Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Is TomDavidson is right? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Is TomDavidson is right?
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm assuming by that statement that the laffer curve is a foreign concept to you.".

In that was the context of your original statement, you could just as accurately have said "Tax cuts decrease federal revenue --- this is a proven fact."

It is, on it's own, a useless statement. You also have to assume you are on a particular side of the curve, and that is not so obvious.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Upper end taxes will increase while lower end taxes will be cut. This will put more money in consumer pockets and give small businesses a better shot at competing with large ones while reclaiming wealth that's kept out of the system by moving from investment to CEO paycheck and back again.

wtf does that mean? The bottom 50% of the population dont pay any taxes. So you are in favor of raising taxes on the owners of successful businesses? How the heck is that going to help the businesses employees?

How will small busisness have a better shot? What SPECIFIC policy are you talking about? I think you are letting your feelings cloud your logic. I have yet to hear a specific Obama plan to help small business. All I hear is that he's going to repeal the Bush tax cuts which helped my small business maintain profitability.


quote:
Tax breaks for small business investments will likewise help pull market focus away from dangerously large corporations.
What tax breaks for small businesses? Did I miss something?

quote:
Tax auditing will be focused back on the top 20% of taxpayers, where the most lost income is, rather than hounding the bottom 20% over a relatively trivial amount of EITC claims.
Says who? How much of the IRS's time does it even spend on the bottom 80% of taxpayers anyway? Where are you getting this information?

quote:
Borrowed money will be spend creating jobs effecting infrastructure repairs and overhauls- long term investments that will reduce costs across the board and bring essential services to even remote areas of the country.
Roflmao? What? Says who? What policies will ensure this? Has this ever worked before? Will liberal democrats spend the money efficiently and without corruption? History proves otherwise? Really man, you are living in a fantasy world.

quote:
Ensuring that many more people have access to primary and preventative care will significantly reduce medical costs, strain on ERs, and the number of unpaid or outright defaulted medical debts that are crippling our hospitals.
GREAT, as the rest of the world is discovering that socialized health care simply doesnt work our American socialist want to take their failed programs and bring them here.

quote:
More funding for social support and education programs
Are you aware that consistantly throughout the USA that the schools with the 'highest budget per student' consistantly have the worst performance records? So your solution is to dump more money into the failed system? Are you aware that liberals have been doing this for 60 years and continue to complain about the same problems. How is this new? This is the same old failed policies of every liberal who held office.
Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pinochio:
You are aware that during the last 3 major tax cuts in our nations history there has been a record increase in federal revenue (Kenedy,Reagan, Bush)???? Tax cuts increase federal revenue --- this is a proven fact. Why than would you be in favor of raising your employer's taxes? I find no logic in this mentality.

The concept you are referring to is the Laffer _Curve_, not the Laffer Line. Kennedy and Regan's cuts fueled growth because taxes were indeed set so high that they were preventing suplpiers from growing as quickly as demand was increasing. (Note the important qualifier of demand increasing there) Were seeing today exactly what the growth under Bush amounted to (fueled in large part by his return to deficit spending, though not effectively, because there was little investment in lasting infrastructure improvements or base level job creation) and we're now seeing tax revenue shortfalls across the board.

Demand is decreasing. Suppliers are cutting jobs not because of taxes, but because they've got too much stock and no one to buy it. Cutting their taxes isn't suddenly going to make more consumers appear, it's just going to put more money in their pockets that will not be put back into circulation to fuel growth. (If it puts money in their pockets at all, given that many of them are probably reporting negative profits at the moment.

Over the past 70 years, we've seen the best economic growth across all classes under administrations that applied more liberal economic policies (The only exception, under Carter, came because such policies were too successful, making it time to shift strategies, which is hard to do when you've been doing well with one method for a long time.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:

In that was the context of your original statement, you could just as accurately have said "Tax cuts decrease federal revenue --- this is a proven fact."

Fair enough, You can change my original statement to "tax cuts (from the current high rates to an unknown number above 0) consistently increase federal revenue"

Having a conversation takes some degree of interpreting the writers intent. IF not, everything someone writes would take 10,000 words.

Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Suppliers are cutting jobs not because of taxes, but because they've got too much stock and no one to buy it. Cutting their taxes isn't suddenly going to make more consumers appear, it's just going to put more money in their pockets that will not be put back into circulation to fuel growth.

A very short sited and liberally indocrinated way of thinking. From making such a comment I can almost be guarneteed that you are not a small business owner, in upper management or have ever been responsible for making a payroll of ensuring profitability.

My experience (in all of those things) causes me to believe otherwise. But heck, you are free to believe whatever you want. Just simply be sure that your opinion never exceeds your knowledge base... because its apparent to those who know better when this is the case.

