Mancrush on David Koch

[MillCreek]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80483.html

David Koch thinks that:

Gay marriage should be permitted
We should bring our troops home from the Middle East
The government should consider both defense cuts and tax increases to get our financial house in order

Perhaps I have found my write-in candidate!

[dm1333]

Isn't he one of those evil Koch brothers whose secret mission has been to bring America down?  I'm pretty sure I read that in Mother Jones.   

[Blakenzy]

Sounded good until 'increase taxes'. Increasing the Government's revenue is never the answer, specially when they have more than enough to begin with.

Giving more money to the government is like giving a second serving to an angry toddler trashing food about on his highchair.

[lupinus]

Giving more money to the government is like giving a second serving to an angry toddler trashing food about on his highchair.

I shall be stealing this.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80483.html

David Koch thinks that:

Gay marriage should be permitted
We should bring our troops home from the Middle East
The government should consider both defense cuts and tax increases to get our financial house in order

Perhaps I have found my write-in candidate!

voted for him once for vp

[birdman]

Over the last 100 years (basically, income tax history) every $1 of increased revenue due to increased taxes, or increased tax base has been met with close to $1.30 of increased spending.  Therefore, revenue is not the problem, spending is.

[Boomhauer]

Congress is spending money like a bunch of drunken sailors and you want to give them more money? The hell?

[lupinus]

Congress is spending money like a bunch of drunken sailors and you want to give them more money? The hell?

That's an insult to drunken sailors everywhere.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

did he advocate letting congress spend more?  or that we need to balance what we spend and pay down what we owe?  remember he ran as a libertarian on a real ballot. heck when he ran no one knew who ron paul was

[MillCreek]

Many reputable economists, although probably not of the political stripe favored by many of the participants of this forum, favor a combination of government cost reduction and revenue increases to solve our economic issues.  The More You Know.

[sumpnz]

Many reputable economists, although probably not of the political stripe favored by many of the participants of this forum, favor a combination of government cost reduction and revenue increases to solve our economic issues.  The More You Know.

Forgive me if I fail to bow to these "reputable economists" that also have advocted the exct same policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

[birdman]

Many reputable economists, although probably not of the political stripe favored by many of the participants of this forum, favor a combination of government cost reduction and revenue increases to solve our economic issues.  The More You Know.

And many reputable economists agree that we Are already past the growth maximizing point of marginal tax rates, and are actually close to or even past the revenue maximizing point, so increased revenues are either effectively impossible, or woud result in slower growth. Almost regardless of marginal rates, revenue has been within 2-3% of 19% of GDP, and spending averages around 18-20%.  Obama has raised that spending to 25% and slow economic growth has limited revenue to 18%.  
Spending is the problem (well hove historical averages), not revenue (which is in line with historical averages).

By reputable economists did you mean ONLY those of the Keynesian school?  Because there are plenty of reputable economists that fundamentally disagree with that approach.

[MillCreek]

If it was up to me, each dollar of revenue enhancement would be met with at least two dollars of cost reduction, starting with defense, Social Security and Medicare.  I would target the revenue enhancement towards debt reduction and infrastructure improvement.

I do not see this as within the realm of the practical, given the political realities of the time.

[TommyGunn]

did he advocate letting congress spend more?  or that we need to balance what we spend and pay down what we owe?  remember he ran as a libertarian on a real ballot. heck when he ran no one knew who ron paul was

I don't think that was the point, I think the point was that kongress spends $1.30 for every $1.00 it gets.  The solution in this situation isn't to give it $2.50, the solution is to give it a nickel.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how would that help? except increase the deficit?

[TommyGunn]

how would that help? except increase the deficit?

OK let's give it a bazillion dollars and THEN see how much it spends .

Is there someway to ACTUALLY CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING? ? ?

Our national debt will reach 16 trillion dollars this week, while the demorats are at the convention.

[MillCreek]

^^^ Yes, there is.  Find a politically-palatable way to get meaningful defense, Social Security and Medicare cuts through Congress.  Figure that out and you have my vote.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

oh come on why would we give up the revolutionary noise and think practical

[TommyGunn]

^^^ Yes, there is.  Find a politically-palatable way to get meaningful defense, Social Security and Medicare cuts through Congress.  Figure that out and you have my vote.

Agree -- mostly.
But during a war--and with the Chinese uparming, cutting our military might not be such a terrific idea....wouldn't want this to be our servicemen's standard sidearm, AGAIN.

[roo_ster]

^^^ Yes, there is.  Find a politically-palatable way to get meaningful defense, Social Security and Medicare cuts through Congress.  Figure that out and you have my vote.

You are forgetting the other way to cut spending:  Major crisis and there is no more money to spend.  Of course, then the printing presses go to 3 shifts and we move our dollars around in wheel barrows and grocers add another zero to their prices.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Agree -- mostly.
But during a war--and with the Chinese uparming, cutting our military might not be such a terrific idea....wouldn't want this to be our servicemen's standard sidearm, AGAIN.

you fight the chinese you can leave the sidearms at home.  the stakes have changed   and they do have what it takes to buy the hand/pot  our biggest asset in that fight is that they haven't figured out how to swim that ocean

[MechAg94]

If it was up to me, each dollar of revenue enhancement would be met with at least two dollars of cost reduction, starting with defense, Social Security and Medicare.  I would target the revenue enhancement towards debt reduction and infrastructure improvement.

I do not see this as within the realm of the practical, given the political realities of the time.

The problem is the revenue enhancement passes but not the cuts.  If you actually have the political power to make the cuts, many things are possible.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The problem is the revenue enhancement passes but not the cuts.  If you actually have the political power to make the cuts, many things are possible.

thats exactly the problem  maybe hitch them together no enhancements till after the cuts have been enacted

[MechAg94]

Focusing on Defence cuts is a distraction.  Half the budget is social security and welfare and such.  I bet that is higher now versus a few years ago.  Defense funding could be improved but you are not going to solve your budget problems by cutting Defense.  Defence only comes up because that is the only thing most Democrats are willing to cut.

[MechAg94]

thats exactly the problem  maybe hitch them together no enhancements till after the cuts have been enacted

Never gonna work in reality.  Make the cuts first.  That is the hard part.  If you Try to do both, the cuts will get cut.

How many Presidents have made deals only to see the spending cuts never happen?  Isn't that more or less what happened to Bush I?