Where Is The PROOF That The Conservative Agenda Works?

[Carl Spackler]

Where is your evidence of that? It directly contradicts our countries post industrial history. The facts support that. When we taxed the rich at a higher rate, we had less debt. That is an indisputable fact.

The facts support my "vain attempt at logic", only far right rhetoric supports your conclusion.

This video has been posted before but I think certainly bears repeating...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ you call it "rhetoric" I call it facts, either way the current spending rates are unsustainable. It is not a collection problem it is a spending problem.

 

[Mr Neutron]

It represents where our tax dollars go - stuff that accounts for 1% or less of the budget. The year was 2009. I've heard it is now up to 11%, but I've not been able to confirm that through the CBO.

Don't get me wrong, 11% of our tax dollars going to pay for the interest on our debt is a lot. That is a problem that should be addressed.

But the idea that 100% of our tax dollars goes towards paying off the interest on our debt is utter stupidity. When someone starts off a post by saying something that absurd they instantly lose all credibility. That's a big clue that people should just stop reading that post right there. Nothing said after that can be considered reliable information.



Well that's not true either. I heard a great quote the other day. "The US government for all practical purposes is an insurance company with an army". And it's true! ~80% of our budget goes to the military and healthcare/elderly services. We can debate weather that is a good or bad thing till we are blue in the face, but it's not inefficiency and waste.

It's not like Obama went out and bought a trillion dollars worth of Soulja Boy ringtones.

If you want to consider interest on the debt waste, that's a valid characterization. You could say ~10% is waste. You may disagree with where the rest of the money goes, but it's not waste.

"It represents where our tax dollars go-stuff that accounts for 1% or less of the budget"
So Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, non-defense discretionary, other mandatory and interest on the debt is only 1% or less of the budget? Man, we're in a lot more trouble than I thought. Where is the other 99% of the budget spent, then?
Yes, my statement was incorrect and I later corrected it, but I am not posting pie charts without explanation of what they represent or making ridiculous statements like: "It (pie chart) represents where our tax dollars go-stuff that accounts for 1% or less of the budget" but I have lost all credibility. So be it. Did you read the Grace Commission report? I quote "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by the interest on the Federal debt and by Federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government"

"Well that's not true either. I heard a great quote the other day. "The US government for all practical purposes is an insurance company with an army"".

I hear quotes all the time, too:
"Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets
a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with
it so he can see what's happening to him."

--T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of IRS

(May 25, 1956 in U.S. News & World Report)

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."
Bill Clinton


"Depression and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market, but by government interference in the economy."
Ludwig von Mises


"Those who call themselves "liberals" today are asking for policies which are precisely the opposite of those policies which the liberals of the nineteenth century advocated in their liberal programs. The so-called liberals of today have the very popular idea that freedom of speech, of thought of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from imprisonment without trial -- that all these freedoms can be preserved in the absence of what is called economic freedom. They do not realize that, in a system where there is no market, where the government directs everything, all those other freedoms are illusory, even if they are made into laws and written up in constitutions."
Ludwig von Mises

"We are, without a doubt, living in times that we have never lived in before."
Lee P Brown, Mayor of Houston, TX

"I promise a police car on every sidewalk."
"If you take the killings, Washington actually has a very, very low crime rate."
"The contagious people of Washington have stood firm against diversity during this long period of increment weather."
"I am making this trip to Africa because Washington is an international city, just like Tokyo, Nigeria or Israel. As mayor, I am an international symbol. Can you deny that to Africa?"
Marion Barry, crack-smokin' mayor of Washington, DC

 

[Mr Neutron]

Are you old enough to remember the Reagan presidency?

LOL, Truman was Prez when I was born... top that you young whippersnapper

 

[Dan Kone]

"It represents where our tax dollars go-stuff that accounts for 1% or less of the budget"
So Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, non-defense discretionary, other mandatory and interest on the debt is only 1% or less of the budget?

No, they represent about 90%. Not sure why this is so complex for you.

 

[Carthoris]

Sure, go right on arguing how taxing the rich will help and ignore the fact that even if you took all the rich(over $200k earners) peoples money you wouldn't have enough to even balance the budget.

 

[mame]

The question could very well be asked:
"Where is the PROOF that the liberal agenda works?"p

Funny you ask: https://www.rollitup.org/politics/422497-wheres-proof-librulism-works-5.html

There is plenty of sourced information in the linked thread - among others - to support its effectiveness.

 

[redivider]

Sure, go right on arguing how taxing the rich will help and ignore the fact that even if you took all the rich(over $200k earners) peoples money you wouldn't have enough to even balance the budget.

taxing the rich will help the deficit. you are the one acting like if it won't.