[ November 18, 2008, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Pinochio ]

Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with the dumbing down and the enslavement to corporations. How you manage to wed this in your mind to collectivism is beyond me though...
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where to start... how about with 'the rules' - in fact the very first rule:
"1. We aren't impressed by your credentials, Dr. This or Senator That. We aren't going to take your word for it, we're going to think it through for ourselves."

Secondly, maybe you were "in upper management" but from the communication skills you've displayed here... well, it wouldn't be any upper management I am familiar with.

At any rate, saying "I'm smart, you're dumb, I'm right, you're wrong" won't get you very far here (or anywhere, except maybe in upper management...)

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
we're going to think it through for
I dont hear you thinking about anything. I hear you repeating 60 year old liberal talking points.

quote:
At any rate, saying "I'm smart, you're dumb, I'm right, you're wrong" won't get you very far here (or anywhere, except maybe in upper management...)
I agree. A person who makes these statements would be as big of a jackass as someone who puts words into others mouths which they did not ever say.

[ November 18, 2008, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Pinochio ]

Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Over the past 70 years, we've seen the best economic growth across all classes under administrations that applied more liberal economic policies

You really must live on a parallel universe. If you made a list of the cities and states that are completely controlled by liberals and managed by liberal policies you will also have a list of the most broke, and bankrupt cities, states, etc in the nation. The lists would be identical.

On the other hand, if you made a list of the most fiscally conservative locations which have constantly been shielded from liberal policies, tax increases, increase in government, etc.. you would also have a list of the most successful economies in the country.

obviously though, these lists would just be a coincidence and would in no way conclude that liberalism leads to bankruptcy.

Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why is the Conservative Elitists blatant spin and ideologues who don't care about facts or other viewpoints any more evil than the Liberal Intellectual Elitists blatant spin and ideologues who don't care about facts or other viewpoints?
Nothing, cb. But I constantly hear about the Liberal Elite, and how they are running our country into the ground. Mainly from the Conservative Elites, who somehow miss many facts and alternative viewpoints when making that point.

I rarely hear about Conservative Elites, though. (I had to lift the term from Michael Medved. [Smile] ) Perhaps that is because I usually listen to NPR, Keith Olberman, and once in a while the main stream news. Perhaps if I listened to Fox and the Conservative Elitists I would hear more from the Liberal Elite, whom the Conservative Elitists just love to constantly quote.

Anyway, the point is that just because liberals are in the White House (an inevitable result, since the Conservative Elitists had labeled McCain a Liberal early on) doesn't mean there will be nothing to rage about. Right-wing spin (just like the Left-wing spin) will always be there to bring up our blood pressure. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
I agree with the dumbing down and the enslavement to corporations. How you manage to wed this in your mind to collectivism is beyond me though...

How can you not?

Compulsory public education was legislated in this country by the Federal Government based on a collectivist argument.

How else can you explain legislating the power of the State wielded with the threat of legal consequences to FORCE parents to submit their children to institutional brainwashing?

"Before public schooling, illiteracy was rampant!"

"If we don't have public schooling, bad/poor/irresponsible parents will not ensure that their kids get an education!"

Those are all typical arguments put forth in support of the status quo of the hegemony of our Public Educational System...and they are all collectivist based.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pinochio:
quote:

Upper end taxes will increase while lower end taxes will be cut. This will put more money in consumer pockets and give small businesses a better shot at competing with large ones while reclaiming wealth that's kept out of the system by moving from investment to CEO paycheck and back again.

wtf does that mean? The bottom 50% of the population dont pay any taxes. So you are in favor of raising taxes on the owners of successful businesses? How the heck is that going to help the businesses employees?

If the bottom 50% didn't pay taxes, we'd be in much better shape right now. As it stands the Bottom 40% of the population pays about 5% of the annual tax revenue. The top 20% is responsible for for about 70% of it. That may seem reasonable or like the top is overburdened until you consider the fact that the bottom 40% owns about 0.2% of all wealth in the US while the top 20% owns over 85%. And those numbers are trending further apart. Properly balanced, each population segment would be paying taxes in proportion to the wealth it controls- as it stands, the bottom 40% is on the "taxes to high" side of the Laffer curve, while the top 20% is on the "taxes too low"

quote:

How will small busisness have a better shot? What SPECIFIC policy are you talking about? I think you are letting your feelings cloud your logic. I have yet to hear a specific Obama plan to help small business. All I hear is that he's going to repeal the Bush tax cuts which helped my small business maintain profitability.

You can see a breakdown of most of the points here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm

There's also a good analysis of the effects of Obama's tax policy here, which notes that about 97% of small businesses which are affected by changes to the personal income tax rate will see a cut, not an increase:

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/10/03/obama-tax-plan/

quote:

quote:
Tax breaks for small business investments will likewise help pull market focus away from dangerously large corporations.
What tax breaks for small businesses? Did I miss something?

