Trivia question (I know someone will Google the answer, but what the heck...)

Who said the following quote?

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it."

WKUweather wrote:

Trivia question (I know someone will Google the answer, but what the heck...)

Who said the following quote?

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it."

geeznotagain wrote:

The rub is, what is the truly wealthy's "fair share"? What is the bus driver's "fair share"? If we are fixated on the percent of income paid, then a flat tax might be fair. After all, X% of $5M is a hell of a lot more than X% of $25K, and could be considered a "fair share". It would be OK to exempt a fairly large amount (say $25K) before ANY tax kicked in. I also am not totally opposed to a somewhat graduated tax rate, but I feel strongly -- as I have stated numerous times previously -- that the 80% (or so) marginal tax rates that existed in the past were totally outrageous and confiscatory, regardless of the fact that they were in place, and may have been in place during some of the nation's most prosperous periods. As I've also stated before, if I lived in a small town with Bill Gates and several hundred middle class and below citizens, it could be argued that 100% of every town expenditure (the new school, the town hall, all teachers' salaries), should be borne by Gates, since he would be "most able to pay". And that isn't "fair".

vunik wrote:
First issue: economy.  Repeal Obamacare, extend the Bush tax cuts (temporarily).  Second issue: balance the budget with massive spending cuts.  If we have to bite the bullet, I'd rather bite it on less funded government programs than forcing people to pay more taxes.  Third issue: Reduce the debt.  Work on paying it off.  Once the economy gets rolling again, repeal the Bush tax cuts, raise taxes if need be.

bhoyal wrote: Socialist leftist commie ronald reagan....circa 1986.



What do I get for knowing the answer?

mathknapp wrote:

vunik wrote:
First issue: economy.  Repeal Obamacare, extend the Bush tax cuts (temporarily).  Second issue: balance the budget with massive spending cuts.  If we have to bite the bullet, I'd rather bite it on less funded government programs than forcing people to pay more taxes.  Third issue: Reduce the debt.  Work on paying it off.  Once the economy gets rolling again, repeal the Bush tax cuts, raise taxes if need be.

You make a reasonable post and a reasonable argument.  Here are the things.

First Issue: Obamacare is at least 40 years overdue.  It is the most important law that has been passed since civil rights legislation in the 60s.  I know that some (mainly GOP) disagree, but even if the law is imperfect the Democratic party is not going to give it up unless its pried from their fingers (as the Supreme Court may yet do).  I can't overstate the effect of stories I hear from doctor friends that tell me of the patients they see for conditions that should have been treated YEARS ago, but never were because a routine doctors visit was not an option.  Regarding the Bush tax cuts, I really believe that you overestimate the stimulation of the economy attained by those cuts ... but then again, approximately half the nation/government agrees with you, so it's not exactly like I'm stating documented fact there.

The intention of Obamacare is good.  There are good things in the bill.  But, I believe the bad outweighs the good.  It places a much higher cost on businesses, restricts individual freedom, fails to protect immigrants the way it should, and uses federal funds for questionable purposes.  We can debate the other issues on another thread, but I don't think Obamacare is good for the economy.  At a time when businesses are already having a hard time hiring people and growing, strapping them with additional costs doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.

I believe Obamacare needs a lot of serious modification.  Personally, I think it would be easier to throw the whole thing out and start from scratch, but I'm fine with it standing if it is reformed to be a little more business friendly, and cover more necessities, as opposed to non-necessities.  The other problem with Obamacare is that it raises the cost of providing healthcare while simultaneously promising lower costs.  The idea that insurance companies are just supposed to eat increased costs doesn't make sense.  We're not talking about non-profits.  We're talking about companies designed to provide a service, make money and provide jobs.  The only way you can effectively lower healthcare costs is by lowering the cost of doing business, not through cost-regulation legislation.  From what I have been told by several of my friends in the heathcare field (this includes doctors, nurses, people in hospital administration and who create medical technology), this is going to lead to some major problems in the next 20 or so years.  It needs to be made more business friendly, if businesses are going to expand and grow. 

Second Issue: I'm all for deep spending cuts ... but with the size of our deficit balancing the budget by cuts only simply is not possible unless you want the government to cease to function (and withdraw from the economy so fully as to undermine any benefits you get from other economic expansion)

Perhaps...I'm just extremely wary of raising anybody's taxes while we're still not in great economic shape.  I think it could lengthen our recovery time.  If nothing else, deep spending cuts could significantly decrease the deficit and help "stop the bleeding" so to speak.

Third Issue: This is definitely the goal.  My take?  Just as congress has said in recent months that they don't want to spend any new money unless they take it away from somewhere else, congress will need at some point to pass a "debt reduction" tax increase ... where increased revenue goes directly to paying off debt and congress is specifically prevented from spending that money anywhere else.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.  Another (somewhat goofy) idea that I had is this: Politicians are forever out fundraising.  Obama and Romney combined have raised (I believe) over $1 billion in campaign funding.  I suggest that we pass a balanced budget amendment and - if Congress passes an unbalanced budget and the President signs it - Congress and the President are responsible for fundraising the difference.  That might make everybody a little more open to bipartisan solutions, but it'll never happen.

vunik wrote:
Second issue: balance the budget with massive spending cuts.  If we have to bite the bullet, I'd rather bite it on less funded government programs than forcing people to pay more taxes. 

vunik wrote: Sure.  First, I'd cut all government subsidies.  Subsidizing green energy programs (where we've seen the most increase in subsidy spending under Mr. Obama) is not going to solve our energy crisis, but rather create an artificially inflated market for green energy.  Green energy will work when it is cost-effective and can stand on it's own.  Let's face it: if your business is in need of government assistance, it's a sign that you're probably not doing very well.