 

[Carthoris]

If Liberals said "We are going to cut the government, and raise taxes" I would probably vote for them. It isn't even the idea of communism that they support that sickens me, it is the fact that they are just retarded and can't grasp simple math. Even if you raised taxes to 70% on the rich, you would still be WAY in the hole and it would require taxing the lower and middle classes. So you either tax the lower and middle classes or you cut their benefits, and that is even with taxing the rich at a crazy percentage that will destroy the economy. It is as simple as that. So if they are essentially paying for every new program you make then you aren't helping them, you are taking their money from them to give them a service. It is almost like the government is a business that has the power to force people to buy their product whether they want it, need it, or use it. Essentially, you want to get to the point where you have all the money and then you dole it out in services and resources to the people you decide need them. Do you see why a lot of sane people consider the liberals to be communist?

 

[Carthoris]

taxing the rich will help the deficit. you are the one acting like if it won't.

It will help the deficit a tiny bit, but only in the short run. You keep adding programs and entitlements without increasing revenue. Even if you raise the taxes enough to take another trillion you still have a shortfall and you are way past that 70% tax bracket that destroys the economy. What do you do at home when you don't make enough money to cover bills? Oh, wait, most people don't purposely get bills they can't pay because they know what will happen.

 

[redivider]

wrong.

'so you either tax the lower and middle classes or you cut their benefits' < not the answer. in paper, it's easy as that.

reality is much more than numbers and decimal points on a piece of paper.

it's more than philosophical metaphors and poetic descriptions.....

truth is cutting benefits for lower classes would cause the same things we saw during the great depression: extreme poverty/extreme wealth. NO MIDDLE CLASS.

this middle class is what makes america great. it's not the big business interests. it's not the families making over 200k, they're the minority. it's the millions of families out there making around 100k in wages and benefits which were'nt doled out to them through the kindness of some rich individual.

NO. THAT REVISIONIST VIEW OF AMERICA WON'T FLY WITH ME.

the lower classes of this country fought tooth and nail to get all the benefits/good wages we have now. and we'll be damned if the plutocracy de-regulation has created will strip it away....

 

[Dan Kone]

Sure, go right on arguing how taxing the rich will help and ignore the fact that even if you took all the rich(over $200k earners) peoples money you wouldn't have enough to even balance the budget.

But that's not true?

The average income (2007 income, can't find 2010) for the top 400 families in America was ~345million dollars per family. That's nearly $1.4 trillion right there which is the deficit.

That's not even people making over $200k per year, that's just the top 400.

These people pass on average less that 17% in taxes per year and still people want to cut their taxes even more! It's insane!

 

[Carthoris]

wrong.

'so you either tax the lower and middle classes or you cut their benefits' < not the answer. in paper, it's easy as that.

reality is much more than numbers and decimal points on a piece of paper.

it's more than philosophical metaphors and poetic descriptions.....

truth is cutting benefits for lower classes would cause the same things we saw during the great depression: extreme poverty/extreme wealth. NO MIDDLE CLASS.

this middle class is what makes america great. it's not the big business interests. it's not the families making over 200k, they're the minority. it's the millions of families out there making around 100k in wages and benefits which were'nt doled out to them through the kindness of some rich individual.

NO. THAT REVISIONIST VIEW OF AMERICA WON'T FLY WITH ME.

the lower classes of this country fought tooth and nail to get all the benefits/good wages we have now. and we'll be damned if the plutocracy de-regulation has created will strip it away....

Do you even read the stuff you reply to? I said go ahead and tax the rich, but you have to tax the other classes too. We got into this mess as a group and we have to get out of it as a group. What I do know is that if we continue on the path set before us by the democrats/liberals/progressive/communists/whatever then we will collapse. The big issue isn't how much money we are taking in, it is how much we are spending. Conservatives and Liberals did this. Fucking our country is the only thing that our politicians are truly bipartisan at. We blew what, a billion dollars in bombs on Libya in the last month? Where is the accountability for that? What was the point? None. Maybe I am the only one who is calculating these things are % of our deficit. We owe money as a country, fine, lets deal with that. Even Obama knows the deficit is a huge mess and needs to be fixed. That is how bad it is, democrats actually had a bright ray of reality shine through the unicorn curtains.

 

[Dan Kone]

Do you even read the stuff you reply to? I said go ahead and tax the rich, but you have to tax the other classes too.

We do tax the other classes. The richer you are, the less taxes you pay.

We really shouldn't even raise taxes on people making over $200k per year IMO. Those people aren't the problem. It's people making ~$1 million plus and their teams of tax lawyers that are the reason the wealthy pay a lower % of taxes than everyone else.

There should be a new top tax bracket for people making $1million plus. Those are the people who's taxes need to be adjusted up.

 

[Carthoris]

But that's not true?