Apparently:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf

quote:

Provide Zero Capital Gains and Other Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Ups: Barack Obama believes that we need to reduce burdens on small business owners, many of whom are struggling to succeed as health care and energy costs continue to skyrocket. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will eliminate all capital gains taxes on small and start-up businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama and Biden will support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.

quote:

quote:
Tax auditing will be focused back on the top 20% of taxpayers, where the most lost income is, rather than hounding the bottom 20% over a relatively trivial amount of EITC claims.
Says who? How much of the IRS's time does it even spend on the bottom 80% of taxpayers anyway? Where are you getting this information?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=900644

This was from 2003, yes, but the problem (and the tax gap) has only increased. If I turn up the more current report I can pass it along, but this should at least educate you on the situation that exists.

quote:

quote:
Borrowed money will be spend creating jobs effecting infrastructure repairs and overhauls- long term investments that will reduce costs across the board and bring essential services to even remote areas of the country.
Roflmao? What? Says who? What policies will ensure this? Has this ever worked before? Will liberal democrats spend the money efficiently and without corruption? History proves otherwise? Really man, you are living in a fantasy world.

Darn. I wonder what I'm actually doing whenever I imagine that I'm dreaming on an Interstate Highway (which were funded by the Eisenhower administration, and a core contributor to both job creation and cost reduction). Let's not forget the availability of phone and electric power in most rural areas as well. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

quote:

quote:
Ensuring that many more people have access to primary and preventative care will significantly reduce medical costs, strain on ERs, and the number of unpaid or outright defaulted medical debts that are crippling our hospitals.
GREAT, as the rest of the world is discovering that socialized health care simply doesnt work our American socialist want to take their failed programs and bring them here.

Your completely spurious assertion aside (most countries with nationalized health care systems provide better average service than the US; we may provide better specialized and elective care, but that doesn't matter much to people who are forced to use the ER for preventable conditions), no major candidate proposed a remotely socialized plan- all use the private health care industry, none involve direct government control. Obamas plan dramatically increases the affordability of care; it doesn't take control of it.

quote:

quote:
More funding for social support and education programs
Are you aware that consistantly throughout the USA that the schools with the 'highest budget per student' consistantly have the worst performance records? So your solution is to dump more money into the failed system? Are you aware that liberals have been doing this for 60 years and continue to complain about the same problems. How is this new? This is the same old failed policies of every liberal who held office.
[/qb][/QUOTE]

You've jumped to a completely different issue- I wasn't talking about primary and secondary education there in any general sense (aside from a few programs, such as killing the abstinence only boondoggle and allowing funding for actually effective comprehensive programs). There is a heck of a lot to fix in education (like offering merit based pay, which was in his proposals) and definitely in need of reforms of its own.

I was talking about programs that provide job training, child care, mass transit, community revitalization, and the like. Programs that make people more able to work and help provide the necessary resources to remain employed.

[ November 18, 2008, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You really must live on a parallel universe. If you made a list of the cities and states that are completely controlled by liberals and managed by liberal policies you will also have a list of the most broke, and bankrupt cities, states, etc in the nation. The lists would be identical.

Go ahead and produce such a list then. Present actual evidence. All I've seen so far are platitudes. Put your money where your mouth is.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Are most people in this country stupid?

Yep. And IF TD is putting that out there as a recurring theme, I'll concur wholeheartedly.

See, as I continue to flog my dead horse here, we, as a nation ARE most certainly dumber.

There is no other way the absolute rot of collectivist socialism instituted by corporate fascism could have crept it's way into every
facet of our lives. The dumbing down of the masses is how we have been transformed from the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave to the Land of the fee and home of the debt slave.

This is simply the result of the deliberate dumbing down of the masses so that the power elite can control the populace with propaganda and deceit.

There is no greater evidence of just how dumbed down this nation has become than the fact that so many people are convinced that this game we call two-party politics is real, and that by voting, you actually have a say in how this country is run, and that every person can make a difference in our "participatory democracy."

We are all nothing more than guinea pigs and cannon fodder for the corporatist/mercantile/money launderers who own our government lock - stock and barrel.

The more We the Sheeple find ourselves dependent on the Federal Government in the many ways, the more we lose our freedom, individuality, entrepreneurialship and creativity.

The American Dream used to be that through our own ingenuity and work ethic, we can build a successful life of prosperity...and there were many different paths this could be accomplished.

Now, the American Dream has become a strait-jacket definition consisting of a rigorous course that involves submitting yourselves to 4-6 years of indoctrination in "higher education" followed by climbing the corporate ladder as a cog in the corporate machine, so that you can qualify for a 30 year mortgage and the right to chain yourself into debt slavery to the banks so you can "live the American Dream and own your own home!"

