BC Space-Des news on gap between rich and poor

[_bcspace]

By the way to dig out of the fiscal mess we are in both taxes will have to be raised and spending cut. I am not sure now is the right time for either. But it both will have to happen at some point.

No they don't. For example, one could cut social spending in half and provide far more benefit by simply handing out the rest as cash. Not that handouts are appropriate, but it illustrates the problem.

[_Kevin Graham]

So we have a wealthy super-attorney with much to gain (financially) without Obama gone and a guy who took an economics class in college. They're up against the vast majority of professional economists.

Gee, who to believe?

Notice bcspace runs to the usual straw man argument set out by FOX News instead of dealing with the established points. Whoever said taxing the wealthy at 100% would solve our problems? Whoever suggested doing it? No one.

The fact is you cannot just cut spending in order to get over deficits, you also have to increase revenues. It is why Reagan had to raise taxes a half dozen times after his initial tax cut. He immediately realized it would be too much of a drain on revenues and was creating havoc on our deficit. The Right doesn't seem to understand basic economics. They want to offset the savings from spending cuts by decreasing revenues by an even greater amount. These guys follow the disproved theory that lower taxes on the wealthy equal higher government revenues, brought to us by idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Herman Cain. They're not really interested in the facts that have been proved. They're only interested in maintaining political dogma that suits their own selfish interests. Few idiots have been honest enough to admit that tax reductions on the wealthy have nothing to do with increasing jobs (they do no such thing) or encouraging investment (they do no such thing), but Droopy was one of them. He admitted that the real agenda was to starve government of revenues.

[_Kevin Graham]

The number of economists pointing this out are everywhere. So much so that even FOX News can't avoid their remarks when they host them. For example, Ben Stein remarked on FOX that, "We've got to raise taxes. There is just no way around it. The deficit situation is so serious that while I wish we did not have to raise taxes, we just can't cut spending enough."

That was probably the last time he appears on the show.

For bcspace to say increasing taxes on the super wealthy isn't going to eventually solve the problem, is intellectual dishonesty. The Bush Tax cuts for his closest friends and campaign contributors (i.e. Enron) cost us nearly $1 trillion over his eight years. Another trillion was blown on two stupid wars. More than a half trillion was blown on his drug prescription bill that was designed by drug company executives to give them a monopoly and screw the poor.

Virtually all economists agree that an increase in tax rates as they were under the super-conservative Ronald Reagan (which is what Obama proposed), would add more than a trillion in revenues over the course of the next decade. The Right doesn't want it for two reasons:

1. They know it will work and they don't want Obama to have anything to brag about (i.e. they want him to fail at all costs so they can get reelected).
2. They are bought and paid for by their wealthy constituents who donate millions to their campaigns to guarantee their anti-tax votes.


You simply cannot decrease income in times when spending is necessarily increasing, and then act all confused when the deficit explodes. The Right thinks this is all about spending more on things that are unnecessary, But in reality spending has always gone up, as a necessity. Likewise, revenues need to increase to keep pace. Government is constantly having to spend more money because times change and the population is ever growing.

[_bcspace]

You simply cannot decrease income in times when spending is necessarily increasing, and then act all confused when the deficit explodes.

You haven't been paying attention. Expenditures can actually go down (like if we repeal Obamacare). Let me know when you're ready to answer the questions I posed.

[_Yahoo Bot]

So we have a wealthy super-attorney with much to gain (financially) without Obama gone and a guy who took an economics class in college. They're up against the vast majority of professional economists.

Gee, who to believe?

I taught economics at the university level as a full professor (well, actually, it was a community college in a four-year system, but I was a full professor).

[_Yahoo Bot]

Well, I'm now a Republican but only because libertarians have no pull.

You were never a libertarian.

I am a practical libertarian. I don't vote in the Libertarian party. I don't think that the repeal of income taxes or social security likely, so I advocate deconstruction of hurdles.

But I don't believe in the regulation of illegal drugs, don't believe government should be involved in marriage, don't believe in the regulation of obscenity, don't believe in immigration restrictions.

I supported Prop 8 only because I was asked to do so and I had no moral qualms against supporting it. Libertarianism is not into morals.

[_Hoops]

The number of economists pointing this out are everywhere. So much so that even FOX News can't avoid their remarks when they host them. For example, Ben Stein remarked on FOX that, "We've got to raise taxes. There is just no way around it. The deficit situation is so serious that while I wish we did not have to raise taxes, we just can't cut spending enough."

