Unconscionable” tax bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shakuhachi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reagan? Are you trying to rewrite history? The biggest failure of Reagan’s economic program was his inability to reduce the deficit.

“The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.”


Here we go again.
 
What are you talking about? Brownback’s experiment is a disaster.
 
proper analysis shows the medicine had a positive impact,
it just isn’t a cure all that restores perfect health.
 
I dont know how you can believe that but people believe all sorts of incorrect things. Brownback himself remains obstinate as well.
 
pnewton said:
The bishops speak for the Church in such matters.
Click to expand...
What is the church’s position on where the minimum wage should be set? Pick an amount and defend it from scripture, the catechism, the works of Aquinas. The point is, there is no such number, nor is there a moral argument that it ought to be higher than it is. To argue that is to assume that arbitrarily raising the minimum is unarguably beneficial to the poor, and that is clearly untrue. That is, while it might actually be a good thing the point is in fact debatable…it is surely not a moral given.

So, no, the bishops do not speak for the church in such matters because the church is actually silent on them. There are no church positions on any of the multitude of specific proposals to address political issues. What makes any proposal on any issue moral instead of practical? Except in the cases dealing with intrinsic evils, nothing at all.
 
Ender said:
What is the church’s position on where the minimum wage should be set?

So, no, the bishops do not speak for the church in such matters because the church is actually silent on them.
Click to expand...
I am not going to answer a stupid question. Anyone with an ounce or reason can understand the difference in teaching the preferential option for the poor and setting a precise amount the minimum wage should be at any time.

For any individual, the minimum wage should be where they would want it to be if they were the one working to support kids on minimum wage. It’s the Golden Rule thing. Now, is the next question going to be what Jesus thought the minimum wage should be when he proposed this basic rule for charity?
 
Is that your way of acknowledging they do make a valid point?

They don’t say it was a roaring success, just point out it’s positive impacts.
 
For sure.

Did you happen to see what the heck they were voting on? Handwritten notes, some unreadable, cropped by the xerox machine. Pages X’d out. Far from simple.

Some big win for the American people.

All’s we need are candy canes to go with it.
 
Perhaps he didn’t hear of the QE purchases that lowered interest rates and provided $5.5 trillion to the economy?

And what are the companies doing with it? Why, they are paying extra dividends, talking mergers, buying back stock.

But now they will hire more when we practically have full employment already?

A market crash of Reagan proportions following the Tax Reform of 1986 shouldn’t be ruled out.
They don’t say it was a roaring success, just point out it’s positive impacts.
Click to expand...
Again, what is the measure of success here? Don’t forget Trump promised tax cuts back at the beginning of his campaign when the stock market wasn’t as high and unemployment wasn’t so low.

It would have made more sense to go ahead with the infrastructure and airport projects that he promised.
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
Reagan? Are you trying to rewrite history? The biggest failure of Reagan’s economic program was his inability to reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...
Too much credit or blame goes to the President for economic outcomes. The President in our system of governance, unlike kings and dictators, must elicit from Congress support and approval for any initiative. One would expect that the performance of Presidents who presided with a united Congress to exceed those who presided over a divided Congress. And even then, one would have to correctly assign the lag effect between enactment of legislation and outcomes. For instance, concluding that the outcomes of the Reagan economic initiatives occurred during the Clinton years is not without merit.

The Presidents who had a unified Congress did not have to negotiate as much or at all to have their initiatives enacted into law while those Presidents who had a divided Congress did have to negotiate and had their initiatives enacted either in a watered down version or with additional legislation opposed to their principles. Reagan never had a unified Congress. Neither did G.W.H. Bush. Regan had to negotiate with Tip O’Neil. To get an increase in military spending necessary to end the cold war with Russian communism, Regan had to give O’Neil offsetting increases in domestic spending adding to the national debt.

Interestingly, the Presidents in modern times who have had a unified Congress are the Democrats – Carter, Clinton and Obama (8 years).

After the 9-11 attack, G.W. Bush had 4 years of a unified Congress and in 2016, with the economy stalled, Trump now has a unified Congress for 2 years.

When Democrats control, one seldom hears about a “maverick” Democrat blocking Presidential spending increase initiatives but when the Republicans control “mavericks” abound. Does the “tax and spend” door hanger that Republicans pin on the Democrats have merit? It seems true for at least the “spend” part. And even more true if rephrased as “spend and borrow.”
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/rdrenka/ui320-75/presandcongress.asp
 
Last edited:
The middle class job creation is the target of this legislation. The increased revenue will take care of the deficit concerns. The poor do not pay taxes now and won’t with this bill.

Health care was forced on those and a tax penalty assessed if they chose not to buy it.

The rest of the cartoon is garbage…
 
Last edited:
Spending cuts are the other side of the equation. If you keep spending the increased tax revenue it does not reduce the deficit and can increase it. Spending cuts is where Congress usually gets stalled because no one wants to give up their pet programs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top