conservative]

StillBallin75;1059230720]You don't seem to realize that government spending also affects the "Personal Consumption" component of GDP, meaning government spending also puts money in people's pockets, but at a cost, just like tax cuts.

Oh, yes, I do and as I stated the benefits are reduced by the taxes it takes to pay those salaries and for that spending. That doesn't happen with the private sector which is what our economy was based upon.

One government dollar spent on the economy has a greater impact than a dollar's worth of tax cut. Again, look up government spending multiplier vs. tax multiplier. Mathematically speaking, the former will always be greater than the latter.

That is your opinion which isn't supported by the largest component of GDP, Personal consumption which is close to 2/3rds of economic growth. Govt. although the largest single employer pales in comparison to the total work force.

I have not revealed anything about my personal financial habits. I am stating a simple truth: I would love it if i got more of my money back. But everything has a cost, including tax cuts. Tax cuts are not FREE.

There are no costs to tax cuts, I don't see tax cuts as a line item on the personal financial statement of the govt? You have indeed been brainwashed.

Tax cuts alone do not grow gov't revenue. We have debated this all day. It is simply untrue.

As stated and you continue to ignore it, tax revenue went up EVERY time in U.S. history when rates were cut. That is a verifiable fact, Harding, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush

Increased spending, if done right, increases economic productivity. Look up government spending multiplier. The government spending multiplier is always greater than 1, meaning for every dollar the government spends, the economy produces about 1.4 dollars. Eventually when you dig yourself out of a recession, you can start increasing tax rates a little bit to make some of that money back.

In spite of the liberal education you are receiving that never was the goal of our founders. Liberals want a strong central govt. whereas our founders proposed a limited central govt. Your style govt. has failed everywhere in the world. Spending on the part of the Federal govt. creates debt, provides little if any long term benefits but it does create dependence.

Agreed. Unfortunately Tax Increases and spending cuts are how we decrease the deficit.

Again you ignore the affects of economic growth on govt. revenue and increasing govt. revenue along with lowering spending is what will reduce the debt. 16 million unemployed Americans, think about it?

Actually some: Some Of The Rich Ask For Higher Taxes : NPR

Why do these people have to request anything, just send in more money and mark the check for any purpose you want.

When did i ignore the fact that the government is large and bloated? However the sad truth is that you still need to increase spending and cut taxes to get yourself out of a recession.

The recession is over according to NBER and ended in June 2009. Nothing Obama is doing is increasing private sector employment to put 16 million Americans back to work

 

[StillBallin75]

That is your opinion which isn't supported by the largest component of GDP, Personal consumption which is close to 2/3rds of economic growth.

The components of GDP have literally nothing to do with the multiplier. I am talking about a mathematical axiom. Please do some research and find out what I am actually talking about.

There are no costs to tax cuts, I don't see tax cuts as a line item on the personal financial statement of the govt? You have indeed been brainwashed.

If you ever went to college you must have much more finance and business background than economics. Ever heard of the phrase opportunity cost? Something doesn't have to show up on a financial statement for it to have a cost. Financially, it doesn't cost me anything to not brush my teeth. But I will eventually get cavities.

As stated and you continue to ignore it, tax revenue went up EVERY time in U.S. history when rates were cut. That is a verifiable fact, Harding, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush

No it hasn't and it is not verifiable fact. I have done plenty of research on this and it is simply untrue. You need to stop looking at raw numbers and start researching actual context and cause and effect.

In spite of the liberal education you are receiving that never was the goal of our founders.

The founders were not macroeconomists. Government spending (and tax cuts) increase GDP. This is the truth, and has been proven mathematically. It has literally nothing to do with the founders.

Liberals want a strong central govt. whereas our founders proposed a limited central govt.

The founders lived in a different world and society and do not face the same problems we face today. This has literally nothing to do with the discussion. Why then did the founders move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution?

Your style govt. has failed everywhere in the world.

You are ignoring the whole of Europe.

The recession is over according to NBER and ended in June 2009. Nothing Obama is doing is increasing private sector employment to put 16 million Americans back to work

Do you not read the news? US adds 1.3 million private sector jobs in 2010, holds lessons for 2011 policy - Long Island populist | Examiner.com

 

[TurtleDude]

Hmmm bummer I liked him.

As a frined of course

I did too\

 

[Conservative]

StillBallin75;1059230816]The components of GDP have literally nothing to do with the multiplier. I am talking about a mathematical axiom. Please do some research and find out what I am actually talking about.

You continue to miss or ignore the real benefits of a free enterprise society and that is individual wealth creation and an every growing pie. That pie has to grow and take in more people, govt. affects the ability to grow the pie. This isn't a zero sum game and there is room for plenty at the top. govt hinders that.

If you ever went to college you must have much more finance and business background than economics. Ever heard of the phrase opportunity cost? Something doesn't have to show up on a financial statement for it to have a cost. Financially, it doesn't cost me anything to not brush my teeth. But I will eventually get cavities.

Everything that shows up on a financial statement in the expense category affects the bottomline by each dollar there. Eliminate a dollar of expense and you eliminate a dollar of debt. Your college teaches you theory and I used little of that theory in managing a real business because theory ignores human behavior that plays a bigger role than liberals will ever understand. Hell, liberals don't even understand their own behavior.

No it hasn't and it is not verifiable fact. I have done plenty of research on this and it is simply untrue. You need to stop looking at raw numbers and start researching actual context and cause and effect.