We are no longer a culture that values the family as an institution.

We've outsourced raising our children to minimum wage day-care workers while mom and dad work overtime to pay of the debts accrued in the mindless chase for the ephemeral specter of happiness promised by conspicuous consumption of material goods.

Countless hours of Tell-a-Vision brainwashing we've all subjected ourselves to for our entire lives has most assuredly seen to that!

Oh, and just report to the nearest elementary school every four years to pull the lever for the Donkey or Elephant that represents the flavor of your choice to maintain the status quo, and you can be rest assured you've done your civic duty and been a responsible patriot!

[Exploding]

WOW Daruma that is a sad indictment on this country. One, I'm afraid, that is closer to true than opinion. It doesn't however absolve us of our individual responsibility to do what we can to preserve what we can of our society that is of value. Voting for McCain would not have made a whole lot of difference in ultimate outcome I will grant you, but to not vote for McCain insured the election of a man who ran on socialistic dogma and who, because so many conservatives did not vote, now has a mandate to initiate those ideas. No matter how unlikely our vote is to make a difference, not to vote is an abdication of responsibility and a message to the power brokers that the biggest wall between them and complete take over has been breached.
Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pinochio:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Suppliers are cutting jobs not because of taxes, but because they've got too much stock and no one to buy it. Cutting their taxes isn't suddenly going to make more consumers appear, it's just going to put more money in their pockets that will not be put back into circulation to fuel growth.

A very short sited and liberally indocrinated way of thinking. From making such a comment I can almost be guarneteed that you are not a small business owner, in upper management or have ever been responsible for making a payroll of ensuring profitability.

My experience (in all of those things) causes me to believe otherwise. But heck, you are free to believe whatever you want. Just simply be sure that your opinion never exceeds your knowledge base... because its apparent to those who know better when this is the case.

Please, by all means, back you words up with actually arguments rather than just cribbed theory.

How does giving more money to companies that are laying off workers because of supply overruns help them sell enough products to hire more workers? How do you create demand by pushing more wealth to those whose average yearly spending is relatively constant no matter how much additional wealth they accumulate? What exactly makes VooDoo economics anything more than a sham for shifting wealth to the top of the economic ladder and crippling everyone else with debt?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the bottom 50% didn't pay taxes, we'd be in much better shape right now. As it stands the Bottom 40% of the population pays about 5% of the annual tax revenue. The top 20% is responsible for for about 70% of it. That may seem reasonable or like the top is overburdened until you consider the fact that the bottom 40% owns about 0.2% of all wealth in the US while the top 20% owns over 85%. And those numbers are trending further apart. Properly balanced, each population segment would be paying taxes in proportion to the wealth it controls- as it stands, the bottom 40% is on the "taxes to high" side of the Laffer curve, while the top 20% is on the "taxes too low"
IF you want to get into specific detail i'd be happy to post some facts 86% of the tax burden is paid by 25% of the population. The bottom 50% only pay 3% of the bill.

The bottom 40% PAYS NOTHING. I dont know where you get you are getting your facts from but you are wrong. The fact is that the bottom 20% actually receive money back from the government and the 20-40% bracket pay nothing.

YOUR FACTS ARE DEAD WRONG!

Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
"If we don't have public schooling, bad/poor/irresponsible parents will not ensure that their kids get an education!"

Those are all typical arguments put forth in support of the status quo of the hegemony of our Public Educational System...and they are all collectivist based.

So, then how do we ensure education for the majority who cannot directly afford the costs, or should we just return to the good old days when education was a luxury for the most wealthy?

Our school system is definitely still too geared toward producing good factory workers, and changes need to be made, but the baseline benefit it provides still justifies hanging onto the current system until we can work out the kinks.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

[/qb]You can see a breakdown of most of the points here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/10/03/obama-tax-plan/


This is as useful as science fiction. There is no evidence that this will be policy of that Obama even signs off on this. You are dreaming.




quote:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will eliminate all capital gains taxes on small and start-up businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama and Biden will support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America.

