qman said:

Patlal said:

Patlal said:

Gilgamesh18 said:

Fiscal conservatives generally support low taxes with small government since you support BIG Canuck government I have doubts.

---

I have never supported a big government.

I enjoy low taxes like everybody else, but the US can't afford lower taxes anymore. It sucks, but thats how it is.

---

If only it was true so much suffering could be averted.  You may consider cracking a good macroeconomics textbook and look up something called the Laffer Curve.

---

I understand the Laffer curve and because of it, I know that the taxes in the US is not enough.

It predicted that the Bush tax cuts would result in an almost 2 trillion dollar deficit. But Bush did nothing cause he was drunk.

You need to maximize that curve and right now the only way is to raise taxes

---

koods said:

BTW, you seemed to love this pork last week when it involved oil companies.

---

Patlal said:

Here's proof:

You guys need to cut expenses.

See...

But you also need to raise taxes.

Otherwise you wont make it.

Fiscal conservative.

---

starfire_xes said:

Yessir, they even managed to get 1.7 Billion worth of pork in for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, 165 million for Hollywood, 70 Million for NASCAR, and other huge loads of pork for special interests....GREAT JOB!!!


Yes, I sent a note to my REP.....who voted NO on this travesty.

---

mpd said:

They put up a new version of TARP - just a sweetener this time, but some nice pork.

---

zappaisgod said:

mpd said:

They put up a new version of TARP - just a sweetener this time, but some nice pork.

---

What are you talking about?  Link please.  Goldman neither needed nor wanted TARP the first go round and they paid a higher than market interest on loans they neither needed nor used.  The same is true of Wells Fargo.  They were never in danger.

---

Quote:

$1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

$1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.

---

Do you have any idea what that means?

---

starfire_xes said:

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

$1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.

---

Do you have any idea what that means?

---

yea, its a subsidy so the area devastated by 911 can be rebuilt.  A subsidy.  Free stuff.

---

zappaisgod said:

starfire_xes said:

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

$1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.

---

Do you have any idea what that means?

---

yea, its a subsidy so the area devastated by 911 can be rebuilt.  A subsidy.  Free stuff.

---

No, you don't know what it means.  Let me lay it out for you.  They can issue bonds (borrow money), the interest payments from which are not counted as taxable income for the bond holders.  This lowers the interest rate that Goldman will have to pay by a small amount, perhaps 1% at most since interest rates are very low right now and the proceeds would be taxed at a capital gains rate and not as earned income anyway.  Further, Goldman does not have to stay in NYC.  They can go anywhere with their headquarters but this tiny subsidy helps insure that they will stay in NY and pay beaucoup NY taxes, which is not an unreasonable thing since it was a failure of the federal government which caused NYC to take the hit at all. 

Further, since when is not taking the same as giving?  If I don't take your stash does that mean I gave you your stash?  No, it does not.

Do you know what is a real gift?  Extending unemployment benefits beyond 26 weeks yet again

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/unemployment-insurance-extended_n_2389634.html

Quote:

What that means is that the $30 billion pricetag for a year-long extension will simply be added to the deficit. Republicans have in the past objected to reauthorizing federal unemployment compensation because of its impact on the deficit, though in recessions since World War II Congress has generally added extra weeks of benefits without paying for them.

---

Now we have a tiny tax break (i.e. a not taking) that will amount to about 10 to 20 million dollars less revenue (i.e. a not taking) for the federal incompetents vs an actual payment (i.e. just giving away) of about 200 times as much and you think that it means they gave Goldman something?

Do you have any idea how much in taxes G-S and it's employees and investors pay?  It wobbles the mind.  Tens of billions of dollars.

---

Patlal said:

So here's all the little things the US could do:

- Raises tax on cigarettes
- Add a 5 cent per gallon tax on fuel
- Add a few tolls for some busy highways
- Promote public transport
- Give a tax refund for public transportation
- Raise the price of drivers licenses by 5$
- Same thing for license plates
- Take an extra 1% on gambling establishments
- Take an extra 5% on the lottery
- Take 0.5% on Chinese imported products
- Take 2 or 3% extra on alcohol
- Take 2 or 3% on guns and bullets

Combine all these thing to budget cuts and you got yourself an extra few billions without people whining too much (or noticing too much).

Now, tell me how 100% of my idea is extremely wrong/stupid.... (cause I know its coming...)

---

mpd said:

You are wrong on the Librty Bonds Frank.  The bonds were authorized for financing within a designated geographical area.  They are "GO ZONE" bonds and the biggest recipients were the banks - this is correct, but it was SUPPOSEDLY designed to incentivize them to lend within the effected area.

---