Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (149643)	11/11/2010 2:01:48 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541743

Kate: Why do you feel a need to categorize me? In response to this point from me, which she quotes: All of which means that your argument looks more like a small government argument than a deficit reduction argument It should be apparent, Kate, that I'm categorizing the argument not Kate. It's a habit of mine, to a fault. And once again, I'm guilty. As for the content of your post, I was aware of some of it but not others. So, a review: 1. I was aware that you and I had several discussions about NJ, in which you argued there should be no revenue increases, only cuts in spending, because higher taxes would drive business away. And higher taxes wouldn't solve the problem. I had never argued they would, only that they needed to be a part of a full package to address the issues. That meant increased taxes on higher incomes, increased corporate taxes, and finding other revenue sources. From those conversations I took the notion that you were arguing for small government solutions--that is, you got a fiscal crisis, terrific, let's cut the government. 2. On the federal level, I was not aware of the full list you have, nor have I kept up with your views on that. I don't read everything that every one posts--I do have a life elsewhere. But I do hear you say, repeatedly, that costs have to be cut. If that's put into sentences without qualifiers then it tracks the small government crowd's arguments. So, in summary, the argument referred to in the first part of this post was a small government argument. End.

To: Katelew who wrote (149643)	11/12/2010 8:46:54 AM
From: Suma	Respond to of 541743

Great post Katelew Especially like this paragraph: On multiple occasions I have said ALL the Bush tax cuts need to be allowed to sunset exactly the way Republicans set them up to do. Regardless of the economy. Just rip the bandaid off and get it over. Why are the Democrats not doing this? It makes me mad. After all, the Republicans set it up this way. Doesn't this give Dems cover? I also support other measures designed to redistribute the wealth in this country. Raising the ceiling on payroll taxes, for example. I don't have a problem with taxing those components of an estate that represent unrealized capital gains. Land for example. I want some or all of the corporate profits sitting in offshore accounts repatriated and taxed....at least a little, for goodness sakes. The concentration of wealth in this country is real and it's unhealthy. Has Obama shown any signs yet of doing something about this? NO NO NO NO and I think he is backing down on the tax break to the wealthy... or so I heard last night on radio.

To: Katelew who wrote (149643)	11/12/2010 11:46:23 AM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 541743

Kate: I agree with you to the extent that I think the Reps are overstating the impact of an extension of the tax cuts. This has worked in the past when rates were much higher, but there is a point of diminishing returns and I doubt we will get much economic benefit or detriment from moving the rates lower or slightly higher from here. The reason it worked for Kennedy and Reagan was that rates were so much higher. I don't know how old you are but I vividly remember that in the Pre-Reagan days I could have spent all day every day meeting with a tax shelter salesman. It was as pervasive as mortgage refinances are today. Since it was important to my clients that I was familiar with these tax shelters, I would take as many meetings as I could. I found most made money for the seller and were of very little benefit to the client. Nonetheless enormous financial resources were directed toward these programs, many of which were subsequently determined to be fraudulent and cost a lot of people a lot of money. It also resulted in a huge amount of misallocation of money. What I do believe is important is drastically cutting government spending and paying off public and private debt. Until we do this the economy will never reset. lj