[Smile] [Smile] [Smile] I'll believe it when I see it. Do you want to bet that this will never happen? and paying employers to $500.00 to hire someone? Gee,, $500 dollars is really gonna make me hire another employee when I know that if they make me a profit the government will just take it away. Thats the most rediculous and thoughtless small-business plans I've ever heard of. My nine year old could come up with a better plan.

quote:
Darn. I wonder what I'm actually doing whenever I imagine that I'm dreaming on an Interstate Highway (which were funded by the Eisenhower administration, and a core contributor to both job creation and cost reduction). Let's not forget the availability of phone and electric power in most rural areas as well. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
And I'm wondering what I'm doing paying tolls for the turnpike and bridges that have been paid for a thousand times over and employee the worst civil servants in existence and give these jobs to their liberal friends and who take the money allocated for 'highway projects' and funnel them into pork spending which cant be funded any other way...... More tax and spend liberalism --- 60 YEAR OLD POLICY - REPACKAGED AND SOLD....


quote:
(most countries with nationalized health care systems provide better average service than the US; we may provide better specialized and elective care, but that doesn't matter much to people who are forced to use the ER for preventable conditions), no major candidate proposed a remotely socialized plan- all use the private health care industry, none involve direct government control. Obamas plan dramatically increases the affordability of care; it doesn't take control of it.
Just what we want. Canadians are flocking to the US, IT takes 3 Months to get an MRI in England, 2 years to be scheduled for a biopsy in France and thats what you want to bring to the USA. I have no trouble with my health care and either do my employees ---- of course when Obama raises my taxes, I will most likely have to look at cutting some of our employee benefits.

[ November 18, 2008, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Pinochio ]

Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WOW Daruma that is a sad indictment on this country. One, I'm afraid, that is closer to true than opinion. It doesn't however absolve us of our individual responsibility to do what we can to preserve what we can of our society that is of value. Voting for McCain would not have made a whole lot of difference in ultimate outcome I will grant you, but to not vote for McCain insured the election of a man who ran on socialistic dogma and who, because so many conservatives did not vote, now has a mandate to initiate those ideas. No matter how unlikely our vote is to make a difference, not to vote is an abdication of responsibility and a message to the power brokers that the biggest wall between them and complete take over has been breached.

Let me get this straight...you think that John "What 1st Amendment?" McCain/Feingold is all that stood between socialist dogma and so-called conservatism?

This is EXACTLY what I mean by our two-party political system being a charade.

A grand illusion designed to keep us squabbling over issues while the true agenda continues to move forward.

If anything, at least Obama campaigned with outright honesty on how he plans to implement socialist policies!

McCain and the GOP? They are ten times more disingenuous with their "compassionate conservatism."

Take a look at our recent history, and understand that it was under a GOP President and a GOP controlled congress that saw the largest expansion of Government spending and empowerment at the expense of all of our liberties and privacy rights have all been achieved!

Yet the conservatives that refuse to recognize this, or who simply lament the truth before turning around and voting for more of the same by supporting John McCain are actually worse in my book than true-blue believers in collectivist socialism who vote for their candidate that espouses the ideas they actually support!

How much dumber can a conservative voter get than to continually vote for the same establishment GOP party members like McCain after 8 years of establishment GOP that have so obviously and blatantly betrayed all the conservative principles they claimed to champion all these years?

Voting for McCain was merely the act of putting your stamp of approval of the continued sell out of conservative principles that is now the defining feature of the GOP!

See cb, our current voting system is based on the lie that our freedom and liberty that were the primary features of the foundation of this country are based on DEMOCRACY.

Show me where the word DEMOCRACY appears ANYWHERE in the US Constitution?

This country was designed as a Representative Republic as the best means of keeping a firm check on any one branch of government growing powerful at the expense of individual liberty. Once this idea that we are a "democracy" became the conventional wisdom, the ideals that founded this country have been irrevocably lost.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pinochio:
quote:
If the bottom 50% didn't pay taxes, we'd be in much better shape right now. As it stands the Bottom 40% of the population pays about 5% of the annual tax revenue. The top 20% is responsible for for about 70% of it. That may seem reasonable or like the top is overburdened until you consider the fact that the bottom 40% owns about 0.2% of all wealth in the US while the top 20% owns over 85%. And those numbers are trending further apart. Properly balanced, each population segment would be paying taxes in proportion to the wealth it controls- as it stands, the bottom 40% is on the "taxes to high" side of the Laffer curve, while the top 20% is on the "taxes too low"
IF you want to get into specific detail i'd be happy to post some facts 86% of the tax burden is paid by 25% of the population. The bottom 50% only pay 3% of the bill.

The bottom 40% PAYS NOTHING. I dont know where you get you are getting your facts from but you are wrong. The fact is that the bottom 20% actually receive money back from the government and the 20-40% bracket pay nothing.

YOUR FACTS ARE DEAD WRONG!

http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/20040407bb.htm
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001189_federal_taxes.pdf

The most recent numbers put the lower 40% at 3.4%, which is better, but still an order of magnitude more than their fair share of the burden. That lowest 20% pays the 0.2% that should be the full burden of the lower 40%. No bracket is responsible for a fully negative share of the full body of federal tax revenues.

I'd love to see where you're getting your numbers, given that they're not coming from actually reported data.

Actually, I'd rather not, given the nature of the place you're pulling them from.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

If anything, at least Obama campaigned with outright honesty on how he plans to implement socialist policies!

