tax cut is a good start, but less military spending is better..

Ok, after this post I'll stop ranting unless I'm provoked :winkwink:


About tax cuts being good for the economy. In certain circumstances they are.
When you put more money into the private sector, its good for the economy. The reason being there is more capital available for business to invest and expand.

Budget deficits are bad for the economy for the same reason. When the federal government runs a deficit, they have to borrow (float T-bills) to pay for the deficit. This takes money away from the private sector, making less capital available for business investment and expansion.

So if you can cut taxes AND balance the budget, its great for the economy. If your tax cuts run up the deficit, then you're simply robbing peter to pay paul, there won't be more capital available in the private sector because what the government gives the economy in the form of tax cuts it takes away in the form of a budget deficit.

The Reagan economy wasn't good because of lower tax rates. The Reagan economy grew because of the end of the oil embargo, the development of new technologies such as fuel injection, which overnight doubled the worlds oil supply, (by doubling fuel economy) dropping the price of oil considerably, and defense spending at levels that literally turned our economy into a "wartime" economy. (And left us with 5 trillion in debt)

The economy grew under the Clinton administration as well, but he raised taxes. That alone is enough to make one skeptical of the idea that the economy is slow because taxes are too high.
Smart governing and fiscal responsibility (NAFTA, balancing the budget) plus the lucky timing of the dot com boom helped the economy during those 8 years.

Tax cuts when there's a surplus, yes that helps the economy. Tax cuts when there's already a record deficit AND we're fighting a war? Bad idea.

No... if we didn't have systems of budeting rampant in this government that penalize departments for not using all the money they had alotted, then we could have 1/2 the taxes and still grow the military.

Has anyone here actually served in the government or worked on government contracts? Lemme tell you that what you will find will twist your fucking head off. If anyone ran a company the way we run our country, they would be in deeper shit than Enron.

I'll agree that tax cuts are bad only in so far as our system is so fucked up that we need to keep growing revenue into it to keep it in place as it is. But if the damn thing was overhauled we could go back to running it on sales and property and some trade taxes
alone.

Last point that bugs me - lower income folks getting pissed when their are corporate tax breaks. What do you think happens when corps have more cash flow? They expand which means they create more jobs which means more people spend more money and more sales tax is collected. It aint brain surgery guys, come on!

so in other words, there actually *is* one place where the rich aren't being soaked to prop up the less productive.

If you were travelling with a woman and a child, and there was a bunch of stuff you needed to take along, would you mind carrying more than them just because you are stronger and thus can carry more, or would you insist on the woman and the child carrying just as much as you?

When you make money, you begin to understand.... when you make more money, you understand more

Mark I agree with your points on government spending and the ridiculous way the agencies and contracts are run.
I happen to be a big John McCain fan.

If we could fix those issues ALL of us would pay lower taxes.

better for our enemies.

no thanks.

Are the woman and child mine?

the government has no right to decide how much *I* should carry. that right is mine.

Interesting analogy but now you speak of altruism and not being FORCED to carry extra.

But, as I said above, beyond the idea of higher income people paying in a greater amount is the fact that higher income people also will spend more and thus keep money flowing into other people's hands. You tax people more and they work on finding ways of hiding money or stowing it away in tax free investments instead of spending it. Cuz right now if you spend $100 on something that isn't a write-off it's like you spend $138 since you have to pay taxes on that $100 too.

Look at how shitty our economy is right now and how the war started and it hurt the economy... now THINK about this. How does a war effect the economy? Does it make a dollar less valuable. Do stores raise prices? NO. People get scared and stop spending money and whole it away. They don't invest in stocks, etc...

So the economy gets bad and a "liberal" says we better raise taxes cuz there is less money going around... but taking more from people makes them spend less and have less for stocks and the like. So how does that make sense?! The economy is nothing more than the result of psychology. Give people more to spend or make them feel safe about what they might spend and things get kicking.

No, what. Rooster's joke was that we should have NO income tax, not half the income tax. ;-)

Just a random woman and child that you are travelling with, and have chosen to travel with.

Would you carry more than them?


And yes, the government does have that right. The government is like a group of people travelling together, who basically say: if you travel with us, you carry an amount relative to your strength. If you don't want to, fuck off and go travel with some other people.
In other words: if you don't like paying those taxes, go find a country where there are less of them. Nobody is forcing you to stay.

If I were twice as strong as the woman I'd carry twice as much as her but it would make no sense for me to carry 2.5 times as much.

