Conquer Club

Right. He's saying that extending tax cuts is the wrong thing to be doing right now.

Timminz wrote:Right. He's saying that extending tax cuts is the wrong thing to be doing right now.

But he is saying extending the tax cuts on anyone, especially the middle class is the wrong thing to do right now. Even Obama wants to extend the tax cuts to the under 250K people. He is saying that we can't afford to loose that 200 billion in lost revenue. He is making a case that the middle class tax cuts cost us twice as much as the "rich" tax cuts. Everyone talks about the rich tax cuts but they all seem to want to extend the middle class tax cuts.

tzor wrote:

Timminz wrote:Right. He's saying that extending tax cuts is the wrong thing to be doing right now.

But he is saying extending the tax cuts on anyone, especially the middle class is the wrong thing to do right now. Even Obama wants to extend the tax cuts to the under 250K people. He is saying that we can't afford to loose that 200 billion in lost revenue. He is making a case that the middle class tax cuts cost us twice as much as the "rich" tax cuts. Everyone talks about the rich tax cuts but they all seem to want to extend the middle class tax cuts.

Now I'm confused. Could you please clarify your position on this? Are you in favour of tax cuts for the poor, the middle, the rich, or none at all? Same question with "tax hikes", in place of "tax cuts".

Timminz wrote:Now I'm confused. Could you please clarify your position on this? Are you in favour of tax cuts for the poor, the middle, the rich, or none at all? Same question with "tax hikes", in place of "tax cuts".

Wait, you want “my” position on this? I thought we were just discussing how David Stockman was unbiased. I haven’t even considered my own position on this.

Clearly “spending” is unsupportable. While it is not obvious, spending at any level actually results in spending at levels below the level that does the spending as well as the level that does the spending, thus there is a cumulative effect on every level of government which all has to be paid by the people. “Deficit” spending (which was done at all levels, even those levels that technically “balanced” their budgets by accepting revenue from the next higher level of government) cannot be sustainable and we are approaching a critical mass of debt.

On top of this critical problem comes in the question of whether or not the repeal of the tax cuts is a good thing. On the one hand, economic growth is the best way to overcome deficits because they create more tax revenue (although they cause procrastination of cutting spending). On the other hand, FUD may have more to play on the reluctance of small business to hire than the potential repeal of the tax cuts on the wealthy. The question of the middle class is a different issue; with a number of middle class, trapped in underwater homes, any significant tax increase could have a major impact of triggering foreclosures. (Or they might not.) That might be a bad thing (or it might not).

I’m on the fence on this one, but I will say one thing. Talking about these cuts when our spending is insane enough as it is and there are a plethora of people who want to spend more is like trying to use the “fine tune” knob to change the channel on an old analogue TV. You might be able to do it, but it’s really stupid.

tzor wrote:

Timminz wrote:Now I'm confused. Could you please clarify your position on this? Are you in favour of tax cuts for the poor, the middle, the rich, or none at all? Same question with "tax hikes", in place of "tax cuts".

Wait, you want “my” position on this? I thought we were just discussing how David Stockman was unbiased. I haven’t even considered my own position on this.

Yeah,sorry. I thought you had contradicted yourself, being against something when someone who was "biased" said it, but agreed, when it was someone "un-biased", but now I believe I had misunderstood whatever it was this Dansh Orr fellow had said.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Nice... someone holds views different from your own, so they are automatically "not an expert"...even if you have not really read much of the person?

And, the idea that his appearing on NIXON's enemy list means he is some kind of idiot or extremist... is idiotic.

Ever look into how Nixon was able to rise to power? Try McCarthy! Now THAT is pretty telling!

No, I'm saying that Daniel Schoor was a blatant liberal in every sense of the word (and woe to even a Democrat who failed to meet his liberal standards) who in turn was very much turned aganst Republicans by his experience with Nixon. He clearly has a liberal bias. His early experience with Goldwater shows that he easily would ofuscate the truth in order to push his agenda. That is not "news" but "propaganda." As a result he cannot be considered an impartial "expert" as he clearly had several axes to grind against Reagan. (Note also that Dan was, as was the case with the liberal model at the time, considerably anti-war and he viewed Reagan as no less a danger than Goldwater.)

It's not that I "disagree" with him in as much as I question his impartiality.

Funny, Reagan did not share your view.

... and you pretty much show your definition of "unbiased" is "something fairly close to what you believe".
Your definition of the "liberal model" as so forth shows how biased your education has been.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Funny, Reagan did not share your view. [CITATION NEEDED]

... and you pretty much show your definition of "unbiased" is "something fairly close to what you believe".
Your definition of the "liberal model" as so forth shows how biased your education has been.

There, I fixed it for you.

No, my definition of "unbiased" is just that, without bias.

And I don't believe I have defined my definition of the "liberal model." It has been based on decades of observations of liberals.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Funny, Reagan did not share your view. [CITATION NEEDED]

My citation? Reagan's own words. But sorry, I heard it in person, not in writing.
You know, the world DID exist prior to 1990. And a LOT of stuff prior to that date, even a lot since, is simply not on the internet.

PLAYER57832 wrote:... and you pretty much show your definition of "unbiased" is "something fairly close to what you believe".
Your definition of the "liberal model" as so forth shows how biased your education has been.

tzor wrote:
There, I fixed it for you.

No, my definition of "unbiased" is just that, without bias.

And I don't believe I have defined my definition of the "liberal model." It has been based on decades of observations of liberals.

And no... if you think you cannot even correctly articulate liberalism, never mind claim freedom from bias. As I have said before of many people here, you don't even know the full extent of leftist and liberal thought. All you know is highly conservative and right wing to moderate views. Hardly "objective". Hardly "without bias".

As a classic example, you criticize DS based on some comments about Goldwater... and yet have never actually listened to the speech you feel free to criticize. Pretty telling, that! I don't know much about his opinions or reporting on Goldwater. I DO know that what he has said about Reagan is pretty true. I know this because I was there to see it happen. I don't have to rely upon what some right wing folks want me to think.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Funny, Reagan did not share your view. [CITATION NEEDED]

My citation? Reagan's own words. But sorry, I heard it in person, not in writing.

But that's my point. What exactly did he say? How did he say it? You gust gave heresay evidence and you didn't even cite the heresay evidence.

One offhand remark is not enough to support the argument. It just isn't.

Meanwhile, another AP story: Expiring tax cuts hit taxpayers at every level

Making all the tax cuts permanent would add about $3.9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to congressional estimates. Obama's plan would cost a little more than $3 trillion over the same period.