That was probably the last time he appears on the show.

I've seen him on Fox news since then. So as usual, your liberal bluster is just that. Stick to the facts. However, assuming Stein is correct, when do we EVER get to cut taxes? Without the usual handringing and harping from liberals? Are we supposed to resign ourselves to the inevitability of taxes going up?

The Bush Tax cuts for his closest friends and campaign contributors (i.e. Enron)

Hmmmm.... I missed that. Do you have any evidence of this? Or just more liberal buzzwords.

cost us nearly $1 trillion over his eight years.

See, here's the liberal mindset at its finest. "Cost us." Cost who? in my mind, whatever the tax cuts were and to whomever they benefited, those are dollars that a private citizen gets to keep. That Trump's just about anything else. Not all, but a lot.

Another trillion was blown on two stupid wars.

Lol. Yeah. Okay.

More than a half trillion was blown on his drug prescription bill that was designed by drug company executives to give them a monopoly and screw the poor.

Which means what? But you want me to join with you to repeal this program I'll gladly do so.

The Right doesn't want it for two reasons:

1. They know it will work and they don't want Obama to have anything to brag about (i.e. they want him to fail at all costs so they can get reelected).

Bull. Last I checked, Obama's ridiculous "jobs" program couldn't even get out of the Senate - controlled by Democrats.

2. They are bought and paid for by their wealthy constituents who donate millions to their campaigns to guarantee their anti-tax votes.

And most wall street executives support Democrats with their pocketbooks.

You simply cannot decrease income in times when spending is necessarily increasing,

No, not necessarily. By choice. A choice on what we spend the money. Choices with which I disagree. For a host of reasons.

and then act all confused when the deficit explodes.

You're referring to Obama and the Democrats, right?

The Right thinks this is all about spending more on things that are unnecessary, But in reality spending has always gone up, as a necessity.

Two seperate things. Of course spending must increase. But spending on what is the question.

[_Kevin Graham]

You haven't been paying attention. Expenditures can actually go down (like if we repeal Obamacare). Let me know when you're ready to answer the questions I posed.

I proved your question was nothing more than a popular straw man propagated by the corporate media. I expected more from you, but on this topic you seem to have the attention span of a broken record. And no, you simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to decreasing expenditures. You think you can thwart a trend that has existed for a half century and expect no repercussions?

Here is the trend of government spending since 1970:




Where do we see a drop in spending? In order for the government to operate, spending has to increase on an annual basis because of inflation and the natural increase in population size. You want to propose something that has never happened - nor is there any reason to believe it could happen - without serious economic repercussions. Economists understand this, even if you don't.

Now look at the increase in revenues over the same period.


Notice the clear drop in income during the Bush Tax Cut period and then the sudden drop beginning in 2007 under Bush. This is how deficits explode.

The only way to get back on pace is to make up for the lost revenues, which isn't going to come by slashing social programs. I mean this is just idiotic and unrealistic. You question the significance of increasing taxes but refuse to address the significance of decreasing social spending. No one is ever going to nuke Social Security. All the Republicans are trying to do really is chip away at important programs for the poor, putting on a show for their wealthy constituents while misdirecting everyone's attention from teh problem of revenues. Cuts in the things you want to cut, like education, health care, etc, don't even begin to make a difference as far as the deficit is concerned. The largest portion of our discretional spending is actually the easiest portion to cut: the military. But you guys won't even entertain this idea, proving you were never really interested in realistic solutions to overblown spending. We already have by far the most advanced and powerful military in the world. Dumping billions into it every day isn't making us any safer from unlikely attackers. We could cut military spending in half (and still maintain the most expensive and advanced military in the world) increase taxes as they were under Reagan, and within a decade the deficit would pretty much be a thing of the past. But you folks aren't interested in that because you're not really interested in what's best for this country. So many of these Republicans have stated quite emphatically that their primary goal is to see Obama fails in everything he tries to do - this includes, obviously, economic recovery. A successful recovery under an Obama administration means these Tea Party trolls in Washington are out of a job, and they know it. They are more interested in serving themselves, and those who buy their votes.