I think the main difference between you and I (other than our diametrically opposed views) is that for you this is personal.

You want lower taxes for the wealthy because you want more money in your pocket, hence the reason most wealthy people vote republican, its self serving.

I don't like paying taxes anymore than you do. And while I'm sure I pay alot less than you do, I'm also sure I pay alot more than you think I do.
When I decide who I'm going to vote for, or what policy I'm going to support, I don't just look at what's good for me, right now. I look at what's best for everyone, long term.
I have parents and grandparents that I'd like to see be able to collect their social security checks without having to have their benefits cut in half or everyone's payroll tax doubled.
I have a child that I don't want to leave a 10 trillion dollar debt to, just so that I can have a few extra K in the bank this year.

There are dozens of reasons that I call myself a liberal, and none of those reasons have anything to do with me wanting a welfare check, or making someone else support me, or saving the whales, or any of that bullshit.

agreed


agreed.

So the answer is to stop spending. you know how you stop spending? by forcing everyone to spend the same amount in tax (a poll tax if you will)
once the poor realize just how expensive it is to pay for all of the stupid handouts they vote for, we'll get spending under control.

maybe

the false growth of the clinton economy was dot com smoke and mirrors. this makes no intelligent person "skeptical" about taxes and their effect.

No its not. appearently, you've got to force a budget deficit crisis to wake up the assholes in washington to the fact that you can't just keep increasing spending year after year.

You should talk to my girlfriend some time :winkwink:

Maybe making no or less enemies could be an idea?

No, you see, for you its personal as well. you get to enjoy the fruits of my labor and god forbid anything like fairness should get in the way of you're using *my* money to better *your* life. It's a lot MORE personal for you because you happily take others money and then are willing to lie about the rightness of it.

ah look, a liberal politely calling me selfish and short sited. typical. sadly, you're mistaken.

yes, and instead of doing the intelligent, long term thing of voting for less spending, you'd rather continue having others pay for what *YOU* want. how selfish and sad.

No, its all about someone else paying for the things *you* want and can't afford.
That my friend, is what liberalism is all about.:thumbsup

I don't know if that is true for "12 clicks" but I doubt it.

I myself have been in favor of a flat tax probably since I was 18 years old. At that age, I wasn't even making enough money to pay taxes.

So you assume that anyone that thinks a graduated income tax is less fair than a graduated one does so only out of self-interest?

"Maybe making no or less enemies could be an idea?"


Spoken like an ultra liberal. Its attitudes like that which let a Hitler take over europe.

I totally agree with the points about spending. It is ridiculous.

Not just for handouts for poor people, there's also lots of handouts for corporations as well. Its the good ole boy campaign contribution network that's been going on for decades. (One of the main reasons I like McCain and his campaign finance ideas and pork report)

If congress were forced to pass spending cuts at the exact same time as tax cuts, so that the budget would always balance, I think that would be a great idea.

But bringing a tax cut to the table, when there's already a record deficit, plus a war, and trying to sell me on the idea that it'll pay for itself because it will make the economy grow just doesn't cut it.

no, they're not mine.


no son, thats communism. use a sensible analogy and you might figure out why you're wrong.
using the punkworld logic, 4 men are traveling together. 3 of them have 5 dollars each and one of them has 100 dollars. one of the 5 dollar guys says,"I think he should give us his 100 dollars. the 100 dollar guy says, "no, this is mine" the three 5 dollar guys say,"lets take a vote" the vote is 3:1 and they proceed to take the money from the 100 dollar guy.

Now if you're a liberal, you think this is legal because it was a vote and majority knows what's right.

If you're a conservative you understand that stealing is stealing no matter how you try to disguise it. :321GFY

When I was 18, I was roofing by day and bartending at night but I still understood that making the rich pay more than everyone else was nothing more than state sponsored theft.

I didn't like roofing. Tried it for one day. My fear of heights combined with the 120 degree temperature at my feet made for a dreadful combination.

I love the way you just abandon all of your points that I refute and search for something you can cling to.

my fear of being an out of work liberal was greater than my fear of hights. :thumbsup

I immediately found another job. Sheetrock jock.

No I never said anyone or everyone. I was simply stating that most people do what's in their own best interest.
So wealthy people will almost always support tax cuts for the wealthy, while poor people will almost always support tax cuts and handouts for the poor.

I live Louisiana, the people here voted for Bush because they wanted to pay less taxes, but they have consistently voted for two democratic senators because they promise and deliver more federal subsidies for the local sugar industry and more navy contracts for the shipyards. So they voted for less taxes and more spending.
So either they're really bad at math, or it was self interest all the way in both elections.