McCain and the GOP? They are ten times more disingenuous with their "compassionate conservatism."

Agree 100% [Smile]
Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pinochio:
quote:

If anything, at least Obama campaigned with outright honesty on how he plans to implement socialist policies!

McCain and the GOP? They are ten times more disingenuous with their "compassionate conservatism."

Agree 100% [Smile]
What Paulson is doing is Socialism. Obama's policies are all solidly and unashamedly Progressive, which is an important distinction because they retain private investment in and control of industry, which is the defining characteristic of Capitalism.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
So, then how do we ensure education for the majority who cannot directly afford the costs, or should we just return to the good old days when education was a luxury for the most wealthy?

Our school system is definitely still too geared toward producing good factory workers, and changes need to be made, but the baseline benefit it provides still justifies hanging onto the current system until we can work out the kinks.

the good old days when education was a luxury for the most wealthy?

There's example numero uno of how distortions of truth and outright lies have become accepted as conventional wisdom to further the justification for maintaining the status quo of absolute corruption that is our "public education" machine.

Work out the kinks?

At 35 years of age, I can remember for 28+ years of my life hearing about how bad our public schools are and how they need to be fixed.

They never come close.

After awhile, it has become quite obvious to me that the public schools in fact are not broken at all. They are doing EXACTLY what they were designed to do.

Train the masses to be just smart enough to read simple instructions, incessantly watch Tell-a-Vision for appropriate brainwashing, push buttons and most of all...to conform...to blindly and unquestionably submit to authority...perfect for creating a HUMAN RESOURCE.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
IF you want to get into specific detail i'd be happy to post some facts 86% of the tax burden is paid by 25% of the population. The bottom 50% only pay 3% of the bill.
I would like to see your details if they are readily available. Included in them, I would like to see what portion of total income the top 25 percent of the population earns.

As I recall from my analysis of the year 2000 tax returns, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid about 37 percent of the total tax revenue. But they also earned about 21 percent of the total income of all taxpayers.

The top 25 percent paid a good 84 percent of the taxes in 2000, but earned a good 67 percent of the gross income.

The bottom 50 percent paid a measely 4 percent of the total taxes, in contrast. But they split a mere 13 percent of the total gross income.

This means the top 1 percent of income earners made about 80 times, on average, of what the bottom 50 percent earned.

After subtracting basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing, etc., you can see why it makes more sense to tax the upper 25 percent significantly more than the bottm 50 percent.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, where does the corporate part figure in the origins of public education? Corporate interests have always, for the most part*, fought against progressive ("collectivist") agendas, and have always found ways to co-opt them.

Corporations have long since co-opted public education, but they weren't behind it at first because it meant taxes.

* In every age you have at least one major tycoon who is very progressive in his stated opinions compared to the moneyed class. Doesn't matter if it's Peter Cooper or Warren Buffett. Doesn't change the overall picture though.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls


A quick way that i can validate that your numbers are not correct is the fact that its common sense that there are people who make under 20k per year. There is a standard deduction which covers almost all of this amount of tax liability. Throw in the EITC and the income range that pays NO NET taxes increases. This is common sense. If you cant see this, I cant help you.

Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pinochio
Member
Member # 6367

 - posted      Profile for Pinochio         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

This means the top 1 percent of income earners made about 80 times, on average, of what the bottom 50 percent earned.

Unlike you, I was not raised to be envious, greedy, or to covet what other people have. I'm gratefull that people who have more than I do support the majority of the tax burden. What i think would be fair is for the government to divide its bills by the number of people in the country and that number should be everyone's tax bill - THATS FAIR. and it would force the government to stop wasting money. On a more serious note, I never bought into this whole wealth vs tax liability nonsense. How someone could consider that fair is beyond me. A flat tax rate is FAIR. But again, I wasnt raised to covet other people's possession. I'm grateful for rich people. They employee my friends and buy my products. Why would I want the government to take their money away from? But thats the difference between left-wing liberal thinking and conservative thinking.
Posts: 111 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unlike you, I was not raised to be envious, greedy, or to covet what other people have.
And unlike you, I was not raised to assume that other people are immoral. Why don't you try it sometime. [Razz]

I don't support a progressive tax rate because I am envious, greedy or coveting what belongs to others. Let the rich have what they've earned. I support it because you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

Increasing the taxes on the bottom 50 percent, who on average split 0.26 percent of the total AGI per year, by over 4 times (as you propose) would have an enormous effect on the available income for the basic necessities.

But having the top 1 percent pay 17 percent more taxes than their fair share has a negligible effect on their obtaining basic necessities.

And that 17 percent is basically what the top 25 percent of the taxpayers pay more than a "flat tax" percentage of their income, based on the year 2000 tax statistics.

