Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't expect you to agree with me about anything, but do me a solid and stop saying that there is "going to be pain." There is plenty of pain right now.

That is just it Dung... we are seeing some of the pain... as I have stated, it is the degree and timing of the pain that is in question. So do we want death by a thousand cuts like we are going through right now, where we have persistently high unemployment and anemic growth or do we take a recession like we did in the early 80's and move on to better long term growth, lower unemployment etc...

 

[Bonestorm]

That is just it Dung... we are seeing some of the pain... as I have stated, it is the degree and timing of the pain that is in question. So do we want death by a thousand cuts like we are going through right now, where we have persistently high unemployment and anemic growth or do we take a recession like we did in the early 80's and move on to better long term growth, lower unemployment etc...

It's not the early 1980s. Economic conditions are very different now than they were back then. Also, too, the early 1980s was a period of high deficits (1983 had the highest deficit as a percentage of GDP since 1946). I mean, do you thing the FED should raise interest rates now to induce a recession? If so, for what specific purpose?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's not the early 1980s. Economic conditions are very different now than they were back then. Also, too, the early 1980s was a period of high deficits (1983 had the highest deficit as a percentage of GDP since 1946). I mean, do you thing the FED should raise interest rates now to induce a recession? If so, for what specific purpose?

Dear Mr. Strawman maker: I did not say economic conditions were the same or similar to the early 1980's. I said, like then, that today we are faced with a choice of taking the pain hard and fast or slow and drawn out. In the early 80's the choice was to go with the hard and fast. It worked.

Now, do you desire an honest discussion or are we simply going to see you create one pathetic straw man after another?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Also Dung... just looked... 2009, 2010, 2011 all were higher deficits as a percentage of GDP relative to 1983. 2012 is estimated to be higher as well.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

table 1.2

 

[Damocles]

I don't expect you to agree with me about anything, but do me a solid and stop saying that there is "going to be pain." There is plenty of pain right now.

Would it be better if he said "more severe pain" rather than just "pain"? Why?

 

[Bonestorm]

Dear Mr. Strawman maker: I did not say economic conditions were the same or similar to
the early 1980's. I said, like then, that today we are faced with a choice of taking the pain hard and fast or slow and drawn out. In the early 80's the choice was to go with the hard and fast. It worked.

Now, do you desire an honest discussion or are we simply going to see you create one pathetic straw man after another?

I'm just trying to figure out what specific fiscal and monetary policies you want the government to pursue and what you think they will achieve. "Pain" is not a policy.

You point to the early 1980s, but deficit spending was high then so I don't see that as an example of cutting government spending (which is what you seem to support) producing beneficial results. And I don't see what is to gain with increasing interest rates right now other than a recession for the sake of having a recession.

 

[Bonestorm]

Would it be better if he said "more severe pain" rather than just "pain"? Why?

Well, "more severe pain" would acknowledge the presence of pain currently whereas "going to be pain" suggests the absence of pain presently.

 

[Damocles]

Well, "more severe pain" would acknowledge the presence of pain currently whereas "going to be pain" suggests the absence of pain presently.

Or it just means you are overtly trying to split hairs in an attempt to distract from the validity of his central argument.

 

[Bonestorm]

Or it just means you are overtly trying to split hairs in an attempt to distract from the validity of his central argument.

The validity or invalidity of his argument would have to be assessed based on the facts supporting it. He has offered none. By forgoing the "there is going to be pain" mantra he will at least be acknowledging reality in some very small measure.

And I don't consider acknowledging the present suffering of millions of people as "splitting hairs" but I suppose you are free to disagree on that score.

 

[Damocles]

The validity or invalidity of his argument would have to be assessed based on the facts supporting it. He has offered none. By forgoing the "there is going to be pain" mantra he will at least be acknowledging reality in some very small measure.

And I don't consider acknowledging the present suffering of millions of people as "splitting hairs" but I suppose you are free to disagree on that score.

This is like somebody bringing up starving kids in Africa. While it is heart-rending, it makes little change to the central theme of dinner, it is a logical fallacy. As he's brought up analogies and information so far all you have offered is an attempt at appeal to emotion fallacy attached to a previous attempt at an attempt at the continuum fallacy (improperly rejecting a claim because it isn't "precise" enough for you, although the precision has nothing to do with the central theme of the argument).

