1 No effing chance, Ace

2 There's a voice of some fishy Admiral in my head.

He's saying something about a trap?  Know what that means?

3 When the Dept of Ag disappears I'll believe they might be getting serious. All of it.

4 Yeah, and mark my words: First expenditure on the chopping block will be defense.

No way Obama & Co. are cutting entitlements. They rely on entitlements for votes. But defense spending? Not necessary politically.

After all, we can live in a fantasy world where the Navy has the equipment it needs. But some crack-smoking welfare recipient in Chicago needs more money? He'll get it pronto. Because that's fair.

5

Alan Simpson is one of ours

Oh.no..no..no...no..NO!!!!

Simpson has never met a tax increase he didn't like. Why do you think he got appointed to this charade?

6 Revenue went up, Ace. Overspending is the ONLY reason for those deficits. It's like complaining you didn't get enough of a raise.

And I must have missed the part of freedom where the government is entitled to take 20-fricking-percent of every single dime earned in this country. Of the entire GDP. For ... no good reason at all.

7

Alan Simpson is one of ours; but what about Democrat Erskine Bowles?

Eh.  Alan Simpson isn't completely reliable.  Kind of a western RINO sometimes.

8 They're setting up for deep defense cuts. The Demonrats will say "okay, entitlement cuts, but only a little, and we have to have defense cuts as a show of good faith," knowing full well that they have no good faith themselves.

9 Ace makes the common mistake of forgetting that on the Laffer curve, as tax rates go down (to a certain point) revenues go up as a result of increased economic activity. So we can't say that if he'd cut taxes less, that revenues would have actually increased. They may well have been less. History has shown that pretty often. To my knowledge, we've never reduced marginal tax rates to the point where we are on the backside of the curve. Having said that, the REAL problem with tax rates is that the bottom half of earners in the US effectively don't pay any income tax. They should, as they are the greatest consumers of government services. Maybe not a whole lot, but something.

10

Spending cuts to Libtards is merely cutting something that evil  Conservatives want...like defense of the United States.

So unless Bwaney Fwank figures out that "wubameens r looooong mebal bubes fulla seeemen" there won't be any more of those.

11 "Moral issue," Ace?

Remember: we're talking about a Congress and president who believe more spending is the sole answer to everything.

Somehow, we need to get actual human beings into D.C. before the big-government binge destroys us.

It seems inevitable we'll all have to pay more to clean up the mess made bad by Bush and infinitely worse by Osama Obama, but until the "servants of the people" get their minds right, any increase in funds going to D.C. will simply be pissed away.

What we're doing now is like buying Valu-Rite for drunken hobos, without the fun.

12

I think Simpson is aware his role is to whitewash the turd they come up with.  And he's been enough of a pure pol to perfect the art of whitewashing turds.

Remember he went on a lovey publicity tour with Robert Reich?  That had to take a lot of pure inner self-bullshit.

13 Ace, I know Erskine.

He is a FUCKING DEMOCRAT!

His daddy was a democrat, lost Gov race in NC, Erskine, is a loser too, so what about this is hard about this to figure out?

It's a cover for the VAT. 

I would have hoped you could see through this.

HELLO??

14 Ace, you dummy. Try this theory. Deficit spending is like the speed limit. Everyone speeds a little. So, no matter what, there's a deficit. You raise the speed limit (i.e., taxes) the congress will just spend more proportionately. Since taxes are non-linear with respect to tax "revenue," the lower the better.

15 It's always comprehensive with Obama. There will be some spending cuts attached to a huge tax bill. That way Obama can claim the GOP aren't really for spending cuts when they oppose the skyrocketing tax rates. Then after it passes we will never see the spending cuts. After all, how do you cut fat from a budget that doesn't exist?

16 Note the use of "overall government spending," not "non-defense spending." Get ready for those defense cuts. They're coming, Obama just pointed out how Gates (his SecDef) is among the most aggressive program cutters in recent history. Only a naive person would believe Obama is going to fix the structural problems in the United States. He has already tilted the scales by first enacting a new, enormous, social welfare program in the form of Obamacare, on the verge of taxing Carbon in the form of Cap-and-Trade and you now expect him to reign in his own programs? It's easy to sit at the G20 like a little bitch and challenge the opposition to make the "hard choices" in balancing the budget after you just splurged like it's 1999. Don't be a douche, he's already won. The social democracy is among us.

