Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Perknose, Nov 21, 2012.
Fact is Ben Stein is right. And the host is an idiot.
Both have to happen and a lot more pronounced than the financial cliff to boot.
The US a debtor nation? Wars are expensive, security expensive, things the US taxpayer agreed was needed means they will have to put up the cash and get less services as well.
The chickens always come home to roost
Sure it does, only within certain circumstances does higher tax rates on the wealthy not produce income. We have not been in those circumstances since the 80's.
Seriously some of you need to have a better understanding of macro economics before you type shit.
I agree with Stein's conclusions but not his reasoning. Of course rich people can afford higher taxes, that's practically the definition of rich.
Business doesn't create jobs. It can only redistribute wealth.
I don't think raising taxes would be catastrophic in a thriving economy, but I really have issue with raising taxes without a spending cuts plan. I agree with the host in that what is the point of raising taxes if there aren't any cuts. Raise taxes on the rich, raise taxes on upper middle class for all I care (and I am upper middle class), but don't be proposing that without spending cuts, and real ones.
I don't consider myself a right winger, but I just don't believe that raising taxes will do anything just because I am under the belief that the government will just spend more.
But your solution is pretty much 'do nothing'. "We need to reduce spending" is not really a cohesive solution.
I agree need to make cuts and raise taxes. Thats why I hope no deal is reached and the auto tax cut expiration and spending cuts happen.
Exactly. This is what you and Chucky and Xj0hnx are calling me stupid about because what you keep shouting you believe you don't believe. This is what the guest was telling the host, that the deficit problem is real, that it can't be fixed on the revenue side, that it is so real that it requires spending cuts AND taxes to fix. You are all in denial of reality, keep hearkening back to your inculcated propaganda induced religious belief garbage about feeding the beast. You have dove head first down the rabbit hole of altered reality shouting like mad men, off with its head because your brains are totally addled and looney and can't trust reality, the host or good old brilliant Moonie when he tells you the problem is real. What would you clowns know about real? What you delusional idiots are going to have to understand is that nobody can deny reality. The problem is real and no matter how many times you deny the problem it will not go away. The deficit is a real danger and real people with real brains that actually function like the guest who can actually see it is real will be the among the kinds of minds it will take to solve it. You see the problem is real and it carries with it all the weight of reality.
Now we are going to sing, because we have to amuse Chucky:
How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost
But now am found
Was blind but now I see
'Tis WTF that taught
My heart to fear
And Moonie my fears relieved
Now precious dear
That Moonie appeared
The hour I first believed
When we've been there
Ten thousand years
Bright shining as massive debt
We've no less days
To sing taxes praise
Than when we first begun
Amazing shared sacrifice
How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost
But now am found
Was blind but now I see
I once was lost
But, the deficit is real
I once was blind
But, now, now I see
Thank taxes AND Spending cuts
Funny you'd claim that, given the number of people who work for govt in various capacities.
Those must not be "real" jobs, huh?
Yes, Sam Walton's heirs earned every penny, and so did Mitt.
Full of shit? You're actually engaging in some introspection?
I think Mitt did earn his money. I thought I read somewhere that he didn't take any inheritance. In any case it doesn't matter if it was inherited or earned directly the government didn't earn the money. What is it to you if I leave my daughter an inheritance?
Yes you are full of shit. Are your eyes brown?
Then start cutting spending and we can talk about raising taxes. I don't think we're ignoring this at all. I would be much more receptive to tax hikes if there were some significant spending cuts.
We know raising taxes won't help the economy, right? We can argue that it won't harm it but we have to have some common ground on the fact that raising taxes will not create economic growth. Do you agree with that or no?
Govt creates money in the first place, in case you haven't realized that.
And they earn some of it back as taxes by providing the kind of protective framework of law, regulation & infrastructure that makes it possible for business & at least some individuals to thrive. It's not like Mitt's schemes would have earned him much money in Bangla Desh or Somalia... Looting is only lucrative in rich countries.
I disagree with it. Raising taxes will allow the govt more leeway to engage in infrastructure, research, education and a lot more.
What is it that cutting taxes at the top has gained us, other than deficits & debt along with greater inequality than is healthy in a democracy?
I never said taxes don't need to be raised. They do. On Everyone living above whatever the new poverty line would be with the increased taxes. What I've said is that raising taxes before the Fed (and State/county/local) can demonstrate they first are trustable to live within their means, or make massive steps towards that, is batshit F'ing insane. More insane that even your last post here. And the reason it is that insane is because any money sent to these fools in Congress and the Executive is met with a burp and an exclamation of 'That's it? More please...'. They will just spend the increased money, and the yearly budget gap will never be seriously addressed, and the national debt will never be paid down. So what was the point of sending them more money again? That's right, there isn't one. So why do you keep advocating doing that before they've proved themselves?
You've ducked all 4 questions I've asked you now, and posted more insanity. Honestly I can't tell if you're still doing parody posting or if you really are posting for real (they are very hard to tell apart most often). What was the problem answering the 4 questions, were they uncomfortable for your argument?
To take your example further, it'd be like agreeing that the yards in the neighborhood absolutely need to be cut, they're way too high. Each and every time we've lent the lawnmower (which is plenty big enough to get the job done) to the kid that cuts them, he F'ing destroys the lawnmower, each time promising he'll get it right this time, each time, F'ing it up worse.
