BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

[Dr.Who]

Both of you Tea Party Pollyannas are wearing rose colored glasses, and to upgrade the mixed metaphor, you are exhibiting the following:

Of course all businesses and every single person wants the country to thrive economically.

Let me put it simply. Suppose you go to a board of directors meeting in a for-profit company and there are two plans the first one maximizes their profit to 4 million a quarter. The second plan gives them only 3 million a quarter, but is good in some way for the people or economy in general. I maintain that a very strong majority will go for the more profitable plan. That is what I meant when I said industry was interested in their own profits than the economy. If you think otherwise, you got your head up your butt.

GenSeneca, you have been too cowardly to post a plan that you think would cut deficit spending and decrease the national debt. You said, "The private sector is the only realistic answer." Let's hear your plan.

Your original statements are in direct and absolutely undeniable contrast to these statements.

Perhaps all along you meant to say that business has a bias toward making a profit even if that means sacrificing some of the common good.

 

[Dr.Who]

B

Of course all businesses and every single person wants the country to thrive economically.
.

Well now that pic was kind of insulting.

I think as a penance for that and for being either wrong or remarkably unclear you should post your line above as your signature for one week.

I dare you.

 

[GenSeneca]

Both of you Tea Party Pollyannas are wearing rose colored glasses, and to upgrade the mixed metaphor, you are exhibiting the following:

Cut the personal crap. - Lagboltz

Of course all businesses and every single person wants the country to thrive economically.

That really is a 180 from your earlier statements... Should I expect another ad hominem for pointing this out?

Let me put it simply. Suppose you go to a board of directors meeting in a for-profit company and there are two plans the first one maximizes their profit to 4 million a quarter. The second plan gives them only 3 million a quarter, but is good in some way for the people or economy in general. I maintain that a very strong majority will go for the more profitable plan. That is what I meant when I said industry was interested in their own profits than the economy. If you think otherwise, you got your head up your butt.

Both plans could be good for the economy. For example, if plan 1 is intended to maximize profit in order for the company to expand, like opening additional branches in other states, then such a plan would be good for the economy. If plan 2 settled for less in profit to provide additional pay/benefits to their employees as a way to both obtain and retain the best and brightest employees available, that too would be good for the economy.

So between those two plans, which one does more for the common good?

GenSeneca, you have been too cowardly to post a plan that you think would cut deficit spending and decrease the national debt. You said, "The private sector is the only realistic answer." Let's hear your plan.

Dr.Who, this is the type of red herring attack I was talking about. Most people have too much pride to admit when they've been proven wrong, so they go on the offensive... But I like Lagboltz and I know he's trying to save face here, so I'll play along.

My concept is very simple: Reduce federal spending to 16% of GDP or less and make sure it doesn't rise above that amount. As for specific cuts, I don't care where the cuts from so long as they happen. In our worst years, we will have a balanced budget, in average years, we will have a surplus of 2% of GDP, in our best years we will have a surplus of 4% of GDP. No more deficits and we start paying down the debt from day one.

And if the government established a separation of economy and state, the private sector would boom with growth, which means the economy would boom along with it.

 

[Alias]

When the left calls you "cowardly", then you've won the debate. Congratulations.

 

[GenSeneca]

When the left calls you "cowardly", then you've won the debate. Congratulations.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Dr.Who]

My concept is very simple: Reduce federal spending to 16% of GDP or less and make sure it doesn't rise above that amount. As for specific cuts, I don't care where the cuts from so long as they happen. In our worst years, we will have a balanced budget, in average years, we will have a surplus of 2% of GDP, in our best years we will have a surplus of 4% of GDP. No more deficits and we start paying down the debt from day one.

Hmmm, that's actually genius.

And if the government established a separation of economy and state, the private sector would boom with growth, which means the economy would boom along with it.

But that is just wishful thinking, as if the gov would only fulfil its constitutional objectives and not mess around with whack-a-mole.

But if they did stop messing with the economy the savings right there would add up to huge amounts. So, how would we keep congress busy and feeling important?

Lastly, I would add that while revenue has never exceeded a number just short of 19% (since whatever year that figure dates from) under your plan the revenue of the gov just might exceed that magic ceiling.

 

[GenSeneca]

Hmmm, that's actually genius.

I wonder how many Americans would agree with such a plan...

But that is just wishful thinking, as if the gov would only fulfil its constitutional objectives and not mess around with whack-a-mole.