17 By the way, Alan Simpson is no conservative. He supports "campaign finance reform", which is crap like McCain-Feingold.

He was liberal on social issues, which is fine but he doesn't have a whole bunch of conservative credibility elsewhere. He actually said "gay" is an artificial category that tells us nothing.

He even wants separate courts established to deal with health care.

18

STARVE THE BEAST!

Think Hillary sans 100 lbs.

19

One suspicion I have, though -- and I may be overthinking/conspiracy-theorizing here -- is that if Bowles and Simpson have made a deal, where in they swap places, basically, and Bowles offers a spending-cut heavy plan to try to win over the Democrats, but Simpson will reciprocate and sell the GOP on higher taxes.

Each man agrees with the other to use his credibility with his respective tribe to push the other's priority, figuring, perhaps, that that way, at least they can get both sides closer to each other for a deal.

That sounds about right.

20 "Put Neidermeyer on it. He's a sneaky little shit just like you."

21

USSA!

USSA!

USSA!

22 The fault in this bit is the implication that higher taxes will actually mean more gov't revenues, when that likely isn't true.

One likely effect is equal revenues, but with lower overall economic growth.

23

Its always amused me that the Tea Tax, which was one trigger for the American Revolution... was 12.5%.

My how our standards have changed.

24 one has to calculate the nation's unending appetite for government spending into one's budget plans

It's not unending. It ends (badly). But until it does, it's ever-expanding.

That's why some old-timey proto-Paultards took it into account and put a bunch of "says here that's against the rules"-type hard-right purist stuff in the Constitution.

It's too late for that now, of course. And it's power-seeking appetite-calculating that made it that way. So fuck it. Do some more.

25 Erskine Bowles sounds like some kind of frontiersman crockery

26 I'm all for spending cuts.  . .and pretty much the more the better.

I just can't possibly envision Obama and the still-Democrat majority Congress actually enacting any.

If they had their way, they'd *STILL* be increasing spending, not decreasing it.

27 And you can see here that Barney Frank is already salivating at the prospect of slashing the defense budget: http://tinyurl.com/27srwnl

28

Posted by: XBradTC at July 01, 2010 03:10 PM (adLBy)

Yep, and you have to look at the Total tax burden on your citizens... ie State, Local, Property.... everything.

29

Ace, this is nothing but smoke, mirrors, dogs and ponies, with a unicorn thrown in just for the contrast. This administration has absolutely no intention of doing anything to curb gubmint spending by one penny.

I'l know they're serious when the EPA, the Energy Department and the Education Depts. are eliminated and not before.

They could also stop wasting our taxes on aid to places like Saudi Arabia and Turkey that aren't exactly our friends.

I know I'm dealing with logic and those number thingies, but that's just the way this moron rolls.

30 As we see in the comments, neither guy has respectability in his caucus, but I think the intention is to get Alan Simpson to agree to tax increases so he can be carried around like a standard.

Now I support a huge tax increase, but I don't think that anyone of either party would support a surtax on legal fees.

31 Bottom line is that no matter what they propose, their true intent will be to grab the taxpayers by the back of their neck and bend them over for the standard butt-fucking drill.

32

When the Dept of Ag disappears I'll believe they might be getting serious.

Ahem. If you can't get rid of *us*, the venerable Dept of Ag. isn't going anywhere.

33

Tax increases do not increase revenue in the long run.

Tax increases do not increase revenue in the long run.

Tax increases do not increase revenue in the long run.

Got that yet, or do you need it one more time?

34 Further, any agreement to cut spending is only incumbent on THIS congress, not the one elected in November whereas tax increases would effectively be permanent. The Dems would repudiate their spending cuts (and far too many 'Pubs would go along) and still keep the tax increases in place to ensure that "the rich pay their fair share..."

