We Are to Judge the Left Based on Their Intentions

[kallend 2,146]

So according to your hypothesis, we must have been in desperate straits during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years when tax rates on the wealthy were way higher.

Funny thing is, we weren't.

The advent of "Voodoo Economics" is what started the ball rolling towards massive debt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,103]

>Wealth is destroyed by taking it from one and giving it to many.

So if one person buys, say, an airplane, and gives a lot of money to the many people who built it - that wealth is destroyed? That's an overly simplistic, and almost entirely inaccurate, way of looking at economics - whether the route is through purchase or taxation.

You may have ideologic qualms over taxation and that's fine. But the economic argument that the money is "destroyed" is a non-starter. Indeed, economically you do much better if that money is transferred via taxation OR purchases, compared to letting it stay in a interest-bearing bank account.

[turtlespeed 226]

tkhayes

Quote

Because they are a family unit they support thier kids and do not need the government for help

pretty much everybody in this country has or will receive some form of 'govt help' at some point in their lives.

Yes, it must be evil.....everyone does it.

Pretty much "everybody"?
Where TF do you get that data?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

SkyDekker

But taxing the highest wealth earners a little more to try and manage that gap is a bad thing right?

Warren Buffet has been very outspoken on this issue. Yet he usually gets ridiculed for it. Ususally by people with your political leaning.

(And no I am not saying Liberals have the right ideas)

Only if you advocate theft.

Why don't you make up more of the difference out of your own pocket . . . live in a modest one bedroom apartment. give everything else you have to help.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[JerryBaumchen 1,461]

Hi turtle,

Quote

pretty much everybody in this country has or will receive some form of 'govt help' at some point in their lives. - - - Pretty much "everybody"? Where TF do you get that data?

Anybody who does anything on their tax filings to reduce their taxes receives gov't help; anybody.

I do, do you?

JerryBaumchen

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

Hi turtle,

Quote

pretty much everybody in this country has or will receive some form of 'govt help' at some point in their lives. - - - Pretty much "everybody"? Where TF do you get that data?

Anybody who does anything on their tax filings to reduce their taxes receives gov't help; anybody.

I do, do you?

JerryBaumchen

This is one of the most convoluted posts I have seen in some time

Your joking, right???

BTW
Like my dad, I do NOT list my church donations on my tax form
For me, somehow, that does not seem right
BUT
I take every other reduction in my taxes I can get
They get way to damned much of our money today the way it is
And those like you want it to be more it seems

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

You just referred to Baumchen as "those like you". I urge you to stop and think about that for a sec.

[rushmc 23]

Andy9o8

You just referred to Baumchen as "those like you". I urge you to stop and think about that for a sec.

I have
You are one of those
The those I refer to are liberals who think big government and more regulations is best
See, just like you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

But taxing the highest wealth earners a little more to try and manage that gap is a bad thing right?

Taxing for the purpose of directly affecting income distribution would be a bad thing, yes.

Also, "highest wealth earners" and "a little more" are ill-defined terms, and it's unlikely any definition you give to them to achieve a reasonable consensus will match what would end up as policy.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

(Buffett is ridiculed because he is a classic example of a person whose public statements and private conduct are different things. Like a GOP Congressman who pronounces family values while hooking up with gay prostitutes on the internet. No, he's not gay. He had other legitimate reasons for doing it, right?)

No it isn't the same.

These changes Buffet talks about only work if they are mandated. Just him doing it by himself doesn't serve the purpose at all. Warren Buffet donating all is wealth to the IRS would not solve the issues his proposed policy changes could make. So no, it isn't the same at all.

Quote

Wealth is destroyed by taking it from one and giving it to many.

That sentence simply doesn't make any sense. It is a great soundbite. Will froth the mouth of many while they curse socialism and/or communism. But, the sentene still doesn't make sense.

Quote

Seriously - why is there a shrinking of the middle class? Because policy demands it.

Right. But we can't change policy that affects the richest of the rich. We can't tax the middle class more, cause there is very little middle class left. No sense taxing the poor, hard to squeeze blood from a stone.

