Why are you liberals so opposed to tax cuts?

Great Debates
41

**
And this bit of intelligence is why I generally don’t bother with SDMB political debates anymore.

But can somebody please help me find my spleen? I spit it out laughing at the assertion that liberals are going to protect and preserve the Social Security fund. Wonderful track record ya got there. Why, just look at what Clinton did to preserve Social Security in his eight years as the leader of this nation. He, uh … er … um … ahem.

He dumped it in the next guy’s lap to deal with.

Don’t take that to mean I see it as a particularly partisan issue. I don’t. They can put their hands over their hearts and speak in glowing, patriotic phrases, perhaps sincerely, but the bottom line is all of those folks in D.C. are there to spend taxpayer money. Virtually all of them have proven that, after providing for essentials, they will tend to spend this money selfishly, to benefit the voters in their particular district.

This is an ineffective system. Once the federal essentials are provided for, if there is money left over (which both Democrats and Republicans agree there is, into the trillions of dollars), it should be returned to those who earned it, to spend, save or invest as they see fit.

The arrogance of anyone who sees that as unenlightened thinking makes me want to vomit.

P.S. Re: the Republican tax cut plan not addressing paying down the debt or bolstering Social Security. I seem to recall that the plan paid down all of the debt that is available to be paid down in the next 10 years. Is this incorrect?

“…recent data significantly raise the probability that sufficient resources will be available to undertake both debt reduction and surplus-lowering policy initiatives” … “the time has come, in my judgement, to consider a budgetary strategy that is consistent with a preemptive smoothing of the glide path to zero federal debt or, more realistically, to the level of federal debt that is an effective irreducible minimum” … “if long-term fiscal stability is the criterion, it is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions…”

Who said that? Alan Greenspan, earlier this year.

For some reason, I respect his opinions on economic issues more than Chronolicht’s.

42

Fascism is not a conservative philosophy! According to my dictionary it is marked by strong centralized government control of social and economic aspects of the country.

now which party wants a stronger role for the federal government? Which wants more social programs and more laws governing what is socially acceptible such as EEOC, ADA, Hate crimes, etc?

There may have been a fascist in the last election, but he wasn’t a conservative.

43

Milo: *Virtually all of them have proven that, after providing for essentials, they will tend to spend this money selfishly, to benefit the voters in their particular district.

This is an ineffective system. Once the federal essentials are provided for, if there is money left over (which both Democrats and Republicans agree there is, into the trillions of dollars), it should be returned to those who earned it, to spend, save or invest as they see fit.*

This just begs the question of what should be considered a “federal essential”. There are lots of differing views about that, so there’s going to be no consensus about the validity of massive tax cuts anytime soon.

Also, though I quite agree that there’s a lot of abuse of “pork-barrel” government spending, what is ipso facto wrong about “spending money to benefit the voters”? Isn’t government spending supposed to benefit the voters? I agree that it’s not helpful to use it for nothing but inefficiency and waste and useless projects, but a useful government project certainly shouldn’t be ruled out just because it primarily benefits a geographically localized group (as long as such projects are spread out reasonably fairly among all such groups). You haven’t shown any evidence that giving tax rebates to individuals would actually be a good substitute for all federal spending on localized projects, and I rather doubt that it would be.

44

Kimstu, I would consider essential programs as those safety nets for the poor, elderly, mentally ill, etc. As well as those things we all need that are best handled on a federal level.

Perhaps Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens can make a good argument for why last year his home state of Alaska received $750,000 in federal money for the Ketchikan Wood Technology Center; and $400,000 for a parking lot and pedestrian safety access in Talkeetna (population 300).

(see here. Stevens is a Republican, by the way.)

But I’m wondering why this should be handled at the federal level. I, a taxpayer in northern Michigan, see no benefit from it, neither personally nor on any national level. It’s wealth redistribution without justification.

If a pot of money is left around, they decide how to spend it.