So you'd rather watch them die along the road than help out by carrying a bit more, even though you could do so with ease?

No, communism would be where the government would expect everyone to be equally strong. That isn't the case here.

You seem to be missing a point here, namely that the guy with 100 dollars also has the option to keep his money and just not travel with the other guys.

That argument really pisses me off. Have you forgotten why America is here and how it got started? If everyone felt that way there'd be nothing but dictatorships in this world. Sometimes you have to pick a place and fucking fight for your freedoms! Any freedom you aren't willing to stand up for is one you don't deserve in my opinion.

I didn't abandon anything. Just because I agree with you on most of your points concerning government spending doesn't refute anything I said before about tax breaks.

The current tax bill (eliminating the tax on stock dividends) almost exclusively benefits the wealthy, and its effect on our economy is questionable at best.

No, liberal. You're trying to disguise theft.

Nope, I wouldn't watch them die, I'd be too busy carrying my own woman and child's wieght. get it? I'll bet not.





you didn't pay attention in school very much did you?
ever hear the phase "to each his need, from each their ability" (or roughly that) That's what you're saying, thats communism 101.

2.5 would not if you were 2 times stronger than her, mathematically speaking, but a relatively higher load might very well make sense.
Remember, apart from the strength you need to carry the load, you also need strength to walk. Now, imagine that what she carries leaves exactly enough strength to walk. You, on the other hand, have more than enough strength left to walk with much ease, since you have twice as much left. The child, however, won't have enough strength left to walk, since it will only have half as much strength left as the woman, half as much as is required to walk. It will be left behind and die, following your logic.

You're saying that if everyone respected democratic decisions there wouldn't be anything but dictatorships left in the world?

when you trotted out this:
and I exposed it for the liberal claptrap it is, you went skipping off to the "no no, I agree the government speds too much.

But even that clap trap was proceeded by the fallacy you tried to slip by about the rich not really paying more and the tax rates secretly help the rich.

does being a liberal mean you don't defend you position you just keep changing it until the other side is tired of chasing you?:winkwink:

Why is it theft if someone has the option to just leave and not pay? That's like calling paying for going to the movies getting robbed; there you can also pay and stay, or not pay and leave.

But their weight you can take care of without any problems... The woman and child die because you refuse to put up a slight extra effort in order to save their lives.

In my example one can still have much more (strength in the example, but could be substituted with money) left than the others. Not exactly the idea of communism.
I don't think everyone should have the same, I think everyone should have the absolute basics to live, and after that I am all for inequalities in possessions.

A side note if you don't think rich people pay enough taxes.

The top one percent of the US pays 37.4% of the taxes.
The top one percent earns 20% of the income.

The top 25% of the US pays 84% of the taxes and earns 66% of the income.

Only 10 years ago, the top 1% only payed 25% of the taxes (I'd hate to see what its goign to be 10 years from now)

If rich people pay any more taxes there will no longer be a motivation to succeed. Why the fuck would I want to bust my ass all day long if im just going to have to spend it all on dumb people. I think I might just go on welfare and do nothign all day. It sounds kind of nice.


Greed is not a bad thing. It drives our economy.

You're distorting what I said to try and make me fit your image of a liberal. I never said tax rates secretly help the rich, I never said the rich didn't pay more in taxes.
What I did say was that when the lowest bracket gets a tax cut, the highest bracket also gets the exact same cut.
When the highest bracket gets a cut, ONLY the highest bracket benefits.

When I say I agree that the gov't spends too much, I'm referring mostly to political pork and the ridiculous way government agencies are run. No reasonable person would look at those numbers and say "that's the way it should be"

I also said that I want social security to be there for my parents. The fact that the social security surplus is included in the general budget in order to make the deficit look smaller is theft writ large IMO. I liked Gore's idea of a "lock box" for social security funds. Social security IS NOT where I think the gov't spends too much money.

I also said I have a child that I don't want to leave a 10 trillion dollar debt to. How does saying I think the gov't spends too much contradict that?

wow, you really *don't* understand.




No, you're wrong. ANY effort I expend on them is effort I could spend on my own children. If my children had everything life had to offer, then there would be extra effort to spare on others.
silly kid.

If their man is not there to pull their wieght, I guess so.




got ya liberal.
ALL people in the US currently have more than the "absolute basics to live"
your argument is lost. period.