Quote

Tax policy under Clinton and Reagan showed that lower tax rates can and will increase revenue by increasing hiring. So did the "Bush Tax Reduction." All sent the economy rolling.

Awesome!!!!! And during that time the gap between rich and poor widened even further and the middle class continued to shrink. Sounds like it really helped!

[JerryBaumchen 1,461]

Hi rush,

Quote

And those like you want it to be more it seems

Your abilities in reading comprehension are pathetic at best.

JerryBaumchen

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

And those like you want it to be more it seems

Your abilities in reading comprehension are pathetic at best.

JerryBaumchen

Why thank you!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,103]

>You are one of those

The problem with your "us vs. them" approach is pretty soon you alone are left.

Jerry B thinks a lot of people get government assistance, so he's "them"
Lawrocket accepts humans affect the climate, so he's "them"
Winsor thinks population is the biggest issue with climate change, so he's "them"
Normiss wants cops held more accountable so he's "them"
Heck, Mitt Romney's family was on welfare, so those takers are "them" too.

Pretty soon "you" turns into the guy with his own blog of crazy who never comes out of his house because "they" are out there. (Which, by the guy's own efforts, is true.)

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Time for a different idea ...

Still waiting to hear some concrete proposals about these "different ideas", from anyone on the conservative/libertarian sides of the bench.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Time for a different idea ...

Still waiting to hear some concrete proposals about these "different ideas", from anyone on the conservative/libertarian sides of the bench.

Don

Workfare worked
But Obama ended that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Workfare worked
But Obama ended that

I must have missed that.

When did the US have a WorkFare program, and how did Obama end it?

- Dan G

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Workfare worked
But Obama ended that

"In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.[10] The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements.[11] The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs.[12] According to Peter Edelman, the director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, the waivers would reduce restrictions that increase the difficulty for states in helping TANF applicants find jobs.[13]

... Mitt Romney attacked the measure, saying that Obama was "gutting welfare reform". However, PolitiFact stated that Romney's claim was "not accurate" and "inflames old resentments", giving it a "Pants on Fire" rating.[14] CNN also reported that assertions that Obama was "taking the work requirement off the table" was false.[15] In response to Republican criticism, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress to allow waivers.[16]".
Source[I have marked certain sections in bold]

So, Republican governors complained that TANF rules were restricting them from implementing more effective ways of moving people from welfare to work. The Obama administration said, fine if you think you have a better idea, we'll give you a waiver so you can try it out. Then, Republicans attack Obama for "gutting welfare reform".

And people blame Obama for not wanting to negotiate with Republicans? Seriously?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[JerryBaumchen 1,461]

Hi Don,

Quote

And people blame Obama for not wanting to negotiate with Republicans? Seriously?

You must have missed the memo where it says that you cannot confuse the issue of the moment with facts.

Facts are such an ugly thing.



JerryBaumchen

[kallend 2,146]

lawrocket

Tax policy under Clinton and Reagan showed that lower tax rates can and will increase revenue by increasing hiring. (Sure, many argue a little too much.)

A GOP myth.

Revenues 1980-1989 in constant $Billions referenced to 2009 (that is, adjusted for inflation)

1,309.5
1,366.0
1,309.7
1,213.5
1,290.3
1,376.1
1,404.3
1,517.1
1,562.3
1,640.1

A modest increase at the end but nothing like enough to compensate for his spending increases.

Quote

So did the "Bush Tax Reduction." All sent the economy rolling.

Wrong again. Revenues 2001 - 2009 in inflation adjusted $Billions:

2,543.6
2,435.6
2,229.2
2,086.0
2,142.8
2,371.8
2,562.1
2,663.1
2,529.0

Quote

Wealth is destroyed by taking it from one and giving it to many.

Rubbish. There is no evidence to support that whatsoever.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Don,

Quote

And people blame Obama for not wanting to negotiate with Republicans? Seriously?

You must have missed the memo where it says that you cannot confuse the issue of the moment with facts.

Facts are such an ugly thing.



JerryBaumchen

Like these:

www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.