True... Government will not willingly give up their power to reward political allies and punish political foes.

But if they did stop messing with the economy the savings right there would add up to huge amounts. So, how would we keep congress busy and feeling important?

Pass a "Sunset Bill" which automatically puts a sunset clause on all new legislation as well as making sunset clauses retroactive on all prior legislation. This means congress will have to busy themselves with going through the tens of thousands of federal laws that are on the books and having to vote on each one as to whether the law should be re-enacted or allowed to pass to the dustbin of history.

Lastly, I would add that while revenue has never exceeded a number just short of 19% (since whatever year that figure dates from) under your plan the revenue of the gov just might exceed that magic ceiling.

According to CBO, in FY '00 our revenue was either 20.9% or 20.6% of GDP. The latter is the most recently published figure while the former is from a couple years ago.

 

[Lagboltz]

Cut the personal crap. - Lagboltz

When you post a silly joke budget plan copied from the Heritage Foundation, and post bunch of personal crap, and continue with an unnecessary picture of the dog on your post, I really lose respect for your attitude, and strongly feel that you are only interested in just playing games here.

That really is a 180 from your earlier statements...

Not at all. My earlier statements that I tried to make clear was that businesses generally act in their own best interests, which take precedence over the interests of the American people or economy. There are many examples but the simplest to understand is outsourcing manufacturing and service jobs; The Enron syndrome; and the G.E. tax avoidance by lending schemes abroad. Should they do these things? Of course. That's the best business model for them and they owe their stockholders. But that does not help the American people, nor create jobs, nor cause a boom the economy. That's not a major issue for them.

Another example -- in my county larger companies are often given generous tax breaks to open offices here. Two of them took the tax breaks and within a short period of time laid off over half their staff and outsourced half the jobs. That hurt our area in terms of lost taxes and jobs, but that's the way of business.

Both plans could be good for the economy. For example, if plan 1 is intended to maximize profit in order for the company to expand, like opening additional branches in other states, then such a plan would be good for the economy. If plan 2 settled for less in profit to provide additional pay/benefits to their employees as a way to both obtain and retain the best and brightest employees available, that too would be good for the economy.

So between those two plans, which one does more for the common good?

The boards of directors certainly have been voting to increase executive salaries according to your example of plan 2, but this doesn't help the american economy. I was referring to the fact that they would prefer voting for the things I mentioned above such as outsourcing etc, and these things would not benefit Americans either.

My concept is very simple: Reduce federal spending to 16% of GDP or less and make sure it doesn't rise above that amount. As for specific cuts, I don't care where the cuts from so long as they happen. In our worst years, we will have a balanced budget, in average years, we will have a surplus of 2% of GDP, in our best years we will have a surplus of 4% of GDP. No more deficits and we start paying down the debt from day one.

I have said several times that I believe we must do deep spending cuts, but the devil is in the details. You don't care where the cuts come from, but that is where the congress and Americans are deadlocked. That is what I am interested in hearing from you -- the details of what areas should be cut. I already told you the cuts I thought were appropriate.

Further, I think we should raise the highest tax margins, and put in a more progressive capital gains tax simply because that would ease the decision on tax cuts and start paying off the debt.

I know you disagree, but I believe, along with you, that raising taxes will not affect the deficit because the government would simply expand and suck all that up. So a tax increase is worthless without deep spending cuts.

And if the government established a separation of economy and state, the private sector would boom with growth, which means the economy would boom along with it.

That is a sanguine outlook that I don't have. I don't trust unencumbered business to do what is best for their own country.

If I understand you correctly, you want to eliminate regulations. If so, what sort of regulations do you think are preventing a boom? (Other than the obvious stupid ones like considering milk as an oil.)

 

[Dr.Who]

Not at all. My earlier statements that I tried to make clear was that businesses generally act in their own best interests, which take precedence over the interests of the American people or economy. There are many examples but the simplest to understand is outsourcing manufacturing and service jobs; The Enron syndrome; and the G.E. tax avoidance by lending schemes abroad. Should they do these things? Of course. That's the best business model for them and they owe their stockholders. But that does not help the American people, nor create jobs, nor cause a boom the economy. That's not a major issue for them.

Then you did a poor job of expressing yourself as it certainly look much more like the anti-business model of the left.

