Fuck Republicans

[miles]

Here's a tough question for you, Joey: How will it help if "the rich" give even more of their money to the government?

Any question is a tough one for Joey.

 

[miles]

It'll lower the deficiet immediately and the debt in time. That's a very silly question to ask.

I'm sure you have facts, figures, and statistics to support your statement.

 

[miles]

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history. Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment. High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.”

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.” And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent. These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies. Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains. President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue. In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million. In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark. Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy”

http://startthinkingright.wordpress...revenues-they-have-always-increased-revenues/

I'm sure Sean knows better and can even provide facts and figures to prove his economic brilliance.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

We'll call this Operation raise taxes on the poor and middle class and pretend it's not blatantly favoring the rich. If you really wanna live like that by all means, go found yourself a cou. . .oh we got the last good land. You're fucked.

I'm starting to respect your opinion. The Mayan calendar must really be right.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

And there insistence that the solution to the county’s economic disaster not include increased taxes for the greedy, super rich fuckers.

Yeah Obama was a dick the other day in his speech but not nearly as much of a dick as he needs to be.

I'm starting to believe the Democrats and Republicans are owned by corporations.

Y'all ain't seen what the Dems are doing in Illinois...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/illinois-borrowing-money-_n_886126.html

They're getting to be evil on both sides.

 

[Sean Renaud]

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history. Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment. High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.”

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.” And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent. These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies. Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains. President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue. In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million. In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark. Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy”

http://startthinkingright.wordpress...revenues-they-have-always-increased-revenues/

I'm sure Sean knows better and can even provide facts and figures to prove his economic brilliance.

C'mon miles. Really. I'll start by admitting I'm flattered. You took two second of your life out to copy and past something you don't really understand from a world that stopped existing eighty years ago and you intend to apply it to this world. Your hope was that I wouldn't understand it either, it seems to be a common Right Wing tactic. I could waste time discrediting the source. I at least understand what your claim is going to be. You're going to claim that blah blah.

Instead of going and firstthe Bush Tax cuts cost one trillion dollars. So the fact is that you claim if everything every rich person had was taken it wouldn't touch the deficit. Is a flat out lie. If we took simply 3% of what they've made between the year 2000 and today the deficiet would be slashed by 60%.

I'm gonna do something people don't normally do for you miles. I'm gonna cut you the benefit of the doubt and assume that what you meant (even though it still sounds like bullshit and I'd like someone to provide actual numbers not just this blanket claim that there isn't enough stuff to pay for all the stuff we have cus right on it's face that doesn't actually make sense. but still) the debt. Still 1 trillion dollars on a 14 trillion dollar debt. That's what off the top of your head 7%? 8? That's a significant chunk. It's not problem solved by any means but it's a step.

The idea that lower taxes will always increase revenues is equal parts pipe dream and stupid. Lets start by dropping a bit of education on you, not that you'll retain it because if you did our next conversation would be about where the optimal tax rate is and of course when it shifts, but still you made an effort. Let me introduce you to the Laffer Curve. Unless you're going to try to say that no taxes would produce higher revenue than 1% taxes you're argument falls flat on it's face. There is obviously a point of diminishing returns where people won't work because it's not worth it anymore and there is a point where taxes don't matter at all and the people being taxes don't even notice or at least care much that their being taxed. Ideally you find the exact balance point and work from there. But unless you can say with a straight face that 0% taxes or hell 1% taxes would produce greater revenue than say 10% taxes then you're up shit creek.

It's also important to note the the deficiet in 2011 is unusually high, have you heard anything about a new trillion dollar stimulus package? I haven't. Is there a new seven hundred billion dollar bailout? If there is miles please enlighten me. I admit thing manage to slip past my radar and I don't read or watch every press release. So maybe there is some budget busting bullshit for next year but if not then Obama's deficiet next year will be considerably lower than this year. If you took away the stimulus (which was over a third of the deficiet alone) that's a chunk right there. The point being using 2011 spending as any sort of benchmark is . . .again you went out of your way for me miles. Really I'm touched. But it's a shitty bench mark.

One final point, I know you're eyes are rolling back in your head. Tax cuts are a cost. You're attempt to claim that the government assumes your money is theirs is bullshit. They expect you to pay rent just like your landlord they just charge you more if you're using more. Second your going to say that the government should run a balanced budget just like we do at home. We don't, not to in the way you're talking about. Most of us make car payments and either rent or mortgage. If I break my leg, buy a Playstation 3 or decide I don't want to work as many hours doesn't change the costs of those things. Wanting to work less hours or pay less taxes is a legitimit choice, but when you do and suddenly your say 1500 dollars over budget it's not cus you bought a Playstation or because you handed a bum a five so he'd stop bothering you at the gas station.

