And how many of those "rich" are democrats? Quite a few, and all trying to dodge taxes -- hypocrites, just like I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Printable View
And how many of those "rich" are democrats? Quite a few, and all trying to dodge taxes -- hypocrites, just like I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Schiff is someone YOU praised when you used his conversation with Laffer to try to argue with John. You are the political idealogue; he is an economist in which you disagree. Now you find out he is a republican, oh boy, he must be all wet........ And by the way, he was very right when he argued with Laffer, you agree to that as it is unarguable. He was WILDLY right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Schiff enlightened me on the Von Mises school of thought. You label it "republican", but that's your shortcoming. Learning isn't bad unless you are a political idealogue and have your own preconceived notions about economics as you do.
You got me on the name calling you idiot. I had to laugh at that one myself.
You got it wrong. I was happy to have Laffer fall on his face. It had nothing to do with Peter Schiff.
I never liked his economic ideas, i dont support any of his positions in politics and in economics.
I thought his book which you sent me was simplistic and not worthy of reading.
He could be an independent and i would still feel the same way about his beliefs.
You on the other hand are still running away from someone you clearly admire.
He has made wildly false predictions for 2011. You dont deny that do you?
And you are much more of a rigid ideologue than you are willing to acknowledge.
Did you answer my question as to whether you support raising the debt limit?
Do you think it would be bad for the U.S. economy if we defaulted on the debt.
For the thousandth time. The Democrats are supporting the attempt to CLOSE the tax loopholes that
favor the rich. The Republicans are opposing that attempt. You support the Republican position.
Dems put their money where there mouths are. Thats admirable.
You forget. I'll remind you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o
The debt ceiling does need to be raised, duh. Everyone knows that. Yet the dems are holding the US hostage with their taxing agenda, and the republicans are trying to keep them from taking more than the $51,000 of compulsory taxes they already make off with from this family. That's admirable.
Yes, Schiff made a wild prediction. Listen to the link. Timing is relative. Relish again Laffer being made a fool of and not knowing it at the time.
So the dems are supportive of closing the "loopholes" they have created and expoit with their tax accountants? Yes, very admirable. They want votes dumbass, and quite candidly, they are doing a better job than republicans who appear to be pushing granny off a cliff whilst the dems save her.
"Loopholes", "subsidies".... keep in mind what these really are -- deductions. Deductions put into place by law (government) for some purpose seemingly important at the time. Both individuals and corporations hire tax accountants to take as many of these deductions as they can, right? That was your advice to me.
Let's remind everyone about profitable "big oil" again. "Big oil" enjoys tax deductions just like every other corporation in America yet they are singled out for some odd reason (probably to anger constituents and earn votes for power). Few mention all the income tax revenue "big oil" pays. Here's an income statement to see for yourself.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:XOM&fstype=ii
Here's another good article: http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/lawr...-about-big-oil
"the dems taxing agenda". "The dems are holding the U.S. hostage."
Thats a total lie and distortion and demonstrates your clear ideological bias.
Most people are aware that the Republicans are being intransigent and unreasonable.
Schiff has made many wild predictions not just one. Good try.
The Road Not Taken
One Conservative Republicans's opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19brooks.html
Over the past months, Republicans enjoyed enormous advantages. Opinion polls showed that voters are eager to reduce the federal debt, and they want to do it mostly but not entirely through spending cuts.
What Will the Debt Debate Mean for 2012?
For voters, this political standoff is a frustrating sideshow for what they really care about: jobs.
There was a Democratic president eager to move to the center. He floated certain ideas that would be normally unheard of from a Democrat. According to widespread reports, White House officials talked about raising the Medicare eligibility age, cutting Social Security by changing the inflation index, freezing domestic discretionary spending and offering to pre-empt the end of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a broad tax-reform process.
The Democratic offers were slippery, and President Obama didn’t put them in writing. But John Boehner, the House speaker, thought they were serious. The liberal activists thought they were alarmingly serious. I can tell you from my reporting that White House officials took them seriously.
The combined effect would have been to reduce the size of government by $3 trillion over a decade. That’s a number roughly three times larger than the cost of the Obama health care law. It also would have brutally fractured the Democratic Party.
But the Republican Party decided not to pursue this deal, or even seriously consider it. Instead what happened was this: Conservatives told themselves how steadfast they were being for a few weeks. Then morale crumbled.
This week, Republicans will probably pass a balanced budget Constitutional amendment that has zero chance of becoming law. Then they may end up clinging to a no más Senate compromise. This proposal would pocket cuts that have already been agreed on, and it would eliminate leverage for future cuts and make them less likely.
It could be that this has been a glorious moment in Republican history. It could be that having persuaded independents that they are a prudent party, Republicans will sweep the next election. Controlling the White House and Congress, perhaps they will have the guts to cut Medicare unilaterally, reform the welfare state and herald in an era of conservative greatness.
But it’s much more likely that Republicans will come to regret this missed opportunity. So let us pause to identify the people who decided not to seize the chance to usher in the largest cut in the size of government in American history. They fall into a few categories:
"Most people are aware that the Republicans are being intransigent and unreasonable."