So, NO, I don't want to steal from the rich. I just don't want to cause actual, real pain to the poor. With 80 times the income of the bottom 50 percentile, the top 1 percent simply can afford to pay more taxes than the bottom 50 percentile. And considering the numerous benefits the rich receiving from living in this country, I would think they would be happy to pay for it. (I'll grant you they might not approve of every way it is spent, but who does? [Smile] ) Their wealth is tied as much to the stable government of this country as to their own hard work and intelligent choices. The fact that they can pay more should make them proud to do so, so that others won't have to suffer.

Besides, they can hire accountants to reduce their taxes. [Smile]

[ November 18, 2008, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pinochio:
Unlike you, I was not raised to be envious, greedy, or to covet what other people have. I'm gratefull that people who have more than I do support the majority of the tax burden. What i think would be fair is for the government to divide its bills by the number of people in the country and that number should be everyone's tax bill - THATS FAIR. and it would force the government to stop wasting money. On a more serious note, I never bought into this whole wealth vs tax liability nonsense. How someone could consider that fair is beyond me. A flat tax rate is FAIR. But again, I wasnt raised to covet other people's possession. I'm grateful for rich people. They employee my friends and buy my products. Why would I want the government to take their money away from? But thats the difference between left-wing liberal thinking and conservative thinking.

I'm guessing your tribe is the one that believes in leaving the weak and infirm to the wolves, even though nowadays no such practice is necessary.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Daruma, where does the corporate part figure in the origins of public education?

The Rockefeller Foundation (the original "big oil" corporation) and the Carnegie Foundation are both Foundations set up to launder the vast, corporate wealth into a vehicle for molding society to suit their globalist agenda - and they started with public education.

It's all in the book if you bother to find the time to read it - http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Is you is, or is you ain't my constituency!"

Too easy for the movie quote thread so I'm putting it here.

I think I could parse the thread title to be asking whether "TomDavidson is right" exists. Kind of a silly question, since if it didn't exist before the question was asked, it certainly did after.

Perhaps this is how God creates. Not "Let there be light" but "Is there is light?" You just gotta know how to ask the right questions. It kind of fits with the "great I AM" stuff.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unlike you, I was not raised to be envious, greedy, or to covet what other people have.
"Personal attacks, mockery, or speculation about the motives of people posting here are not allowed"

and

"Personal courtesy is the fundamental condition of free discussion, and free discussion is the fundamental condition of democratic government."

http://www.ornery.org/about.html

Also the "rules thread" at the top of the General Comments page.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its worth noting that if the laffer curve is correct, the pre-reagan tax levels were on the side of the peak where lowering taxes decreases revenue.

Yeah, I'm late to the party, but whatever.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pinochio:

Common sense throughout history also suggest that a heavier object would fall faster than a lighter one.

That... didn't make it true.

Just sayin'.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But again, I wasnt raised to covet other people's possession.
You appear to have been raised to jealously covet your own, however. [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The bottom 40% PAYS NOTHING. I dont know where you get you are getting your facts from but you are wrong. The fact is that the bottom 20% actually receive money back from the government and the 20-40% bracket pay nothing. "

Man, I'm gonna have to talk to somebody. If I am paying 35% of my taxes to the state and federal governments, somebody fudged up.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:

Let me get this straight...you think that John "What 1st Amendment?" McCain/Feingold is all that stood between socialist dogma and so-called conservatism?

This is EXACTLY what I mean by our two-party political system being a charade.

I believe I said the ultimate outcome wouldn’t be of great difference whether McCain became president of Obama. McCain was and is as much in the hands of the power brokers of this country as is Obama, so no I do not believe McCain “stood between socialist dogma and so-called conservatism”. I plugged my nose and voted against the greater of the two evils. That is what conservatives are left with today unfortunately, and I could live with that vote better than I could live with not voting at all. Or just as bad, throwing my vote away on a Libertarian (a party with 200,000 registered voters) or a Constitutionalist (a party with 350,000 registered voters). If you have a better solution Daruma, please state it.
quote:
If anything, at least Obama campaigned with outright honesty on how he plans to implement socialist policies!
Obama wasn’t honest about anything since he cloaked everything he presented in words like “economic justice” and “change”, never admitting he was advancing socialistic doctrine.

quote:
McCain and the GOP? They are ten times more disingenuous with their "compassionate conservatism."
Yes, agreed.


quote:
How much dumber can a conservative voter get than to continually vote for the same establishment GOP party members like McCain after 8 years of establishment GOP that have so obviously and blatantly betrayed all the conservative principles they claimed to champion all these years?

Voting for McCain was merely the act of putting your stamp of approval of the continued sell out of conservative principles that is now the defining feature of the GOP!

