Originally posted by Sabiancym And you know damn well that republican = conservative 99% of the time.
No, it doesn't. The Republicans began getting out of touch with conservatives as Reagan left office. If Republican equaled conservative 99% of the time, the TARP would not have passed.
Ok so in summary
Conservate does not equal republican
But
Liberal = Socialist?
I see how you guys work.
No. I don't think all liberals are socialists. Liberals who still follow the original ideal before it was polluted in the late 60's/early 70's are not socialists. However, yes, a majority of them are now. Any liberal, which I simply refer to as leftists, who support expansion of taxpayer funded social programs including, but not limited to, health care, nationalization of industry, social security and any form of welfare are socialists.
First and formost, almost none of the 'socialist' countries claimed are actually socialist. They are a dictatorship, meaning the dictator holds the ownerhsip and power over the country's economy where socialism is a advance for of market where everyone owns everything, ie a democratic market. Capitalism is a Aristotical market based on turning everything into a commoditiy, including YOU.
That is beside the point. I am just saying that these countries only call themselves socialist, they are not actually (some are communist, most are just strait dictatorships)
Socialism = Everyone owns/shares everything, generally democratic resource distribution
Communism = Government (usually single party) owns everything, governmental resource distribution
Dictatorship = Single person/party owns everything, dictorial resource distribution
Its the same as everyoen calling the U.S. a democracy when we are a representative republic.
Major or Current Characters AC - The Brute lvl 85 macer -HG (retired) SWG - Lihone Su'alkn Master Ranger/ MCH - Flurry (Retired) EVE - Sulone - Cruiser Lover (Retired) LOTRO - Sandric lvl 50 Burg (and others)- Brandywine (Retired) GW2 - Sandric lvl 80 Thief - Dragonbrand (Retired) NeverWinter - Sandric lvl 60 Rogue - Dragonshard (Retired) Archage - Sandric lvl 50 everything - Naima (Active) Others (Lots) (Retired)
Sepher here is how it will affect me personally. Lets start with TARP, and the $3 Trillion budget. So far $2 Trillion in deficit spending is being allocated to economic stimulation. Ontop of it his proposed budget has a $600 billion deficit. This equates to $2.6 trillion in either debt or inflation this year. As debt it would only take a couple decades until the amount of interest would be more then national revenue. It would take less then a decade to be more the discretionary spending. Its simply irresponsible and would force the US into bankruptcy. Now I don't know about you, but having your country go bankrupt would definetly affect me. I don't want to lose my property, my paychecks, and my livelihood because of irresponsible politicians. If they just print more money, I wouldn't enjoy paying $20 for a bottle of Soda. 2nd are his new tax proposals that do not properly take into account tax history or even Clintons Tax Policy that Obama says he is emulating. He said he will be reducing income taxes for 95% of americans, while raising the upper income taxes by 5%. However, in reality this method does not work at generating more tax revenue as can clearly be seen with federal earnings based on GDP during times when taxes for upper income were over 90%, and lower income brackets nothing. The upper bracket just goes into hedgefunds or finds ways to reduce their reportable earnings in order not to pay the excise taxes. In order to garner more federal income you have to raise income taxes universally. If he wanted Clintons 20.5% of GDP earnings for the fed he would have to use Clintons Income tax policies on all brackets which would mean a tax increase on all brackets. Another fact that is shown with income taxes in correlation to the upper income bracket is that every 1% its decreased, the GDP increases by 2%. More trade always helps boost the economy. Also the increase on payroll taxes and cap and trade taxes will also take its toll. The thing about payroll taxes is that your employer pays taxes on behalf that is not seen on your paystub. The money they pay would otherwise have been paid towards your salary. This sometimes accumulates to 6% of your total salary. These taxes go to pay for things most americans will not be able to use because the programs are badly written. Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment. Nearly all that money is wasted just paying for the administration of these programs and scammers. Social Security age for instance will most likely be 90 by the time I can use social security. Cap and trade on the other hand is simply a bogus tax to earn money for the government. In every instance it has been implemented it has failed miserably, and as a tax it does not help protect the planet since CO2 emissions at best minimally affect climate, but probably doesn't affect climate at all. The idea of cap and trade is like taxing a persons breathing, and yes such a tax will bring excessive costs back to the consumer me. Lastly, I would like to mention why I do not like federal spending. People act like federal spending is going to affect them. However, aside from the military, post office, and highway system currently, very few americans actually stand to be able to use most of these federal programs. Most of that money is wasted in creating the workforce and on beaurocracy. Nearly all the government programs that people encounter are state run and far more effecient with your tax dollars.
So as for the first paragraph, you're personally affected by fear of the country going bankrupt? That'd count as an intangible considering the country isn't bankrupt, and you aren't paying 20 dollars for soda, lost your property and paycheck due to any acts of our present administration.
As for your tax rant; we can't cut taxes on the "upper income" infinitely; because eventually we hit 0. How much tax revenues are reaped from 0? There isn't an infinite amount of space between 0 and 100; the big margins Reagan and Kennedy were able to cut taxes we don't have today, and every 1 percentage point isn't the same as the other.
