Tax Day Tea Party

[meangreenacct]

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point.

The Laffer curve is kind of what I was getting at in my last point. Obviously there is some point where tax are so high that it's a discouragement to productivity. The other problem is obviously that there's a point where tax rates are low enough that the government doesn't collect enough to perform necessary functions. Clearly the sticking point is what we condsider necessary functions, something we will have to agree to disagree on.

[meangreendork]

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point.

Actually, this tariff act was a response to US industries losing out to international outfits beating them by exporting their goods to the US. To try to gain back some sort of balance, the act was passed to keep more money stateside by tacking on more tariffs to more imported goods and materials. But instead of providing more of an incentive for US consumers to buy US goods, the countries importing to the US simply just started to send less, and that strangled trade nearly to death. Basically, the act caused other nations to kick their own tariffs into gear and aim them at US goods.

Lots of countries did this sort of thing after WWI to prevent themselves from being dependent on any one country for goods and materials that may be needed in time of war, or that may be used as a cause for, or leveraging tool prior to an attack. You have to look at the surrounding history here.

But in short: "we're gonna tax your stuff so no one buys it" and that's met with a "well, we're gonna tax yours too so no one over here buys it either".

Funny thing is that the tariff wasn't nearly as big a part of the nation's overall economic health compared to other factors.

[UNTflyer]

You think that 1.3 trillion in tax cuts had nothing to do with the deficit? Really?

Yes, really. Every time we have cut taxes in the 20th century, revenue increased. Every time. It is evidence that taxes are too high and have been for a long time. You claim tax cuts caused the deficit. If your income increased but you go further into debt, is because you got a raise? No, it is because you spent too much money.

I find it contradictory that you are so bent out of shape about the deficit under Bush, yet you are so indifferent to the massive debt in Obama's first year. You can't have it both ways.

The deficit under Bush fell in 2007 to $161 billion. It also fell in 2005. Increased spending and the war were the cause of the increased deficit in 2006, and the bailouts of 2008 caused it to double. So while the deficit and debt grew under Bush's administration, there were efforts to bring it under control.

Now why don't we do this. Let's acknowledge that tax cuts increase revenues, but that it must be coupled with decreases in spending... and we're talking REAL cuts, not decreases in projected increases.

Do we need to spend $613 billion in defense? No. This can be cut in half and we'd still have the best military in the world.

Do we need to spend $682 billion on Medicare and Medicaid? No. This comes to $2250 a year per U.S. citizen. That's enough to pay for health insurance for every man woman and child in the country. Cut it in half and return it to its original purpose, helping those who can't afford health care.

Do we need to spend $612 billion on Social Security in an age of 401K's? Hell no. It's the world's biggest Ponzi Scheme. Abolish Social Security. All Baby Boomers who have enough in their 401K to maintain their standard of living are cut off. Those under the age of 30 can stop paying Social Security taxes. It means the entire Gen-X generation is stuck paying out benefits for current recipients for the next 20 or 30 years, but it was bound to happen... politicians just don't want to admit it.

There, I just cut $1.3 trillion in unnecessary spending. If we don't do it now, our current economic problems will look like a cakewalk.

[Censored by Laurie]

here is a small list of other taxes coming to ameriKa.

http://thebarefoot.wordpress.com/2009/03/3...-taxes-planned/

this is just the beginning.....

it may help everyone if read a little about the fabians in england.

Some odd comments at the end of that blog...

[eulesseagle]

Dude - I'm not saying there aren't plans to raises taxes. I'm just saying if you are going to post something it would be nice if it had one shred of evidence supporting it. I work with people who deal with these issues every day. If the tax claims that are in that link were serious proposals I can guarantee either my clients or my coworkers would be bringing them up.

i take it you do not see the incremental increases of prices across the board in consumables and non consumables? i would imagine some have to do with the cost of production and taxes.....just a wild guess....

do you really think that these consumables and non consumables are going to stay static with an almost four trillion dollar deficit??

where do you reasonably expect the money to come from to offset this spending???

the govt "must" tax something.

[eulesseagle]

Yes, really. Every time we have cut taxes in the 20th century, revenue increased. Every time. It is evidence that taxes are too high and have been for a long time. You claim tax cuts caused the deficit. If your income increased but you go further into debt, is because you got a raise? No, it is because you spent too much money.

I find it contradictory that you are so bent out of shape about the deficit under Bush, yet you are so indifferent to the massive debt in Obama's first year. You can't have it both ways.

The deficit under Bush fell in 2007 to $161 billion. It also fell in 2005. Increased spending and the war were the cause of the increased deficit in 2006, and the bailouts of 2008 caused it to double. So while the deficit and debt grew under Bush's administration, there were efforts to bring it under control.

