Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club, I am sometimes surprised at the way your posts alternate between thoughtful discussions of issues, or attempts to do so -- and complete drivel.

I don't believe that any intelligent human being can look at those facts (i.e. the Story behind the vote) -- and conclude that Kerry somehow failed to support the war effort in Iraq and thus was not "supporting the troops." That is simple-minded crap, fodder for 15 second sound-bites designed to appeal to the LCD and nothing more.

If your defense of the ads comes down to . . . "Well, maybe its misleading, but he DID vote that way (so he didn't "support the troops" and he is a flip-flopper no matter what the facts or reasons are). . . " just save the electrons.

S_A_M

Answer me this. Had there been no Howard Dean, would Kerry have voted against the $87 million?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Answer me this. Had there been no Howard Dean, would Kerry have voted against the $87 million?

Maybe not. I'm sure that Kerry's choice of alternate funding was politically motivated. In any event, that neither makes him a "flip-flopper" nor one who doesn't support the troops or the war effort.


Now my turn:

Answer me this: If GWB's core support was not based in large part upon people for whom _the_ defining political issue is how much money the government takes from them in taxes, would he have insisted on maintaining his tax cuts (and pressing to make them permanent) through Hell or High Water, i.e. from the evaporation of the projected "$1 trillion surplus", through the economic downturn, through funding two wars and two (inadequately funded) occupations/reconstructions, leading to the largest budget deficits in our history and projected trillions of dollars added to the national debt?

Or, does he just believe taxes are evil because the Bible tells him so?

S_A_M

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So he voted against the $87 million. What are you trying to prove with this post?

That W cares more about tax cuts for the wealthy than the lives of troops that he unnecessarily put at risk.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Maybe not. I'm sure that Kerry's choice of alternate funding was politically motivated. In any event, that neither makes him a "flip-flopper" nor one who doesn't support the troops or the war effort.

I think not as well. If you read what Kerry was saying from 1996 to the Dean uprising, he was very hawkish on Iraq. This was completely politically driven, to give him cover with his base, seemingly without regard to the effect on the troops.

Now my turn:

Answer me this: If GWB's core support was not based in large part upon people for whom _the_ defining political issue is how much money the government takes from them in taxes, would he have insisted on maintaining his tax cuts (and pressing to make them permanent) through Hell or High Water, i.e. from the evaporation of the projected "$1 trillion surplus", through the economic downturn, through funding two wars and two (inadequately funded) occupations/reconstructions, leading to the largest budget deficits in our history and projected trillions of dollars added to the national debt?

Or, does he just believe taxes are evil because the Bible tells him so?

S_A_M

I think taxes are a proxy for what should be a legitimate debate on the proper roll and size of the government, and I appreciate that you did not use the "tax cuts for the rich" line because I think that cheapens what is a very important question for our democracy to answer. I would like to say that Bush really believes that the government is too large and that is the reason for the cuts, but it's hard to make that argument given his spending habits. So, you may be right, it may be primarily politically driven.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub


I think taxes are a proxy for what should be a legitimate debate on the proper roll and size of the government, and I appreciate that you did not use the "tax cuts for the rich" line because I think that cheapens what is a very important question for our democracy to answer. I would like to say that Bush really believes that the government is too large and that is the reason for the cuts, but it's hard to make that argument given his spending habits. So, you may be right, it may be primarily politically driven.

Real Question: Why do supply-siders only emphasize tax cuts for the upper classes? Wouldn't a middle-class tax cut be more beneficial for the economy as a whole (and in the long run)? Both for the middle and upper classes? Or is that more of a deman-side theory? The middle-class is the class that spends all of their money on stupid conspicuous goods, so wouldn't we want them to buy more of these?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
That W cares more about tax cuts for the wealthy than the lives of troops that he unnecessarily put at risk.

Whereas Dems care about tax cuts for the poor, i.e., None, because the poor don't pay taxes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Whereas Dems care about tax cuts for the poor, i.e., None, because the poor don't pay taxes.

Psssst, Slave, Rove doesn't like you all to say out loud that the nation is becoming just how you want it -- haves and have-nots, with no middle. So ix-nay on at-thay. The proper, approved response is that Bush is interested in letting the middle class keep more of their hard-earned income.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Whereas Dems care about tax cuts for the poor, i.e., None, because the poor don't pay taxes.

