Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[ScottL]

I would completely eliminate whole departments of the government. Agriculture, Energy, Education for example. Completely worthless since they were created and totally deserving of elimination.

I do hope you're completely joking in this remark and not serious.

Agriculture: includes FDA, so if you're ok with receiving e. coli ridden food sure.
Energy: Most funding has been redirected into major R&D projects or "subsidies" for corporations.
Education: School Vouchers fail, EX: Sweden who utilizes a voucher system. Average scores (public + private) decreased as a result of said system.

Taxes aren't stealing, they're a method for paying for the services we request. We want police, fire, and educational institutions, all socialist programs, all needed. Tax on corporations is a payment they're required to peddle their garbage to the masses (within the U.S.)

Sounds like you'd like reduced tax rates as well as some deregulation, wait this sounds familiar....oh right, Reagan and Both Bushes, who % based raised the debt to all time highs.

[KitemanSA]

A tax subsidy is not an expenditure, but a selective tax reduction, as distinct from some general or uniform reduction. Hence to eliminate a tax subsidy is to raise taxes. But eliminating a tax “subsidy” sounds like reducing wasteful government spending rather than raising taxes, so it has more popular appeal than an explicit tax increase.

Subsidy....tax break....

It makes the market all screwy and destroys the consumers ability to make rational choises. Call it what you will, subsidy, tax break, they are bad for the economy.
And oh by the way, when the oil companies DON'T have to pay the taxes, the rest of us do. And yes, if they did have to pay them, the price of petroleum products would be higher, but that is what the market is all about REAL prices for real choises.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My recollection is that the taxes on Gasoline and Diesel are quite substantial. I don't know of an oil product that isn't taxed, and if I recall properly, the Government share is by far greater than the oil companies profit on the same gallon.

If I'm wrong about this, let me know.

With the fuel tax system, they can't seem to do it right. It is supposed to be a modified fee, to be used in lieu of road tolls. So first, they take bunch of "taxes" (fees? tolls? supposedly for maintainance) which they do NOT use for maintainance but rather spend on other things (maintainance doesn't get your name on a bridge, I guess); then they build new roads to nowhere using general funds.
They (the fed gov and maybe a bunch of state govs too) have turned a maintainance fee into just another tax while letting mainanance go until the general fund has to cough up BIG buck to replace rather than maintain. But in no case does the "fuel tax" truly cover the actual cost of roads/highways, and infrastructure. General fund monies are used to create the wherewithall (RH&I) to FAVOR the use of petro-product. The same general fund that the petro industry does not pay into at nearly the same rate as its competitors.

[Diogenes]

I would completely eliminate whole departments of the government. Agriculture, Energy, Education for example. Completely worthless since they were created and totally deserving of elimination.

I do hope you're completely joking in this remark and not serious.

Agriculture: includes FDA, so if you're ok with receiving e. coli ridden food sure.

That part can be folded into another Department.

Energy: Most funding has been redirected into major R&D projects or "subsidies" for corporations.

Right, and we have been running on Atomic power since the 50s. The Energy Department is a colossal failure.

Education: School Vouchers fail, EX: Sweden who utilizes a voucher system. Average scores (public + private) decreased as a result of said system.

Sweden isn't doing anything right. I wouldn't use them as an example. Voucher systems utilized in this country have been quite successful in educating students beyond the level of ordinary public schools. The program in Washington D.C. (which bambi cut) is an example of something that was working well. (Can't have that now can we?)

The Voucher system returns control of education to the parents and the free market, where it belongs. Competition insures a superior product or parent's may take their business elsewhere.

Taxes aren't stealing, they're a method for paying for the services we request.

Only for legitimate services. Most of taxation nowadays consists of taking money from one group of people who are productive, and giving it (through various schemes) to people who want to "administer" it so they may derive their own power, often for useless or superfluous projects. Remember John Murtha? Robert Byrd? Ted Stevens? Bridge to nowhere?

The people who PAY the taxes aren't requesting these projects. They are requesting that the government quit reaching into their pockets. The people who ARE requesting other people's money are pretty much the unproductive elements of our society. For MOST of this country's existence only people who PAID taxes could vote for our government. Since the 24th amendment basically cut the brake cables, we have gotten exactly the kind of reckless and irresponsible spending that anyone could have predicted.