Now why don't we do this. Let's acknowledge that tax cuts increase revenues, but that it must be coupled with decreases in spending... and we're talking REAL cuts, not decreases in projected increases.

Do we need to spend $613 billion in defense? No. This can be cut in half and we'd still have the best military in the world.

Do we need to spend $682 billion on Medicare and Medicaid? No. This comes to $2250 a year per U.S. citizen. That's enough to pay for health insurance for every man woman and child in the country. Cut it in half and return it to its original purpose, helping those who can't afford health care.

Do we need to spend $612 billion on Social Security in an age of 401K's? Hell no. It's the world's biggest Ponzi Scheme. Abolish Social Security. All Baby Boomers who have enough in their 401K to maintain their standard of living are cut off. Those under the age of 30 can stop paying Social Security taxes. It means the entire Gen-X generation is stuck paying out benefits for current recipients for the next 20 or 30 years, but it was bound to happen... politicians just don't want to admit it.

There, I just cut $1.3 trillion in unnecessary spending. If we don't do it now, our current economic problems will look like a cakewalk.

excellent point flyer......now we need to cut the other over 3 trillion in spending....that is one trillion per month that the congress is sticking to us for a total of four trillion.

[UNT90]

I find it contradictory that you are so bent out of shape about the deficit under Bush, yet you are so indifferent to the massive debt in Obama's first year. You can't have it both ways.

Political cheerleading. He is comfortable with whatever Obama does because he voted and supported Obama and doesn't recognize any spending, even if it is 500 trillion, as being too much because Obama reflects his value system. It's a two way street. Where are all the post from the conservatives on this board when the Republican congress and President G. W. Bush continued to rack up debt in the mid 2000s? Non-existent because you believed he represented your value system and didn't dare question the debt when you continued to receive tax breaks.

Politics has become like cheering for your favorite sports team. If the ref blows a call in your favor, well, that's ok, but if the ref blows a call that goes against you, you yell and scream and are shocked by the injustice of it all.

Funny how neither party in the last 8 years has ever SERIOUSLY pushed for a spending reduction. Dems push for a spending increase, Repubs push for tax cuts. Niether address the main issue.

There are two parties in this country, a socialist party and a democratic party. There is no conservative party.

[Coffee and TV]

Yes, really. Every time we have cut taxes in the 20th century, revenue increased. Every time. It is evidence that taxes are too high and have been for a long time. You claim tax cuts caused the deficit. If your income increased but you go further into debt, is because you got a raise? No, it is because you spent too much money.

C'mon, because the government had so much money before the Kennedy tax cuts the infrastructure was 10 x's better than what it is today as a result. Not to mention that it also had the funds necessary to send all its GI's college and provide low-interest loans. When Reagan cut taxes in 1981 they were so deep he had to roll them back. Hell, there are increases to taxes that haven't even occurred yet.

I find it contradictory that you are so bent out of shape about the deficit under Bush, yet you are so indifferent to the massive debt in Obama's first year. You can't have it both ways.

Indifferent is exactly what I am. We inherited a financial crisis and is taking what I see as necessary steps to keep from deepening the recession. I do understand the debt will probably double considering the current course, which is why taxes will probably have to be increased to the upper brackets. However, long term plans to decrease and control medicare and social security costs are the only thing that can bring it down.

The deficit under Bush fell in 2007 to $161 billion. It also fell in 2005. Increased spending and the war were the cause of the increased deficit in 2006, and the bailouts of 2008 caused it to double. So while the deficit and debt grew under Bush's administration, there were efforts to bring it under control.

Yet he inherited a surplus. And if by 'bring it under control' you mean a borrow and spend philosophy, then yeah that's exactly what happened.

Do we need to spend $613 billion in defense? No. This can be cut in half and we'd still have the best military in the world.

Political suicide. Obama's proposal for minor changes to reduce the huge defense budget is already meeting with resistence and outcry. Good luck ever getting it to half of what it is now.

Do we need to spend $682 billion on Medicare and Medicaid? No. This comes to $2250 a year per U.S. citizen. That's enough to pay for health insurance for every man woman and child in the country. Cut it in half and return it to its original purpose, helping those who can't afford health care.

Do we need to spend $612 billion on Social Security in an age of 401K's? Hell no. It's the world's biggest Ponzi Scheme. Abolish Social Security. All Baby Boomers who have enough in their 401K to maintain their standard of living are cut off. Those under the age of 30 can stop paying Social Security taxes. It means the entire Gen-X generation is stuck paying out benefits for current recipients for the next 20 or 30 years, but it was bound to happen... politicians just don't want to admit it.

