[jlisenbe]

No. Spending tens of trillions of borrowed dollars to ruin our economy is much, much worse than doing nothing.

[talaniman]

I think an idea needs congressional approval before any money can be spent, and I'm not seeing that happen. How much does your idea costs?

[jlisenbe]

How much does your idea costs?

I don't have an idea. I haven't heard of anything that gives me much cause for hope. Nuke plants are the only solution that I know of, but that's not going to happen because of fear. Wind and solar are pipe dreams. Natural gas will help some. Perhaps there is some hope for hydrogen, but that would be enormously expensive up front and has a boatload of problems associated with it. I just don't have a good answer, but I do know a completely stupid one when it shows up, and the Green New Deal is likely the worst I have ever seen.

[talaniman]

No worse than thinking you will build new nuclear plants in a year or two. The new green deal is actually being tried in a few places already to some degree, or another, and has a better chance of paying for itself than those rich guy tax cuts. I guess any idea about anything can be stupid to some body or other. It's not like we haven't screwed up trillions before on stupid ideas or even good ideas that were done badly.

[jlisenbe]

The new green deal is actually being tried in a few places already to some degree, or another, and has a better chance of paying for itself than those rich guy tax cuts.

It has absolutely, positively no chance whatsoever of paying for itself. None at all. It is projected to cost tens of trillions of dollars and will result in less reliable electricity at a much higher price.

It's not like we haven't screwed up trillions before on stupid ideas or even good ideas that were done badly.

When have we spent trillions on stupid ideas? I guess you could throw in the Great Society programs, but other than that I have no idea what you could be referring to.

[talaniman]

It has absolutely, positively no chance whatsoever of paying for itself. None at all. It is projected to cost tens of trillions of dollars and will result in less reliable electricity at a much higher price.


When have we spent trillions on stupid ideas? I guess you could throw in the Great Society programs, but other than that I have no idea what you could be referring to.

I have already specified that deficit funded 1.2 trillion dollar rich guy give away that hasn't paid for itself. Can't believe you would do away with the "Great Society" programs!

"Unlike the old New Deal, which was a response to a severe financial and economic calamity, the Great Society initiatives came during a period of rapid economic growth. Kennedy proposed an across-the-board tax cut lowering the top marginal income tax rate in the United States by 20%, from 91% to 71%, which was enacted in February 1964, three months after Kennedy's assassination, under Johnson. The tax cut also significantly reduced marginal rates in the lower brackets as well as for corporations. The

gross national product

rose 10% in the first year of the tax cut, and economic growth averaged a rate of 4.5% from 1961 to 1968.

^[4]"

That's right up conservatives alley, so it must be the social programs you object to, which benefitted the aged, the poor, and minorities.

[jlisenbe]

I have already specified that deficit funded 1.2 trillion dollar rich guy give away that hasn't paid for itself.

How do you know that? Reagan did the same thing. Kennedy did the same thing. In both cases it was given widespread credit (even in your post) for reviving the economy and tax revenues climbed, just like they are doing now. And as I've asked you before, when the bottom 80% of income earners only pay about 15% of income taxes, and when the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, then how do you give those people any really meaningful tax relief?

As for the New Deal programs, that cost was a drop in the bucket compared to the absolutely impossible bill for the Green New Deal.

Hope you had a wonderful Christmas.

[talaniman]

My holiday ends on the 2nd of January, and it's been great so far, sincerely hope the same to you, and yours. Rreagan at least had the flexibility to raise taxes to mitigate some spending and yes I have always given him credit fr it. Those people as you call them are Americans who actually spend whatever they have in the real economy and contribute payroll taxes. More money in there pockets with a living wage circulates more money into the economy. A simple concept as opposed to rich guy's hoarding huge chunks of money and building their own wealth. Taxation is but part of the economic revenue stream and while rich guys have added to their wealth middle classers and the poor cannot perpetrating wage inequality, and wage stagnation neither of which helps the economy, or solve the circulation problem.

Just increasing tax revenues is, but a small part of the equation, and does nothing to pay on the debt, build and upgrade bridges roads and schools or give us clean air water and soil, or help a citizen pay his heating bill, or cure his cancer. Yes we have a bunch of data for that and a lot that says other things must also go into cutting taxes for anybody as outlined by Roosevelt and Johnson which Bush and the dufus didn't emulate.

[jlisenbe]

Those people as you call them are Americans who actually spend whatever they have in the real economy and contribute payroll taxes. More money in there pockets with a living wage circulates more money into the economy. A simple concept as opposed to rich guy's hoarding huge chunks of money and building their own wealth.

I know it's tedious, but since you gave a non-answer, I'll ask it again. "And as I've asked you before, when the bottom 80% of income earners only pay about 15% of income taxes, and when the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, then how do you give those people any really meaningful tax relief?"

Just increasing tax revenues is, but a small part of the equation, and does nothing to pay on the debt, build and upgrade bridges roads and schools or give us clean air water and soil, or help a citizen pay his heating bill, or cure his cancer.

A small part of the equation? What's the rest of the equation?

[talaniman]

Start with a living wage. Most states are getting it, and doing just that. A business that cannot afford to pay it's workers a living wage should NOT be in business and certainly not be rewarded with riches, and tax breaks. LOL big biz wasn't paying the old tax rates which were to high and now will only pay half the new tax rates. I posted a link before about the biggest and richest corporations not even paying their lawful share of the tax burden but of course you ignored that FACT!

[jlisenbe]

Start with a living wage. Most states are getting it, and doing just that. A business that cannot afford to pay it's workers a living wage should NOT be in business and certainly not be rewarded with riches, and tax breaks. LOL big biz wasn't paying the old tax rates which were to high and now will only pay half the new tax rates. I posted a link before about the biggest and richest corporations not even paying their lawful share of the tax burden but of course you ignored that FACT!