The "War on Poverty" which followed is an example of the worst kind of stupidity and recklessness the consequences of which we are still dealing with today.

We want police, fire, and educational institutions, all socialist programs, all needed.

Police, Fire and Education are STATE expenditures. They have NOTHING to do with a National government, except for the fact that the Feds keep bribing the states with government money. (With strings attached usually.) I'll assume that your mention of the above was just an oversight, and that you really DO know enough about this subject to be talking to me.

Tax on corporations is a payment they're required to peddle their garbage to the masses (within the U.S.)

Freedom allows people to buy "garbage" if they wish. It is none of the Feds business if the people of this nation chose to buy "garbage" like oil, wood, coal, stone, steel, pink flamingo yard ornaments, etc. The government is not, and should not be our "big brother."

Sounds like you'd like reduced tax rates as well as some deregulation, wait this sounds familiar....oh right, Reagan and Both Bushes, who % based raised the debt to all time highs.

If you believe that, then you really have a lot to educate yourself about. The problem was NEVER on the revenue side, the PROBLEM is that Democrats simply cannot stop STEALING money so they can WASTE IT. Reagan's Tax cuts resulted in a BOOST in Federal revenues. Tip O'neal spent every penny and more beyond. Even when the constraint of Grahm Rudman was put on them, the Democrats STILL spent money like water. I distinctly remember Tip O'Neal Slamming his gavel down proclaiming "We have met the requirements of Grahm/Rudman!" BANG!

He was a LIAR, just like Nancy Pelosi, who never met someone else's money that she didn't think was hers to spend.

Even when Bush (SR.) Agreed to let them raise taxes if they promised spending cuts of $2.00 for every new dollar in Taxes, they not only didn't cut spending at all, they spent $3.00 for every new dollar raised!

As Reagan said, the Problem is not that the Government doesn't collect enough taxes, the Problem is that it spends too much.

Amen.

[Diogenes]

It makes the market all screwy and destroys the consumers ability to make rational choises. Call it what you will, subsidy, tax break, they are bad for the economy.
And oh by the way, when the oil companies DON'T have to pay the taxes, the rest of us do. And yes, if they did have to pay them, the price of petroleum products would be higher, but that is what the market is all about REAL prices for real choises.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My recollection is that the taxes on Gasoline and Diesel are quite substantial. I don't know of an oil product that isn't taxed, and if I recall properly, the Government share is by far greater than the oil companies profit on the same gallon.

If I'm wrong about this, let me know.

With the fuel tax system, they can't seem to do it right. It is supposed to be a modified fee, to be used in lieu of road tolls. So first, they take bunch of "taxes" (fees? tolls? supposedly for maintainance) which they do NOT use for maintainance but rather spend on other things (maintainance doesn't get your name on a bridge, I guess); then they build new roads to nowhere using general funds.
They (the fed gov and maybe a bunch of state govs too) have turned a maintainance fee into just another tax while letting mainanance go until the general fund has to cough up BIG buck to replace rather than maintain. But in no case does the "fuel tax" truly cover the actual cost of roads/highways, and infrastructure. General fund monies are used to create the wherewithall (RH&I) to FAVOR the use of petro-product. The same general fund that the petro industry does not pay into at nearly the same rate as its competitors.

I think from the perspective of the companies PAYING the taxes (with the Government collecting three or four times as much money as the oil companies) it is irrelevant what the government is using the money for. The salient point is that the Oil companies are paying well past what ought to be considered their rightful tax burden.

Seriously, the government collecting 3 or 4 times as much money as the oil companies total profits? That's a tax rate of like 300% ! And someone is complaining they don't pay enough?

[Diogenes]

A Chart to illustrate what I said earlier.

[ScottL]

FDA could be rolled into another Department, sure, as for the Agri department, I'm anti-farm subsidies, but I think that's a relic of a time long passed.

DOE: Atomic with regulation would be ok, but there's still a very real problem with current atomic plants, that being the waste. Where do we put said spent fuel rods. I think that's their real hold-up, but as I said they're pumping tremendous amounts of funding into grants for research.

Education: No Sweden? Ok, Chile, Ireland, Netherlands, Hong Kong, etc. Time and time again the total average test scores have dropped while the test scores of public schools rose. Great for public schools, terrible for private institutions.

At some point though, I think the government (both sides) will simply need to do what needs to be done. I think large cuts in spending plus raised taxes to at least Clinton's time. They need to increase revenue while decreasing spending.