Additionally, as for any historic 'theory', we tried cutting taxes for the rich the last administration and all supply-side theories failed; leading to what we have now. Our economic situation now is what we got with our purchase of the Bush tax cuts; why pay for more? Since a lack of tax avoidance and money remaining domestic are more likely with a bottom-up economy, we go with that; rather than giving relief to the top earners that invest more in our global economy and as you profess; will seek avoidance of paying taxes.
Also, I'd like to hear how any tax modifications personally affect you; not generic, overarching theory hardly applicable to today, and largely based on myth (such as Reagan's tax legislation record).
As for the payroll, income tax and in general "Making Work Pay" related comments; all that you've been affected by personally more than likely is a payroll cut and tax credit eligibility from the stimulus bill, and your employer using a different withholding table from the IRS. You've more than likely been affected positively; your employer as well.
For everything health care related, its costs and its problem; that's why the budget largely concentrates on reducing the costs of health care in the future. You'll benefit in the future from reduced costs.
As for cap and trade failing miserably; what're you talking about? The Clean Air Act for example was both successful and cost less than it was supposed to. That along with believing greenhouse gases don't have an effect on the climate aren't very credible stances to take; the aforementioned worked in measurable reducing acid rain by double-digit percents within a decade.
And for your grand finale; federal spending can't affect people personally positively; but it can cause you to personally lose your property, paycheck and inexpensive soda?
Considering the mere mentioning of payroll tax cuts and new tax credits prove:
1. How you've been effected personally, and positively.
2. That positive being opposite of your check taken away
...I'd have to consider your words a full circle of avoiding actually stating how you've been affected personally, and rather just another tangent of suggesting an apocalyptic future deciphered from far right myths of the present and past.
So as for the first paragraph, you're personally affected by fear of the country going bankrupt? That'd count as an intangible considering the country isn't bankrupt, and you aren't paying 20 dollars for soda, lost your property and paycheck due to any acts of our present administration. As for your tax rant; we can't cut taxes on the "upper income" infinitely; because eventually we hit 0. How much tax revenues are reaped from 0? There isn't an infinite amount of space between 0 and 100; the big margins Reagan and Kennedy were able to cut taxes we don't have today, and every 1 percentage point isn't the same as the other. Additionally, as for any historic 'theory', we tried cutting taxes for the rich the last administration and all supply-side theories failed; leading to what we have now. Our economic situation now is what we got with our purchase of the Bush tax cuts; why pay for more? Since a lack of tax avoidance and money remaining domestic are more likely with a bottom-up economy, we go with that; rather than giving relief to the top earners that invest more in our global economy and as you profess; will seek avoidance of paying taxes.
Considering we currently stand at $11 trilion in debt and are adding close to $2 trillion to it every year now, I'd say that's pretty close to bankrupt. Cleffy made a good point about the interest on the debt. President Obama made a big announcement this past week about how he is cutting a whopping $100 million out of the budget. Well it turns out that is roughly equal to the interest which is added to the federal debt every single day. The time to turn a boat around that is headed toward a waterfall is not after it has gone over the edge. At that point, it's too late.
We also can't expect the wealthy to fund the federal government at this current rate of spending. In fact, it's impossible. Even if you confiscated all the personal wealth from the rich in this country, it would only be a drop in the federal spending bucket. Not only is Obama and Congress going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but there are going to be all kinds of new taxes on the American taxpayer if and when this recession ends. Maybe before.
Nice try on your supply-side bashing attempt. Anyone who knows anything about this current economic crisis knows that the root of the problem goes to the sub-prime mortgage lending practices which can be traced all the way back to the 70s. Those risky loans had the double effect of artificially inflating housing prices leading to the real estate bubble burst and created the monetary shortfall in the banks leading to the credit crunch.
So as for the first paragraph, you're personally affected by fear of the country going bankrupt? That'd count as an intangible considering the country isn't bankrupt, and you aren't paying 20 dollars for soda, lost your property and paycheck due to any acts of our present administration. As for your tax rant; we can't cut taxes on the "upper income" infinitely; because eventually we hit 0. How much tax revenues are reaped from 0? There isn't an infinite amount of space between 0 and 100; the big margins Reagan and Kennedy were able to cut taxes we don't have today, and every 1 percentage point isn't the same as the other. Additionally, as for any historic 'theory', we tried cutting taxes for the rich the last administration and all supply-side theories failed; leading to what we have now. Our economic situation now is what we got with our purchase of the Bush tax cuts; why pay for more? Since a lack of tax avoidance and money remaining domestic are more likely with a bottom-up economy, we go with that; rather than giving relief to the top earners that invest more in our global economy and as you profess; will seek avoidance of paying taxes.
Considering we currently stand at $11 trilion in debt and are adding close to $2 trillion to it every year now, I'd say that's pretty close to bankrupt. Cleffy made a good point about the interest on the debt. President Obama made a big announcement this past week about how he is cutting a whopping $100 million out of the budget. Well it turns out that is roughly equal to the interest which is added to the federal debt every single day. The time to turn a boat around that is headed toward a waterfall is not after it has gone over the edge. At that point, it's too late.