There, I just cut $1.3 trillion in unnecessary spending. If we don't do it now, our current economic problems will look like a cakewalk.

Ignoring the fact that I have fundamental differences with this statement, this is ignoring reality. Granted if you can find a way to elect about 240 UNTFlyer's to congress, as well as a UNTFlyer president, these statements are pure fantasy. Medicare and Social Security are both WIDELY ACCEPTED bi-partisan programs. There will be no Congress, no president, Republican or Democrat that will make large scale changes to these programs.

[meangreendork]

Political cheerleading. He is comfortable with whatever Obama does because he voted and supported Obama and doesn't recognize any spending, even if it is 500 trillion, as being too much because Obama reflects his value system. It's a two way street. Where are all the post from the conservatives on this board when the Republican congress and President G. W. Bush continued to rack up debt in the mid 2000s? Non-existent because you believed he represented your value system and didn't dare question the debt when you continued to receive tax breaks.

Politics has become like cheering for your favorite sports team. If the ref blows a call in your favor, well, that's ok, but if the ref blows a call that goes against you, you yell and scream and are shocked by the injustice of it all.

Funny how neither party in the last 8 years has ever SERIOUSLY pushed for a spending reduction. Dems push for a spending increase, Repubs push for tax cuts. Niether address the main issue.

There are two parties in this country, a socialist party and a democratic party. There is no conservative party.

Wouldn't go so far as calling them socialist, and wouldn't go so far as calling them democratic, but really, politics in America has really devolved into social clubs and cheerleading. Good post.

[Coffee and TV]

Political cheerleading. He is comfortable with whatever Obama does because he voted and supported Obama and doesn't recognize any spending, even if it is 500 trillion, as being too much because Obama reflects his value system.

That's a lovely generalization but I am not a member of any political party or organization. In fact, I plan on voting for Kay Bailey in the Republican primary next year.

[EagleD]

I believe it was Jon Stewart who said, "I don't think even the Washington Monument has balls enough to T-Bag the White House."

[KRAM1]

So, anyone going to the Denton event or does everyone just want to keep it going here on GMG.COM? I'll be there...should be interesting to hear what they have to say about the Obama budget/taxes, etc. Good to see something being organized around this. Looks like it is growing too...I hear several new events have been scheduled in the last few days around the country. WOW, since when do conservities "take to the streets"???

I hope to see some fellow Mean Green nation members on the Denton Square on the 15th (6-7:30PM). Anyone planning on attending an event in a different location?

[UNT90]

That's a lovely generalization but I am not a member of any political party or organization. In fact, I plan on voting for Kay Bailey in the Republican primary next year.

Thats exactly what it was, a generalization. As far as you voting for Kay Bailey, will you be voting for her in the general election? Not the primary, the general election. Somehow, your political position in your posts lead me to believe you will vote in the Republican primary, and then vote Dem in the general election. Am I right?

[eulesseagle]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=94331

[Coffee and TV]

Thats exactly what it was, a generalization. As far as you voting for Kay Bailey, will you be voting for her in the general election? Not the primary, the general election. Somehow, your political position in your posts lead me to believe you will vote in the Republican primary, and then vote Dem in the general election. Am I right?

I don't know who the Democratic candidate is, so I don't know.

[UNT90]

I don't know who the Democratic candidate is, so I don't know.

[KRAM1]

WOW. I can't believe I got 5 pages so far on this thread. Of course, many folks hijacked it to other topics. Anyone going to the TaxDay Tea Party in Denton?

Should be fun. Maybe the anarchists will meet and form a group with by-laws and a constitution and come protest!

[GreenBat]

Maybe you can lead a invigorating talk on the advantages of soccer?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- Just remember that when Bush took over, there was a budget surplus and the national had climbed only 1.8% per year for the previous eight years. (less that the interest rate on the debt) Poor Obama can't say that when he took over. The economy was not all that great .... and the National debt had doubled during the previous eight years. You figure who gets the blame for this mess or needing a tea party...............................OK................................. It sure wasn't Obama. Maybe the tea party should be held in Highland Park or whatever it is he lives.

Edited April 9, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

--- Just remember that when Bush took over, there was a budget surplus and the national had climbed only 1.8% per year for the previous eight years. (less that the interest rate on the debt) Poor Obama can't say that when he took over. The economy was not all that great .... and the National debt had doubled during the previous eight years. You figure who gets the blame for this mess or needing a tea party...............................OK................................. It sure wasn't Obama. Maybe the tea party should be held in Highland Park or whatever it is he lives.

