Robspierre wrote:what you are conveniently ignoring is cost of services and tax increases elsewhere. We hear cut taxes, cut taxes. Look at the reality of tax cuts. They are aimed at people who make more than a million a year and at removing any inheritance tax. Because the poorest do not pay taxes, the hardest hit is the working and middle class.
Cutting taxes does not automatically put more money in peoples pockets.
...That is why I am not contradicting myself. Yo cannot just say cut taxes will give the worker more money. It won't. There has to be this broad swath of changes in order for that to happen.
In and of itself (all else being equal, other issues aside), lowering your taxes 5% would give you 5% more in your pocket. Or are you saying that lowering your taxes causes an increase in cost of services? (tax increases elsewhere would just be disguising your tax cut)
Robspierre wrote:Health care costs in this country are outrageous and increase at a rate greater than inflation. Insurance is a racket that costs more and more each year.
Agree - supported by regulations, the tax structure and government services which skew incentives.
Robspierre wrote:The costs of fuel eats into income. Food items cost more for less. Federal taxes get lowered but states increase taxes in other areas, sales tax, car registration fee's etc.
Inflation and supply and demand issues on fuel and food - arguably not helped by government policies. States are spending the money somewhere.
Robspierre wrote:American wages/income have actually decreased since the '70's while the upper 1% have seen an increase in earned income. Yet taxes are lower.
I'd argue other factors involved. The 1% income increase is a concern.
Robspierre wrote: Cutting government jobs does not reduce government spending. Someone loses their job and the job gets outsourced and costs more to be done now. .
You're assuming the government is still going to supply or pay for the service.
Robspierre wrote: Reagan started this stupid shit. Example. The Forest Service has seen their budget cut for wild land fire suppression. et, more and more people are living in rural areas and we are seeing massive development in areas that see a large amount of yearly fire activity. Because of cut budgets the Forest Service does not have the manpower to fight wild fires and contract crews are hired. As soon as the contract is up they stop working and renegotiate at a higher rate. (Be careful about shooting your mouth off here, my father was a Forest Service firefighter for 37 years. He ran a Hot Shot crew and was a national resource called upon to not just fight fires but to help during natural disasters and was even loaned out to Canada on several occasions.) .
I know very little about this issue - but if the government is going to provide a service, and it costs more to outsource it, then they shouldn't. It sounds like you are threatening me
Robspierre wrote:Instead of the smaller government line, how about smarter government. You need to really address that with some concrete ideas backed up with some research..
Smarter sounds good, but I'm also for LESS - I want the government doing less.
Robspierre wrote:Your talking points are overly simplistic and do not address the reality that the US is an empire made up of fifty "nations" with federal oversight. .
Agree that the US in an empire - I am not for empire. I'm primarily talking about a federal level, each state would have to (get to) find it's own solutions for anything not specified in the constitution.
Robspierre wrote:I spent fourteen years running business from low six figures to mid seven figures and dealing with requirements from multiple states and the federal level. Until you get away from your 'cute' little talking points and stop throwing around the trite buzzwords such as Keynesian and Austrian models and other trite shite, you will not be taken seriously.
That's a bit hostile - I don't think I deserve that.
Robspierre wrote:Even though he doesn't write much anymore, you can find archived on the net The Whisky Bar by Billmon. His day job was t write risk analysis for corporations based on current economic situations. He would be paid to attend Davros and then write up real world reports based on what took place at the conference. You want the reality of the global, and it is a global economic situation, start reading his posts because right now you are just a nutter sticking his fingers in his ears going lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is all ready made up
Why don't you point out for me where I have done that, because I am not aware of it. As for the site, I'll check it out next year.