We also can't expect the wealthy to fund the federal government at this current rate of spending. In fact, it's impossible. Even if you confiscated all the personal wealth from the rich in this country, it would only be a drop in the federal spending bucket. Not only is Obama and Congress going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but there are going to be all kinds of new taxes on the American taxpayer if and when this recession ends. Maybe before.
Nice try on your supply-side bashing attempt. Anyone who knows anything about this current economic crisis knows that the root of the problem goes to the sub-prime mortgage lending practices which can be traced all the way back to the 70s. Those risky loans had the double effect of artificially inflating housing prices leading to the real estate bubble burst and created the monetary shortfall in the banks leading to the credit crunch.
Evaluate your own ethos when it comes to expectations of how much the wealthy can and should contribute to tax revenues; as I'm the one that believes we should repeal spending on unnecessary tax cuts and incentives for top earners, and instead offer those cuts and incentives to middle-income workers and small businesses that're more likely to improve and sustain our economy.
As for my 'supply-side bashing attempt', what of it? It's FACT that the Bush tax cuts didn't work and pay for themselves specified by numerous reports from congressional budget offices and commitees. It's fact that they led to the hundreds of billions of dollars in budget deficit a year, stiflings in our economy and consequent debt. So why on earth would I do anything other than bash them? How come you have no criticisms of us borrowing money, adding to our debt, to pay for tax cuts that have blown up our debt?
I criticize the spending habits of our government; and that's why I'm glad our country elected the candidate committed to ending unnecessary war spending and ineffectual tax cuts. I understand a few people in the country seem cognitively incapable of understanding that war and tax cuts cost money, but they do. A candidate from either party would've spent money; just one would've spent on the former while the other would actually spend smart with actual measurable investments.
In general, it's quite backwards for the far right to complain about spending right now. It was fine to deficit spend throughout Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, completely ignore the Democratic president that actually balanced the budget and left us with a surplus and model that could've been sustained if not for Bush's tax cuts, only to turn around and try to lambast Obama who's deficit-spending the one and only time it's appropriate; a recession.
All and all, deficit spending and adding to the debt has been a reality for quite awhile despite a few in America only just now waking up to it. The federal government spends; it's up to you to vote how it should spend best, and if your vote goes towards borrowing money to pay for the Bush tax cuts and furthering war, and ignoring health care cost trends and a failing economy, well then you have no business claiming to care about the future of our national debt.
Ready for this one..Sunday,April 26 is debt day !!! this is the day the government runs out of money and has to start Borrowing to make IT threw the rest of the yr !!!
We are broke...how long do think this will be able to sustain it-self.
Next month 660.000 will run out of unemployment monies,same for the months after that...
Last year Debt Day fell on August 5th, but this year it comes almost four months earlier. This early date means that previous debt level records are about to be broken, and not just broken, but shattered. The same memo noted that a huge contributing factor to an earlier Debt Day is the Democrat trillion-dollar stimulus spending bill, the more than $400 billion omnibus spending bill loaded with some 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks, and another $350 billion in bailout funds Democrats have green-lighted since the beginning of the year.
GM shuts down plants for 6 Weeks and it will be longer that 6 weeks ! thats for sure.
top CEO at Freddie Mac commits suicide,what did know !!! fraud is everywhere all we need now is a WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN TIME...LOL
A Symbol of Washington’s Arrogant Culture of Borrowing and Spending.
FDIC Friday: Regulators Shut Banks in Georgia, Michigan, California, Idaho
April 25th, 2009
its just beginning.Bank are holding and hiding up to 600.000 foreclosed property's in fear if they dump them on the housing market,,,it will crash even further and they will have no hopes of getting the monies back.
" They " those in charge are by far to self serving to handle this type of crises.The more crises they have the more power they gain over your life.The left thrives in this type of climate !!
HAPPY DEBT DAY.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
It doesn't matter what reason, proof, or explanation of fact you give libs...they reject anything in truth. sepher's post after post when people gave him exacting explanations proves it.
i gave him 2 direct ways obama is going to raise MY taxes. for the record i make FAR less than 150k that he claims is the magic bullet. but sepher just ignores it. as do his liberal mindset friends.
I'm reminded of a proverb, but i'd get warned if i put a scripture here, so nm.
Considering we currently stand at $11 trilion in debt and are adding close to $2 trillion to it every year now, I'd say that's pretty close to bankrupt. Cleffy made a good point about the interest on the debt. President Obama made a big announcement this past week about how he is cutting a whopping $100 million out of the budget. Well it turns out that is roughly equal to the interest which is added to the federal debt every single day. The time to turn a boat around that is headed toward a waterfall is not after it has gone over the edge. At that point, it's too late. We also can't expect the wealthy to fund the federal government at this current rate of spending. In fact, it's impossible. Even if you confiscated all the personal wealth from the rich in this country, it would only be a drop in the federal spending bucket. Not only is Obama and Congress going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but there are going to be all kinds of new taxes on the American taxpayer if and when this recession ends. Maybe before. Nice try on your supply-side bashing attempt. Anyone who knows anything about this current economic crisis knows that the root of the problem goes to the sub-prime mortgage lending practices which can be traced all the way back to the 70s. Those risky loans had the double effect of artificially inflating housing prices leading to the real estate bubble burst and created the monetary shortfall in the banks leading to the credit crunch.
