Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 176

Thread: Are tax cuts without reduced spending a good thing?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Is it a good thing if a mugger steals less of your money, even if he doesn't spend any less on hookers and blow?
    It's a bit more complicated than that. For one, the fact that the mugger is spending money on hookers and blow is making your money worth less whether he's physically taking it or not. He's essentially stealing from you in two ways, and by stealing from you less in one way he's going to steal from you more in the other.

    As an example, do you think that the American people's economic situations would be better or worse if the government simply stopped collecting taxes and entirely paid for everything by deficit spending?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    As an example, do you think that the American people's economic situations would be better or worse if the government simply stopped collecting taxes and entirely paid for everything by deficit spending?
    That would be called a "stimulus package".
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-27-2017 at 06:27 PM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    I don't think (at least hope not) anybody on RPF is purist enough that they'd refuse a tax cut without a cut in spending first.
    THE SQUAD of RPF
    1. enhanced_deficit - Paid Troll / John Bolton book promoter
    2. Devil21 - LARPing Wizard, fake magical script reader
    3. Firestarter - Tax Troll; anti-tax = "criminal behavior"
    4. TheCount - Comet Pizza Pedo Denier <-- sick

    @Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF =troll:

    Who spends this much time copy/pasting the same recycled links, photos/talking points.

    7 yrs/25k posts later RPF'ers still respond to this troll

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Executives will get nice bonuses and the stock holders will get more money. The average worker will get scraps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    That would be called a "stimulus package".

    Your "stimulus package" is probably why the average worker gets scraps.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Your "stimulus package" is probably why the average worker gets scraps.
    A more effective stimulus program would give more money to those who are more likely to go and spend it- and Trump is selling his tax cuts as a stimulus program for business. Demand for goods creates jobs. Giving money to those who already have a lot of money isn't going to create very many new jobs. Give the same amount of money to the poorer people who will go and spend it on goods and services. The companies already have plenty of capital to invest in expanding their business if they believe there is enough demand for their goods and services. Even during the recession, they had $2 trillion in excess cash they were sitting on.

    I am not calling for any stimulus right now (the economy does not need it) but if creating more jobs is the goal, giving a millionaire another million won't get it done as well as giving $10,000 each to 100 people making average income or less.

    Are corporations lacking in money? Is that why we don't have more jobs?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/m...trillions.html

    Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?


    There is an economic mystery I’ve been struggling to understand for quite some time, and I’m not the only one who’s confused: Among financial experts, it is often referred to as a conundrum, a paradox, a puzzle. The mystery is as follows: Collectively, American businesses currently have $1.9 trillion in cash, just sitting around. Not only is this state of affairs unparalleled in economic history, but we don’t even have much data to compare it with, because corporations have traditionally been borrowers, not savers. The notion that a corporation would hold on to so much of its profit seems economically absurd, especially now, when it is probably earning only about 2 percent interest by parking that money in United States Treasury bonds. These companies would be better off investing in anything — a product, a service, a corporate acquisition — that would make them more than 2 cents of profit on the dollar, a razor-thin margin by corporate standards. And yet they choose to keep the cash.

    Take, for example, Google. Its new parent company, Alphabet, is worth roughly $500 billion. But it has around $80 billion sitting in Google’s bank accounts or other short-term investments. So if you buy a share in Alphabet, which has sold for roughly $700 lately, you are effectively buying ownership of more than $100 in cash. With $80 billion, Google could buy Uber and its Indian rival Ola and still have enough left over to buy Palantir, a data-mining start-up. Or it could buy Goldman Sachs outright or American Express or most of MasterCard; it could buy Costco or eBay or a quarter of Amazon. Surely it could use those acquisitions to earn more than 2 cents on the dollar.

    This strange vogue for corporate hoarding seems to have begun around the turn of the millennium. General Motors is perhaps the most extreme: It now holds nearly half its value in cash. Apple holds more than a third. These numbers are maddening on their face. If the companies spent their savings, rather than hoarding them, the economy would instantly grow, and we would most likely see more jobs with better pay.
    Instead they are saving it. Not creating jobs with it. Will giving them more money through lower taxes change that?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-27-2017 at 06:42 PM.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    ...Trump is selling his tax cuts as a stimulus program for business...Giving money to those who already have a lot of money isn't going to create very many new jobs. Give the same amount of money to the poorer people who will go and spend it on goods and services.
    How does the government "give" you anything?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Wages have not kept up with corporate profits. Nor have they kept up with productivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    So?
    ..
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    How does the government "give" you anything?
    You've outed the Zippster again.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  11. #39
    I'm not reading that. Put it in your own words.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    You've outed the Zippster again.

