NationStates Jolt Archive

Do Americans actually believe there will be Tax Cuts sponsored by both Candidates considering the state of the economy?

Nope.

I would like to think that American long ago gave up believing their politicians, but I don't think that most have the intelligence to realize that lying is part of a politicians job description.

No, but they'll probably BS around about it for a while before coming out with the retractions.

The problem is not cutting the taxes. The problem is that they're not cutting spending. If they cut taxes and cut spending....then who knows, it could work.

Yes. Yes, they are exactly that delusional.

I'd rather them cut spending, and leave taxes where they are at for at least 5 years so we can start reducing the national debt.

If they cut taxes and cut spending....then who knows, it could work.

seems unlikely. probably need to bring back some greater progressivism to the tax structure and reallocate the money into useful pursuits. that's what we know actually accomplishes things.

I wonder if the option "sink all American money into a time machine to go back to 2002 and listen to me about the war that created the deficit" would create a paradox. :p

I wonder if the option "sink all American money into a time machine to go back to 2002 and listen to me about the war that created the deficit" would create a paradox. :p

Heikoku, I respect you, and think you're intelligent, and think you were very intelligent about the Iraq war. But I have to break it to you: you were not the only person on this planet to recognize it as a bad idea. Sorry. ;)

As for whether or not there will be tax cuts: why would a bad economy mean no tax cuts? What is the historical precedent for this?

It became clear to me LG managed to brainwash all the politicians for shits and giggles.

I wonder if the option "sink all American money into a time machine to go back to 2002 and listen to me about the war that created the deficit" would create a paradox. :p

Seriously man, you werent the first one or the only one to be against it.

EDIT: Shit, someone beat me to it;

Absolutely. Most people are fine with tax cuts because they don't see anything bad about the government going massively into the red.

Considering how most people handle their personal finances, are you really surprised?

Snip

I know, but I'm a self-centered asshole with a vendetta, remember? ;)

seems unlikely. probably need to bring back some greater progressivism to the tax structure and reallocate the money into useful pursuits. that's what we know actually accomplishes things.

Working in government, I've become even less trusting of the government's ability to "allocate the money into useful pursuits". Hell, anything pertaining to social welfare--even in the new political administration here in Ohio, is handled in the most ghastly and incompetent fashion. It's almost more than we can ask, for ODJFS to not lose the case files for individual medicaid applicants.

And don't get me started on school systems...:rolleyes:. I mean, yeah, my office deals primarily with the instances of the most severe incompetence-- but there is so, very much of it :(

if humans weren't gullable, or there were some magical age at which we cease to be, wars would never have been invented.

nature tolerates hierarchy, it doesn't default to it. if we were half so wise, we'd learn from that example.

nature tolerates hierarchy, it doesn't default to it. if we were half so wise, we'd learn from that example.

/win

Can I sig?

Seriously man, you werent the first one or the only one to be against it.

EDIT: Shit, someone beat me to it;

Dude. In 2001 there were "do not enter" signs in Santa Cruz that people had spray-painted "Iraq" on. As an entering freshman I was totally boggled. "You dumb hippies," I thought, "it's Afghanistan that attacked us, not Iraq! No one's talking about Iraq!"

Stupid hippies 1, Ryadn 65.

(They were wrong about pretty much everything else)

And don't get me started on school systems...:rolleyes:. I mean, yeah, my office deals primarily with the instances of the most severe incompetence-- but there is so, very much of it :(

First-year teacher with high-risk students, and I still don't have healthcare or a paycheque. And I'm starting to run out of pencils of all things because one of my kids eats them. :(

Dude. In 2001 there were "do not enter" signs in Santa Cruz that people had spray-painted "Iraq" on. As an entering freshman I was totally boggled. "You dumb hippies," I thought, "it's Afghanistan that attacked us, not Iraq! No one's talking about Iraq!"

Stupid hippies 1, Ryadn 65.

(They were wrong about pretty much everything else)

yeah that whole not showering and shaving thing is such a downer.

First-year teacher with high-risk students, and I still don't have healthcare or a paycheque. And I'm starting to run out of pencils of all things because one of my kids eats them. :(

eats...pencils? I hope to god they're not sharpened.