Evaluate your own ethos when it comes to expectations of how much the wealthy can and should contribute to tax revenues; as I'm the one that believes we should repeal spending on unnecessary tax cuts and incentives for top earners, and instead offer those cuts and incentives to middle-income workers and small businesses that're more likely to improve and sustain our economy.
As for my 'supply-side bashing attempt', what of it? It's FACT that the Bush tax cuts didn't work and pay for themselves specified by numerous reports from congressional budget offices and commitees. It's fact that they led to the hundreds of billions of dollars in budget deficit a year, stiflings in our economy and consequent debt. So why on earth would I do anything other than bash them? How come you have no criticisms of us borrowing money, adding to our debt, to pay for tax cuts that have blown up our debt?
I criticize the spending habits of our government; and that's why I'm glad our country elected the candidate committed to ending unnecessary war spending and ineffectual tax cuts. I understand a few people in the country seem cognitively incapable of understanding that war and tax cuts cost money, but they do. A candidate from either party would've spent money; just one would've spent on the former while the other would actually spend smart with actual measurable investments.
In general, it's quite backwards for the far right to complain about spending right now. It was fine to deficit spend throughout Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, completely ignore the Democratic president that actually balanced the budget and left us with a surplus and model that could've been sustained if not for Bush's tax cuts, only to turn around and try to lambast Obama who's deficit-spending the one and only time it's appropriate; a recession.
All and all, deficit spending and adding to the debt has been a reality for quite awhile despite a few in America only just now waking up to it. The federal government spends; it's up to you to vote how it should spend best, and if your vote goes towards borrowing money to pay for the Bush tax cuts and furthering war, and ignoring health care cost trends and a failing economy, well then you have no business claiming to care about the future of our national debt.
How much do you want the wealthy to pay? I know this is going to be an exercise in futility because no matter how many times you hit liberals over the head with this fact, they still deny it, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Current IRS statistics show that the top 1% of wage earners pay a third of the government's income tax revenues and the top half pay 96% of federal income taxes. And that's with the Bush tax cuts in place. I have yet to meet a liberal who is willing to accept that, but I keep hoping.
I also reject completely the notion that tax cuts need to be paid for. The budget deficit has absolutely nothing to do with tax revenues and everything to do with government spending. It's obscene. The government always asks the American people to sacrifice and tighten their belts, especially during a recession, but somehow never seems to be able to do practice what it preaches.
Your third paragragh is perhaps the most nonsensical one I have ever read. I criticize government spending that's why I'm glad our country elected Obama. Paraphrase: I hate wasteful government spending, that's why I support a guy who quadrupled the budget deficit. How can you possibly reconcile that contradiction?
I don't know where the "far right" stands on government spending during the Bush years, but I have been critical of it and if you were paying attention, you would probably be aware that a lot of conservatives (and others) have been decrying outrageous spending by Washington before Obama even got elected. I don't blindly follow Republican politicians the way most liberals tend to blindly follow Democrats. Obama came into office and simply compounded an already out of control problem.
Another myth you need to get past is that Clinton is the one who balanced the budget in the 90s. Remember, it's Congress who holds the power of the purse and that Congress was Republican when the budget balanced. And the biggest contributing factor was welfare reform that Clinton finally caved to. The same reform that Obama and this Congress has now repealed.
Part of the contributing factor for the renewed deficits under Bush resulted from the combination of the 9/11 attacks and the recession that America went through early in his first term. That's why I was willing to give him a pass on spending in his first term. But after he got re-elected in 2004 and had a Republican majority in Congress to work with and did not even attempt to take on spending, my support for him waned.
It doesn't matter what reason, proof, or explanation of fact you give libs...they reject anything in truth. sepher's post after post when people gave him exacting explanations proves it. i gave him 2 direct ways obama is going to raise MY taxes. for the record i make FAR less than 150k that he claims is the magic bullet. but sepher just ignores it. as do his liberal mindset friends. I'm reminded of a proverb, but i'd get warned if i put a scripture here, so nm.
Ignore what? Obama CUT how much employer's are supposed to withhold from your check, he didn't RAISE payroll taxes. What proof do you have of otherwise? It's a simple plain fact of the "Making Work Pay" portion of the stimulus bill. Come on, use your head. Your taxes WEREN'T raised. Of course I ignore a notion that blatantly false.
And yes, proverbs, youtube links, right wing blogs; that's what your 'proof' amounts to. I merely asked you to stand on your own legs for once and explain how YOU had personally been affected negatively. You couldn't do it.