Like I said, give me a viable option.

quote:
See cb, our current voting system is based on the lie that our freedom and liberty that were the primary features of the foundation of this country are based on DEMOCRACY.

Show me where the word DEMOCRACY appears ANYWHERE in the US Constitution?

This country was designed as a Representative Republic as the best means of keeping a firm check on any one branch of government growing powerful at the expense of individual liberty. Once this idea that we are a "democracy" became the conventional wisdom, the ideals that founded this country have been irrevocably lost. [/QB]

How do we get it back?

quote:
After awhile, it has become quite obvious to me that the public schools in fact are not broken at all. They are doing EXACTLY what they were designed to do.

Train the masses to be just smart enough to read simple instructions, incessantly watch Tell-a-Vision for appropriate brainwashing, push buttons and most of all...to conform...to blindly and unquestionably submit to authority...perfect for creating a HUMAN RESOURCE.

On this I couldn’t agree with you more. As a constant irritant to my school district (and here you thought I was being exclusively irritating here on Ornery [Razz] ) because I insist on fighting every liberal bit of brainwashing the school district tries to sneak in, I can tell you it is a full time job. They recently wanted a "Comprehensive Counseling Program" which would have put counselors in charge of dictating which behaviors and attitudes were acceptable and which were not. Counselor's original niche was to help those with egregious behavioral problems and counsel the student population about their educational future. This was a blatant attempt to take over more parenting responsibilities and to have more access to our children's behavioral patterns. The left is constantly encroaching on parental rights and there are way too many people too lazy to do anything about.

quote:
This means the top 1 percent of income earners made about 80 times, on average, of what the bottom 50 percent earned.
Please tell me, how much income does the lower 25th percentile that pays no taxes and the 50% which pays minimal taxes put back into building businesses, creating jobs and producing what this country consumes? The idea that the top 1 percent does nothing but sit on their pile of money, living lavishly all the while saying “Let them eat cake!” is so felonious it’s close to obnoxious. These are the movers and shakers of our economy. You tax them beyond their ability to continue to build and grow, you put our economy at risk.

quote:
But having the top 1 percent pay 17 percent more taxes than their fair share has a negligible effect on their obtaining basic necessities.
As I said, the top 1 percent needs a LOT more expendable cash flow in order to continue to grow their business and therefore the economy. And, no this is not trickle down economics; this is common sense.

quote:
The fact that they can pay more should make them proud to do so, so that others won't have to suffer
That’s right! It is, after all, the 1%’s patriotic duty to "jump in and pull America out of the rut" (Biden et al). What I don’t understand is why Obama and other liberals want the rest of the 99% to be less patriotic and less proud by paying less taxes? [Roll Eyes]

[ November 19, 2008, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: cb ]

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikemook
Member
Member # 1519

 - posted      Profile for Ikemook   Email Ikemook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So...did TomD ever actually say that people are stupid?
Posts: 415 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There hasn't been any mention about the SS and Medicare taxes that are not included in the computation of the personal income tax. Also we all pay the federal sales tax on gasoline. So even the bottem 50% are still paying taxes.

Businesses need customers to grow. If 50% of the population spends almost all of their income on rent, energy, food, and taxes there are fewer people to buy additional goods and services that may be created.

[ November 19, 2008, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: yossarian22c ]

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As I said, the top 1 percent needs a LOT more expendable cash flow in order to continue to grow their business and therefore the economy. And, no this is not trickle down economics; this is common sense.
Except you are not talking about "expendable cash flow." You are talking about income--what is actually paid to the person. What he takes home in his pocket. Not what the person puts back into his business from his business. Such reinvestiment, IIRC, are not taxed as income.

Sure, he could put his income in an investment. I'm sure most do. But they can also invest in foreign businesses that do not effect our economy directly. They can also invest in luxury items that have little impact on the overall economy. It doesn't have to grow our economy.

And you are still missing an important point.

Money for the government has to come from somewhere. Someone has to pay it. Now you can take it from the bottom 50 percent and cause them to buy less food. Or you can take it from the top 1 percent and cause them to reinvest less money in businesses.

Yes, either way is going to hurt. But which has the most direct effect on a person?

The bottom line is that paying 17 percent more than their "fair share" is not going to affect the top 1 percent's lifestyle in any way, shape or form compared to increasing the bottom 50 percent's share up 10 percent.

You get the money from the person who can afford to pay it.

quote:
What I don’t understand is why Obama and other liberals want the rest of the 99% to be less patriotic and less proud by paying less taxes? [Roll Eyes]
I don't either. Soon we are going to have to face the fact that, to reduce the money our country owes, we are all going to have to see our taxes increased without an increase in service, or a decrease in service without a decrease in taxes. But the Republican way for the last eight years, decreasing taxes while increasing services, has got to stop.

It's not perfect, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1