45

"The arrogance of anyone who sees that as unenlightened thinking makes me want to vomit. "

If there is any reverse peristalysis in order, the catalyst ought to be the fact that we are squandering an opportunity to rebuild our infrastructure, among other things.
All the debt in the next ten years will not be paid down because their income projections have collapsed (Not that they were any good to begin with or were even relevant considering that the economic environment can change radically in a fraction of that time, and has already). Your boy Greenspan came out of his hole yesterday to say that we are in real trouble if the consumer puts his wallet away. Sure. That's a great way to run a country. Rather than fiscal responsibility, he advocates going apeshit with your wallet, including usurious plastic. Sounds like he wants a little "irrational exuberance" now, doesn't it? This man you deify will be eating his words very soon.
You are right about it not being a partisan issue, but if we continue to have the democratic process suborned by soft money and unlawful power exerted by corporations (lobbies), then the best you can do is vote for the left. The left spends more on education, family planning, rebuilding infrastructure (you ought to see some of the schools in Oakland, where I live) etc. etc. than the right does. Remove the labels and the factionalism and the ideology and what you are left with is human need. More billions spent on a missile shield chimera (which has destabilized a fragile nuclear environment) doesn't build sidewalks or keep your local library open 7 days a week (remember those days? It wasn't that long ago).
 There is never "money left over". We don't spend enough addressing social pathologies as it is. We pay a good deal less tax than our Northern European counterparts and we receive proportionately fewer services from our gov't.
Many of these problems are created by the gov't itself. Handguns are not a second amendment right, for instance. They are a privelege, like driving a car. That's why you need a license to have one. In contrast, you don't don't need a license to speak your mind (the first amendment). Handguns should be illegal because they are made for killing people. Killing people is illegal. I'm sure even you can see the simple syllogism.
Another excellent case in point is the undue and moralistic concern the gov't has with what I put in my mouth (or nose, or vein). Consensual crimes aren't crimes at all. But if we were to truly pursue the putative creed of the right to pursue happiness as we see fit, then all those judges and screws and cops and lawyers (and the dozens of other industries which rely upon the prison/industrial complex) would have to find real work in the private sector. The criminalization of drugs is what makes them so profitable. Prohibition and the rise of the mob, the 1920s, are you with me?
The reason why you don't much bother with political discussions in here anymore is because you regularly get your fleshy little fascist ass kicked by your intellectual betters.
46

fascism
Often Fascism.a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

“There ought to be limits to freedom.”

						--Dubya

Watch the “states rights” creed while they grapple with the medical marijuana issue. The recent Supreme Court ruling (5 to 4) contradicts the will of the people of California. Federal power (either judicial or legislative) is fine with the Repubs. as long as it serves their ends. The 5/4 ruling which made the lesser, acephalic Bush our president is a good example. The fact that the definition of fascism doesn’t fit precisely the ideology of the Milos of this world, doesn’t negate the fascist impulses which drive them.

47

Chronolicht: “…fleshy little fascist ass…”???

I’m trying to make sense of this charge, and I just can’t quite do so. Are you saying Milo’s hindquarters are small, plump and fascist? If so, I don’t think you understand what “fascist” means (and I’m wondering how you gained knowledge to support the other two adjectives). Or are you just calling Milo a fascist? In that case, I still don’t think you understand what the word means, and I think you’ve crossed over from hysterical rudeness into deliberate insult.

The rest of your post seems to be equally off-topic, but frankly I was too put off by your delivery to bother trying to make sense of it.

48

Whoops; shoulda previewed to catch the waffling. How about instead of justifying the use of the term even though it “doesn’t fit precisely the ideology of the Milos of this world”, you just admit it was childish name calling and move on?

49

I live in the North, too, but I have to admit that I WOULD like to see my tax money spent to fix that huge iron statue of Vulcan down in Birmingham, Alabama. I was a little sorry to see that Senator McCain had targeted it as pork-barrel.

For that matter, I would enjoy seeing my tax money going to erecting giant iron statues all OVER the country.
– Uke, who loves really really big kitschy statues.

50

Milo: *Perhaps Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens can make a good argument for why last year his home state of Alaska received $750,000 in federal money for the Ketchikan Wood Technology Center; and $400,000 for a parking lot and pedestrian safety access in Talkeetna (population 300). *

No, he probably can’t. But I noticed that another report at the same site you linked to for that story points out that “CAGW’s 2001 Congressional Pig Book shows Sen. Stevens with a whopping $766 per capita for his state, and Sen. Inouye with an astonishing $392 per capita. That’s 30 times and 15 times the average of $25.50 per capita throughout the country.” So although Stevens’ pork-barrelling does indeed seem excessive and unjustifiable, it’s also far greater than typical. Arguing that no federal money should be spent on any geographically localized project because some of them are wasteful and unjustified doesn’t sound like good reasoning to me.

(And Chronolicht, I have to agree with xeno that if you aspire to be anybody’s “intellectual better,” you’ll have to watch it on the name-calling. I do, however, think that “Fleshy Little Fascist Ass” might make a pretty good band name.)

51

Wrong, but thanks for playing, Chronolicht! The correct answer was “unanimous.”

52

Anyone who is not in favor of a Tax Refund has one, and only one viable choice:

Give it back.