35 Tax every man, woman, and child 10% on earnings.  No tax cuts.  No tax incentives.  No wormhole VAT taxes.  No massive, armed IRS.  Everyone participates. 

Can't cover the deficit?  Quit spending on everything except military and borders.  Gut the EPA.  Gut the Dept of Education.  Gut the Dept. of Agriculture.  Gut the pukes in the Forest Service. Disembowel the entire bureaucracy.  Put welfare recipients to work on the infrastructure, if nothing else.  Better yet, cut them off.

36

Tax increases do not increase revenue in the long run.

Now wait a minute.  Taxing lawyers would cause economically-damaging activity to decrease and have a secondary effect resulting in massive economic growth.

37

3 dr kill

And that totally useless Department of Education.

38

13 Ace, I know Erskine.
He is a FUCKING DEMOCRAT!
His daddy was a democrat,

His granddaddy was a fucking communist

39
XBradTC makes an excellent point.  Out of principal all working people should pay some sort of tax, and any tax increase should be applied across all tax brackets.

A while ago I posted the notion of a fixed reduction of spending across everything.  Say eight or seven percent a year for three or four years and this would include everything, entitlements, military, and discretionary spending.  The rebuttal was that it was not politically viable.  I'm not so sure.  If everyone is impacted, then it helps neutralize the blame game.  Frankly unless there is a great compromise where everyone has to sacrifice we will end up thrashing where each political party will get tossed out of office and where there will be no continuity of a long term policy for recovery, and that is at the end of the day the goal we should be shooting for: stability in the private and public sector.

Innovation and job growth come primarily from small businesses.  Who in their right mind would float a new business in this climate where the political winds and the burden of small business employers are being subjected to crazy new rules involving health care, and the uncertainties of demand and of the health of financial institutions.







 

40 The only spending that will be cut is in the military budget

41

The only spending that will be cut is in the military budget

Echoes of Bush The Elder times.

42 AMessNBC just reported the "unexpected" increase in unemployment claims

43 40

You're not going to get any Congress to go along with a four year plan.

Even a spending freeze (which is a good idea. . .thanks Senator McCain) probably wouldn't hold firm for four years. 

Every Congress would find "exceptions" to fund.  That's what they do.

Politically speaking, there is probably a better chance of a one time massive cut, than a slow drawdown . . .though I can't even see the latter happening.

44 yeeeaahhhhh....

let me guess.... a 5% reduction in entitlements which are realized by increasing the entitlements by only10% instead of the planned 15%, along with a 40% reduction in defense spending, realized by an actual 40% cut in defense spending.

Fuck You Democrats.

45 Ace makes the common mistake of forgetting that on the Laffer curve, as tax rates go down (to a certain point) revenues go up as a result of increased economic activity.

There was a link to a study floating around here a few months ago.  The study "showed" that on the Laffer curve, the optimal taxation rates are much higher than they are today.

I think the study was a bullshit self-inoculation from the left-hand side.  They pretended to cave on the Laffer concept but then pulled numbers out of their asses until they got the higher taxation that they want to use to enslave us.

Some people--even here--took their chicanery at face value.

If any of the cocksucking authors of that study want to flash their economist credentials, then I have one word for them:  "Unexpectedly."  That word has been used in countless fucking headlines tracking our economic doom since Retarded Barry started squatting in the Oval Office.

46 MikeO, I vaguely remember that "study" about the Laffer curve. But it was invalidated before it was even published, because you can look at the revenues generated by lower tax rates and see that you are still on the front side of the curve. In other words, if the study was correct, the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts should have lowered revenues and shrunk the economy.

47 :::WARNING: The following includes a metaphor* for the current condition of our country.:::

Are these fuckheads starting to realize that when Daddy has been laid off, were 6 months behind on the house payment and we are eating plain rice 7 days a week for dinner that this isn't the best time to plan a family trip to motha-fuckin Disneyland?

I fuckin doubt it

*warning number 2: I am not really sure if this is a metaphor

48
In other words, if the study was correct, the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts should have lowered revenues and shrunk the economy.