The tea parties are focused on congress.. But, GO DEMOCRATICS. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT...WIN, WIN, WIN

So funny to see people blame Bush for the debt, yet be totally OK with Pres. Obama quadrupling the budget, just as it is funny to see people horrified by Pres. Obama's spending, but totally OK with Bush's spending habits.

They (politicians) got you right where they want you.

How about we not balance the budget, but actually spend less than we collect in taxes, and use that surplus to pay down the debt. You know, like most of you do in your house every freaking day. What a concept. Too bad neither party offers this as a solution.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The tea parties are focused on congress.. But, GO DEMOCRATICS. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT...WIN, WIN, WIN

So funny to see people blame Bush for the debt, yet be totally OK with Pres. Obama quadrupling the budget, just as it is funny to see people horrified by Pres. Obama's spending, but totally OK with Bush's spending habits.

They (politicians) got you right where they want you.

How about we not balance the budget, but actually spend less than we collect in taxes, and use that surplus to pay down the debt. You know, like most of you do in your house every freaking day. What a concept. Too bad neither party offers this as a solution.

---Quadrupling the debt...really....??... That is why I am not a GOP person... stating the truth.... Check out the truth... That means the national debt is over $40,000,000,000,000 (40 trillion) . It isn't and isn't going to be any time soon....Bush only got it to $10-11 Trillion.

___________

--That is exactly what was happening in 1996-2000.---- more coming in than going out... The GOP congress would not allow them pay any of it down.. they wanted only tax cuts. Doing both made some sense. It did not happen. Some of those cuts made sense but not the whole deal that favored the extreme wealthy (15% capitol gains). At least the debt was barely climbing (less than the interest rate)

Edited April 9, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Coffee and TV]

Typical. You couldn't prove anything so you just roll your eyes when I make a truthful statement. You're one piss poor mind reader.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

How about we not balance the budget, but actually spend less than we collect in taxes, and use that surplus to pay down the debt. You know, like most of you do in your house every freaking day. What a concept. Too bad neither party offers this as a solution.

Agree 100% with this...hell, if the Libertarians became a political force and offered this, I would give serious thought about breaking from the Democratic party in that election to vote for them (despite the the differences I have with them on several other issues).

[meangreendork]

The tea parties are focused on congress.. But, GO DEMOCRATICS. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT...WIN, WIN, WIN

So funny to see people blame Bush for the debt, yet be totally OK with Pres. Obama quadrupling the budget, just as it is funny to see people horrified by Pres. Obama's spending, but totally OK with Bush's spending habits.

They (politicians) got you right where they want you.

How about we not balance the budget, but actually spend less than we collect in taxes, and use that surplus to pay down the debt. You know, like most of you do in your house every freaking day. What a concept. Too bad neither party offers this as a solution.

We may not be in the situation we're in had the Bush administrations not fumble the ball in the last 8 years, and had the Clinton administration not make their own share of mistakes. Bush isn't in the clear, but his administration is at fault just the same. Obama's kind of in an odd situation: he tries to do something and hope it works, and if he doesn't act, and it fails then we deal with the, "what if he had done something" argument.

That tea party needs to go down in front of Bush's house and in front of Clinton's house. The rest of it is really stupidity. Lots of yelling and marching and complaining but no other solutions. I like the occasional protest here and there, but uhm, this is like that retarded G20 protesting without the pointless breaking of things.

However, there should be less spending across the board...normally. This isn't a normal situation, and there are more factors in it than there are in my monthly household expenses.

[UNTFan23]

Reading comprehension is a lost art these days. Let me illustrate:

The tea parties are focused on congress.. But, GO DEMOCRATICS. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT...WIN, WIN, WIN

So funny to see people blame Bush for the debt, yet be totally OK with Pres. Obama quadrupling the budget, just as it is funny to see people horrified by Pres. Obama's spending, but totally OK with Bush's spending habits.

---Quadrupling the debt...really....??... That is why I am not a GOP person... stating the truth.... Check out the truth... That means the national debt is over $40,000,000,000,000 (40 trillion) . It isn't and isn't going to be any time soon....Bush only got it to $10-11 Trillion.

___________

--That is exactly what was happening in 1996-2000.---- more coming in than going out... The GOP congress would not allow them pay any of it down.. they wanted only tax cuts. Doing both made some sense. It did not happen. Some of those cuts made sense but not the whole deal that favored the extreme wealthy (15% capitol gains). At least the debt was barely climbing (less than the interest rate)

Budget != Debt

BTW, has anyone seen the movie

Edited April 10, 2009 by UNTFan23