Another example -- in my county larger companies are often given generous tax breaks to open offices here. Two of them took the tax breaks and within a short period of time laid off over half their staff and outsourced half the jobs. That hurt our area in terms of lost taxes and jobs, but that's the way of business.

The boards of directors certainly have been voting to increase executive salaries according to your example of plan 2, but this doesn't help the american economy. I was referring to the fact that they would prefer voting for the things I mentioned above such as outsourcing etc, and these things would not benefit Americans either.

Actually, laying off workers, outsourcing, and paying high salaries to executives just might be very good for America. It is short sighted not to explore things more fully.

Further, I think we should raise the highest tax margins, and put in a more progressive capital gains tax simply because that would ease the decision on tax cuts and start paying off the debt.

The evidence is still showing that raising the highest tax rates would not increase revenue which is the same as saying that progressive taxes do not increase revenues.

That is a sanguine outlook that I don't have. I don't trust unencumbered business to do what is best for their own country.

Which also is looking like a statement that you do not think business does any good at all. If you had said "in general" or "on balance" or "much of the time" that would be different. I would still disagree but at least the disagreement would only be a matter of degree. I think that businesses do what is best for them AND they do what is best for the country and those interests overlap most of the time.

If I understand you correctly, you want to eliminate regulations. If so, what sort of regulations do you think are preventing a boom? (Other than the obvious stupid ones like considering milk as an oil.)

If the regulation is an example of gov micromanaging business or the economy and not an example of gov protecting rights then it should go.

The recent minimum wage increase that Obama put forth hurt the economy quite a bit.

 

[GenSeneca]

When you post a silly joke budget plan copied from the Heritage Foundation, and post bunch of personal crap, and continue with an unnecessary picture of the dog on your post, I really lose respect for your attitude, and strongly feel that you are only interested in just playing games here.

You can always add me to your "ignore" list.

Not at all. My earlier statements that I tried to make clear was that businesses generally act in their own best interests, which take precedence over the interests of the American people or economy. There are many examples but the simplest to understand is outsourcing manufacturing and service jobs; The Enron syndrome; and the G.E. tax avoidance by lending schemes abroad. Should they do these things? Of course. That's the best business model for them and they owe their stockholders. But that does not help the American people, nor create jobs, nor cause a boom the economy. That's not a major issue for them.

Another example -- in my county larger companies are often given generous tax breaks to open offices here. Two of them took the tax breaks and within a short period of time laid off over half their staff and outsourced half the jobs. That hurt our area in terms of lost taxes and jobs, but that's the way of business.

The boards of directors certainly have been voting to increase executive salaries according to your example of plan 2, but this doesn't help the american economy. I was referring to the fact that they would prefer voting for the things I mentioned above such as outsourcing etc, and these things would not benefit Americans either.

How do you believe companies can best serve the American people and the economy as a whole?

I have said several times that I believe we must do deep spending cuts, but the devil is in the details. You don't care where the cuts come from, but that is where the congress and Americans are deadlocked. That is what I am interested in hearing from you -- the details of what areas should be cut. I already told you the cuts I thought were appropriate.

Further, I think we should raise the highest tax margins, and put in a more progressive capital gains tax simply because that would ease the decision on tax cuts and start paying off the debt.

I know you disagree, but I believe, along with you, that raising taxes will not affect the deficit because the government would simply expand and suck all that up. So a tax increase is worthless without deep spending cuts.

Like I said, I don't care where the cuts come from. The only people who do care, are those with something to lose and/or those who feel their pet budget item is a sacred cow that cannot be touched. In general, Republicans consider defense their sacred cow while the sacred cow of Democrats is entitlement spending. There isn't a single item in the budget, save debt service, that I would object to being subject to cuts.

Also, when I use the word "cut", I mean an actual reduction in total spending from the year before. For example, if we spend $10 this year, and we cut spending by 10%, we will spend $9 the following year.

When you use the word, "cut", are you using it as I have or do you consider reducing budgetary growth to be a "cut"? For example, we spend $10 this year, people are calling for a 50% increase in spending next year ($15), you want an increase of 20% ($12) and you consider that a budget "cut".

That is a sanguine outlook that I don't have. I don't trust unencumbered business to do what is best for their own country.

Unencumbered? Business should adhere to the law. This means they cannot use force or fraud against others and when/if a business violates the rights of others, then every person responsible should be punished to the full extent of the law.