Moonie is suggesting we send the kid out with our lawnmower again. I'm suggesting we don't and let the kid figure out how to get the lawns cut which is his responsibility to do. Maybe the kid will finally figure it out. If he doesn't, are we any worse off? Nope, but at least we've got a working lawnmower and our own yards are straight.
Interesting point: When asked if Moonie is going to lend the kid his lawnmower this time, Moonie ducks question with insane post. Weirdly, other Lefties on this board when asked same question don't like it either. Shocker.....
Most of those jobs shouldn't even exist and they rely on TAXPAYER DOLLARS
Yeh, we don't need cops , firefighters, FBI, CIA, the military, the FDA, CDC or any of it. If we just disbanded govt, let the corporations run everything, why, we'd all be ever so much better off.
I never said that though, how about you stop making exaggerations, typical of the leftists
I propose we come up with a percentage of the budget we must pay every year, with it getting closer to 100% every year, and depending on your income (make it progressive and all) a certain percentage of it must go to federal taxes. If spending goes up so do your taxes, and I mean everyones taxes. No way in hell would we have seen spending spike in the last decade if we actually had to pay even some of it as we went.
Funny you mention that...... Rich people, middle class, etc...pay those taxes to. As a percentage of GDP TOTAL government revenue is at a near high even though Federal revenue isn't. Who do you think is really paying all of those state and local taxes?
How so? I wouldn't exactly be hoping that an extra $80-100B a year (on the high side) will allow us to spend that much more....... I would kinda hope that would be that much less we had to borrow.
Generally 'user fees' and such things are flatter than income taxes. It's one of the reasons they are currently in vogue. Even property taxes are flatter than income. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the answer to your question is that the distribution of tax payment is flatter now than it would be under a more income-tax dominant system. I don't think that's the answer you were looking for here.
Jhhnn, there's not a lot of room for flexibility, if by flexibility you mean the usual, which is 'spend more'. Responsible deleveraging is going to require cutting up the national credit card, and making some seriously hard choices. Like any debtor (well, any debtor who wakes up and makes a plan to repay, before it's too late), there will have to be spending along the way (people gotta eat!), but your statement is exactly why buckshot made the statement he made.
He's wrong; spending cuts alone cannot, will not get America out of the hole it is in. I would estimate 10-15 years of increased taxes, severely careful spending, a focus on debt reduction, and possibly a mild inflationary monetary policy (which, when intentional, is just another 'tax'; albeit one that acts as an incentive to invest). This might bring Debt:GDP to a level that is sustainable and not crippling.
But you are wrong, too; public spending needs to be focused on maintaining existing infrastructure, meeting so-called 'entitlement' commitments, particularly to those too late in their careers to adjust (in case it matters, this would not include me), industrial and business regulation and support, emergency services, etc.
"Leeway" isn't just about money, but rather politics, as well. A return to Clinton era taxes is just a small step in the right direction.
It's also about the problem facing all advanced economies, excessive concentration of economic power & resource ownership. The top 1% share of national income has doubled over the last 30 years, thanks to a flawed tax & corporate structure, and will likely double again over the next 30 years if current thinking prevails.
Plutocracy & egalitarian democracy aren't really compatible, no matter how desperately Righties want to believe that they are.
What we know is that you live in an altered reality. You don't know anything you think you know. You have neither humility nor a capacity to reason. You have proven this over and over in many threads. All of the assumptions you make are false. You are a bigot. A bigot is a person who confuses the fact that there is a good with the notion that he knows what it is. This creates a blindness trap. One's certainty that their is a good becomes confused with ones opinion of what the good is, such that any challenge to the assumptions one makes as to that good become mistaken for and confused with the idea that the idea of good itself is being challenged.
The emotional stake in the existence of good, the good feeling that one knows that life is good, the moral foundation of one's being are what is at stake for you. You can't see because you do not want to die emotionally. You are emotionally committed to your beliefs, you are biased, you can't truthfully examine your inner reality. You don't know what it means to die to your inner truth, to accept that there is no good, to let go, to surrender, to collapse emotionally. I do, and because of that we can't talk. I can see who you are but you can't see me. You are afraid, afraid I will take away from you what is your treasure. But the only treasure a bigot has is his blindness. Sorry. The price you pay for truth is everything you own. Like me, you get to own absolutely nothing except the joy that brings.
"We know raising taxes won't help the economy, right?"
What we know is that all questions are motivated. They are asked for a reason, usually to set a mental trap, to confine one to a chain of rationalizations that lead the bigot from his feeling there is a good to the notion that good is as he defines it. So the real importance of your question isn't a yes or no answer that serves your motivation, but to know what your game is.
"We can argue that it won't harm it but we have to have some common ground on the fact that raising taxes will not create economic growth."
This is the kind of assumption I spoke of. We have to have something because we are motivated to feel that we do. Remove that motivation and the question disappears.
"Do you agree with that or no?"
Yes. But it doesn't matter. The problem is real, deficits are a real problem, and that's what you won't accept. You already have told yourself you have your answers. You already know what the good is. You live in an altered reality, as I said.