How much do you want the wealthy to pay? I know this is going to be an exercise in futility because no matter how many times you hit liberals over the head with this fact, they still deny it, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Current IRS statistics show that the top 1% of wage earners pay a third of the government's income tax revenues and the top half pay 96% of federal income taxes. And that's with the Bush tax cuts in place. I have yet to meet a liberal who is willing to accept that, but I keep hoping. I also reject completely the notion that tax cuts need to be paid for. The budget deficit has absolutely nothing to do with tax revenues and everything to do with government spending. It's obscene. The government always asks the American people to sacrifice and tighten their belts, especially during a recession, but somehow never seems to be able to do practice what it preaches. Your third paragragh is perhaps the most nonsensical one I have ever read. I criticize government spending that's why I'm glad our country elected Obama. Paraphrase: I hate wasteful government spending, that's why I support a guy who quadrupled the budget deficit. How can you possibly reconcile that contradiction? I don't know where the "far right" stands on government spending during the Bush years, but I have been critical of it and if you were paying attention, you would probably be aware that a lot of conservatives (and others) have been decrying outrageous spending by Washington before Obama even got elected. I don't blindly follow Republican politicians the way most liberals tend to blindly follow Democrats. Obama came into office and simply compounded an already out of control problem. Another myth you need to get past is that Clinton is the one who balanced the budget in the 90s. Remember, it's Congress who holds the power of the purse and that Congress was Republican when the budget balanced. And the biggest contributing factor was welfare reform that Clinton finally caved to. The same reform that Obama and this Congress has now repealed. Part of the contributing factor for the renewed deficits under Bush resulted from the combination of the 9/11 attacks and the recession that America went through early in his first term. That's why I was willing to give him a pass on spending in his first term. But after he got re-elected in 2004 and had a Republican majority in Congress to work with and did not even attempt to take on spending, my support for him waned.
The rich pay taxes and account for a good amount of it? *gasps* Who would've thought. Where did I argue the rich didn't pay taxes?
And yes, Bush's budget deficits had everything to do with the tax cuts that didn't pay for themself; and if persisted would bleed our nation a few trillion more. Thus we stop paying for them, plain and simple.
As for the government asking the nation to tighten its belt; which? Our current administration understands the American people are going to do that anyway in a recession, and thus the need for federal dollars in the form of a stimulus. Our current situation was created by the government ASKING Americans to stop spending and hurt the economy.
If nothing else, Bush's tax cuts and the war in Iraq were a form of asking the majority of America to tighten their belts and pay for some right wing myth of supply-side economics and a flawed war on terror strategy; and now we see the consequences.
As for my 'contradiction'; it's only that if I agreed to your term of "wasteful spending". I don't consider spending on curtailing the cost of health care wasteful spending. Nor do I stimulus spending on middle- America and small businesses. Bush-era spending though; that's what you'd call wasteful (minus his spending towards education and a few other items).
I'm also going to credit Clinton with as much as you'd credit Reagan for. You can either credit or discredit them generally; or you can get into the specifics of individual pieces of legislation and their stances; touching on the grey area however doesn't do it.
It doesn't matter what reason, proof, or explanation of fact you give libs...they reject anything in truth. sepher's post after post when people gave him exacting explanations proves it. i gave him 2 direct ways obama is going to raise MY taxes. for the record i make FAR less than 150k that he claims is the magic bullet. but sepher just ignores it. as do his liberal mindset friends. I'm reminded of a proverb, but i'd get warned if i put a scripture here, so nm.
Ignore what? Obama CUT how much employer's are supposed to withhold from your check, he didn't RAISE payroll taxes. What proof do you have of otherwise? It's a simple plain fact of the "Making Work Pay" portion of the stimulus bill. Come on, use your head. Your taxes WEREN'T raised. Of course I ignore a notion that blatantly false.
And yes, proverbs, youtube links, right wing blogs; that's what your 'proof' amounts to. I merely asked you to stand on your own legs for once and explain how YOU had personally been affected negatively. You couldn't do it.
do you not read? I said Obama is going to raise capital gains taxes...on ME. is that clear enough?
He's going to tax BOTH of us with cap and trade...is THAT clear enough?
and it's not going to be quick enough for the democrats either.
so there i did it quite easily, but you go on ignoring it again....
do you not read? I said Obama is going to raise capital gains taxes...on ME. is that clear enough? He's going to tax BOTH of us with cap and trade...is THAT clear enough? and it's not going to be quick enough for the democrats either. so there i did it quite easily, but you go on ignoring it again....
Where to start?
1. I doubt you make investments; if you do I doubt your investments make the couple hundred thousand that warrant any tax repeals. Thus no you aren't affected.
2. What part of your pay check has "cap and trade tax" on it?
You aren't making million dollar investments and you aren't trading emission permits; but as professed by you, you are making a middle-income salary and thus you've received a tax cut and other probable incentives for your return. If anyone is ignoring anything; you're ignoring the reality around youself.
Comments
No, it doesn't. The Republicans began getting out of touch with conservatives as Reagan left office. If Republican equaled conservative 99% of the time, the TARP would not have passed.
Ok so in summary
Conservate does not equal republican
But
Liberal = Socialist?
I see how you guys work.
No. I don't think all liberals are socialists. Liberals who still follow the original ideal before it was polluted in the late 60's/early 70's are not socialists. However, yes, a majority of them are now. Any liberal, which I simply refer to as leftists, who support expansion of taxpayer funded social programs including, but not limited to, health care, nationalization of industry, social security and any form of welfare are socialists.
First and formost, almost none of the 'socialist' countries claimed are actually socialist. They are a dictatorship, meaning the dictator holds the ownerhsip and power over the country's economy where socialism is a advance for of market where everyone owns everything, ie a democratic market. Capitalism is a Aristotical market based on turning everything into a commoditiy, including YOU.
