Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150892
InkL0sed wrote:Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.
And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.
thegreekdog wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff wrote:PhatScotty says that this compromise stuff is bullshit that cannot work!
You saw a lot of Congress discussing these issues, did you? You must be reading different news stories than me (and my news consumption crosses political spectrums, so that would be hard).
EDIT - Also, I'm not in favor of repealing the Bush-era tax cuts. I'm not compromising on that one (except that Greecepwns can repeal those cuts for those couples making over $1 million and can increase taxes on those couples as well - so perhaps that is the compromise).
Some additional revenue-generators (for which I cannot find revenue numbers):
- Increase the estate tax rate, make it graduated for those with estates valued at over $1 million, provide exemptions for non-liquid assets. This should raise significant revenue.
- Remove all deductions and credits related to any particular business or industry (I believe Greecepwns only includes the oil industry... I think we need to include all of them).
Related aside - I listed three things: (1) increasing tax rates on those making over $1 million; (2) increasing the estate tax rate; and (3) removing deductions and credits related to any particular business or industry. How many of those things have been proposed or discussed by either party? Zero. Why? Because both parties are pro-establishment and pro-wealthy/big business.
Why are you so opposed to the Bush Era tax cuts being rolled back? weren't they supposed to be temporary anyways ? Is this basically NIMBYSM but for taxes?
Because I think taxes for couples making less than $1 million are too high (let's call those people the "non-rich"). Because I think the non-rich shouldn't have to pay more taxes. Because I think that the rich (those couples making over $1 million) should pay more taxes.
I'm not sure I'm opposed to the Bush era tax cuts being rolled back. I'm opposed to all of the Bush era tax cuts being rolled back.
Yes, it's partially Not in My Back Yardism, but not entirely. Also, I believe the Bush era tax cuts applied to all individuals (regardless of income), so the taxes would be increased on all Americans*
* This is not something proposed by either party - the Democrats just want to roll back the taxes for anyone making over $250,000). I suspect this is because actual rich people (the ones that actually own private jets) will take advantage of credits, deductions, and tax planning to get out of paying any substantial tax increase, while the people that don't have tax advisors will pay more income taxes.
Baron Von PWN wrote:Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.
Baron Von PWN wrote:Hmm funny I thought the US fed had a massive deficit that almost caused the government to default. Since that isn't the case a tax increase of 2% (on almost all tax brackets) is indeed unreasonable.
Baron Von PWN wrote:Given the current situation in the US a tax increase of 2% seems pretty modest.
Baron Von PWN wrote:How do you feel about leaving tax rates as they are but cutting loopholes and deductibles?
Baron Von PWN wrote:The economist ran an article in their latest issue decrying the gutlessness of american and European legislators. That the US government is terrified to ask for even a 2% decrease in spending then it has the deficit it has is just pathetic. Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without cutting spending and present voters with reality.
saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.
I don't comprehend the fantastical portion of this. In August the US will intake $175 billion in non-debt revenue (and have debt service of $30 billion). Just spend $175 billion in August instead of $250 billion and the budget has been instantly balanced sans tax increases.
Baron Von PWN wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.
I don't comprehend the fantastical portion of this. In August the US will intake $175 billion in non-debt revenue (and have debt service of $30 billion). Just spend $175 billion in August instead of $250 billion and the budget has been instantly balanced sans tax increases.
Cutting out that much money from the economy would have some pretty serious consequences.
thegreekdog wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:Hmm funny I thought the US fed had a massive deficit that almost caused the government to default. Since that isn't the case a tax increase of 2% (on almost all tax brackets) is indeed unreasonable.
1.What? I don't understand your sarcasm. I guess it's because I didn't suggest that the massive deficit that almost caused the government to default (but didn't because the government would never have let itself default) was caused by anything other than not having enough loot.Baron Von PWN wrote:Given the current situation in the US a tax increase of 2% seems pretty modest.
What current situation specifically? The almost, but not quite, US default (Oh noes! We almost defaulted!)? The struggling economy? The idea that we might not be able to prosecute three simultaneous wars?
thegreekdog wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:The economist ran an article in their latest issue decrying the gutlessness of american and European legislators. That the US government is terrified to ask for even a 2% decrease in spending then it has the deficit it has is just pathetic. Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without cutting spending and present voters with reality.
Changed slightly.
The question I will ask you, in light of this thread, where Greecepwns, a person without conservative tendencies has eliminated a number of spending items without touching most domestic spending - Why do we have to raise taxes? Why can't we cut spending? If it's a matter of "political fairness" (i.e. we don't want one side giving up something without the other side giving up something), we can balance out the "war cuts" with domestic cuts and the "business cuts" with more domestic cuts.