Basically saying, "You didn't say 'more'" doesn't change the meaning or validity of the argument. You can try to say it is invalid because he doesn't cite enough sourcing, although that would be hypocritical as you have so far cited none in your support, nor is it necessary to cite sourcing for the fact that the US government borrows money.

 

[Bonestorm]

I stopped reading at "This is like. . . " because I'm 99.9% confident that whatever follows that isn't anything like anything being discussed in this thread.

 

[Damocles]

I stopped reading at "This is like. . . " because I'm 99.9% confident that whatever follows that isn't anything like anything being discussed in this thread.

LOL. Here's Dung, plugging his ears and screaming, "I can't hear you!"

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm just trying to figure out what specific fiscal and monetary policies you want the government to pursue and what you think they will achieve. "Pain" is not a policy.

You truly are a fucking idiot. I never said pain was a policy you moron. I said that we had to take the pain for our profligate spending the past 40+ years.

stop spending at crisis levels and pretending that crisis level spending is the new base line... thus... for a start...
1) Cut spending to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation
2) Cut defense spending an additional 25%
3) Simplify the tax code... eliminate loopholes and deductions other than the standard deduction. Raise the standard deduction to protect low and lower middle income workers.

You point to the early 1980s, but deficit spending was high then so I don't see that as an example of cutting government spending (which is what you seem to support) producing beneficial results. And I don't see what is to gain with increasing interest rates right now other than a recession for the sake of having a recession.

Who the fuck said we should raise interest rates? This is why I think you are a partisan hack incapable of an actual discussion. You continually create one straw man after another. No one said that the situation was the same as in 1980. The only thing I compared today with 1980 was the fact that they had a choice to make on how to take the pain. The conditions are very different. So stop putting forth your pathetic little straw man.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

except that when you continue outspending revenue by a $1T it will not drop back below. It is not too hard to see the writing on the wall. The point in time has come where we must cease being so f'ing selfish and we must actually pay for what we want ourselves and quit looking to steal from future generations.

People really don't want to pay for things themselves, even those who call themselves conservatives, especially those who call themselves republicans.

It is all about income redistribution. Plain an simple.

Everyone wants free goodies. I am one of the rare ones. I don't.

During Katrina I could have gotten all sorts of gobblement money and didn't take a dime. I know people who call themselves conservatives and rail about government spending but were first in line to get their "free" generator under the justification that they "paid into the system" and they were only getting back what is rightfully theirs.

So essentially the country is FUBAR. It is really only a matter of when it all comes crashing down not if

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Or it just means you are overtly trying to split hairs in an attempt to distract from the validity of his central argument.

THIS

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The validity or invalidity of his argument would have to be assessed based on the facts supporting it. He has offered none. By forgoing the "there is going to be pain" mantra he will at least be acknowledging reality in some very small measure.

And I don't consider acknowledging the present suffering of millions of people as "splitting hairs" but I suppose you are free to disagree on that score.

Or you could pull your head out of your ass and realize that what I was stating was RELATIVE to where we are today. You are simply being a pathetic asshole who is indeed trying to split hairs on wording, while also creating one pathetic straw man after another.

 

[Bonestorm]

You truly are a fucking idiot. I never said pain was a policy you moron. I said that we had to take the pain for our profligate spending the past 40+ years.

stop spending at crisis levels and pretending that crisis level spending is the new base line... thus... for a start...
1) Cut spending to 2008 levels adjusted for inflation
2) Cut defense spending an additional 25%
3) Simplify the tax code... eliminate loopholes and deductions other than the standard deduction. Raise the standard deduction to protect low and lower middle income workers.

What purpose will those things serve other than creating a (likely severe) recession? Where in the world is this type of severe austerity being implemented with any measure of success? You want to turn us into Greece so we don't turn into Greece. It's asinine and is pain for the sake of pain. At least in 1982 there was an actual reason for the FED to create a recession (which was offset with increased in government expenditures, mind you).

Who the fuck said we should raise interest rates? This is why I think you are a partisan hack incapable of an actual discussion. You continually create one straw man after another. No one said that the situation was the same as in 1980. The only thing I compared today with 1980 was the fact that they had a choice to make on how to take the pain. The conditions are very different. So stop putting forth your pathetic little straw man.