Thats a total lie and distortion and demonstrates your clear ideological bias!
You'll never get it, or will you? Haven't so far.
You haven't answered the question about tax deductions???
Did you watch the clip? Schiff predicting, WILDLY correctly, the debt and housing bubbles and Laffer laughing him off? Did you listen to the reasoning? Maybe you should proceed with caution or YOU will become the next Laffer??? History does repeat itself.
Schiff predicted the stock market would tank this Janurary 2011. Not just go down a lot but tank.
He predicted Hyperinflation this year for the U.S.
He predicted the 10 year bond rates at 5% or over.
He is a doomsday predictor and wildly innaccurate with MOST of his predictions.
You really dont know what you are talking about when you talk about Dems. and Obama ryelated to taxes and interest in budget cuts.
Bipartisan 'Gang of Six' Agrees On Major Deficit-Cutting Plan
If US Loses Triple-A Rating, Almost Anything's PossibleHousing Starts Hit Six-Month High in Surprise JumpHouse to Vote on Tea Party-Backed Debt PlanChina’s Treasury Holdin
Leaders of a bipartisan "Gang of Six" senators said Tuesday that they've reached agreement on a major plan to cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the coming decade in what could be a bold entry into a debate on the deficit long bogged-down by bitter partisanship.
The deal, which was quickly endorsed by President Obama, caused stocks to add to their gains.
More than $1 trillion of the deficit cuts would come from tax increases reaped as Congress overhauls the loophole-choked U.S. tax code. It would also repeal a long-term health care program established under the last year's health overhaul and force up to $500 billion in cuts from federal health care programs over the upcoming decade, according to documents provided to senators at a Tuesday morning meeting but not publicly released.
"The reaction was extremely positive," said Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.
The Gang of Six plan is separate from a politically freighted effort to lift the nation's borrowing cap and avoid a first-ever default on U.S. obligations. President Barack Obama and Capitol Hill Republicans, however, have failed to reach an accord on what kind of spending cuts to pair with any increase in the borrowing cap as the government teeters toward a possible default in two weeks.
RELATED LINKS
If US Loses Triple-A Rating, Almost Anything's PossibleHouse to Vote on Tea Party-Backed Debt PlanUS Debt Accord Could Slow Gold Rally, but Not for Long
The group's effort was sealed after Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn rejoined the group after winning concessions on additional cuts to costly federal health care programs. Coburn left the group in May, which dealt it a big setback and delayed an agreement since the two other GOP members of the group—Mike Crapo of Idaho and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia—appeared reluctant to release the plan without Coburn's backing as well.
The group has been laboring for months in an up-and-down effort to reach an agreement that largely mirrors the work of President Barack Obama's fiscal panel, which proposed $4 trillion in cuts over a decade.
The fiscal commission plan won positive reviews from many lawmakers but its plan failed to win a vote in Congress.
The Gang of Six plan calls for an immediate $500 billion "down payment" on cutting the deficit as the starting point toward cuts of more than $4 trillion over the coming decade that would be finalized in a second piece of legislation.
Most of that savings would come from four years of caps imposed on the day-to-day budgets of cabinet agencies set by the annual appropriations bills. It would also curb the growth of Social Security benefits by moving to a lower inflation adjustment for annual cost-of-living updates.
The tax reform outline would set up three income tax rates: a bottom rate of 8-12 percent; a middle rate of 14-22 percent and top rate of 23-29 percent to replace the current system that has a bottom rate of 10 percent, with five additional rates topping out at 35 percent. It would reduce but not eliminate tax breaks on mortgage interest, higher-cost health plans, charitable deductions, retirement savings and tax credits for families with children.
The idea is that a bipartisan plan would gain critical mass in the Senate, powered by the endorsement of conservatives like Coburn and liberals like Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and a member of the group.
Both Republican and Democratic leaders, however, remain wary of the effort, since it would raise revenues by about $1 trillion over 10 years and cut popular benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid. But many rank and file senators were enthusiastic.
"This a concrete way to reduce the deficit and assure that we are on a long term plan that will bring down the debt to a reasonable level," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.
Oh, is Schiff wrong. Did you hear that gold hit a new high, um, yesterday?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhtQP...feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKk2R...eature=related
Schiff,
Wrong on stock market.
Wrong on inflation
Wrong on bond rates.
You, wrong on Obama and Dems. Lol
On the process of negotiations, seven in 10 independents want Democratic leaders to compromise in search of an agreement. Six in 10 Democrats agree.
Nearly seven in 10 independents also want Republican leaders to compromise. But a 52% majority of Republicans want their elected leaders to "stick to their positions".
That shows Republican politicians squeezed between the wishes of swing voters who will decide the 2012 general election, and a party base that could punish GOP incumbents in primaries if they yield too much.
A similar dynamic plays out on related budget issues. By 58% to 36%, Americans prefer Obama's deficit reduction approach of combining spending cuts with higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy over the GOP's plan to cut spending only.
A 52% majority said Democrats should not accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security if that were the only way to strike a debt ceiling deal. But 62% say Republicams should agree to tax hikes if necessary to make a deal.