It is true that many states have raised the minimum wage. It is not true that they have raised it to "a living wage". Many of them are going to 8 or 9 dollars an hour which is not exactly a "get rich" level.

I did respond to your "lawful share of the tax burden" link. I proposed a flat tax. You nearly fell over in a dead faint at the suggestion because, like all true liberals, you feared that YOUR taxes might go up.

[talaniman]

Dead faint and fear of higher taxes is an exaggeration, but agree 8/9 bucks an hour is hardly a get rich quick wage, but it's a start to a more living wage standard that another raise follows in a year or two to get to the 12/15 minumum eventually in a shorter time than was set before which has been stuck on pure poverty for decades. Not for a flat tax at all as it's completely unfair without closing a lot of loopholes and eliminating deductions and benefits and makes little sense to those that live in states with state taxes. Let's not forget those states that already pay less to the government than they receive back. Maybe we should raise taxes on those states to make it more equal or fair to states that pay in more than they get back. As you say though how does one who pays so little deserve a tax break at all and address that to the mirror before you answer.

Doesn't change or address the FACT that few rich people and corporations don't pay the previous or current tax rates anyway, so even that claim is an exaggeration if not a borderline LIE to begin with. The very notion that rich and poor pay the same rate is stupid, as well as unfair, but a long time scheme of greedy conservatives with no regard to fair. The dufus and Romney have openly bragged about paying the same rates as the people who work for them and earn markedly less wage, and obviously can afford to pay people to make that a reality. They can even afford to buy the official YOU elect to act in their best interest over YOUR best interest so we get not public servants but private ones.

That explains why you are so gung ho about a lying cheating stealing dufus as POTUS! Keep holding your nose so it doesn't fall off your face.

[jlisenbe]

Not for a flat tax at all as it's completely unfair without closing a lot of loopholes and eliminating deductions and benefits and makes little sense to those that live in states with state taxes.

That's kind of the definition of a flat tax. Everyone would get a personal deduction to start with. If it's 30K for a family of four, then they would pay taxes on the part above thirty thousand. As to those states with state income taxes (like Mississippi), they are already paying both fed and state taxes anyway, so that part of the deal would not change.

Doesn't change or address the FACT that few rich people and corporations don't pay the previous or current tax rates anyway, so even that claim is an exaggeration if not a borderline LIE to begin with. The very notion that rich and poor pay the same rate is stupid, as well as unfair, but a long time scheme of greedy conservatives with no regard to fair.

No one ever said they pay the tax rate. That only applies to taxable income, a concept which the flat tax would do away with. What you don't want to face is the FACT that the wealthy already pay nearly all of the fed income taxes in this country.

[talaniman]

That's fair they pay their share since they have all the wealth and make all the money. About that flat tax though, does a rich guy have that same rate above $30K? Does he have the same personal deductions?

[jlisenbe]

they have all the wealth and make all the money

You are thoroughly wrong on both counts. Not even close.

That's fair they pay their share since they have all the wealth and make all the money. About that flat tax though, does a rich guy have that same rate above $30K? Does he have the same personal deductions?

Let's suppose a family of four makes 50K, so they would pay taxes on 20K. If we suppose the flat tax is 20%, then they would pay 4K, which is about 8% of their income. A person making one mil a year would basically pay about 200K, meaning he is paying 20%, or 2.5 times more percentage wise than the lower income person. Sounds fair to me.

[paraclete]

You are thoroughly wrong on both counts. Not even close.

Let's suppose a family of four makes 50K, so they would pay taxes on 20K. If we suppose the flat tax is 20%, then they would pay 4K, which is about 8% of their income. A person making one mil a year would basically pay about 200K, meaning he is paying 20%, or 2.5 times more percentage wise than the lower income person. Sounds fair to me.

Yes a person having twenty times the income has greater advantage from the economy and should contribute more however in such a system tax revenues would be insufficient and government would need to be shrunk you can have no thought of deductions and loopholes

[talaniman]

That has always been the right wing dream Clete, to shrink the government small enough to drown it in a bath tub so they can do as they please with impunity. You should read up on Grover Norquist and Karl Rove. While they have left the spotlight they are behind the scenes bundling the big money. What you thought the loony right was smart enough to elect the dufus on his own? Between Vlad and the dark money he had plenty of help.

You are thoroughly wrong on both counts. Not even close.

Let's suppose a family of four makes 50K, so they would pay taxes on 20K. If we suppose the flat tax is 20%, then they would pay 4K, which is about 8% of their income. A person making one mil a year would basically pay about 200K, meaning he is paying 20%, or 2.5 times more percentage wise than the lower income person. Sounds fair to me.

And you really think the rich guys will stand for you closing their loopholes, havens and shelters for their wealth? What a fantasy.

[jlisenbe]

And you really think the rich guys will stand for you closing their loopholes, havens and shelters for their wealth? What a fantasy.

Those rich guys presently pay 85% of fed income taxes, so they must not be very good at coming up with a tax plan that benefits them. And you should remember that when I first suggested a flat tax, it was YOU who nearly passed out at the very thought that YOUR taxes might go up. So if you get to try and make your taxes lower, why can't they as well?

[talaniman]

LOL, are you kidding me? Paying taxes on half(?) their money, is a tribute to their power even if it is 85% of tax revenues collected. Nobody really knows the kind of money hidden offshore or even exempted from taxation. FACT remains most corporations don't pay taxes at all, and get money back from the IRS. No wonder a snake oil salesman can hustle you out of your hard earned money. Your position is inaccurate and repeating it won't change that.

When they start building roads and bridges and schools you can talk to me. Until then you need a more accurate rap BRUDDER!

[talaniman]