Oh my god. LJ is starting to respect my opinion!

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

Who is bringing the 16 gauge wire with which to string up all those bastards?

So another all encompassing, all inclusive, all embarrassing liberal advocates lynching those who disagree with him politically.

So twat you have some idea of where I live so come ahead. I would suggest you come very carefully and well armed.

So now all the bull shit aside.

Do you, Twat, have the balls to stand up to a man and look him in the eyes while you strangle him to death in front of you? Do you really? Could you do this to anyone without a mob behind you? Just you and me there. No help and no one cheering you on while you look me in the eye as you strangle me to death because of my political beliefs? Not a chance girl.

You want a mob because you ain't got the CAJONES to do it by your self.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Another sucker who believes anything the Dems spew. A chimp understand economics better than you.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3316/3310314482_a71d8da1b3.jpg

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

So another all encompassing, all inclusive, all embarrassing liberal advocates lynching those who disagree with him politically.

So twat you have some idea of where I live so come ahead. I would suggest you come very carefully and well armed.

So now all the bull shit aside.

Do you, Twat, have the balls to stand up to a man and look him in the eyes while you strangle him to death in front of you? Do you really? Could you do this to anyone without a mob behind you? Just you and me there. No help and no one cheering you on while you look me in the eye as you strangle me to death because of my political beliefs? Not a chance girl.

You want a mob because you ain't got the CAJONES to do it by your self.

I could. The problem is the cops. But then economic collapse means no cops are around to complicate things when the lynchings start.

You Republicans want the law of the jungle. The strong survive and the weak perish. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I could. The problem is the cops. But then economic collapse means no cops are around to complicate things when the lynchings start.

You Republicans want the law of the jungle. The strong survive and the weak perish. Be careful what you wish for.

I don't get a response? All you have to do is skip to the end, it's not much reading I promise.

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was FDR's Secretary of the Treasury from 1934-1945. In the following important quote, he admits that the big New Deal stimulus spending programs had failed.

We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just none interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job, I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . . And an enormous debt to boot! This quote is from 1939.

The Sec.Treas, the Chairman of the fed, and the President have spent $ trillions and the economy chugs along at a rate that does absolutely nothing to create jobs or stimulate growth. Most economists believe we need a 3.6+% GDP growth to generate jobs. The latest estimates say ours was about a 1.6% annual rate.

Morgenthau said it did not work during the great Depression so why do we think it will work now? We have spent trillions of dollars we don't have for bank bail outs, stimulus, QE1, and QE2. So what have we received from our spending? Not very much from my point of view. We have 14 Million still unemployed. Every week we have about 400K new jobs but if you look deeper you find nearly the same number who have been laid off. So no real net gain in jobs.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

So the question becomes who is going to pay off this $14.7 Trillion debt? Not me or many of the posters here. Our children to some extent yes, Out grand kids? Yup. Our great grand kids? You bet your life.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I don't get a response? All you have to do is skip to the end, it's not much reading I promise.

You didn't get a response because I couldn't find a way to explain that SOMEONE here is finally saying what I've been saying for months (and for some of what you said, YEARS), and that someone turns out to be YOU.

Plus you're now exhibiting the traits of a FREE NEGRO which is above a field negro which is far above the level of Uncle Ruckus. Now I know for sure that you were trolling back in the day.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

And there insistence that the solution to the county’s economic disaster not include increased taxes for the greedy, super rich fuckers.

Yeah Obama was a dick the other day in his speech but not nearly as much of a dick as he needs to be.

That tax increase for the rich is insignificant window-dressing thrown in just to piss off mouth-breathers.

It would fund about 30 minutes of government activity and it would costs jobs exactly as did the yacht tax and trust me, I'm not the ONLY one saying it's good for America, Pelosi, Reid and OBAMA said it was good for America when they introduced the tax breaks you're pissing in our Wheaties over.

Then, when they had the chance to raise taxes on the evil greedy rich (the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, remember them?) they paled, said it would hurt the economy and then they extended them.

It's the Democrats who want to wreck the economy over symbolic gestures in order to have someone to run against, as opposed to something to run on, in the next election that you should have directed your anger against. They knew they could get your panties in a wad and they did!

How does it feel to be a puppet?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

C'mon miles. Really. I'll start by admitting I'm flattered. You took two second of your life out to copy and past something you don't really understand from a world that stopped existing eighty years ago and you intend to apply it to this world. Your hope was that I wouldn't understand it either, it seems to be a common Right Wing tactic. I could waste time discrediting the source. I at least understand what your claim is going to be. You're going to claim that blah blah.