Here's my short list:

Cut farm and oil subsidies.
Complete pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan
Cut off any aid to Pakistan
Raise import tax
Raise taxes to Clinton-era (I think they were 37% at the time)

[Diogenes]

FDA could be rolled into another Department, sure, as for the Agri department, I'm anti-farm subsidies, but I think that's a relic of a time long passed.

DOE: Atomic with regulation would be ok, but there's still a very real problem with current atomic plants, that being the waste. Where do we put said spent fuel rods. I think that's their real hold-up, but as I said they're pumping tremendous amounts of funding into grants for research.

Education: No Sweden? Ok, Chile, Ireland, Netherlands, Hong Kong, etc. Time and time again the total average test scores have dropped while the test scores of public schools rose. Great for public schools, terrible for private institutions.

Do you have a country that's not a socialist worker's paradise? God forbid that they should find a study demonstrating their socialism inferior to the private sector! Of course the reality is, that the private sector normally beats the socialized sector like an old hollow log. Here in America where people OTHER THAN school officials can get at the data, we've seen substantially superior results from the voucher programs than the competing public schools.

At some point though, I think the government (both sides) will simply need to do what needs to be done. I think large cuts in spending plus raised taxes to at least Clinton's time. They need to increase revenue while decreasing spending.

What needs to be done is to deprive legislators of the ability to continuously throw wads of money into the Federal furnace.

Here's my short list:

Cut farm and oil subsidies.
Complete pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan
Cut off any aid to Pakistan
Raise import tax
Raise taxes to Clinton-era (I think they were 37% at the time)

As far as i'm concerned, any taxation in excess of 10% is theft. The government is supposed to SERVE the people, not throw a saddle on them and ride them to whatever extent they please. Slavery is the confiscation of 100% of the fruits of another's labor. Taxation just makes us slaves in proportion to how much of our labor goes to our rulers for their pleasure.

The Democrats were in Favor of Slavery before, and they are simply doing it again under a different name. As long as they are in charge, they don't care who pays the bills and who gets the benefit. They are still the old Southern Aristocracy, but this time they are running a national plantation .

[ScottL]

Do you have a country that's not a socialist worker's paradise? God forbid that they should find a study demonstrating their socialism inferior to the private sector! Of course the reality is, that the private sector normally beats the socialized sector like an old hollow log. Here in America where people OTHER THAN school officials can get at the data, we've seen substantially superior results from the voucher programs than the competing public schools.

Do you have linkable research that is not a conservative worker's paradise?


I'd be ok with depriving pay to legislators until they provide reasonable results and would also be open to salary caps on said legislators. I think the policies they decide should have direct effects on them first, but that's my opinion so take it as such.

As for the slavery quip, that is true, however; the conservatives then (Lincoln) do not resemble at all the conservatives of today. The party views and direction have vastly changed since then and in an unfortunate way. I imagine Lincoln would be disgusted with the direction the Republican party has taken, EX: Reagan's blatant racism and sexism aside, his deficit spending would definitely raise brows.

[Diogenes]

Do you have a country that's not a socialist worker's paradise? God forbid that they should find a study demonstrating their socialism inferior to the private sector! Of course the reality is, that the private sector normally beats the socialized sector like an old hollow log. Here in America where people OTHER THAN school officials can get at the data, we've seen substantially superior results from the voucher programs than the competing public schools.

Do you have linkable research that is not a conservative worker's paradise?.

Yeah, but you wanted the truth didn't you?

I'd be ok with depriving pay to legislators until they provide reasonable results and would also be open to salary caps on said legislators. I think the policies they decide should have direct effects on them first, but that's my opinion so take it as such.

Did you happen to see Warren Buffett's latest comment?

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

Suits me.

As for the slavery quip, that is true, however; the conservatives then (Lincoln) do not resemble at all the conservatives of today. The party views and direction have vastly changed since then and in an unfortunate way. I imagine Lincoln would be disgusted with the direction the Republican party has taken, EX: Reagan's blatant racism and sexism aside, his deficit spending would definitely raise brows.