That is beside the point. I am just saying that these countries only call themselves socialist, they are not actually (some are communist, most are just strait dictatorships)
Socialism = Everyone owns/shares everything, generally democratic resource distribution
Communism = Government (usually single party) owns everything, governmental resource distribution
Dictatorship = Single person/party owns everything, dictorial resource distribution
Its the same as everyoen calling the U.S. a democracy when we are a representative republic.
Major or Current Characters
AC - The Brute lvl 85 macer -HG (retired)
SWG - Lihone Su'alkn Master Ranger/ MCH - Flurry (Retired)
EVE - Sulone - Cruiser Lover (Retired)
LOTRO - Sandric lvl 50 Burg (and others)- Brandywine (Retired)
GW2 - Sandric lvl 80 Thief - Dragonbrand (Retired)
NeverWinter - Sandric lvl 60 Rogue - Dragonshard (Retired)
Archage - Sandric lvl 50 everything - Naima (Active)
Others (Lots) (Retired)
So as for the first paragraph, you're personally affected by fear of the country going bankrupt? That'd count as an intangible considering the country isn't bankrupt, and you aren't paying 20 dollars for soda, lost your property and paycheck due to any acts of our present administration.
As for your tax rant; we can't cut taxes on the "upper income" infinitely; because eventually we hit 0. How much tax revenues are reaped from 0? There isn't an infinite amount of space between 0 and 100; the big margins Reagan and Kennedy were able to cut taxes we don't have today, and every 1 percentage point isn't the same as the other.
Additionally, as for any historic 'theory', we tried cutting taxes for the rich the last administration and all supply-side theories failed; leading to what we have now. Our economic situation now is what we got with our purchase of the Bush tax cuts; why pay for more? Since a lack of tax avoidance and money remaining domestic are more likely with a bottom-up economy, we go with that; rather than giving relief to the top earners that invest more in our global economy and as you profess; will seek avoidance of paying taxes.
Also, I'd like to hear how any tax modifications personally affect you; not generic, overarching theory hardly applicable to today, and largely based on myth (such as Reagan's tax legislation record).
As for the payroll, income tax and in general "Making Work Pay" related comments; all that you've been affected by personally more than likely is a payroll cut and tax credit eligibility from the stimulus bill, and your employer using a different withholding table from the IRS. You've more than likely been affected positively; your employer as well.
For everything health care related, its costs and its problem; that's why the budget largely concentrates on reducing the costs of health care in the future. You'll benefit in the future from reduced costs.
As for cap and trade failing miserably; what're you talking about? The Clean Air Act for example was both successful and cost less than it was supposed to. That along with believing greenhouse gases don't have an effect on the climate aren't very credible stances to take; the aforementioned worked in measurable reducing acid rain by double-digit percents within a decade.
And for your grand finale; federal spending can't affect people personally positively; but it can cause you to personally lose your property, paycheck and inexpensive soda?
Considering the mere mentioning of payroll tax cuts and new tax credits prove:
1. How you've been effected personally, and positively.
2. That positive being opposite of your check taken away
...I'd have to consider your words a full circle of avoiding actually stating how you've been affected personally, and rather just another tangent of suggesting an apocalyptic future deciphered from far right myths of the present and past.
Considering we currently stand at $11 trilion in debt and are adding close to $2 trillion to it every year now, I'd say that's pretty close to bankrupt. Cleffy made a good point about the interest on the debt. President Obama made a big announcement this past week about how he is cutting a whopping $100 million out of the budget. Well it turns out that is roughly equal to the interest which is added to the federal debt every single day. The time to turn a boat around that is headed toward a waterfall is not after it has gone over the edge. At that point, it's too late.
We also can't expect the wealthy to fund the federal government at this current rate of spending. In fact, it's impossible. Even if you confiscated all the personal wealth from the rich in this country, it would only be a drop in the federal spending bucket. Not only is Obama and Congress going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but there are going to be all kinds of new taxes on the American taxpayer if and when this recession ends. Maybe before.
Nice try on your supply-side bashing attempt. Anyone who knows anything about this current economic crisis knows that the root of the problem goes to the sub-prime mortgage lending practices which can be traced all the way back to the 70s. Those risky loans had the double effect of artificially inflating housing prices leading to the real estate bubble burst and created the monetary shortfall in the banks leading to the credit crunch.
Considering we currently stand at $11 trilion in debt and are adding close to $2 trillion to it every year now, I'd say that's pretty close to bankrupt. Cleffy made a good point about the interest on the debt. President Obama made a big announcement this past week about how he is cutting a whopping $100 million out of the budget. Well it turns out that is roughly equal to the interest which is added to the federal debt every single day. The time to turn a boat around that is headed toward a waterfall is not after it has gone over the edge. At that point, it's too late.
We also can't expect the wealthy to fund the federal government at this current rate of spending. In fact, it's impossible. Even if you confiscated all the personal wealth from the rich in this country, it would only be a drop in the federal spending bucket. Not only is Obama and Congress going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but there are going to be all kinds of new taxes on the American taxpayer if and when this recession ends. Maybe before.