    Yeah, you notice the Zippster never really gives his opinion or answers values-laden questions. His template is to post all the consequences and horrors of liberty. That's his pattern in every thread except the threads for football and music and such.

    And speaking of outing himself. TheCount also outed himself by creating this thread and a couple-three times in the thread.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 04-27-2017 at 07:02 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    It's a bit more complicated than that. For one, the fact that the mugger is spending money on hookers and blow is making your money worth less whether he's physically taking it or not. He's essentially stealing from you in two ways, and by stealing from you less in one way he's going to steal from you more in the other.

    As an example, do you think that the American people's economic situations would be better or worse if the government simply stopped collecting taxes and entirely paid for everything by deficit spending?
    Which American peoples' situations? They are not an homogeneous aggregate and won't all be affected in the same way. Those in direct receipt of deficit spending will gain at the expense of those who are not, while those who are taxed will lose to the advantage of those who are not.

    In the second of your "two ways" - inflationary deficit spending that "mak[es] your money worth less" - most people (especially the ones who can least afford it) are going to end up on the $#@!ty end of the Cantillon chain. With tax cuts (and especially if "government simply stopped collecting taxes"), most people would at least realize some immediate benefit before eventually getting shafted.

    IOW: it is a good thing if a mugger steals less of my money on the "front end," even - indeed, especially - if the money he spends on hookers and blow is going make my money worth less down the road.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-27-2017 at 08:04 PM.

  15. #42
    Okay, I am going to try this again. Let's see if Zip takes the bait this time.




    VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV



    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Wages have not kept up with corporate profits. Nor have they kept up with productivity.


    So?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I'm not reading that. Put it in your own words.
    I am sorry you have difficulties with three paragraphs. Maybe I should use shorter ones.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-27-2017 at 07:23 PM.

  17. #44
    It's not very conservative and it won't be better for the economy on however long enough time line you want make up. There is no possible way they are going to cut spending so this is just like when liberals argue to give government money to poor people .The government isn't giving people back their tax money the government spent that money. The government is creating money that wasn't there and giving it to people who they feel deserves it more, which is not good monetary policy no matter how you bill it. It's more of the government "picking" winners and losers.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I am sorry you have difficulties with three paragraphs. Maybe I should use shorter ones.

    Maybe you should actually find some facts and put things in your own words instead of parroting newzpapers.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  19. #46
    Are tax cuts without reduced spending a good thing?
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  20. #47
    Zip didn't go for the bait. I'll try again.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  21. #48


    ..
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    We borrowed about a trillion in 2016. The deficit numbers are bogus.

  24. #50
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Who cares about spending with annual unpaid deficits racing towards a trillion? This is a phony argument used to bludgeon the mere suggestion of lower taxes. Washington will spend with aplomb on what THEY AND THEIR MASTERS DEEM NECESSARY.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Who cares about spending with annual unpaid deficits racing towards a trillion? This is a phony argument used to bludgeon the mere suggestion of lower taxes. Washington will spend with aplomb on what THEY AND THEIR MASTERS DEEM NECESSARY.
    conservatives do, like real ones. Libertarians, people that voted for Rand Paul, Ron Paul. Spending is the most dangerous thing our country does, more dangerous then poking the Russia Bear.

  26. #52
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    conservatives do, like real ones. Libertarians, people that voted for Rand Paul, Ron Paul. Spending is the most dangerous thing our country does, more dangerous then poking the Russia Bear.
    Spending is a done deal. There is no going back. Future monies will not be repaid. How many consecutive years have they run +600 billion annual deficits? 5? 6? I'd be enthusiastic about cutting spending if we somehow ushered forth a miracle to peel back all deficit spending and then chiseled away at the annual receipts. But we are 5 miles away from shore and drifting further. The government would likely collapse if we solely spent what we took in.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Spending is a done deal. There is no going back. Future monies will not be repaid. How many consecutive years have they run +600 billion annual deficits? 5? 6? I'd be enthusiastic about cutting spending if we somehow ushered forth a miracle to peel back all deficit spending and then chiseled away at the annual receipts. But we are 5 miles away from shore and drifting further. The government would likely collapse if we solely spent what we took in.
    2014 and 2015 were under $600 billion and 2017 is forecast to be under that too. 2015 was $600 billion. This chart has estimated, not actual, figures for those years. https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-b...s-hide-3306151

    FY 2017 - $441 billion projected.
    FY 2016 - $600 billion expected.
    FY 2015 - $438 billion.
    FY 2014 - $485 billion.
    FY 2013 - $679 billion.
    FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
    FY 2011 - $1.300 trillion.
    FY 2010 - $1.547
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-27-2017 at 08:27 PM.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    2014 and 2015 were under $600 billion and 2017 is forecast to be under that too. 2015 was $600 billion. This chart has estimated, not actual, figures for those years.
    Who cares about that stupid budget zippy we are talking about spending not budget. How many trillions of dollars has our debt gone up over the years? Can we just not budget any of our spending and then we can not have any shortfalls? We'll just have 100 trillion in debt per year just not "budget" the spending put it into programs that can't be cut because our economy is $#@!ing broken and our economy is broken because we spend too much?

