quote:No matter how holier-than-thou the republicans get the sense of entitlement to other people's money I see in the left will always scare me off.
Funny, it's the sense of entitlement to my and my unborn children's money that scares me away from the right.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is how I feel... Plus someone needs to be blamed for me having to go the ER and end up with a two thousand dollar bill I can't pay that ruins my credit... When they cut taxes for the wealthy it has to come from SOMEONE! So most likely, it's me and other folks who are struggling to hold on to something they earn.
This does smack of entitlement, and it makes all sorts of uncomfortable questions come to mind, like, why were you in the hospital in the first place? It's an unfortunate circumstance, and I do believe that we should do something about healthcare costs, and the adverse effect they have on a person's credit, but somehow, some hospital in this country saved you. It seems that you should be more gracious.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I'm in any great suspense as to who you'll vote for, Pix, but I confess to curiosity on one point -- what will be your reasons when you vote Republican in the fall elections? Can you point to a single policy of theirs that's benefitted you? Do you have more money or freedom, or will you later thanks to Republican government? Do you believe the government's in better fiscal shape? Is less money being spent, or at least being focused into research in alternative fuels or better public science education? Is the country, or even the world, a better place now because of Republican government?
You complain that Democrats spend your money, but look back on the past thirty years and tell me that again. I see record deficits by Republicans, each succeeded only by the next Republican president. I see recession and inflation and extreme poverty. What do you see?
I'm more libertarian than anything else, and I still can't think of a single way to justify voting for such an impossibly incompetent and corrupt party. How will you do it?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Demonstrocity: Why is it the responsibility of the rich to help pay for you? This question is directed at anyone believing in a "liberal" economic policy.
I'm not sure that I believe in a liberal/leftist economic policy, but I'll take a stab.
I don't think anyone gets to be monetarily wealthy purely through their own abilities or effort. For a great many of them, it's possible to earn lots of money because the structure of our society enables them to do so by means of access to education and a skilled labor force. Were we living in a tribal society, would Bill Gates have the kind of economic power he does in this one? I'm sure he would still be able to distinguish himself somehow, I simply doubt he would be worth hundreds of thousands times more than the average citizen (in terms of holdings). It seems fair to me that those making more money - as they have had a more advantageous position conferred upon them - contribute a greater percentage.
If that last sentence sounds a bit too Marxist, I apologize. "Conferred" isn't the word I want but I can't think of a better one. Also, I can't ignore the argument that the wealthy work harder and are therefore entitled to their advantageous position. All I'll say is that, for their hard work - and even after taxes - they still make enough to live in luxury and provide for their children.
Other arguments, off the top of my head:
1. Redistributing wealth on a regular basis in an orderly way will prevent the social upheaval of revolution that can occur when wealth becomes too unevenly distributed. This increases stability for everyone.
2. Redistribution of wealth will increase competition by ensuring that as many people as possible are in a position to be meaningfully competetive.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've come to realize it was a bad, bad question to ask, since my counter-arguments are all basically devoid of morality, and this is just about the last place I'm going to venture those thoughts.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Syn, you should really look into your state's Medicaid program. Also, if you're as poor as you seem to be, you don't even pay taxes. Anything taken from your paychecks is refunded to you at the end of the year.
I can understand if you're upset at Republicans because they're interested in removing tax breaks that the poor receive. They're also interested in getting rid of Social Security (and, by consequence, Medicare/Medicaid). That's the kind of hogwash that just twists my nipples.
Currently I am improving things by working temp jobs, which means i make too much money for the state's free care. Without insurance or freecare, I can't even go to the clinic if I have trouble breathing or a stubborn cough that causes chest pain. So I end up in the emergency room, but probably shouldn't go and wouldn't have to if I have a primary physician I could visit. Then I end up with a huge bill. I have student loans to fret over and rent and also transportation to work, so even though I am trying to improve my situation, it is still and unhill battle. Now my goal is to try to find a job with insurance so I can have the illusion of security. I'm a good worker, so perhaps if I don't screw up (but I am already about to... eeep) maybe Blue Cross will keep me... I'll have to see... I have to build up experience. I am bitter towards both parties, but the Republican party frustrates me the most because I cannot understand the use of tax cuts for the wealthiest upper percentile. I really don't think that anyone but a handful of people can gan from these sort of tax cuts, especially during a war. I do believe a lot of pork has to be trimmed from the government's budget, but programs like Americorps help a lot of people, including college students, the eldery and children. Is there any reason to cut a program like that just so people who already have a ton of money can save more money? They are really interfering with the balance of things in my opinion, but my understanding of economics is limited I admit. Perhaps it does some good I cannot see clearly?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can understand if you're upset at Republicans because they're interested in removing tax breaks that the poor receive. They're also interested in getting rid of Social Security (and, by consequence, Medicare/Medicaid).
Can you cite this, especially the medicare/medicaid part?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not if he's relying on the partial privatization plan, at least to back up a claim that they want to "get rid of Social Security."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can understand if you're upset at Republicans because they're interested in removing tax breaks that the poor receive. They're also interested in getting rid of Social Security (and, by consequence, Medicare/Medicaid).
Can you cite this, especially the medicare/medicaid part?
They "borrow" all the money from what's supposed to be a seperate Social Security fund.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: You complain that Democrats spend your money, but look back on the past thirty years and tell me that again. I see record deficits by Republicans, each succeeded only by the next Republican president. I see recession and inflation and extreme poverty. What do you see?
That's because they cut tax rates, and the Democrat's and the electorate won't let them cut spending by way of complaining (or, like now for instance, there's a deficit-justifying war on). However, if you'll unblock your ears for a moment, you'll notice that tax cuts, for both rich and poor, leads to actual revenue increases in the long term because people have more money for capital generation and consumption.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, if you'll unblock your ears for a moment, you'll notice that tax cuts, for both rich and poor, leads to actual revenue increases in the long term because people have more money for capital generation and consumption.
Revenue for who? The goverment/IRS? Is this a Laffer curve based argument?
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing most people miss is that, even given the argument is without flaws (something not accepted by, among others, economists, since the changes in income tax distortionary effects may well prevent the Laffer curve from coming into play), there are lots of points along the Laffer curve where your statement is [b]not true[/i], and we don't know where along the Laffer curve we are.
In other words, your argument as formulated is what's commonly known as wishful thinking.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True enough when you lower the taxes on rich individuals, but keep taxes on companies (which in actuality pass their tax costs onto consumers) and shareholders, which will simply motivate the rich to invest overseas.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, not all of tax costs are passed on to consumers, but they are in part, yes. It doesn't motivate the rich to invest overseas in and of itself, though, that's just silliness.
However, that's not the distortionary effect I was talking about, I'm talking about the distortion in real wage due to an income tax.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ignoring for a moment the criticisms of the Laffer curve in general(both Keynesian and just plain old common sense critiques), it's doubtful that we're on the right side of the curve (the point Fugu alluded to). The CBO conducted an analysis of the effect of a 10% across the board income tax cut and ultimately found that you'd only be recouping less than 1/3 the cost of the tax cut over 10 years (and that is the nicest model-they also employ another one that is much more pessimistic in its outlook). If you have access to print articles there was also a decent article in Journal of Socio-Economics about a year ago about the Laffer curve in relation to the OECD countries today. Not surprisingly they found almost all of them (except Sweden) were well left of their optimal tax rate on the curve.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If cutting taxes always increases the amount of revenue in the IRS coffers, then the answer is simple. If everyone pays 0 taxes, then the government will have infinite amounts of revue.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: Heck, since the laffer curve is wrong, why don't we all pay 100% of our income! Then the government would have ALL the money!
The flaw of the laffer curve, of course, is what is the GOAL of taxation? Is the goal to squeeze the most out of your victims as you can?