No bogus generalizations 'bout “charity” or other nonsense. I’ve conveniently posted the offending URL here…

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdgift.htm

Thanks!

53

Obviously you know of some Milossarian here on the boards that I’ve not yet encountered.

He’s hardly fascist, he’s no intellectual lightweight, and he rarely “gets his ass kicked,”[sup]*[/sup] largely because he is rarely the one to start calling people nasty names based on their political leanings.

And before the silly blustering starts, I thoroughly disagree with many of his views. So don’t think it’s some VRWC.

In sum, Chronolicht, it seems you’ve made several unfounded and insulting assertions.

[sup]*[/sup]Though, in fairness, I have heard that it’s kinda fleshy.

54

Hegemony? Um, er, uh, “Make the pie higher”! --Dubya

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2001/07/19/international1753EDT0798.DTL&nl=fix

“too put off by my delivery” means you are fraught with the typical urge to simplify everything into a nice little package which doesn’t deal with the complexity of the issues at hand, or you don’t have the wherewithal to refute my assertions. What a delicate little flower you are. Be certain of these things. My rudeness is quite calmly delivered, all my insults are deliberate, including the double entendres which you can’t understand and every aspect of my worldview (The social/political/economic/psychological/philosophical) is fully integrated, which precludes “waffling”, as you call it.
The original question was very broad, so it is not unreasonable to debate any given policy concerning taxes, in short, the administration of civilization.
Milo’s all-too-common ideology concerning the administration of the central bank (the Federal Reserve), with the attendant awe of its leader, fits the “stringent socioeconomic controls” portion of the definition.
Now sit up straight and pay attention, dispense with the meliorist crap manifested by your well-fed position and your superficial, mannerist red herring ploys and actually deal with what we are discussing. The question alludes to the very heart of the problem. It is structural. Without labor, capital wouldn’t exist. Capital has siezed the gov’t. and now uses it to perpetuate itself without regard to the well being of the very thing that created it. I propose nothing less than a massive redistribution of wealth to the people who actually created it. I propose civilization, not the vacuous, savage, foetid theodicy under which we now suffer.
Now, go ahead and correct my spelling and grammar, you fatuous terminal valve.

55

Having considered myself as shifted to the right-of-center in this debate, I was enjoying the factual type of statements made by those on the left, and was actually mentally chewing over the veracity of those statements until this:

To paraphrase Milossarian, that makes me want to vomit. Thanks, Chronolicht, can’t wait for more of your pearls of wisdom.

56

There is no money “left over” from the taxes collected. According to this site, if the national debt were divided evenly among the population, every man, woman, and child in America would find themselves approximately $20,000 in debt.

Those Americans who would argue that they know how to spend their money better than the Feds obviously have a point. Otherwise, they would not each be $20K in the hole. Unfortunately for those people, they are far, far too late to fix the problem. Like it or not, the national debt is theirs, and mine, to deal with. It is not going to go away.

For those of you who feel you are being “plundered” by taxation, why not ask yourself where that $20K went? Who benefitted from it? Did we give five trillion dollars to welfare mothers and crack addicts, leaving you holding the bag? They certainly didn’t give it all to you.

Oh, you got something for it. Just not very much. It was extremely wealthy Americans who benefitted the most from the deficit spending of the Reagan era. And, not coincidentally, the national debt is owed, at least in part, to those very extremely wealthy Americans.

By giving yet another large tax cut to the extremely wealthy while giving a smaller tax cut to the middle class, the burden of paying off that debt has been shifted still further from the extremely wealthy, who were in a position to profit most handsomely from deficit spending, to the middle class, who got… well, you go ahead and figure out what you got while you pay off the debt for the rich folk. That’s assuming America bothers to pay off the debt.

Just remember that while you’re enjoying your pittance from the government this summer, you are also subsidizing someone else. No, it’s not the homeless. It’s the second-homeless. But hey, they earned it by borrowing it from you and then making you pay it back to them. Don’t you wish you were that clever?

57

Try Viagra. It’s cheaper than shooting your own son when he comes home at 3:00 am.

58

ROTFLMAO. Thanks, I needed that!!

59

“Vacuous Savage Foetid Theodicy”

“Fatuous Terminal Valve”

I have no clue what is supposed to be meant by either of them, but they’ve got a good beat and I can dance to them. Chronolicht, my response to you is reduced to “Huh??!?” (esp. with respect to your most recent post).

60

Chronolicht:

[Moderator Hat ON]

Enough, Chronolicht.

[Moderator Hat OFF]