You think way too much and ignore reality wanting to over analyze everything.

The founders were not macroeconomists. Government spending (and tax cuts) increase GDP. This is the truth, and has been proven mathematically. It has literally nothing to do with the founders.

See, there you go again theory over substance. Govt. spending increases debt, always has and always will. The govt. isn't in business to make a profit. If it spends too much it prints or borrows more and we pay for it with our taxes.

The founders lived in a different world and society and do not face the same problems we face today. This has literally nothing to do with the discussion. Why then did the founders move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution?

They had their own problems plus they had a life expectancy that was very low. They didn't have a lot of time to make it for their family and they didn't expect others to make it for them. The Founders had a vision and believed in freedom to be the best you can be with limited govt. intervention. It isn't the goal of the govt. to provide you cradle to grave coverage or to protect you from yourself. In the liberal world there are no consequences for failure. In the world of our Founders there were consequences for failure and many lost their lives by making the wrong choice. I don't think many liberals would have survived those times.

You are ignoring the whole of Europe.

Really? what part of Europe? Germany has made the turn and understands what they created in the past and now are undoing it. Liberals will never get it because it would cause them to think instead of feeling. Europe is a nightmare but arrogant liberals want that nightmare here.

Do you not read the news? US adds 1.3 million private sector jobs in 2010, holds lessons for 2011 policy - Long Island populist | Examiner.com

What good is that when the net was 4 million lost? It takes about 200,000 a month to just meet the number of people retiring or dropping out of the workforce. As you can see we are along way from that. When Obama took office there were 143 million employed Americans, today that is 139 million. Seems to me you explore the data that goes into certain numbers but not all numbers. Why are you buying those headlines and not getting the total picture?

 

[Redress]

the only way to do that is massive spending cuts

libs use tax hikes as an excuse to spend even more

That is not the only way to reduce the deficit. I would agree it is the best way and I strongly support across the board spending cuts as soon as unemployment starts to drop.

 

[StillBallin75]

You continue to miss or ignore the real benefits of a free enterprise society and that is individual wealth creation and an every growing pie. That pie has to grow and take in more people, govt. affects the ability to grow the pie. This isn't a zero sum game and there is room for plenty at the top. govt hinders that.

This response has literally nothing to do with the point.

Everything that shows up on a financial statement in the expense category affects the bottomline by each dollar there. Eliminate a dollar of expense and you eliminate a dollar of debt. Your college teaches you theory and I used little of that theory in managing a real business because theory ignores human behavior that plays a bigger role than liberals will ever understand. Hell, liberals don't even understand their own behavior.

Again, the response had literally nothing to do with what I called opportunity cost. Not every cost is measured in dollars.

You think way too much and ignore reality wanting to over analyze everything.

Numbers don't give you the whole story. If you really want to understand how the economy works, and know about cause and effect, you need to go beyond the numbers.

See, there you go again theory over substance. Govt. spending increases debt, always has and always will. The govt. isn't in business to make a profit. If it spends too much it prints or borrows more and we pay for it with our taxes.

Gov't spending has a NET EFFECT that you somehow fail to recognize. I am not saying more spending and more government is a good thing. But it is FACT that government spending has a positive impact on GDP.

They had their own problems plus they had a life expectancy that was very low. They didn't have a lot of time to make it for their family and they didn't expect others to make it for them. The Founders had a vision and believed in freedom to be the best you can be with limited govt. intervention. It isn't the goal of the govt. to provide you cradle to grave coverage or to protect you from yourself. In the liberal world there are no consequences for failure. In the world of our Founders there were consequences for failure and many lost their lives by making the wrong choice. I don't think many liberals would have survived those times.

You are entitled to your own opinion and I am entitled to mine. Modern society, due to scientific, technological, and social changes produces a world drastically different from the one the Founding Fathers lived with. These changes has brought on many good things, but also many problems. Overfishing, pollution, gun crime, nuclear weapons, drugs, etc. were problems none of the founding fathers had to deal with. That government has expanded is a simple reflection of the more complex world we live in.

Really? what part of Europe? Germany has made the turn and understands what they created in the past and now are undoing it. Liberals will never get it because it would cause them to think instead of feeling. Europe is a nightmare but arrogant liberals want that nightmare here.

Almost all European nations possess more socialized economies than we do. The UK is perhaps the most capitalist. Most of them have universal healthcare systems in which the government at least plays a big role. Sweden is a good example of a strong socialist economy that promotes social justice and is still prosperous; it is also a rather stable economy. Europe is a nightmare? Have you ever been to Europe and met any Europeans? I find Europeans on the whole to be much more cultured, free-thinking, open-minded, and intelligent than Americans. Many of them speak multiple languages. I'm sure some places in Europe are "nightmares." This in no way accurately describes the whole.

What good is that when the net was 4 million lost? It takes about 200,000 a month to just meet the number of people retiring or dropping out of the workforce. As you can see we are along way from that. When Obama took office there were 143 million employed Americans, today that is 139 million. Seems to me you explore the data that goes into certain numbers but not all numbers. Why are you buying those headlines and not getting the total picture?

The total picture is that OBAMA DID NOT CAUSE THIS RECESSION. The continued job loss is a residual effect of the economic crisis. Private sector job growth is now on an upward trend. To say that Obama's policies have done nothing to help grow the private sector is BS.