How does “seeking new tax cuts” equal “shoveling money to the rich”?
Here is one study.
I’ll see your one data point and raise you several hundred:
What the heck are you talking about? A tax cut means the government is taking less of their money, not giving, or “shoveling” them anything.
The study I posted, if you looked at it, demonstrates a net affect of the Bush-style tax cut.
If you were to consider the tax money otherwise forfeit, you can see that this style of tax cut “gives back” $477bn to the top 1% of the country between 2001 and 2010 while relieving the bottom 20% of only $20bn of their tax burden.
I did not chose the word “shoveling” but I believe that the study I directed you to demonstrates the effect quite nicely regardless.
NO, it most certainly does NOT. A tax cut does not “give back” anything. It’s their freaking money to start with!!!
I guess I’ll never understand why you would think otherwise. :rolleyes:
And that “taking less” is absolutely free, with no repercussions?
Dayum. I want to live in your economic world.
Because in mine, if revenues are already way less than expenses, and then you cut revenues even more, eventually somebody’s got to pay the difference. The difference immediately gets borrowed, but someone’s got to pay the interest on the borrowing.
So yes, the money’s being “shoveled” from those who will pay the interest, to those who got the tax cuts.
OR: You can cut spending.
I know, it’s a wild and crazy idea.
Guess we’ll have to wait for a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House for that to happen.
I assume you are not claiming that “taking more” is absolutely free either.
But Debaser is quite correct, you are assuming that spending cuts are absolutely out of the question.
In other words, there are other economic and political models besides “the government has a right to everything you make, and you ought to be grateful if they let you keep anything about a bare minimum”.
Regards,
Shodan
“Above”, not “about”. :smack:
Regards,
Shodan
Is “taking more” absolutely free, with no repercussions?
Like when U.S. marginal tax rates were 70%, or 90% in places like the UK? Some people actually left the country over that. Others stopped investing in businesses (i.e. less jobs), because why would you if the govt is going to take 70-90% of your earnings?
The socialist model cannot work in this country. Statements like Hillary Clinton’s (paraphasing) “we’ll take money away from you for the common good” just don’t fly.
Well, that certainly settles that! Whatever was she thinking?
Do you have any evidence to the contrary, or are you just bloviating, as usual?
If you dust your cheerios for prints, you may find out who peed in them. I can only assure you it wasn’t me. Not that I wouldn’t, only that I didn’t.
But since you seem determined to make a stink about this, point of fact, your position is an absurdity, obvious to the meanest intelligence. Taxes for the sake of the common good are the very essence of taxation in a democratic society, the only reasonable argument has to do with which taxes qualify. Your bald statement that such a maxim “will not fly” is fatuous, vacuous and jejuene.
Happily for you, if you imagine you can further your argument or social standing by insulting me further, a Pit thread for that very purpose is currently open! Perhaps there your talents can be most fully realized.
huh…Socialism = The government spending tax money for the common good (as opposed, I assume, to using it for evil)
[Johnny Carson]
I did not know that…
[/Johnny Carson]
And your position doesn’t have the sense that God gave a goose, so where does that leave us?
Well, you can try selling that arguement in the next election, but I’m willing to bet people aren’t buying.
Not being a member of that group, I can’t speak for them, but I’ll bet, if pressed, they would argue that their agenda is in the best interest of the nation, and could probably do so persuasively. Maybe not persuasively enough to convince you and me, but certainly with enough conviction to assure themselves that they hold the high ground. (I assume we’re talking here primarily about abortion)
Then you probably wouldn’t be surprised at how many times during the run-up to the ’04 election I heard like-minded conservatives in my circle of friends lament what they perceived to be the shabby treatment Joe Lieberman received at the hands of your party’s leaders.
I’m afraid I have to strongly disagree with you here. I see no rational standpoint from which one can make that statement. In a war where surrender is not an option and truce is not a possibility, there can be no peace without victory, and when men are dying daily on both sides of this war, bumper sticker sloganeering like that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
I’m sorry, Steve, but if I believed what you just said were true, I could never use those statements as a mere preface to the next point I was about to make. If I truly believed such horrendous things to be true, I could not toss them out dismissively in a conversation and move on with a shrug and a “never mind”.
Let me take a minute here to tell you what I know to be true: There’s a radical sect of Islamic fundamentalists out there, the fanatical adherents of which all want to hack your head off in your living room immediately after they hack my head off in mine, and the only thing that’s standing in the way of them doing exactly that is our government - not a single political party, not a single European ally, not the United Nations or the good will of all civilized men, but the decisions made and the actions taken by each branch of our government manifesting itself in the force that we project abroad with our uniformed services, and the sooner the looming reality of that fact is acknowledged, the better off we’ll all be.
We may honestly and passionately disagree on the means of preventing that scenario from unfolding, but denying it out of existence is not an option at this time in history nor under this administration, and for one to casually fabricate and attribute such base and criminal motives to any president while foolishly ignoring a very real and impending threat from a very real, determined and capable enemy smacks of simple political posturing at best, and alarming stupidity at worst. I’d like to believe that you yourself doubt the veracity of things you’ve just stated as if they were fact, and that you only did so out of frustration, habit or because that sort of a flat-footed, utterly divisive, ad homonym assault now passes for civil discourse. Opinions are one thing, but if it’s acceptable to present such nonsense as a fait accompli, I’m afraid I’ll have to respectfully withdraw from what I see as a senseless exchange of “talking points”.
And a genuinely conservative one, for a change!
So, these guys, so anxious to start in lopping and chopping…they were in Iraq? So, they’re all dead now, right?
And the threat that these loons might overpower the single most powerful military machine in human history…that threat is considerably lessened now?
Really. Hmmmm.