Well, first of all, Lincoln was pretty d@mned racist himself. He said many things which would make people nowadays cringe, but what Pray tell, did Reagan ever say that was racist or sexist? Reagan Boosted Defense spending for which we got the collapse of the Soviet Union and the avoidance of the most bloodthirsty and costly war ever. Tip O'Neal boosted domestic spending in the form of give away programs and pork, for which we got massive debts and deficits, fat democrat contributors, and little else. Tip O'Neal spent all the money raised by the Reagan tax cuts, and more besides.

Again, the problem was not revenue, it's spending. The problem is STILL NOT REVENUE, but Spending. I read today that if they chuck obamacare over the rail there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling. The fact that they insist on record busting spending is why the debt and deficit is now out of control. I assume you've seen this chart.

[KitemanSA]

I think from the perspective of the companies PAYING the taxes (with the Government collecting three or four times as much money as the oil companies) it is irrelevant what the government is using the money for. The salient point is that the Oil companies are paying well past what ought to be considered their rightful tax burden.

Seriously, the government collecting 3 or 4 times as much money as the oil companies total profits? That's a tax rate of like 300% ! And someone is complaining they don't pay enough?

If your argument is that government should reduce taxes on most other companies by 50% and the oil companies 30% because they are already paying 20% less (make up your own numbers) then I would agree. If your arguement is that the other companies should still pay the 100% they are paying now while the oil compnaies should continue to pay 20% less, then I don't. How bout lowing the taxes by ~5% for the rest and boost the oil by 15% and then we can call it even, then we can talk about tax reductions and increases, not just shifts. (Again, make up your own numbers. I don't claim these are accurate, just illustrative.)

[seedload]

Reagan's blatant racism

Where does this come from, Krugman?

Reagan was not a racist. He most definitely was not a "blatant" one.

[ScottL]

Reagan Racism:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (calling it "humiliating to the South"), and...

If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so.

Ronald Reagan - California Governor 1966 on Fair Housing Act

As president, Reagan aligned his justice department on the side of segregation, supporting the fundamentalist Bob Jones University in its case seeking federal funds for institutions that discriminate on the basis of race. In 1983, when the supreme court decided against Bob Jones, Reagan, under fire from his right in the aftermath, gutted the Civil Rights Commission.

To name a few...


As for health care, what's your recommendation for more affordable health care? How do low-income families afford it?

[ScottL]

Reagan's blatant racism

Where does this come from, Krugman?

Reagan was not a racist. He most definitely was not a "blatant" one.

Reagan's quotes are sure fire racist comments by standards of his day and by today's standards.

[Diogenes]

I think from the perspective of the companies PAYING the taxes (with the Government collecting three or four times as much money as the oil companies) it is irrelevant what the government is using the money for. The salient point is that the Oil companies are paying well past what ought to be considered their rightful tax burden.

Seriously, the government collecting 3 or 4 times as much money as the oil companies total profits? That's a tax rate of like 300% ! And someone is complaining they don't pay enough?

If your argument is that government should reduce taxes on most other companies by 50% and the oil companies 30% because they are already paying 20% less (make up your own numbers) then I would agree. If your arguement is that the other companies should still pay the 100% they are paying now while the oil compnaies should continue to pay 20% less, then I don't. How bout lowing the taxes by ~5% for the rest and boost the oil by 15% and then we can call it even, then we can talk about tax reductions and increases, not just shifts. (Again, make up your own numbers. I don't claim these are accurate, just illustrative.)

I am arguing that taxes should be the same percentage across the board. The only deviation from that which I would consider is the notion that below a certain threshold income, there are no taxes at all. EVERYBODY has living expense just to exist, which I consider break even and therefore they are producing no surplus. It's like trying to milk a starving cow.

[ScottL]

1. Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2. He opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (calling it "humiliating to the South")

3. He ran for governor of California in 1966 promising to wipe the Fair Housing Act off the books. "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."

4. After the Republican convention in 1980, Reagan traveled to the county fair in Neshoba, Mississippi, where, in 1964, three Freedom Riders had been slain by the Ku Klux Klan. Before an all-white crowd of tens of thousands, Reagan declared: "I believe in states' rights."

5. Reagan supported the apartheid government in South Africa and even labeled Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress a notorious terrorist organization.

6. He was elected using the fictitious welfare queen to convince millions of white voters that Black women on welfare were the reason for high taxes.

7. He started his reelection campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the place where three civil rights workers were killed by the KKK in 1964.

8. He consistently opposed affirmative action and all attempts to seriously enforce civil rights laws.

Easier to list.