Kind of like how low prices have bankrupted Walmart and CostCo....Oh wait a minute

49

I'd just like to point out, or reiterate if it was said, that bringing things down to somewhere between 2008 & 2009 spending levels won't cut it. Obama & Pelosi jacked the baseline sky-high with their last budgets, stimulus, emergency bills, and supplementals.

Also ignore the usual bullshit framing a cutting of the rate of increase as an actual spending cut. Not going stem the tide of doom, so don't fall for it. We need radical across the board cuts and returning to limited government. We will have limited government, eventually, either by choice or because we kill our currency/credit and can really afford to do nothing.

50 In other words, if the study was correct, the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts should have lowered revenues and shrunk the economy.

I'm with you.  I am not saying that Ace believes it.  I'm just saying that it's out there, and some folks on the right believe that rates are lower than the Laffer optimum.

51 This is BS. That panel was created to endorse a tax increase. it may recommend a few budget cuts and then it will go to Nancy who will eliminate all budget cuts "except" defense.

Do not be fooled by rhetoric from writers nobody has ever heard of. 

52 Are these fuckheads starting to realize that when Daddy has been laid off, were 6 months behind on the house payment and we are eating plain rice 7 days a week for dinner that this isn't the best time to plan a family trip to motha-fuckin Disneyland?

"The Ant and the Grasshopper" was probably already ancient when Aesop gave it his treatment over 2,500 years ago.

53 Folks. I hate to yell, the Dems will promise tons and tons of spending cuts, none of which will ever happen, while the tax increases will go in immediately.  They've been doing this for years, for as long as I can remember, and we're still saying "Oh, good, maybe they'll agree to spending cuts if we raise taxes for them!"?!?!?!

The Democrats LIE.  That's what they DO.  If you believe anything positive will come out of this committee, you are fooling yourself.  All they're looking to do is damage Simpson (if he's "one of us"). 

54 54 Folks. I hate to yell, the Dems will promise tons and tons of spending cuts, none of which will ever happen, while the tax increases will go in immediately.

What?  The devil you say!

55

As for the proposed "spending cuts/tax increases", when have the Democrats ever cut or frozen non-defense spending? They could have worked with Bush I in 1990 but they said "Spending cuts? Hell No!" and he caved just like every other RINO before and after.

I'd just like to point out, or reiterate if it was said, that bringing things down to somewhere between 2008 & 2009 spending levels won't cut it.

I thought I had read somewhere that we could balance the budget immediately simply by reducing spending to 2005/2006 levels.

56 >>>Tax increases do not increase revenue in the long run. You don't know where you are on the Laffer Curve. Neither does Laffer. We cannot afford to continue running up big deficits (and bush had deficits) even in growing economies while we have the massive, MASSIVE obligation to retiring boomers looming there. Any additional debt puts us in an even worse situation. At some point, someone in the government is going to have to propose some seriously painful and seriously unpopular cuts to SS and especially medicare. If we are carrying a debt load in our current budget, things will be worse. I don't know what the plan is here, guys -- are we hoping to NOT be in power when the bill comes due so the Democrats will have to take care of it and take the hit politically? Is that the plan?

57

Ace you dumb as a rock. From what you quoted:

is suggesting a cap on overall government spending and revenue of 21 percent of gross domestic product. The federal government currently spends 25 percent of GDP and takes in 15 percent as revenue,

So they want to increase revenue 6% of GDP and only decrease spending 4% of GDP. Sounds like to me there is more revenue increase then spending cuts, 50% more in fact. Don't worry about 2035 because, you know, that's 25 years into the future. Economists can't even reliably predict even 2 years into the future.

Past Democrat behavior has always been to raise taxes and promise spending cuts. Even under Gramm-Rudman, which I recall was a dollar for dollar deficit reduction deal, the spending cuts never really materialized as witness by the actual dollar growth in government during that period.

And as others suggested any baseline shouldn't include Obama's massive spending spree the past two years.

58 that is true, I didn't notice them jacking up the revenue levels like that, I missed the part about taxation brought up to 21%. Fair point, and all, but I am kind of worried that at some point we're going to lose this ability to borrow and we're just going to go bankrupt.

