Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

How do you know a conservative is lying? They use the phrase "individual federal income tax"Why don't you now tell us how much they pay of the other 60% of federal taxes, state and local taxes?I'll give you a hint- it's a hell of a lot less than that. But even if it weren't, the idea that taxes on yacht money are the same as taxes on rent money is simply absurd.

You know how you can tell a liberal is lying, they use the phrase; "Let me tell you how things really are..."And Yea, the tax on a yacht is about 1,000Xs greater, and it will be repaid year after year after year through gas fees and licensing.But let's take them away and give them to the poor, who pay no taxes, but require most city and state services.

[ShakeZuma 585]

For ironies sake

what?

[Balloon guy 158]

what?

[SilentSnow 1]

what?

Well there are multiple ironies about the Republican party, but I guess the singular irony would be more accurate here. Nice practical demonstration of irony though. I make a post that refutes much of what you believe about government and society, and all that you manage to get out of it is noticing a small grammatical error.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think it's ridiculous the GOP and Tea Party are holding hostage a fix to a problem that endangers our nation over extremely modest tax increases that poll favorably among all voters, spread the burden of deficit reduction, and didn't exactly kill business during Clinton's presidency.I mean, would you really torpedo a deal that increases eligibility ages for Medicare/SS, cuts defense spending, lowers Medicaid benefits just to stop modest tax increases and loophole closures? That's zealotry as far as I am concerned.....as is the assertion that the discussed increases amount to class warfare in any way.

eyeroll

[brvheart 1,752]

I make a post that refutes nearly everything you believe about government and society, and all that you manage to get out of it is noticing a small grammatical error.

Oh my goodness. Delusion much?

[El Guapo 8]

Taxes on rent money? What the he'll are you talking about?

[Balloon guy 158]

Taxes on rent money? What the he'll are you talking about?

Rich people buy yachts, poor people pay rent to rich people.The government should do something about this inequality of wealth.But not do anything about the inequality of schooling, work and effort to gain the income to buy a yacht.Just do something about the difference in the bank accounts.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Well there are multiple ironies about the Republican party, but I guess the singular irony would be more accurate here. Nice practical demonstration of irony though. I make a post that refutes much of what you believe about government and society, and all that you manage to get out of it is noticing a small grammatical error.

oh ok!

[mrdannyg 274]

It's pretty clear that Republicans are 70-80% to blame.

True, it must be everyone else that is insane.

eyeroll

I enjoyed this.I also quite enjoyed the hb/Cane discussion in the last page. Lots of good points on both sides. 10 dannyg points to both of you.

[mk 11]

It is ridiculous that the Democrats are holding hostage a fix to a problem that endangers our nation to some ideological class warfare that doesn't even make a dent in the problem.

i mean, do you even read what you write these days? who is holding the government hostage because of some useless ideology? only a crackpot ideologue could honestly be blind to the fact that raising the tax rate on the top 1% by literally 2-3% would be hugely beneficial to the balance sheet and have little to no effect on growth.

Apparently, the markets agree with those of us who can do math on this ridiculous debt ceiling deal.

what stocks are doing have absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling. like, as in, less than 0%. it's about european debt, horrible economic data and the end of QE. it's also seasonal.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

what stocks are doing have absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling. like, as in, less than 0%. nothing. it's about european debt and horrible economic data.

It doesn't have anything specifically to do with the debt ceiling but the fact that the recent debt ceiling bullshit showed that there are elements in the US legislative branch that are willing to use the nuclear option and blow things up isn't going to help the markets that's for sure.Also how you liking the liquidy trap ?http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/08/04/...liquidity-trap/http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/04/...mp;dlvrit=56943

[hblask 1]

I mean, come on. Tax increases only increase the rate of spending if politicians choose to do so.

So, every time? Well, as long as it is only a problem every time it has ever been tried, then I guess we should expect a different result this time.

The idea that the tax increases being discussed will drive business out of the country is absurd.

So you don't believe that we compete in the world market, and that costs affect decisions? I assume you are kidding, or just hoped I'd ignore this line.

I do not think it is a coincidence that our deficit skyrocketed right around the time we started the Bush Tax Cuts and neither does the CBO.

He increased spending way, way more than he cut taxes.

[hblask 1]

This graph proves my point exactly -- revenue varies just a little, spending varies a lot.l Revenue is near historic levels, spending is out of control.Thanks for (unintentionally) proving my point.

[CaneBrain 95]

This graph proves my point exactly -- revenue varies just a little, spending varies a lot.l Revenue is near historic levels, spending is out of control.Thanks for (unintentionally) proving my point.