What is it that you think business should be encumbered by?

If I understand you correctly, you want to eliminate regulations. If so, what sort of regulations do you think are preventing a boom? (Other than the obvious stupid ones like considering milk as an oil.)

All of them, in one way or another, slow or even halt economic productivity.

 

[Lagboltz]

You can always add me to your "ignore" list.

When somebody's posts become largely banal adversity they go on my ignore list. There are already a number on my list.

How do you believe companies can best serve the American people and the economy as a whole?

Companies can stop thinking about short term gains at the expense of long term prosperity; reduce outsourcing, etc. But these are moot points. They won't do it and certainly nobody can tell them to.

Like I said, I don't care where the cuts come from. The only people who do care, are those with something to lose and/or those who feel their pet budget item is a sacred cow that cannot be touched. In general, Republicans consider defense their sacred cow while the sacred cow of Democrats is entitlement spending. There isn't a single item in the budget, save debt service, that I would object to being subject to cuts.

Also, when I use the word "cut", I mean an actual reduction in total spending from the year before. For example, if we spend $10 this year, and we cut spending by 10%, we will spend $9 the following year.

When you use the word, "cut", are you using it as I have or do you consider reducing budgetary growth to be a "cut"? For example, we spend $10 this year, people are calling for a 50% increase in spending next year ($15), you want an increase of 20% ($12) and you consider that a budget "cut".

What I mean by cut is spend $10 this year and $5 next year. In some cases, $0 next year, such as subsidies and earmarks, these individually are drops in the bucket, but they add up.

Unencumbered? Business should adhere to the law. This means they cannot use force or fraud against others and when/if a business violates the rights of others, then every person responsible should be punished to the full extent of the law.

What is it that you think business should be encumbered by?

I'm using the word encumbered to mean regulations.

All of them, in one way or another, slow or even halt economic productivity.

Gov regulation is a long topic outside the scope of this discourse, but in general I think many regulations are essential. And, of course many are stupid.

Epilogue:
Insofar as most on the right are aggressively pressing for spending cuts and no taxes, I was hoping for a discussion to see just how much they thought this through and where they would take it. But it seems that nobody here wants to get to that level of debate.

There probably isn't any point in carrying on this discussion unless you have something to add.

 

[GenSeneca]

When somebody's posts become largely banal adversity they go on my ignore list.

Matthew 7:3

Companies can stop thinking about short term gains at the expense of long term prosperity; reduce outsourcing, etc.

Outsourcing impacts less than 0.2% of US employment. Perhaps you could offer other examples, preferably examples with a more significant impact.

What I mean by cut is spend $10 this year and $5 next year. In some cases, $0 next year, such as subsidies and earmarks, these individually are drops in the bucket, but they add up.

Very well.

I'm using the word encumbered to mean regulations.

As individuals, we are "encumbered" by laws, our personal lives are not (yet) regulated by the state. Are laws not sufficient?

Gov regulation is a long topic outside the scope of this discourse, but in general I think many regulations are essential. And, of course many are stupid.

You are the one who offered a red herring, I agreed to follow it to wherever it takes the discussion. If you do not wish to continue in this direction, we can go back to discussing your claim that wealth gaps lead to unelected leaders taking power, or you can explain how massive deficit spending by government can create an economic boom. I'd enjoy hearing about either of those.

Epilogue:
Insofar as most on the right are aggressively pressing for spending cuts and no taxes, I was hoping for a discussion to see just how much they thought this through and where they would take it. But it seems that nobody here wants to get to that level of debate.

I offered a 16% solution that would end our deficits and create a generous surplus to pay down the debt. I really don't care where the cuts come from, in fact, I would have no objection to you offering all the cuts necessary. If you want someone to argue with you about where money should be cut, then look for people who have a dog in that race. As for me, there is absolutely nothing inside the federal budget, save debt service, that I feel should be untouched by the necessary cuts.

There probably isn't any point in carrying on this discussion unless you have something to add.

I will add this... If you actually wanted to work with someone, this would be your chance to do so. I have offered a target for federal spending to be cut to 16% of GDP, if you would like to offer a suggestion for what cuts could be made to reach that goal, then we will have worked together to create a "bipartisan" plan.

However, it doesn't look like you're at all interested in working with others, given your dissappointment about having nobody to argue with over where budget cuts should be made. So if you consider arguing with others to be a more productive use of time than working with them, I'll play devils advocate and disagree with any cuts you offer. Would that satisfy your need for entertainment?