Notice the rise in defense spending under Reagan and then again under Bush. Reagan tripled the annual increase and Bush nearly tripled in again:



So if you're looking for drastic spending cuts that we could sustain without disrupting the economy in negative ways, then look no further than defense spending. That is, if you're really interested in decreased government spending.

[_bcspace]

You haven't been paying attention. Expenditures can actually go down (like if we repeal Obamacare). Let me know when you're ready to answer the questions I posed.

I proved your question was nothing more than a popular straw man propagated by the corporate media.

I think you're afraid to answer the questions since you've done no such thing. Simple really. The first question as to how many poor citizens perhaps could be answered from some chart you could find....

So if you're looking for drastic spending cuts that we could sustain without disrupting the economy in negative ways, then look no further than defense spending. That is, if you're really interested in decreased government spending.

Nope. Not even close. 1.5 trillion plus in social spending. That is where the cuts are and can be made without ANY loss in value of benefits. But of course, you'll have to answer the questions first so we can be sure of your intellectual honesty.

[_Kevin Graham]

I've seen him on Fox news since then. So as usual, your liberal bluster is just that. Stick to the facts. However, assuming Stein is correct, when do we EVER get to cut taxes? Without the usual handringing and harping from liberals? Are we supposed to resign ourselves to the inevitability of taxes going up?

Are you really this ignorant? We're living in a period of record lows as far as taxes are concerned. Taxes have been cut and increased throughout our economic history, but Bush wanted to make his outrageous cuts for teh wealthy "permanent" so that future attempts to bring them back to reasonable levels would be demonized as huge tax increases.

Hmmmm.... I missed that. Do you have any evidence of this? Or just more liberal buzzwords.

Again, you need to research this stuff beforehand before jumping into waters that are clearly too deep for you. Bush was very close with the Enron CEO and they exchanged favors as would be expected. Google the connection if you're interested.

See, here's the liberal mindset at its finest. "Cost us." Cost who? in my mind, whatever the tax cuts were and to whomever they benefited, those are dollars that a private citizen gets to keep. That Trump's just about anything else. Not all, but a lot.

The liberal mindset? I voted for McCain. Cost the tax payers got screwed with Bush's wars, period. You say taxpayers get to keep money they're not taxed, well duh! But there are consequences, and we're living them right now with an outrageous deficit our kids and grandkids will probably have to pay for. This really needs to be explained to you?

Lol. Yeah. Okay.

You laugh at facts that disrupt your fantasy. I guess that's the typical RIght Wing mindset.

Bull. Last I checked, Obama's ridiculous "jobs" program couldn't even get out of the Senate - controlled by Democrats.

Don't you know anything? The Senate republicans filibustered the bill to death.

And most wall street executives support Democrats with their pocketbooks.

Sure, those who can be bought. But the indisputable fact is that Democrats are the ones fighting for consumer rights, and more corporate regulations, etc. Republicans have always, generally speaking, been on the side of corporations and against the working class. Thanks to Republicans, I cannot sue my cell phone company if they steal from me. But you knew that right? Republicans are financed by the wealthy more than the Democrats. A larger portion of democrat campaign donations coem from individuals, not corporations. But 100,000 citizens can contribute to a democratic candidate and then all that can be blown out of the water by a single donation from a Right Wing billionaire. It happens all the time and it is why the conservatives refuse campaign finance reform, and it is why they believe corporations should be able to contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns. Because they are rthe ones who benefit. Their primary constituents are corporations and the super wealthy, while the Democrats generally fight on the issues that benefit most working Americans. The sad things is many Americans are too stupid to realize it, thanks to corporate propaganda machines like FOX News and talk radio, funded by Right Wing billionaires.

You're referring to Obama and the Democrats, right?

Seriously? Where were you in 2008, watching FOX News? In 2008 the deficit exploded thanks to Bush's consewrvative policies. You know, the usual deregulationbiz, bailouts for the rich in the form of corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. Blowing a trillion on a war for no apparent reason other than to suit his own ego, etc. The deficit exploded well above a trillion before Obama ever stepped foot in the White House. But again, you must have been listening to Rush Limbaugh in late 2008. I was in the USA at the time and I remember quite vividly the economic situation. I also remember watching FOX News every day and listening to their dismissive spin, refusing to hold Bush accountable for any of it. I got the sense that many of them were hoping a democrat would be elected just so they had someone to blame for the collapse.