Good to see you recognize the Dems as the true party of fiscal responsibility. With that and the Rs left with no credibility on foreign policy, all you're left with in the Republican Party is social conservatism. I would think you'd be opposed to that, what with all the talk of amending the Constitution, but then you were never the marrying type, anyway.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
the Rs left with no credibility on foreign policy

By this do you mean

1) we can't accomplish anything with 6 Cruise missiles fired at a mountain the way prior administration did, we were forced to invade because of this failure

2) we lack patience like Bill had, to wait for the UN influence to clean up Iraq, or as we're seeing now keep Iran toeing the line

or

3) we don't listen to what Chirac tells us to do

I know all 3 really hurt our credibility, just curious which you think are worst.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think not as well. If you read what Kerry was saying from 1996 to the Dean uprising, he was very hawkish on Iraq. This was completely politically driven, to give him cover with his base, seemingly without regard to the effect on the troops.

But Club, the point is that there was no effect on the troops, and would never have been any effect on the troops. That's not just because this bill passed, but because the funds weren't needed for more than 4 months and there was no question but that the Congress would provide the funding (the question was the source of funds).

Therefore, your criticism of Kerry's vote is rather like some GOP loyalist criticizing you (as a California resident) for voting Libertarian in the Presidential election in December (i.e. it doesn't make a damn bit of difference).

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think taxes are a proxy for what should be a legitimate debate on the proper roll and size of the government, and I appreciate that you did not use the "tax cuts for the rich" line because I think that cheapens what is a very important question for our democracy to answer. I would like to say that Bush really believes that the government is too large and that is the reason for the cuts, but it's hard to make that argument given his spending habits. So, you may be right, it may be primarily politically driven.

Good. Now look at what you just said above. Would you admit that those words apply equally to Ronald Reagan, except that he talked a much better game?

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Real Question: Why do supply-siders only emphasize tax cuts for the upper classes? Wouldn't a middle-class tax cut be more beneficial for the economy as a whole (and in the long run)? Both for the middle and upper classes? Or is that more of a deman-side theory? The middle-class is the class that spends all of their money on stupid conspicuous goods, so wouldn't we want them to buy more of these?

I'm not sure your facts are right on consumptive spending, but even if they are, the rich also invest, which is even more important in a supply-side model.

But I don't think emphasis on tax cuts for the rich is really where it's at. It's emphasis of tax cuts at the highest rates, which is where the rich are. I don't think you'd see this group arguing for an inverted tax system.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not sure your facts are right on consumptive spending, but even if they are, the rich also invest, which is even more important in a supply-side model.

But I don't think emphasis on tax cuts for the rich is really where it's at. It's emphasis of tax cuts at the highest rates, which is where the rich are. I don't think you'd see this group arguing for an inverted tax system.

Gotcha.

I don't have any facts on middle-class spending. I was assuming that, since the middle class is the biggest class, it would spend the most. Also, and this may not have been true 20 years ago, the middle class is investing a lot more.

My point was that the biggest tax cuts should benefit the middle class, and not the upper class. This would seem to increase consumption and investment. Or is this more of a Keynesian/demand driven outlook? I'm speaking in purely economic-growth terms, not in who deserves and who doesn't deserve a tax cut.

ETA: Of course, none of this shit works when you go on a money-spending rampage.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Good. Now look at what you just said above. Would you admit that those words apply equally to Ronald Reagan, except that he talked a much better game?

S_A_M

No. Reagan was in a far different position, because the GOP didn't have control of Congress. He wanted far more cuts than he actually got, but had to compromise with Tip in order to get a deal done.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?


My point was that the biggest tax cuts should benefit the middle class, and not the upper class. This would seem to increase consumption and investment. Or is this more of a Keynesian/demand driven outlook? I'm speaking in purely economic-growth terms, not in who deserves and who doesn't deserve a tax cut.

Well, keep in mind that a middle-class tax cut is also a lot more expensive because there are so many more people in it.

I suppose if you were designing an "ideal" tax system to stimulate spending, you would want to keep rates low on people who are pure spenders, and then ratchet up the rates on the people who save rather than spend. You could figure out a decent threshold, e.g., $150k/year, above which you're presumptively comfortable and don't need to spend as much.

Of course, that's what was tried from the 30s to the 70s, what with 90% tax rates on the top income levels. Not so good.

What's more, it's generally considered preferable to tax consumption and not savings, because savings build wealth and can be reinvested (this does not mean no taxes on returns to savings that are used for consumption). That's why a lot of tax cutting efforts are directed towards dividend and k-gain tax cuts--because these are returns to savings.

(If I remember my public finance econ. class right, it is equivalent to tax returns on savings if the savings are untaxed or make returns to savings untaxed if the initial investment was taxed, which is the principle behind Roth IRAs and general elimination of the taxes on investment income.)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So he voted against the $87 million. What are you trying to prove with this post? That he and 11 other senators wanted to fund the troops a different way? Fine, and maybe his way was better (I honestly don't know), but when it came down to supporting the troops or protesting, he protested. Sound familiar?

He didn't fail to support the troops. He voted not to support the President and a foolish tax break. You're vastly oversimplifying things here, whether you want to see that or not.