As for whether or not there will be tax cuts: why would a bad economy mean no tax cuts? What is the historical precedent for this?

A bad economy shouldn't meant tax cuts at all. If the government wants to encourage growth the government should be cutting taxes and/or increasing spending, i.e it should run a deficit, during the good times the government should be running a surplus by either cutting spending or increasing taxes.

And to answer the OP question as to whether people are delusional the short answer is yes, yes they are.

yeah that whole not showering and shaving thing is such a downer.

White girl dreads. Just say no.

eats...pencils? I hope to god they're not sharpened.

Oh, he eats the other ends of them. The bits with eraser and metal. Also playdough, paper, lego guys (mostly their removal hair plastic, for some reason) and random things he finds under the table. None of which has made him miss a day of school yet. :/

White girl dreads. Just say no.

That's the problem with our generation. White girls in dreadlocks driving the Mercedes SUV that mommy and daddy bought for them.

eats...pencils? I hope to god they're not sharpened.

Why, not? Plenty of kids chew on their pencils, which was always funny when I was younger and I had an old teacher who would say don't chew on your lead pencils you will get lead poisoning (when they are made from graphite). Though considering that many pencils are coming from China nowadays she may have had a point.

Oh, he eats the other ends of them. The bits with eraser and metal. Also playdough, paper, lego guys (mostly their removal hair plastic, for some reason) and random things he finds under the table. None of which has made him miss a day of school yet. :/

admit it, now and then, you start to wonder what you could get him to eat.

working in goverment is an eye opener isn't it,,i know it was for me.

yes. The US is at that point defined by Socrates in which democracy fails as everyone simply votes themselves the treasury.

Also both parties are under the delusion that lowering taxes always fixes the economy.

/win

Can I sig?

by all means. feel free.

Oh, he eats the other ends of them. The bits with eraser and metal. Also playdough, paper, lego guys (mostly their removal hair plastic, for some reason) and random things he finds under the table. None of which has made him miss a day of school yet. :/
Have you considered becoming the kids agent and finding him work at local circuses and carnivals? Your portion of the proceeds could help cover holes in the classroom budget, and his portion could go to getting him his own damn pencils to snack on.

There are going to be tax increases of WWII type proportions. No two ways about it. Both candidates know this.

A bad economy shouldn't meant tax cuts at all. If the government wants to encourage growth the government should be cutting taxes and/or increasing spending, i.e it should run a deficit,
Deficit... Check
Massive deficit which makes our government look weak to the rest of the world? Check.

during the good times the government should be running a surplus by either cutting spending or increasing taxes. ......
Sigh... And there is where our government screwed up. They had the thing BACKWARDS!

Expecially with this adminstration, whom according to them, you need the defcit in the GOOD times to prevent the evil socialists from having extra money to put towards things like universal healthcare.


And to answer the OP question as to whether people are delusional the short answer is yes, yes they are.
Indeed they are.

And to answer the OP question as to whether people are delusional the short answer is yes, yes they are.
You are only as delusional as the magical gnomes inhabiting your skull think you are.

You are only as delusional as the magical gnomes inhabiting your skull think you are.

Oh, NO!

YOU WOKE MINE UP!!!

Have you considered becoming the kids agent and finding him work at local circuses and carnivals? Your portion of the proceeds could help cover holes in the classroom budget, and his portion could go to getting him his own damn pencils to snack on.

This is what I need, a guy with an eye for marketing in the classroom! He can also scale tall bookshelves, I'm sure we could work that into his routine.

This is what I need, a guy with an eye for marketing in the classroom! He can also scale tall bookshelves, I'm sure we could work that into his routine.

put him in a cape and make him jump off of them.

While eating pencils.

Deficit... Check
Expecially with this adminstration, whom according to them, you need the defcit in the GOOD times to prevent the evil socialists from having extra money to put towards things like universal healthcare.


Food for thought: US healthcare expenditure is approx 16% GDP. Convert to a single payer national healthcare system modeled on the UK NHS. Back of the envelope saving (revenue realized by the government) approx 800 billion. Plus, cost of insurance goes down since no-one will be able to sue for medical costs when injured.