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Yeah, that's nice. I thought you wanted an intelligent response rather than some ideological idiocy. It seems I was wrong.
    I thanked you for your response. It was a fine response. I don't know that it was any more "intelligent" than my two little cents, but if you are feeling so insecure: yes, Count, you were very, very intelligent. Good job. What more do you want, a parade?

    Also, "ALL OF IT" is clearly not your primary interest, as you have repeatedly argued for more government control in some areas.
    Show me the quote.

    "ALL OF IT" would preclude all federal control over immigration, for example.
    Oh dear, not that. Anything but that. Please, Mr. Fox, have mercy.

    Couldn't disagree more. We will never be able to focus on our own affairs so long as the resources of our country are going to mess with other peoples' lives.
    Let me explain my thinking and we'll see if we can have an "intelligent" conversation.

    The tremendous long-term problems that we face as a country at this time do not have to do with a lack of resources. They will not be solved by an even greater abundance of resources. To the contrary, they will be exasperated. We are already too fat, too rich, and too soft. Burying our millions of whores in even more trillions of free resources will not usher in an American Renaissance. They already have enough. What would help is to yank that money away.

    Dumping the resources into the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, which is essentially what so much of the military spending is, is not nearly so insidious or destructive here at home. It doesn't work to rip down American society directly. It's just a waste.

    Give me a choice between waste and actively destroying the country, and I shall choose waste.

    See my first comment above.
    So, so intelligent. Look, Count, I am basically the only one here who is civil to you. (I ask myself: why?) Maybe you should be civil in return.

    Some (many (most)) institutions have a logic of their own, an inertia. This is especially true of institutions where you are literally forbidden, legally, from going in and firing everybody. Such as, for example, federal cabinet departments. You can't clean house. The President can appoint a new head, OK, whoopdedoo, but all the old staff and middle management are still there, legally-permanent fixtures, and they really run things. Look at the NEA. Republican presidents have appointed traditional-minded, conservative directors to it. And yet, it kept pumping out shocking, obscene, and disgustingly merit-less ultra-left-wing art. Why didn't these traditional directors just change the NEA over to start pushing their agenda instead?

    Reform can be harder than elimination. Much, much harder. In fact, it fundamentally always is. This is systems logic. Thus, the only time that one should reform rather than eliminate is when the product line/division/project/department/agency is so critically important that it's clearly worth it to go through all the incredibly difficult (and almost bound to be unsuccessful) intense work required to try, try to reform it. Does the Department of Education really rise to that level of indispensability?

    The cyst analogy is perfect.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-28-2017 at 01:06 PM.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    conservatives do, like real ones.
    Oh, are you a conservative niKKKers?



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Spending is a done deal. There is no going back.
    "Welp. Brakes are out. No point in steering now."

    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  33. #58
    "I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23
    Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the following generations to pay is morally irresponsible. Excessive debt is a means by which governments oppress the people and waste their substance. No nation has a right to contract debt for periods longer than the majority contracting it can expect to live. -TJ
    "It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to cherish its credit and at the same time to restrain the use of it within the limits of its faculties, "never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually and the principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith." On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command, on a reasonable interest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while the necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and their constituents against oppressions, bankruptcy, and its inevitable consequence, revolution." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:269
    "To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
    "[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40
    So... Are tax cuts without reduced spending a good thing? NO! NO! NO!

    If you said yes, you don't understand the problem!
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Oh, are you a conservative niKKKers?
    I wasn't calling anyone specifically a fake conservative. I just remember what Ron Paul taught me about fake conservatives. I am talking people that think baseline budgeting, cutting purposed increases, offsetting any cuts with additional spending is by any means conservative and won't help our country because it won't fix the root problem of spending. You know guys that run a platform of a balanced budget amendment, like some how creating a rule for the congress to follow is going to work when they don't even follow the constitution.

  35. #60
    Tax cuts are always a good thing, but they are almost irrelevant in this discussion. Spending is the tax. It will either be stolen, borrowed, or printed, taking value away from everyone else. Changing tax rates just rearranges the spending burden.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Neutering my Boxer Monday - good thing or bad thing?
    By Dianne in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 09-04-2015, 09:28 AM
  2. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-21-2014, 04:10 PM
  3. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-17-2014, 08:39 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 04:46 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 02:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •