3 stupid myths republicans believe

[The Rabbi]

I suspect it means the Democratic Governor of NY state understands that targeted tax cuts work. Too bad the Republicans still believe cutting taxes to Billionaires tickle down. We've learned they put those tax savings into foreign banks and invest in foreign companies; obviously they do not tickle down to other Americans, otherwise the Bush tax cuts which Obama extended would have either prevented or lessened and shortened the Great Recession.

How well has it worked for Illinois? They raised taxes on everyone and then hadf to give "targeted tax breaks" to select companies so they wouldn't move out of state. In other words, bribery.
No doubt targeted tax breaks appeals to you, with government picking winners and losers and all. But in the real world the free market determines those things. In your world taxpayer end up supporting corporations that should have been left to fail.

During the Mario Cuomo regime( 16 years)NY taxed the shit out of business and there was a mass exodus to the state lines. Cuomo surmised that no business would ever leave New York. That arrogant belief that "if you're not in New York, you're nowhere, was the undoing of the State's economy and status as a leader in business.
There are areas of the State that have never recovered. That's going back nearly 30 years.

And it looks like NYC's new mayor is set to repeat the mistakes of the past, imposing high taxes on "the wealthy." If you could save $20,000/year by moving 5 miles away, wouldn't you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

How well has it worked for Illinois? They raised taxes on everyone and then hadf to give "targeted tax breaks" to select companies so they wouldn't move out of state. In other words, bribery.
No doubt targeted tax breaks appeals to you, with government picking winners and losers and all. But in the real world the free market determines those things. In your world taxpayer end up supporting corporations that should have been left to fail.

During the Mario Cuomo regime( 16 years)NY taxed the shit out of business and there was a mass exodus to the state lines. Cuomo surmised that no business would ever leave New York. That arrogant belief that "if you're not in New York, you're nowhere, was the undoing of the State's economy and status as a leader in business.
There are areas of the State that have never recovered. That's going back nearly 30 years.

And it looks like NYC's new mayor is set to repeat the mistakes of the past, imposing high taxes on "the wealthy." If you could save $20,000/year by moving 5 miles away, wouldn't you?

The arrogance of those on the left knows no bounds.
NJ is not exactly a tax haven, but compared to NYC, it's the Cayman Islands.

 

[OriginalShroom]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1 ) Please explain why revenue went up after JFK's and Reagan's tax cuts.

It's the Spending that causes debt you dolt.

2 ) Today's liberals are socialists and Communists. They simply won't admit it.

3 ) So you are one of those idiots who think that, like the bitcoin, there is a finite amount of money and if I have dollar, that keeps you from getting one also.

You really are a simpleton, aren't you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

He was Secretary of State when Bush decided to invade Iraq shit brains.
Try staying on point you idiot.

That has nothing to do with the thread title.
"Idiot"...."Shit brains".....You can do better than that.....
You don't like men because you aren't getting any. Except the battery powered "any"...
Yes, that was a personal attack.
Gloves are off there, split tail.
You're easy.

Hilarious. So short-stack...why are you here talking to me? I'm sure its because you have so many better things to do; right? Well, maybe you can get attention from the guys. Remember, it's better to pitch than catch although I'm sure you like being able to watch TV at the same time.

As for the subject...it's about looney conservative ideas. Some of you morons still believe the WMDs were there. Poor babies.

Feel free to attack all you want. After all, Sandra Fluke scares you shitless and that's what you do when you're scared; you go on the attack. Basically you're one generation from the cavemen.

I AM a caveman.
Sandra who? Does what?
Desperation is telling the deceased horse to please come back to life.

 

[LeftofLeft]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

Redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity for who?

 

[ron4342]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1) They do pay for themselves. You see, if you have more people paying taxes on more economic activity you can actually make MORE money then you currently have. In fact, every time taxes are cut, the economy improves and the treasury brings more money in. It's called the Laffer Curve, look it up.