Baron Von PWN wrote:1. When your government has such a large deficit, it seems strange to me to get up in arms over a 2% tax increase.
Baron Von PWN wrote:2. your large deficit spending and politicians who are unwilling to deal with it (on either side)
Baron Von PWN wrote:You will notice Greece's plan includes a number of revenue increases as well. That is a reasonable plan, one which involves both spending cuts and increases in revenue. trying to solve the problem purely through cuts or purely through increased revenue will cause all sorts of problems. Cut too much and you destabalise the economy, tax too much and you destabilise the economy. This is why a mixture of cuts and increased revenue is needed,
thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.
And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.
Do you have a link to those (seriously)?
Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.
InkL0sed wrote:thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.
And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.
Do you have a link to those (seriously)?
Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.
At risk of sounding snarky, I'm not going to waste my time burrowing for past articles that would satisfy you just because my memory happens to be superior.
Baron Von PWN wrote:1. When your government has such a large deficit, it seems strange to me to get up in arms over a 2% tax increase.
Night Strike wrote: If we let them drastically increase spending and then pay their higher taxes afterwards, what's to stop them from doing it again? .
Then, Saxi, let's see how far you can take this stance. Try to balance the budget without raising taxes.saxitoxin wrote:A child rapist and a serial killer live on our street.The left has said all we can do is send children to the rapist in exchange for him monitoring the killer.
This false choice is the centrifuge of the fake Left-Right dichotomy. Being forced to choose from a set of predefined options (taxes / spending cuts / taxes & spending cuts) is not rational choice, it is a system of control; stage-managed democracy.
The right has said all we can do is let the serial killer run amok in exchange for him monitoring the rapist.
There is a third position that calls on the neighborhood to band together and execute both the killer (corporations) and the rapist (government). I wouldn't support a .0001% increase in taxes on trillionaires to save kittens from a glue factory. Not because I like trillionaires or dislike kittens, but because I hate the government and realize that money - regardless of its source - solidifies their power.The USG can eliminate its deficit without raising taxes. If AA+, A, BBB credit ratings are what it takes to accomplish that, that's just the price of progress. No pain, no gain.
thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:thegreekdog wrote:InkL0sed wrote:Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.
And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.
Do you have a link to those (seriously)?
Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.
At risk of sounding snarky, I'm not going to waste my time burrowing for past articles that would satisfy you just because my memory happens to be superior.
Fine, I win.
GreecePwns wrote:Then, Saxi, let's see how far you can take this stance. Try to balance the budget without raising taxes.saxitoxin wrote:A child rapist and a serial killer live on our street.The left has said all we can do is send children to the rapist in exchange for him monitoring the killer.
This false choice is the centrifuge of the fake Left-Right dichotomy. Being forced to choose from a set of predefined options (taxes / spending cuts / taxes & spending cuts) is not rational choice, it is a system of control; stage-managed democracy.
The right has said all we can do is let the serial killer run amok in exchange for him monitoring the rapist.
There is a third position that calls on the neighborhood to band together and execute both the killer (corporations) and the rapist (government). I wouldn't support a .0001% increase in taxes on trillionaires to save kittens from a glue factory. Not because I like trillionaires or dislike kittens, but because I hate the government and realize that money - regardless of its source - solidifies their power.The USG can eliminate its deficit without raising taxes. If AA+, A, BBB credit ratings are what it takes to accomplish that, that's just the price of progress. No pain, no gain.
saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.
I don't comprehend the fantastical portion of this. In August the US will intake $175 billion in non-debt revenue (and have debt service of $30 billion). Just spend $175 billion in August instead of $250 billion and the budget has been instantly balanced sans tax increases.
Cutting out that much money from the economy would have some pretty serious consequences.
cutting money from government budgetdoes not equal
cutting money from the economy
Baron Von PWN wrote:I'm not saying don't cut government spending. It needs to be cut, just don't go crazy with the cuts as they could have more serious economic impacts than the spending does. This is why it is a good idea to mix both, as you will suffer only the moderate consequences of both actions rather than the sever consequences of one or the other.
Night Strike wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:I'm not saying don't cut government spending. It needs to be cut, just don't go crazy with the cuts as they could have more serious economic impacts than the spending does. This is why it is a good idea to mix both, as you will suffer only the moderate consequences of both actions rather than the sever consequences of one or the other.
So it's ok to massively increase spending way above the amount of income taken in, but it's not ok to massively cut the spending to return to levels that are simply paid for by the income taken in?
Alright, good to know the absurdity of your position.