59 >>>And as others suggested any baseline shouldn't include Obama's massive spending spree the past two years. Also true. And in fact neither should it include bush's.

60

ÔÇʠÏÑÏÔÉ

 Ã”ÇÊ ÓÚæÏí Ã£Ã¤ÃŠÃÃ¬ ꇂ Ã‡Ã¡ÃšÃ‡Ãˆ ÈäÇʠÊæÈíßÇÊ ꇂ Ã•Ã¦Ã‘ ãÇÓäÌÑ  

61

The problem isn't necessarily the rates - it's the narrowness of the tax base and the complexity / coercive nature of the income tax system.

We have so many deductions and such low rates at the bottom, that the income tax collects nothing from 45% of the population.

On the flip side, social security taxes are capped at around 110,000, so you're tax base is limited there as well.

Flat tax of approximately 20%.   Standard deduction of about $16,000 for singles, $32,000 for a family, + $5,000 per child.  No other deductions.

Uncap social security taxes.  

Lower corporate and capital gains taxes to 15% - flat.

Cap government spending at 21% of GDP.

 

 

62

You people have got this all wrong. We are going to cut across the board, and spread the pain evenly and fairly. 98% from defense, entitlements and domestic spending will bear the brunt of the other 2%.

...what?

 

63 They are not going to stop spending.. The Party of the slaves ( Democrates ) are going to make all Americans slaves to the Goverment. .. They have not changed... Hear them praise that KKK man Senator Byrd... Been making policy since the 40's...  I hope the FIRE is hot for Him...

64 school bags
bags for school
straw bags
wedding bags

65 DVD Ripper for mac and windows os.

66 For all ladies and adult males, to obtain themselves into stylish yet innovative look, Abercrombie has made some proper awesome garments and finishing touches. This brand name has developed the paper hearts of thousands of people, living throughout the world. Every instance, fitch clothing often formulate particularly trendy, modish and chic designs and types. You will observe a variety of goods within the sites of it, that are always considered to be very fashionable. abercrombie and fitch are becoming purchased in several designs. You possibly can acquire Abercrombie t-shirts and polo shirts, from any of the stores. The best part of store shopping even a sole Abercrombie & Fitch top is than you can obtain it beyond world wide web. And you'll get a hold of your tee shirt within just only a few days, style and color. destination individuals are now living.

67 This is lovely information. Thanks for Small Business ERP Solutions

68 8pills.com is your one stop health care solution. 8pills.com provide best of the class Generic and Branded medications.

69 Word to PDF Converter is specially designed to convert doc to pdf, convert a word to pdf excel to pdfconvert ppt to pdf Word to PDF Converter is specially designed to convert doc to pdf,  with the docx to PDF software, not only can you convert .docx to pdf format but also convert   word doc to pdf and more formats like PNG, JPEG, etc. Moreover using  the doc to PDF Converter, you can also realize pdf combination, document encryption and so forth. Now I will give a detail explanation about how to convert doc to pdf, docx to pdf with Docx to PDF Converter.How to convert xls to pdf, xlsx to pdf? This XLS to PDF Converter can assist you and convert xls, xlsx to pdf files.XLSX to PDF Converter is a splendid xlsx to pdf software to convert xls, xlsx to pdf. Apart from powerful conversion function, you also can edit pdf according to your need such as combine documents to one pdf, set password protection, etc. 

70 Jeg kan bare ikke muligt forestille Obama og den endnu demokrat flertal kongres faktisk dispositive nogen. Vi glade for at se dig på apotek dk her.

71 Web development Saudi Arabia is a web design company that offers Interactive Realistic versatility Service for Custom Website Design and our true strength comes from combining the individual talents of best web designers to address customerÂ’s needs. Web development Saudi Arabia provides a wide range of Web Design and redesign services at affordable cost. We deliver the clients needs, thoughts and requirements onto the website with a blend of innovation, expert. Our website designing Team is among the most excellent in the corporate world and holds proficiency in latest Flash based technologies. Please visit us our portfolio here: Qatar website development company

72 http://www.buybrandcheap.com