It does? I think you might need glasses. Revenue is at its lowest point since 1960. Spending is 4.5% higher than average over the last 50 years and revenue is about 3.2% lower than average. I think that proves my point nicely.Oh and Henry, we may compete in a global market but nothing we do is going to make us more attractive than places that pay people pennies per day. Raising income taxes moderately will probably have a negligible effect in terms of businesses leaving the country. Like most tax hard-liners you constantly overrate the reaction of business to slightly higher or slightly lower taxes.Paraphrasing MK's hilarious quote----- "I can't wait to stay in America and create jobs now that my taxes stayed the same"----No one ever, in history.

[mk 11]

It doesn't have anything specifically to do with the debt ceiling but the fact that the recent debt ceiling bullshit showed that there are elements in the US legislative branch that are willing to use the nuclear option and blow things up isn't going to help the markets that's for sure.Also how you liking the liquidy trap ?http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/08/04/...liquidity-trap/http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/04/...mp;dlvrit=56943

i've been talking about this for years now. the velocity of money is still at a snail's pace due to fear of counter-party risk.

[mk 11]

the main takeaway from that graph:clinton was a fucking boss

[mk 11]

fun markets today, fyiswongs ftw

[SilentSnow 1]

This graph proves my point exactly -- revenue varies just a little, spending varies a lot.l Revenue is near historic levels, spending is out of control.Thanks for (unintentionally) proving my point.

I think the numbers are 24.0% spending(or less with the recent cuts), 14.8% revenue. So you're saying that a 3.7% gap is a disaster, while a 3.2% gap is perfectly acceptable. Interesting. I've already pointed out enough objective problems with your posts. I'll leave this "subjective" interpretation alone.Also, the deficit reduction plan I proposed was 63% spending cuts, 37% tax increases, so don't try to falsely claim that all I'm trying to do is raise taxes. What percent of tax increases would be acceptable to you, and how specifically would you balance the budget if that percent is zero?

[hblask 1]

It does? I think you might need glasses. Revenue is at its lowest point since 1960. Spending is 4.5% higher than average over the last 50 years and revenue is about 3.2% lower than average. I think that proves my point nicely.

Yes, revenue varies in a vary narrow range, around 18& or 19%, and has for the last 60 years, regardless of tax rates. I've previously posted a graph that demonstrates that much more clearly; I can dig it up again if necessary. Revenue is barely affected by tax rates; it is mostly affected by the economy. The amount that you can change revenue by changing tax rates doesn't make a dent in the additional spending we've taken on. It's like trying to pay your mortgage by picking up change with a metal detector at the beach -- it won't make a dent.

Oh and Henry, we may compete in a global market but nothing we do is going to make us more attractive than places that pay people pennies per day. Raising income taxes moderately will probably have a negligible effect in terms of businesses leaving the country. Like most tax hard-liners you constantly overrate the reaction of business to slightly higher or slightly lower taxes.

Do I really have to go over this again? At any given point, we are somewhere near an equilibrium, based on costs, legal structures, regulations, etc. Based on that equilibrium, businesses have decided where to locate. If we raise the cost of doing business here, that equilibrium is thrown off, and the next business to expand will see that, and will choose elsewhere. So no, someone with a $500 million dollar factory is not going to pack up and leave. But someone who is trying to decide between two places that are competitive will be affected by making the costs higher here. So the affect you see is cumulative rather than instantaneous. If you reduce the number of companies locating here by 0.5% per year, after 10 years that is a lot of jobs lost.That's just how the business world works. It takes time for the effects to be noticed, but anyone who would argue that a higher cost structure doesn't affect business decisions is just living in denial.

[hblask 1]

What percent of tax increases would be acceptable to you, and how specifically would you balance the budget if that percent is zero?

No tax increases are acceptable, we've sent enough jobs overseas already.There are now dozens of plans to balance the budget, from the timid plan of Paul Ryan to the more aggressive plan of Rand Paul.Easiest way:Cut spending levels to what they were at the end of the Clinton years and freeze them there.Means test SS and Medicare and raise the retirement age to match life expectency.Cut DoD spending by at least 30%.Done. It'd be easy if the Dems didn't play the fear card to seniors and the R's didn't play the fear card on defense spending.

[CaneBrain 95]

I seriously doubt the kind of cost increases businesses will see from the discussed tax changes would swing their decision. But, I bet if you gave in on the income tax thing and the discussed loophole closures, you could get the Democrats to lower the corporate tax rate to help stimulate job growth. Problem solved. Compromise is fun. If you think that our long-term deficit reduction is going to happen properly without the GOP/TP giving in on something, you're wrong.