In most businesses, I'd agree.  But with green energy there are larger issues at stake.  You can argue about whether we have oil for another 50 years or for another 500 years, but it's a limited supply.  If you still don't believe in Global Warming, you're simply choosing to ignore the science.  As a business model, Green energy will work when it can stand on its own ... but there are larger issues that make it a priority for us to get it there.  And it would be better if we get it there sooner, rather than waiting for the oil supply to become so limited prices really skyrocket and wars start.  We're not at the verge of that now.  We might be when my daughters are grandmothers.  We probably will be when my grandchildren become grandparents (if nothing is done in the meantime).

Secondly, I believe we can make cuts to DOD spending.  We have - by far - the most powerful military in the world.  We can afford a few budget cuts.  No more stimulus packages.  Cut the bureaucratic wasteful spending (see Tim Coburn's wastebook...it doesn't amount to all that much individually, but we can cut out a few billion $ if we just stop paying for the likes of unused monkey houses, excess printing costs, etc).  Reform Social Security.  Don't gurantee benefits for younger people (and I am one of the younger people), but continue to give it to those that need it.  Gradually wean our country off of it, encouraging personal savings and investment accounts as an option.  Cut out all earmarks.  If a state wants something done, they should ask the people of their own state if they want it and if they want to fund it.  If the people of that state don't want to pay for it, it's probably not worth having.

I'm sure we can find details where we disagree here (especially on exactly how to reform SS) but in general this is all reasonable to me.

While we're at it, what exactly has the Department of Education done?  Since it's inception in 1979, we have not seen a dramatic increase in the quality of American public education.  To make matters worse, the DOE seems to have this belief that we can just throw money at the educational system and it will be fixed.  Not so.  I'm not advocating for the DOE to be destroyed...I believe we need it to collect and monitor statistics on education and to create some "quality control" standards, but it has proven ineffective in raising the quality of education.  We could probably cut $40 billion out of it's current discretionary budget of nearly $70 billion.

Personal opinion as a teacher?  Part of our educational problems is that the DoE isn't granted the authority to do enough.  Only in the last 2 years have we developed anything resembling national standards in math (new math standards have been written and something like 46 states have independently chosen to adopt them).  The evolution debate pretty much guarantees this will never happen in science.  Instead, we have 50 state DoEs that each are responsible for writing their own curriculums, writing their own assessment tests, developing and implementing their own monitoring procedures.  And then the states lack the funds (and knowhow) to even carry these things out correctly, and end up changing them every 5 years before there is anything resembling data on how well it worked.  Almost every country that stomps us on educational data has a national curriculum, but we opt to have the same groundwork done 50 times by 50 different groups (thereby costing 50 times as much).  Why haven't we gotten that message yet?  Related to that, I also can't help buy wonder if the gov't collectively could save money by consolidating other things that every state does individually into one federal product.  Like driver education standards and testing for example.  Why does KY and OH and NY and TN each need a different license test and a different booklet of drivers rules, that each state had to pay someone to write?  This seems like a lot of redundancy to me.  But now I'm getting off the point.

And also, let me clarify my view on taxes.  I'm not saying we can't raise taxes.  I'm saying not right now.  I think if we make massive spending cuts for a few years and actually get out of our economic peril, we will be able to reinstate some of the funding and then be able to raise taxes to pay for it.  But if you raise taxes with a troubled economy, you run the risk of significantly lengthening the economic recovery.

A reasonable viewpoint on a complicated issue.  Don't know if I agree ... but a reasonable viewpoint.

vunik wrote: Sure.  First, I'd cut all government subsidies.  Subsidizing green energy programs (where we've seen the most increase in subsidy spending under Mr. Obama) is not going to solve our energy crisis, but rather create an artificially inflated market for green energy.  Green energy will work when it is cost-effective and can stand on it's own.  Let's face it: if your business is in need of government assistance, it's a sign that you're probably not doing very well.

Secondly, I believe we can make cuts to DOD spending.  We have - by far - the most powerful military in the world.  We can afford a few budget cuts.  No more stimulus packages.  Cut the bureaucratic wasteful spending (see Tim Coburn's wastebook...it doesn't amount to all that much individually, but we can cut out a few billion $ if we just stop paying for the likes of unused monkey houses, excess printing costs, etc).  Reform Social Security.  Don't gurantee benefits for younger people (and I am one of the younger people), but continue to give it to those that need it.  Gradually wean our country off of it, encouraging personal savings and investment accounts as an option.  Cut out all earmarks.  If a state wants something done, they should ask the people of their own state if they want it and if they want to fund it.  If the people of that state don't want to pay for it, it's probably not worth having.

While we're at it, what exactly has the Department of Education done?  Since it's inception in 1979, we have not seen a dramatic increase in the quality of American public education.  To make matters worse, the DOE seems to have this belief that we can just throw money at the educational system and it will be fixed.  Not so.  I'm not advocating for the DOE to be destroyed...I believe we need it to collect and monitor statistics on education and to create some "quality control" standards, but it has proven ineffective in raising the quality of education.  We could probably cut $40 billion out of it's current discretionary budget of nearly $70 billion.

And also, let me clarify my view on taxes.  I'm not saying we can't raise taxes.  I'm saying not right now.  I think if we make massive spending cuts for a few years and actually get out of our economic peril, we will be able to reinstate some of the funding and then be able to raise taxes to pay for it.  But if you raise taxes with a troubled economy, you run the risk of significantly lengthening the economic recovery.

vunik wrote: ...First, I'd cut all government subsidies. Subsidizing green energy programs (where we've seen the most increase in subsidy spending under Mr. Obama) is not going to solve our energy crisis, but rather create an artificially inflated market for green energy...