Instead of going and firstthe Bush Tax cuts cost one trillion dollars. So the fact is that you claim if everything every rich person had was taken it wouldn't touch the deficit. Is a flat out lie. If we took simply 3% of what they've made between the year 2000 and today the deficiet would be slashed by 60%.

...

Your mistake here is zero-sum economics.

You have to also account for what they would not have done without that money and what effect the tax would have had on actual revenues...
__________________
Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

If you ask your government to treat everyone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."

You loot the private sector, strip every dollar of 40¢ for overhead, and then give the other 60¢ to your political base in order to revitalize the looted.

What's not to like about that plan?
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Wat_Tyler]

So another all encompassing, all inclusive, all embarrassing liberal advocates lynching those who disagree with him politically.

So twat you have some idea of where I live so come ahead. I would suggest you come very carefully and well armed.

So now all the bull shit aside.

Do you, Twat, have the balls to stand up to a man and look him in the eyes while you strangle him to death in front of you? Do you really? Could you do this to anyone without a mob behind you? Just you and me there. No help and no one cheering you on while you look me in the eye as you strangle me to death because of my political beliefs? Not a chance girl.

You want a mob because you ain't got the CAJONES to do it by your self.

You and me? Just us kids?


You lose, every time.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Just for the record, I prefer to fuck liberal chicks...















... as long as I don't have to talk to them or respect them when I'm done.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I was out on north shore long island biking yesterday and all passing cars could be divided into four categories:

1. landscaper trucks with Mexicans
2. Suffolk Co PD
3. aging boomer men in convertibles
4. SUVs with women in tennis whites (no kids ever, the nanny has those) going to the club.

4 is the only thing that comes to mind when I think "conservative women".

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

We don't have conservative women like that around here...





*sniff* *sniff*

The only liberal gals are at the college, and what passes for liberal here is someone who only had parts of the Bible memorized...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I used to go where the conservative women hung out. The SUV/tennis whites is a good call - some were like that.


But the drivel they talked, Jesus H. Christ!!!

 

[GreatGreg]

Being a middle class american I have no problem with a flat tax. I think it is totally fair.

Paying 15% over the whatever the poverty level is. Period. No deductions and no loopholes. It would also cut back on the most hated branch of gov't the IRS. Instead of having books upon books of tax code it could be shrunk down to a couple pages and put into language even a dumb ass can understand. Plus I think it is fair. No matter what you make every one is paying the same percentage. Make a $100,000 pay $15,000. Make a million and pay $150,000. The rich are still paying more but it is on a level percentage wise as everyone else. Who can bitch about that.

You pay 15% over anything you make over $25,000 (or what ever the poverty rate is). There are too many loop holes and ways for people to get out of paying taxes, especially once you start making over a certain amount and are able to afford accountants and what not. i.e. I need that tractor for the house even though you don't own a "farm". Need that new car for "work" even though you use it for personal use. I work with people who do this all the time. They have their accounts call them and tell them to go buy more stuff so they can write it off on their taxes. When I ask them why they do it, they say because they can and if everyone else does it why shouldn't they. They have no problems paying their share but they are not going to just hand the money over if they don't have too.

I am thinking that the only people who would have a problem with this are the lower middle class that gets by paying nothing in taxes due to all the exemptions they receive and the poor who get back money that they did not even put in due to Earned Income Credit. Honestly why should someone be able to get back more money they put in. That is unfair to the others who actually put money into the system.

I would like to see a study on how much the government would collect if something like this was put into place vs. what they are getting now. I am thinking they would actually take in more $$ but I would still like to see the numbers.

Well there are my two cents on the matter.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Steve Forbes had a similar proposal, not that long ago.

 

[rosco rathbone]

A real flat tax would not be based on percentage of income. Why should the rich have to pay more?

Set a single number (which would be calculated by figuring what the poorest taxpayer could afford, then applying that figure to everyone.)

Then set the level of government services accordingly.

 

[Saint Peter]

Why don't you rich bastards just pay your fair share?

Why not give that a try?

 

[LiveInHD]

http://www.moonbattery.com/Thurston-Howell-III.jpg

 

[GreatGreg]

A real flat tax would not be based on percentage of income. Why should the rich have to pay more?

Set a single number (which would be calculated by figuring what the poorest taxpayer could afford, then applying that figure to everyone.)

Then set the level of government services accordingly.

Because what the poorest could pay would be $0 or close too it and then where would that leave us. I am all for cutting money back on welfare and such (go get a job lazy fuckers) but I do know that I like our military to have the latest toys and you don't get that by everyone chipping in just a couple of bucks.