[hblask 1]

I seriously doubt the kind of cost increases businesses will see from the discussed tax changes would swing their decision. But, I bet if you gave in on the income tax thing and the discussed loophole closures, you could get the Democrats to lower the corporate tax rate to help stimulate job growth. Problem solved. Compromise is fun.

As we've discussed before, closing loopholes which are thinly veiled corporate welfare are a legitimate goal. If that raises the rates on *some* companies, it could be good for the economy in the long run. Giving targeted tax breaks to favored companies creates inefficiency in the market because those companies have less incentive to compete, and more efficient companies that can't get the tax break are priced out of the market.Across the board tax hikes will definitely harm business; many companies run on razor thin margins, so even tiny increases in costs can shift a decision.

If you think that our long-term deficit reduction is going to happen properly without the GOP/TP giving in on something, you're wrong.

If you think that making symbolic gestures that pander to the LCD of the Democratic party will do anything to solve our long-term deficit problem, you are wrong.Whether the Democrats hold the economy hostage to that is another story; I think they may just be cynical enough to do it.

[El Guapo 8]

I have posted this all over the place, but I will try and put together what my plan would be (granted I don't know the exact numbers but I think something like the following would work.)1.) All Government programs/entities/budgets should be audited annually by at least 2 3rd party firms as a best effort to minimize waste. (i.e. Deloitte/KPMG) - based on a few things I have read, I think this could immediately cut 100 Billion out of the budget, and over time possibly double that.2.) Extend SS slowly to 72, create a means test for those who have income of over $XXX,XXX (maybe 250K, not sure), allow for investments other than treasuries so the fund can operate like a real pension.3.) Slowly extend Medicare to 72, in the mean time, put a slight larger burden on the retiree with a larger supplmental insurance cost to cover that 7 year gap.4.) Cut welfare dramatically and completely overhaul them5.) reduce unemployment benefits back to what they used to be6.) Move military out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop using our dollars to rebuild these countries. We need to use their money, and if it means taking control of oil to do so, then that's what we do.7.) Reduce the Federal Reserves role in our economy. They are supposed to be a private bank.8.) Abolish FNM and FRMC9.) Add a tax bracket for income above 500K or 1MM at 39.6%, probably get rid of the 10% tax bracket.10.) Lower corporate tax rates, and give tax breaks to companies who bring jobs back to the US11.) Greatly restrict Lobbyist activities in Washington12.) Repeal the health care bill and open up intrastate plans, so there are not borders13.) Take a hard look at the discretionary part of the budget and cut like crazy, allow the private sector to replace areas where they can (Rand Paul does a lot of this in his plan)14.) Create a system for government employees to earn a bonus based on job performance. Raises not based on schedules, but on merit. Remove the system of not being able fire a bad employee.15.) Give bonuses to departments that come in under budget at all levels of government.That's a start

[85suited 0]

I have posted this all over the place, but I will try and put together what my plan would be (granted I don't know the exact numbers but I think something like the following would work.)1.) All Government programs/entities/budgets should be audited annually by at least 2 3rd party firms as a best effort to minimize waste. (i.e. Deloitte/KPMG) - based on a few things I have read, I think this could immediately cut 100 Billion out of the budget, and over time possibly double that.2.) Extend SS slowly to 72, create a means test for those who have income of over $XXX,XXX (maybe 250K, not sure), allow for investments other than treasuries so the fund can operate like a real pension.3.) Slowly extend Medicare to 72, in the mean time, put a slight larger burden on the retiree with a larger supplmental insurance cost to cover that 7 year gap.4.) Cut welfare dramatically and completely overhaul them5.) reduce unemployment benefits back to what they used to be6.) Move military out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop using our dollars to rebuild these countries. We need to use their money, and if it means taking control of oil to do so, then that's what we do.7.) Reduce the Federal Reserves role in our economy. They are supposed to be a private bank.8.) Abolish FNM and FRMC9.) Add a tax bracket for income above 500K or 1MM at 39.6%, probably get rid of the 10% tax bracket.10.) Lower corporate tax rates, and give tax breaks to companies who bring jobs back to the US11.) Greatly restrict Lobbyist activities in Washington12.) Repeal the health care bill and open up intrastate plans, so there are not borders13.) Take a hard look at the discretionary part of the budget and cut like crazy, allow the private sector to replace areas where they can (Rand Paul does a lot of this in his plan)14.) Create a system for government employees to earn a bonus based on job performance. Raises not based on schedules, but on merit. Remove the system of not being able fire a bad employee.15.) Give bonuses to departments that come in under budget at all levels of government.That's a start

agree 100% makes too much sense for washington to do this