“Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No,” Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.”



David Gregory Gets Sperling to Admit Obama Lied During Presidential Debate

Budget Control Act of 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


~~~~~~~

President Obama warned that the sequester spending cuts that began on Friday will have real consequences for real people, citing the janitors on Capitol Hill whom he said will have to take a pay cut as a result of the budget tightening.



Sequester spin: Obama's incorrect claim of Capitol janitors receiving a pay cut - The Washington Post

The Modus operandi of a real parasite is to live very fat and healthy off of sucking the life blood from fruits of work out of the host while not being detected. We continue to not detect the real economic parasites while rewarding them heavily.

parasites by definition contribute nothing to the host. They only drain resources. Otherwise it would be a symbiotic relationship by definition not parasitic. I could be wrong but the top 1-20% contribute quite a lot to the economy including but not limited to innovation, jobs, efficient management of economic resources. You do realize most of the top 1% did not start there and got themselves there.

I fail to see the problem. If you look at that graph you also see a normal distribution curve. Very few people making almost nothing and very very few people making incredibly large amounts. They are called outliers. Including them in overall analysis is irresponsible and it is common practice to remove outliers from data.

any presentation that starts with 92% of people want/expect X, i tend to ignore.


I want to tax every single american $1, and have the funds go directly to me. I'm sure 90% of americans would agree that a $1 tax, once a year, isn't a huge burden, in fact, I'm willing to bet they agree it isn't even a burden at all.

therefore this is good policy and we should push for action.

Pretty much what they have done and you fail to see it. Republicans in congress are fighting tooth and nail to allow them to keep doing it.

that's who's doing it... just like how they proposed the sequester right? and how they push grandma over cliffs? and how they have sex with children because god told them to?

Based upon many interviews which I have heard on NPR over the past few days, I am convinced that there are some people who literally do not understand what the term "spending reduction" means.
Well, yes. Decreasing the amount of funding given to various discretionary programs is how spending is reduced. Otherwise they'd have to find a different name for it.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1362436836

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1362436836

One day, in the next 10 - 20 years, when the understanding of the modern monetary system in the USA becomes more mainstream and better understood, we might all remember the first time the concept was introduced to us. And then we will all laugh and laugh and laugh when we think back on all those silly arguments about the USA "going bankrupt" and the loanable funds theory and the money multiplier. :party:


Actually, that will probably be a super nerdy party should that conversation ever occur. :hahano:

:party:

Oh the horror of the cuts (to the massive increases in proposed spending)! The horror of only having a moderate increase instead of an obscene one! The children will starve.

Worried about the wealth inequality? Since they've made no distinction between individuals and subchapter S corporations that are also legally considered and taxed as individuals I remain unimpressed. The class warfare mongers are always talking about the "top wage earners" and then include S-corps (because they are not separated on the federal tax rolls) in all of their data to skew the results in an attempt to enrage the useful idiots of the proletariat.

Wealth inequality? How about getting concerned about the productivity inequality? Why not chastise those who produce nothing but consume vast quantities of stolen goods produced by others?

He who will not work, neither shall he eat.

I want to see the tax graph, where the bottom 45% are not paying any federal taxes, and are actually getting money back, SNAP, healthcare, etceteras. You want inequality, check out how the top 10% pay for the bulk of federal taxes.

The OMB said that the government will pull in a record amount of tax money this year. These stupid sons of bitches just don't realize that if they quit playing favorites and pushed down the tax rate (heck, close the loopholes too), they'd be swimming in tax money. But hey, the first rule of a government official is to get re-elected, and the best way to do that is crony capitalism.

Except that tax cuts increasing tax revenue has never held true, Cordy.

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue

/Not arguing for or against tax cuts, simply stating that Cordy is using a very easily proven false talking point (Specifically, that tax cuts don't increase tax revenue).

Here's a much more detailed Scrappy-esque link on the topic: http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

Surprised you didn't link to Mother Jones...but you might as well have. ;)

I guess we'd all be in fat city if Obama had just let those Bush tax cuts lapse...

Nice red herring Cordy. Especially after I repeatedly stressed that my argument had nothing to do with anything beyond the simple reality of "Hey, every time we've cut taxes, tax revenues have always gone down", and said absolutely nothing about being in "fat city", or advocating for or against any particular administration.

(Notably, I'm also not claiming tax cuts do not spur revenue/GDP/etc. growth. However, I'm also not not claiming this. My claims are solely and explicitly limited to tax cuts have led to lower tax revenues with no further claims made, implied or otherwise.)

These claims are not exactly identical, blaen. I'm curious which one you really mean (or if you mean both).





Incidentally, my autocorrect tried to change "blaen" into "blarney".

I'm simply calling bullshit on your charts. That's all. lowering tax rates, especially across the board, has historically raised tax revenues. Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, all of them. Sure, there were other issues at hand; there always are. The inverse has been true since they've kept records. Hell, go back see what happened to Rome.

Your charts = bullshit

Let me now go on record to say that while I'm virally anti-Socialist redistribution, the Republicans can suck it too. Government at our current size is bad, whether blue or red.