Of course that's not the goal.
The goal is to get enough to pay for vital services, whatever you think they are (and we could debate that all day and walk away with naught but pulled hair and scratch marks.) And NO MORE.
You're not looking for the "sweet spot" where government gets the most money possible. You're looking for a spot, to the left of the curve, where you're getting what the government needs to defend it's populace and opress them in whatever way the majority thinks is right. While leaving as much money in the pockets of the tax payers as possible.
posted
Pix, I'm going to make the case for you to vote Democratic.
And its based on 100% pure cynicism.
What you are debating in your heart is to vote for Democratic politicians, who claim to believe in things that you abhor, or to vote for Republican politicians, who claim to believe in things that you agree with, but continually vote for things you abhor.
But we all know that most politicians are alike, regardless of party. They are self-serving. The more conservative their speech, the more liberal they vote in order to keep the moderates in their mix happy. Likewise the more liberal they sound, the more conservative they vote. So to get a truly economic conservative policy, you need to vote for a liberal.
Hey, it was liberal Clinton who left us with a surplus in taxes, and economically conservative Bush who is spending on anything that may buy him some votes. (Just as it was red-bating Nixon who could make peace with China without being called a Pinko and Cheney with a lesbian daughter who pushes for the Marriage ammendment.)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: The problem is both sides say they support something I agree with, but concentrate their efforts on the things I disagree with.
Dems are better on the gay issue, but they concentrate more on Taxation and do things like sign the DOMA.
Republicans are better on taxation, but they still like to spend and they concentrate on things like making damn sure gay people have no legal protection.
I think I'm most likely, if I don't vote republican, to vote Constitutionalist or Libertarian and say to hell with both the major parties (which, of course, is the same as not voting at all.)
As for clinton's surplus... While the Dot Coms were booming and clinton was touting his "resession proof New Economy" he and the other dems were spending spending spending. Now as we all know, once the goverment spends a certain amount, that amount can never shrink. It can only grow slower (growing slower is called a "Cut")
So once the economy started to crash in 2000, before the Lord of Darkness was elected, we already had over the top government spending. As the economy fell so did revenues. But since government spending can't shrink, our deficit ballooned.
I'm not saying this to excuse Bush and the rest of the republicans. If they'd had chutzpah and some gumption, they COULD have gone on massive spending cuts (REAL cuts) and withered the arrows from the dems and the press and probably have been voted out of office after 1 term. But they would have made PROGRESS....
Anyway, my point was Clinton's spending during the surplus put Bush in the position he's in today. That's Clinton's fault. But it's Bush's fault that he spent more instead of cutting.
posted
Pix, Your description of things doesn't match up with reality. The people who controlled the money during Clinton's presidency were, in large part, the Republican controlled Congress. Likewise, the problems with post 2000 spending hasn't so much been a maintenence of previous spending, but rather many, many increases and fiscally unsound decisions proposed by President Bush and the Congress, passed by an again Republican dominated Congress, and signed by the President.
Blaming the Democrats or President Clinton for the bulk of this is going to neccesitate postulating some sort of mind control device.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, I believe in my post I took Bush to task for spending instead of cutting.
I know you disagreed with the Wars, but IMHO they were necessary. I don't have a problem with that spending. You're not going to convence me there.
I agreed with the tax cuts. I was mad he didn't do MORE tax cutting. So if that's what you're talking about, you're not going to convence me there either.
Social spending, Yeah, He's done way too much of that. That's the spending I'm mad about.
Do you really think that Clinton would have spent less with a Democrat controlled congress? When he had congress he was working on Universal health care *shudder*
posted
I, personally, don't think the social revolutionaries among us need a socially revolutionary political party in government to represent us.
Instead, just whinge and whinge and whinge until you get whatever it is you want (and then you don't have people preoccupied with social revolution in charge of our economy).
Of course, it'd be nice if just any politician could put the good of the country before personal ambition completely. But that won't happen.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