That would provide a decent revenue stream to retire all the bad debt that's been run up and stabilize the financial system. (Which is going to cost about 500 billion a year for the next few years). At the same time everyone gets basic coverage.

Of course people will have to put up with less healthcare stuffs, but it seems a reasonable trade off. (Especially as it will take strain off the social security system too).

WE do need some Deficit. mostly so people who want a stable investment can invest in bonds. stop issuing bonds and you create a big stock and commodities bubble. we saw this in the late 1920's.

put him in a cape and make him jump off of them.

While eating pencils.

Aww, stop making me look like a mean teacher! I don't want to kill the kid (usually). I just want him to stop eating my school supplies and assaulting other students so that I have to call the principal, who then drags him sobbing and screaming back into my room, because apparently it's okay for students to kick and punch each other and stay in the classroom. Right up until the day the parent of one of those kids who got kicked or punched shows up at the school with a shotgun.

Aww, stop making me look like a mean teacher! I don't want to kill the kid (usually). I just want him to stop eating my school supplies and assaulting other students so that I have to call the principal, who then drags him sobbing and screaming back into my room, because apparently it's okay for students to kick and punch each other and stay in the classroom. Right up until the day the parent of one of those kids who got kicked or punched shows up at the school with a shotgun.

all I remember was that I was a holy terror as a young child. I was one of those students that would drive a teacher nuts. I got into fucking everything, I climbed (then jumped out of, sometimes intentional, sometimes not) trees during recess. I managed to lock myself in the bathroom on more than one occassion, and had I gone to grade school in the 90s and not the 80s I'm quite sure I'd have been on some sort of ritalin.

Though, in retrospect, not a lot has changed, except I now can find my way out of the bathroom (most of the time)

all I remember was that I was a holy terror as a young child. I was one of those students that would drive a teacher nuts. I got into fucking everything, I climbed (then jumped out of, sometimes intentional, sometimes not) trees during recess. I managed to lock myself in the bathroom on more than one occassion, and had I gone to grade school in the 90s and not the 80s I'm quite sure I'd have been on some sort of ritalin.

Though, in retrospect, not a lot has changed, except I now can find my way out of the bathroom (most of the time)

Being a lawyer does that mean when the judge calls a recess you go and climb in trees and then jump out of them?

Being a lawyer does that mean when the judge calls a recess you go and climb in trees and then jump out of them?

Only to make an objection.

Being a lawyer does that mean when the judge calls a recess you go and climb in trees and then jump out of them?

No.

But sometimes....I want to.

all I remember was that I was a holy terror as a young child. I was one of those students that would drive a teacher nuts. I got into fucking everything, I climbed (then jumped out of, sometimes intentional, sometimes not) trees during recess. I managed to lock myself in the bathroom on more than one occassion, and had I gone to grade school in the 90s and not the 80s I'm quite sure I'd have been on some sort of ritalin.

Though, in retrospect, not a lot has changed, except I now can find my way out of the bathroom (most of the time)

I was on ritalin in grade school in the 80's.

...okay, it was just turned '90, but same principal. I was medicated before it was cool! Not for hyperactivity, though, for those other symptoms of ADD that everyone conveniently forgets about when they decide to dope up little Johnny because he can't sit still for two hours.

I was on ritalin in grade school in the 80's.

...okay, it was just turned '90, but same principal. I was medicated before it was cool! Not for hyperactivity, though, for those other symptoms of ADD that everyone conveniently forgets about when they decide to dope up little Johnny because he can't sit still for two hours.

well of course, I mean, when the little bastard just won't shut the fuck up, you gotta do what you gotta do.

and did you see the gnomes in your closet too???

....what?

WE do need some Deficit. mostly so people who want a stable investment can invest in bonds. stop issuing bonds and you create a big stock and commodities bubble. we saw this in the late 1920's.

Nah. The government can issue bonds whether its running a surplus or a deficit if it wants.