Nice try on your supply-side bashing attempt. Anyone who knows anything about this current economic crisis knows that the root of the problem goes to the sub-prime mortgage lending practices which can be traced all the way back to the 70s. Those risky loans had the double effect of artificially inflating housing prices leading to the real estate bubble burst and created the monetary shortfall in the banks leading to the credit crunch.
Evaluate your own ethos when it comes to expectations of how much the wealthy can and should contribute to tax revenues; as I'm the one that believes we should repeal spending on unnecessary tax cuts and incentives for top earners, and instead offer those cuts and incentives to middle-income workers and small businesses that're more likely to improve and sustain our economy.
As for my 'supply-side bashing attempt', what of it? It's FACT that the Bush tax cuts didn't work and pay for themselves specified by numerous reports from congressional budget offices and commitees. It's fact that they led to the hundreds of billions of dollars in budget deficit a year, stiflings in our economy and consequent debt. So why on earth would I do anything other than bash them? How come you have no criticisms of us borrowing money, adding to our debt, to pay for tax cuts that have blown up our debt?
I criticize the spending habits of our government; and that's why I'm glad our country elected the candidate committed to ending unnecessary war spending and ineffectual tax cuts. I understand a few people in the country seem cognitively incapable of understanding that war and tax cuts cost money, but they do. A candidate from either party would've spent money; just one would've spent on the former while the other would actually spend smart with actual measurable investments.
In general, it's quite backwards for the far right to complain about spending right now. It was fine to deficit spend throughout Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, completely ignore the Democratic president that actually balanced the budget and left us with a surplus and model that could've been sustained if not for Bush's tax cuts, only to turn around and try to lambast Obama who's deficit-spending the one and only time it's appropriate; a recession.
All and all, deficit spending and adding to the debt has been a reality for quite awhile despite a few in America only just now waking up to it. The federal government spends; it's up to you to vote how it should spend best, and if your vote goes towards borrowing money to pay for the Bush tax cuts and furthering war, and ignoring health care cost trends and a failing economy, well then you have no business claiming to care about the future of our national debt.
Ready for this one..Sunday,April 26 is debt day !!! this is the day the government runs out of money and has to start Borrowing to make IT threw the rest of the yr !!!
We are broke...how long do think this will be able to sustain it-self.
Next month 660.000 will run out of unemployment monies,same for the months after that...
Last year Debt Day fell on August 5th, but this year it comes almost four months earlier. This early date means that previous debt level records are about to be broken, and not just broken, but shattered. The same memo noted that a huge contributing factor to an earlier Debt Day is the Democrat trillion-dollar stimulus spending bill, the more than $400 billion omnibus spending bill loaded with some 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks, and another $350 billion in bailout funds Democrats have green-lighted since the beginning of the year.
GM shuts down plants for 6 Weeks and it will be longer that 6 weeks ! thats for sure.
top CEO at Freddie Mac commits suicide,what did know !!! fraud is everywhere all we need now is a WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN TIME...LOL
A Symbol of Washington’s Arrogant Culture of Borrowing and Spending.
FDIC Friday: Regulators Shut Banks in Georgia, Michigan, California, Idaho
April 25th, 2009
its just beginning.Bank are holding and hiding up to 600.000 foreclosed property's in fear if they dump them on the housing market,,,it will crash even further and they will have no hopes of getting the monies back.
" They " those in charge are by far to self serving to handle this type of crises.The more crises they have the more power they gain over your life.The left thrives in this type of climate !!
HAPPY DEBT DAY.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
It doesn't matter what reason, proof, or explanation of fact you give libs...they reject anything in truth. sepher's post after post when people gave him exacting explanations proves it.
i gave him 2 direct ways obama is going to raise MY taxes. for the record i make FAR less than 150k that he claims is the magic bullet. but sepher just ignores it. as do his liberal mindset friends.
I'm reminded of a proverb, but i'd get warned if i put a scripture here, so nm.
Evaluate your own ethos when it comes to expectations of how much the wealthy can and should contribute to tax revenues; as I'm the one that believes we should repeal spending on unnecessary tax cuts and incentives for top earners, and instead offer those cuts and incentives to middle-income workers and small businesses that're more likely to improve and sustain our economy.
As for my 'supply-side bashing attempt', what of it? It's FACT that the Bush tax cuts didn't work and pay for themselves specified by numerous reports from congressional budget offices and commitees. It's fact that they led to the hundreds of billions of dollars in budget deficit a year, stiflings in our economy and consequent debt. So why on earth would I do anything other than bash them? How come you have no criticisms of us borrowing money, adding to our debt, to pay for tax cuts that have blown up our debt?
I criticize the spending habits of our government; and that's why I'm glad our country elected the candidate committed to ending unnecessary war spending and ineffectual tax cuts. I understand a few people in the country seem cognitively incapable of understanding that war and tax cuts cost money, but they do. A candidate from either party would've spent money; just one would've spent on the former while the other would actually spend smart with actual measurable investments.
In general, it's quite backwards for the far right to complain about spending right now. It was fine to deficit spend throughout Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, completely ignore the Democratic president that actually balanced the budget and left us with a surplus and model that could've been sustained if not for Bush's tax cuts, only to turn around and try to lambast Obama who's deficit-spending the one and only time it's appropriate; a recession.