The average income (2007 income, can't find 2010) for the top 400 families in America was ~345million dollars per family. That's nearly $1.4 trillion right there which is the deficit.

That's not even people making over $200k per year, that's just the top 400.

These people pass on average less that 17% in taxes per year and still people want to cut their taxes even more! It's insane!

Here is 2008:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en&hl=en&key=0AjrKFiusfAd9dHZuSWExS2RBNF8wei1WZmgyTG1yWkE&output=html

You say the top 400 families, how many people are in those families?

Here is the total IRS tax returns for 2008: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls

Also, I have to call into question your math.
345,000,000
x 400
138,000,000,000
138 billion is a far cry different than 1.4 trillion So even if you just robbed those people blind it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[mame]

We do tax the other classes. The richer you are, the less taxes you pay.

We really shouldn't even raise taxes on people making over $200k per year IMO. Those people aren't the problem. It's people making ~$1 million plus and their teams of tax lawyers that are the reason the wealthy pay a lower % of taxes than everyone else.

There should be a new top tax bracket for people making $1million plus. Those are the people who's taxes need to be adjusted up.

Exactly this. Back when the first progressive tax brackets were made, the highest bracket made a lot more in comparison to now because of inflation... At one point there were 5 brackets and now I believe there are only 4. Instead of taking the lowest bracket out and inserting another bracket for top earners (which is what should have happened) - but due to the political dogma associated with tax increases - this never happened and instead we just ended up with 4 tax brackets.

 

[Mr Neutron]

No, they represent about 90%. Not sure why this is so complex for you.

You've totally lost me now, I have NO idea what you are talking about.
1) I asked you what the pie chart represented
2) You said and I quote "It represents where our tax dollars go-stuff that accounts for 1% or less of the budget"
3) Now you're saying that they are 90% of the budget, which is it?

 

[mame]

Here is 2008:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en&hl=en&key=0AjrKFiusfAd9dHZuSWExS2RBNF8wei1WZmgyTG1yWkE&output=html

You say the top 400 families, how many people are in those families?

Here is the total IRS tax returns for 2008: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls

Also, I have to call into question your math.
345,000,000
x 400
138,000,000,000
138 billion is a far cry different than 1.4 trillion So even if you just robbed those people blind it wouldn't make any difference.

This (higher taxes on the rich, likely through an extra tax bracket) in combination with responsible cuts (closing loopholes, military, corporate welfare, real entitlement reform... not privatization) over the course of a couple decades can and will close that gap and eventually lead to a surplus - which would then allow the debt to be payed off (obviously over a long period of time).

edit: it all adds up.

 

[Carthoris]

We do tax the other classes. The richer you are, the less taxes you pay.

We really shouldn't even raise taxes on people making over $200k per year IMO. Those people aren't the problem. It's people making ~$1 million plus and their teams of tax lawyers that are the reason the wealthy pay a lower % of taxes than everyone else.

There should be a new top tax bracket for people making $1million plus. Those are the people who's taxes need to be adjusted up.

Once again, even if you took all the money that everyone in the country made over 200k it wouldn't cover our budget and those people wouldn't bother working anymore. We don't even have enough money in America to pay for the budget our politicians are giving us without deficit spending or big tax hikes for the low and middle class. Also, please, when you consider taxes, include all taxes like you would if we were talking about the lower/middle classes. Also, please remember that the more money you hold the harder the government inflating the money hurts your holdings. I reiterate that the problem we face as a country isn't how much we are taxing the rich, it is how much we are spending.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Exactly this. Back when the first progressive tax brackets were made, the highest bracket made a lot more in comparison to now because of inflation... At one point there were 5 brackets and now I believe there are only 4. Instead of taking the lowest bracket out and inserting another bracket for top earners (which is what should have happened) - but due to the political dogma associated with tax increases - this never happened and instead we just ended up with 4 tax brackets.

There are 6 brackets: 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35

 

[Carthoris]

This (higher taxes on the rich, likely through an extra tax bracket) in combination with responsible cuts (closing loopholes, military, corporate welfare, real entitlement reform... not privatization) over the course of a couple decades can and will close that gap and eventually lead to a surplus - which would then allow the debt to be payed off (obviously over a long period of time).

Yes, higher taxes and less benefits. That is what I said before. That is the only way you can dig out of this hole. I am all for cutting military spending, and all businesses should pay the same tax rate. However, the higher taxes on the rich even in this situation would still be far too much to keep them under that 70% mark. It would have to be tax increases across the board or a massive cut in benefits overall. As far as privatization, if it makes sense then I am not completely against that. We might pay it off in 50 years at the rate you are talking, maybe. It is a bitter medicine but I think we should just swallow and get to work with it.