Running a surplus when the economy is booming is a good idea because it drains money from the wider economy and prevents malinvestment. Also, all the money the government has shoved under the mattress comes in useful later on. Or in the event of a war or a natural disaster or someshit.

But I don't believe the US government has ever actually tried a proper surplus since andrew jackson. It's all been financial jiggery pokery since then.

Graphs and stuff (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)

No.

But sometimes....I want to.

:)
Nah. The government can issue bonds whether its running a surplus or a deficit if it wants.

Running a surplus when the economy is booming is a good idea because it drains money from the wider economy and prevents malinvestment. Also, all the money the government has shoved under the mattress comes in useful later on. Or in the event of a war or a natural disaster or someshit.

But I don't believe the US government has ever actually tried a proper surplus since andrew jackson. It's all been financial jiggery pokery since then.

Graphs and stuff (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)

I don't think any US government really knows what the hell it is doing when it comes to the treasury half the time, and the next president will be no different. Though what were the economic conditions back during Jackson's term?

Though in respect to Reagan from your graph that increase was IIR the literature correctly primarily the peace time build up of defence, but it actually did help America remember the 80's wasn't really good economic times, for the world, and Reagan's increase in government spending did have a positive effect on the economy as it placed more money in increasing demand and helped to stimulate more economic growth.

I don't think any US government really knows what the hell it is doing when it comes to the treasury half the time, and the next president will be no different. Though what were the economic conditions back during Jackson's term?

Though in respect to Reagan from your graph that increase was IIR the literature correctly primarily the peace time build up of defence, but it actually did help America remember the 80's wasn't really good economic times, for the world, and Reagan's increase in government spending did have a positive effect on the economy as it placed more money in increasing demand and helped to stimulate more economic growth.

The peacetime build up would have been one thing. But Reagan also showed little will to restrain congressional domestic spending. So you ended up with things like the S&L crisis. (Though that also had earlier roots).

The economy was actually pretty for most of jackson's presidency, but that is more to do with him killing the Second Bank of the United States. And it did set the stage for the growth afterwards. That said, the federal government wasn't all that important back then - at least as far as broader economy was concerned. Also, nearly everyone lived off the land, so financial panics weren't all that big of a deal.

No, we don't. We're all pretty sure (except one or two incredibly naive people, on both ends of the spectrum) that, not only will taxes not be cut, but that they will actually be increased. We're just betting that one lying scumbag politician will raise them less than the other.

I doubt anyone does believe them, but once one of them gets elected for other reasons everyone on the other side will start yelling and screaming about how the new prez isn't cutting taxes.

I doubt anyone does believe them, but once one of them gets elected for other reasons everyone on the other side will start yelling and screaming about how the new prez isn't cutting taxes.

So if a candidate says as part of his election campaign that he will cut taxes, and then doesn't simply because some people voted him in for different reasons means that it doesnt matter?

Andaluciae, you guys need a new health system. Hopefully Obama will get around to creating one if he's elected.
The US could do worse than copy Australia's, or England's or Canada's - any sysytem but America's.
P.S. I liked Mike Moore's "Sicko" (I know that many Americans would like to tar and feather him - but Sicko and Bowling for Columbine did it for me!)

Andaluciae, you guys need a new health system. Hopefully Obama will get around to creating one if he's elected.
The US could do worse than copy Australia's, or England's or Canada's - any sysytem but America's.
P.S. I liked Mike Moore's "Sicko" (I know that many Americans would like to tar and feather him - but Sicko and Bowling for Columbine did it for me!)

Did what for you?

He turned you on?

Under McCain the tax cuts are mainly for rich people who have so many houses they've lost count. Under Obama, the poorer people get larger tax cuts, whereas those over $600,000/year will be paying more taxes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Yes, I'm biased, but rich people CAN afford more taxes percentagewise.

Food for thought: US healthcare expenditure is approx 16% GDP. Convert to a single payer national healthcare system modeled on the UK NHS. Back of the envelope saving (revenue realized by the government) approx 800 billion. Plus, cost of insurance goes down since no-one will be able to sue for medical costs when injured.

Of course people will have to put up with less healthcare stuffs, but it seems a reasonable trade off. (Especially as it will take strain off the social security system too).