 

[Lagboltz]

Outsourcing impacts less than 0.2% of US employment. Perhaps you could offer other examples, preferably examples with a more significant impact.

It's more like 2%

... or you can explain how massive deficit spending by government can create an economic boom. ...

That's certainly a strawman.

I offered a 16% solution that would end our deficits and create a generous surplus to pay down the debt. I really don't care where the cuts come from, in fact, I would have no objection to you offering all the cuts necessary. If you want someone to argue with you about where money should be cut, then look for people who have a dog in that race. As for me, there is absolutely nothing inside the federal budget, save debt service, that I feel should be untouched by the necessary cuts.

I will add this... If you actually wanted to work with someone, this would be your chance to do so. I have offered a target for federal spending to be cut to 16% of GDP, if you would like to offer a suggestion for what cuts could be made to reach that goal, then we will have worked together to create a "bipartisan" plan.

Clinton seemed to do well at around 33% at the end of his term. I would go with working it down to around 30%.
I have already offered many suggestions on cuts.

However, it doesn't look like you're at all interested in working with others, given your dissappointment about having nobody to argue with over where budget cuts should be made. So if you consider arguing with others to be a more productive use of time than working with them, I'll play devils advocate and disagree with any cuts you offer. Would that satisfy your need for entertainment?

So you just can't help making snide remarks.
Entertainment? No. Understanding what conservatives are thinking is educational, not entertaining.

 

[BigRob]

No. Understanding what conservatives are thinking is educational, not entertaining.

You could just read the Roadmap to the Future proposed by Paul Ryan.

And before we hear the typical responses find the answers below:

“Provides tax breaks for the wealthy” - The proposed simplified tax code retains its progressivity, and cleans out the tangled web of tax deductions and credits that are disproportionately used by the wealthy. The tax base is broadened so that rates can be lowered. It also offers generous standard deductions so that a middle-income family of four pays no taxes on the first $39,000 of its income. More important, the business-tax changes in the Roadmap would deliver what all Americans seek at this time — increased job opportunities and higher economic growth.

“Ends Medicare as we know it” - Under the President’s budget, Medicare would simply grow itself right into bankruptcy. Unlike the Majority’s health care overhaul that cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars to create a new entitlement, the Roadmap makes no change for people 55 and older. The Roadmap makes Medicare permanently solvent so that it can fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for today’s and future generations of seniors. The Medicare reforms provide future beneficiaries (those currently under 55) with health coverage options just like the program enjoyed by Members of Congress.

“Privatizes Social Security” -The Roadmap makes no change for those 55 and older. It provides future retirees with the option to either stay in the traditional government-run system or to enter a system of guaranteed personal accounts. Neither option is privatized. In the personal-accounts system, the accounts are owned by the individual, and managed and overseen by Social Security — not a stockbroker or private investment firm. People choosing the reformed system select from a handful of low-risk, government-regulated options — just as Members of Congress and Federal employees do.

 

[Lagboltz]

You could just read the Roadmap to the Future proposed by Paul Ryan.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have many issues with his plan. Because his plan is 55 pages, I will focus one thing that is puzzling.

(Part of) Paul Ryan's plan:

Elimination of Double Taxation of Savings. The current system essentially taxes savings twice: individuals pay tax on their earnings and, if they choose to invest those after-tax funds, they pay another tax on the return from their savings (i.e. interest, capital gains, or dividends). This proposal eliminates the second layer of taxation....

Simplified Income Tax Rates. In contrast to the six tax rates in the current code, the simplified tax has just two rates: 10 percent on adjusted gross income [AGI] (as defined below) up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts....

If I understand this correctly, for those making really big bucks, their tax will be roughly 25% on earnings and zero % on interest, capital gains and dividends.

Let's take the famous billionaire exemplar Warren Buffet who paid 17.7% taxes on $46 M. Using the fact that his top margin was 35% taxable earnings and his capital gains was at 15%, a little bit of algebra shows roughly his taxable earnings was $6.2 M and his capital gains was $39.8 M.

Using Ryan's plan, Buffet's tax would be .25 x $6.2 M + 0 x $ 39.8 M = $1.55 M.
Buffet's percentage tax would then be 1.55/46.0 = 3.4%.

Did I understand Ryan's tax plan correctly?