You're the one making comparisons to the early 1980s. Well, we didn't cut spending, we increased it so I figured maybe you wanted to raise interest rates as happened then.

Yes, the conditions are very different. That's why I find it baffling that you think anything that happened in the early 1980s is relevant at all to the economy today.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What purpose will those things serve other than creating a (likely severe) recession? Where in the world is this type of severe austerity being implemented with any measure of success? You want to turn us into Greece so we don't turn into Greece. It's asinine and is pain for the sake of pain. At least in 1982 there was an actual reason for the FED to create a recession (which was offset with increased in government expenditures, mind you).

What purpose? You mean other than cessation of spending more than we make? Other than discontinuing the idea that future generations should pay for what you want today?

You pretend that the government is the only form of spending out there. You continue to pretend not to see the cash hoards sitting on the sideline waiting for these idiots to stop this nonsense. What makes NO sense is the continuation of trillion dollar deficits in a period where we have positive (albeit anemic growth). You seem to think that we should never have another recession again, that the idiots should just try to spend our way out of a recession every time. You continue to fail to realize that you can't keep adding to the debt, no matter what current interests rates are at.

I can't help but notice you didn't address the credit card example... why is that Dung?

You're the one making comparisons to the early 1980s. Well, we didn't cut spending, we increased it so I figured maybe you wanted to raise interest rates as happened then.

Yet again with more of your crap? My comparison was ONLY to the fact that they had a CHOICE to make. How many times do I have to tell you that before you comprehend it? I am not saying the conditions or the solutions are the same. If you pull your head out of your ass and actually read what I have written, you would know that.

You 'figured' that despite the fact that your 'figuring' is based solely on your very own straw man?

Yes, the conditions are very different. That's why I find it baffling that you think anything that happened in the early 1980s is relevant at all to the economy today.

Seriously, you truly are fucking retarded.

 

[Bonestorm]

What purpose? You mean other than cessation of spending more than we make? Other than discontinuing the idea that future generations should pay for what you want today?

You pretend that the government is the only form of spending out there. You continue to pretend not to see the cash hoards sitting on the sideline waiting for these idiots to stop this nonsense. What makes NO sense is the continuation of trillion dollar deficits in a period where we have positive (albeit anemic growth). You seem to think that we should never have another recession again, that the idiots should just try to spend our way out of a recession every time. You continue to fail to realize that you can't keep adding to the debt, no matter what current interests rates are at.

And you have the balls to chastize me for creating strawmen. Yikes.

I think it's really weird that you think it'd be a good thing for the government to create another recession right now. Like I said, you want to turn us into Greece to prevent us from turning into Greece. I don't see the wisdom in that.

Also, the presumption that inducing a recession would actually cut government debt and deficits isn't very well supported at all. Maybe you can find a recession where government debt was lower coming out of it than going into it, but I doubt it.

Finally, I see the cash sitting on the sideline. But it's not sitting there because of government debt. It sitting there because the prospects for growth aren't htat good because we continue to have a significant output gap and millions of people are underemployed and unemployed, which can be alleviated with increased government spending.

I can't help but notice you didn't address the credit card example... why is that Dung?

Because it's stupid. The government is not an individual.

Yet again with more of your crap? My comparison was ONLY to the fact that they had a CHOICE to make. How many times do I have to tell you that before you comprehend it? I am not saying the conditions or the solutions are the same. If you pull your head out of your ass and actually read what I have written, you would know that.



You 'figured' that despite the fact that your 'figuring' is based solely on your very own straw man?



Seriously, you truly are fucking retarded.

FARGLE and BARGLE.

 

[zappasguitar]

Correct. Since when do liberals read The Washington Times for "news"? I only read it to provide humor and hypocrisy.

Here's the deal. The President told us years ago sacrifices would need to be made by all. The payroll tax credit was, in fact, part of the stimulus and now that the economies getting better, it's not needed. The middle class can live without that twenty dollars a month to make the sacrifice to bring down the debt as will the business who's payroll tax rate also returned to the old level; just as I expect the rich will live with increased taxes.

EXACTLY!!

We got some relief when things were at their worst, but now that the economy is improving, it's time for everyone to start making some small sacrifices.