But that's evil Socialism!

Think of the Starving Stockholders and the Ambulance chasing Lawyers!

Under McCain the tax cuts are mainly for rich people who have so many houses they've lost count. Under Obama, the poorer people get larger tax cuts, whereas those over $600,000/year will be paying more taxes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Yes, I'm biased, but rich people CAN afford more taxes percentagewise.
Tax the rich
Feed the Poor
Till we got
No rich no more

sorry, I don't buy into the wealth envy mindset. The "rich" already pay their fair share of taxes. The top 1% of earners pay almost 40% of all taxes and the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of all taxes collected. The "rich" already pay the most. Just because they can "afford" to pay more does not make it right to charge them more any more than just because I have a bullet proof vest on makes it right to shoot me.

I also don't trust the government to run a national health care system - They've tried it already and Medicaid and Medicare are a messy, financial nightmare and don't even get me started on the VA system.

I know, but I'm a self-centered asshole with a vendetta, remember? ;)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Nah. The government can issue bonds whether its running a surplus or a deficit if it wants.

Running a surplus when the economy is booming is a good idea because it drains money from the wider economy and prevents malinvestment. Also, all the money the government has shoved under the mattress comes in useful later on. Or in the event of a war or a natural disaster or someshit.

But I don't believe the US government has ever actually tried a proper surplus since andrew jackson. It's all been financial jiggery pokery since then.

Graphs and stuff (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)
Is there actually a problem with running a surplus? as in reducing the national debt to below zero. . .I mean wouldn't that free up money for spending programs etc. that would otherwise have gone into paying off interest on debt? Or am I missing something important here?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

That's because I'm a PERCEPTIVE AND ELOQUENT self-centered asshole with a vendetta.

That was right.

About Iraq.

Tax the rich
Feed the Poor
Till we got
No rich no more

sorry, I don't buy into the wealth envy mindset. The "rich" already pay their fair share of taxes. The top 1% of earners pay almost 40% of all taxes and the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of all taxes collected. The "rich" already pay the most. Just because they can "afford" to pay more does not make it right to charge them more any more than just because I have a bullet proof vest on makes it right to shoot me.

I also don't trust the government to run a national health care system - They've tried it already and Medicaid and Medicare are a messy, financial nightmare and don't even get me started on the VA system.

um canada=good national healthcare (though getting worse since the conservatives got back into the game)(and I mean around oh 1992) second theoretically the rich pay that much but they all have tax lawyers on retainer . . .why? So that they dont HAVE to pay that much tax . . .plus source please.

That's because I'm a PERCEPTIVE AND ELOQUENT self-centered asshole with a vendetta.

That was right.

About Iraq.

Partialy right. Yes it was the wrong war, but it is not unwinnable. If its unwinnable, then we're currently dividing by zero.

But you are also a liar. Why? Because one cannot accurately describe themselves.

Partialy right. Yes it was the wrong war, but it is not unwinnable. If its unwinnable, then we're currently dividing by zero.

But you are also a liar. Why? Because one cannot accurately describe themselves.

I disagree one can only describe themselves accurately. No one else can. Also I'm not sure the wars unwinnable I just don't think the US troops are gonna win (could be wrong though . . .one sides gotta run out of suicide bombers or ammo first).

But you are also a liar. Why? Because one cannot accurately describe themselves.

Wow. You think I'm a liar ONLY because of that? Trust me, my friend, I'm a liar for so many OTHER reasons it's not even funny! Heck, I could be lying right now! Or could I?

Never said it was unwinnable. (Or did I?) I mean, ANY war is winnable. (Or is it?) By which side? (Or... Wait, that question doesn't accept this "or" thing. (Or does it?))

it is not unwinnable.
You have to define the word "win" first, before that question is answerable.
If its unwinnable, then we're currently dividing by zero.

Certainly would explain a lot ;)

Is there actually a problem with running a surplus? as in reducing the national debt to below zero. . .I mean wouldn't that free up money for spending programs etc. that would otherwise have gone into paying off interest on debt? Or am I missing something important here?

After reviewing your application your to good to work in the treasury of this government.