All and all, deficit spending and adding to the debt has been a reality for quite awhile despite a few in America only just now waking up to it. The federal government spends; it's up to you to vote how it should spend best, and if your vote goes towards borrowing money to pay for the Bush tax cuts and furthering war, and ignoring health care cost trends and a failing economy, well then you have no business claiming to care about the future of our national debt.
How much do you want the wealthy to pay? I know this is going to be an exercise in futility because no matter how many times you hit liberals over the head with this fact, they still deny it, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Current IRS statistics show that the top 1% of wage earners pay a third of the government's income tax revenues and the top half pay 96% of federal income taxes. And that's with the Bush tax cuts in place. I have yet to meet a liberal who is willing to accept that, but I keep hoping.
I also reject completely the notion that tax cuts need to be paid for. The budget deficit has absolutely nothing to do with tax revenues and everything to do with government spending. It's obscene. The government always asks the American people to sacrifice and tighten their belts, especially during a recession, but somehow never seems to be able to do practice what it preaches.
Your third paragragh is perhaps the most nonsensical one I have ever read. I criticize government spending that's why I'm glad our country elected Obama. Paraphrase: I hate wasteful government spending, that's why I support a guy who quadrupled the budget deficit. How can you possibly reconcile that contradiction?
I don't know where the "far right" stands on government spending during the Bush years, but I have been critical of it and if you were paying attention, you would probably be aware that a lot of conservatives (and others) have been decrying outrageous spending by Washington before Obama even got elected. I don't blindly follow Republican politicians the way most liberals tend to blindly follow Democrats. Obama came into office and simply compounded an already out of control problem.
Another myth you need to get past is that Clinton is the one who balanced the budget in the 90s. Remember, it's Congress who holds the power of the purse and that Congress was Republican when the budget balanced. And the biggest contributing factor was welfare reform that Clinton finally caved to. The same reform that Obama and this Congress has now repealed.
Part of the contributing factor for the renewed deficits under Bush resulted from the combination of the 9/11 attacks and the recession that America went through early in his first term. That's why I was willing to give him a pass on spending in his first term. But after he got re-elected in 2004 and had a Republican majority in Congress to work with and did not even attempt to take on spending, my support for him waned.
Ignore what? Obama CUT how much employer's are supposed to withhold from your check, he didn't RAISE payroll taxes. What proof do you have of otherwise? It's a simple plain fact of the "Making Work Pay" portion of the stimulus bill. Come on, use your head. Your taxes WEREN'T raised. Of course I ignore a notion that blatantly false.
And yes, proverbs, youtube links, right wing blogs; that's what your 'proof' amounts to. I merely asked you to stand on your own legs for once and explain how YOU had personally been affected negatively. You couldn't do it.
The rich pay taxes and account for a good amount of it? *gasps* Who would've thought. Where did I argue the rich didn't pay taxes?
And yes, Bush's budget deficits had everything to do with the tax cuts that didn't pay for themself; and if persisted would bleed our nation a few trillion more. Thus we stop paying for them, plain and simple.
As for the government asking the nation to tighten its belt; which? Our current administration understands the American people are going to do that anyway in a recession, and thus the need for federal dollars in the form of a stimulus. Our current situation was created by the government ASKING Americans to stop spending and hurt the economy.
If nothing else, Bush's tax cuts and the war in Iraq were a form of asking the majority of America to tighten their belts and pay for some right wing myth of supply-side economics and a flawed war on terror strategy; and now we see the consequences.
As for my 'contradiction'; it's only that if I agreed to your term of "wasteful spending". I don't consider spending on curtailing the cost of health care wasteful spending. Nor do I stimulus spending on middle- America and small businesses. Bush-era spending though; that's what you'd call wasteful (minus his spending towards education and a few other items).
I'm also going to credit Clinton with as much as you'd credit Reagan for. You can either credit or discredit them generally; or you can get into the specifics of individual pieces of legislation and their stances; touching on the grey area however doesn't do it.
Ignore what? Obama CUT how much employer's are supposed to withhold from your check, he didn't RAISE payroll taxes. What proof do you have of otherwise? It's a simple plain fact of the "Making Work Pay" portion of the stimulus bill. Come on, use your head. Your taxes WEREN'T raised. Of course I ignore a notion that blatantly false.
And yes, proverbs, youtube links, right wing blogs; that's what your 'proof' amounts to. I merely asked you to stand on your own legs for once and explain how YOU had personally been affected negatively. You couldn't do it.
do you not read? I said Obama is going to raise capital gains taxes...on ME. is that clear enough?
He's going to tax BOTH of us with cap and trade...is THAT clear enough?
and it's not going to be quick enough for the democrats either.
so there i did it quite easily, but you go on ignoring it again....
Where to start?
1. I doubt you make investments; if you do I doubt your investments make the couple hundred thousand that warrant any tax repeals. Thus no you aren't affected.
2. What part of your pay check has "cap and trade tax" on it?
You aren't making million dollar investments and you aren't trading emission permits; but as professed by you, you are making a middle-income salary and thus you've received a tax cut and other probable incentives for your return. If anyone is ignoring anything; you're ignoring the reality around youself.