I will not respond to all of your nonsense but I will respond to the above. If you recall Reagan gave tax cuts with the promise that it would raise taxes. Recall also that George H. W. Bush referred to what Reagan wanted to do as "Voodoo economics." He was correct then but he tried to make it work when he came to office. Remember "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES." By the end of that presidency the economy was a mess and we were heading for recession/depression. To stop the pending crash bush raised taxes, the economy ended its nose dive, and bush was able to turn a decent economy rather than a basket case over to Clinton. The Laffer Curve had been shown to be wrong.
Now jump ahead to the George w. bush presidency. Gwb tried the same nonsense as Reagan and bush's father tried. He once again cut taxes. If the Laffer Curve had been correct the economy would have taken off. IT DID'T! By the end of the bush presidency Americans were losing 750,000 jobs A MONTH. Or in other words, American's were losing three quarters of a million jobs each month. Virtually every economist in the United States was predicting a depression equal in magnitude to the 1930's. Once again the Laffer Curve had proven to be in error.
Now, you are a conservative and by definition that means you will refuse to listen to facts and reason. I suggest you read the the article given in the link I am posting. It literally shreds the Laffer Curve not that you will accept what it says. Nor will you accept the past history which shows it to be wrong.
Laffer curve - RationalWiki

 

[thereisnospoon]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1) They do pay for themselves. You see, if you have more people paying taxes on more economic activity you can actually make MORE money then you currently have. In fact, every time taxes are cut, the economy improves and the treasury brings more money in. It's called the Laffer Curve, look it up.

I will not respond to all of your nonsense but I will respond to the above. If you recall Reagan gave tax cuts with the promise that it would raise taxes. Recall also that George H. W. Bush referred to what Reagan wanted to do as "Voodoo economics." He was correct then but he tried to make it work when he came to office. Remember "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES." By the end of that presidency the economy was a mess and we were heading for recession/depression. To stop the pending crash bush raised taxes, the economy ended its nose dive, and bush was able to turn a decent economy rather than a basket case over to Clinton. The Laffer Curve had been shown to be wrong.
Now jump ahead to the George w. bush presidency. Gwb tried the same nonsense as Reagan and bush's father tried. He once again cut taxes. If the Laffer Curve had been correct the economy would have taken off. IT DID'T! By the end of the bush presidency Americans were losing 750,000 jobs A MONTH. Or in other words, American's were losing three quarters of a million jobs each month. Virtually every economist in the United States was predicting a depression equal in magnitude to the 1930's. Once again the Laffer Curve had proven to be in error.
Now, you are a conservative and by definition that means you will refuse to listen to facts and reason. I suggest you read the the article given in the link I am posting. It literally shreds the Laffer Curve not that you will accept what it says. Nor will you accept the past history which shows it to be wrong.
Laffer curve - RationalWiki

Why is it you believe the best thing for the country is for government to extract more of our earnings?
What do high taxes and out of control government spending have that is so appealing to you?
Why is it that you look upon MY money as the government's money?
Name one nation in modern history that has been able to tax itself into prosperity?
If you answer the previous question in the affirmative, show a direct correlation of taxation to an improved economy where taxation in and of itself was the direct cause of the expanding economy?
Gives solid independent examples. And be specific.

 

[thereisnospoon]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1) They do pay for themselves. You see, if you have more people paying taxes on more economic activity you can actually make MORE money then you currently have. In fact, every time taxes are cut, the economy improves and the treasury brings more money in. It's called the Laffer Curve, look it up.

I will not respond to all of your nonsense but I will respond to the above. If you recall Reagan gave tax cuts with the promise that it would raise taxes. Recall also that George H. W. Bush referred to what Reagan wanted to do as "Voodoo economics." He was correct then but he tried to make it work when he came to office. Remember "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES." By the end of that presidency the economy was a mess and we were heading for recession/depression. To stop the pending crash bush raised taxes, the economy ended its nose dive, and bush was able to turn a decent economy rather than a basket case over to Clinton. The Laffer Curve had been shown to be wrong.
Now jump ahead to the George w. bush presidency. Gwb tried the same nonsense as Reagan and bush's father tried. He once again cut taxes. If the Laffer Curve had been correct the economy would have taken off. IT DID'T! By the end of the bush presidency Americans were losing 750,000 jobs A MONTH. Or in other words, American's were losing three quarters of a million jobs each month. Virtually every economist in the United States was predicting a depression equal in magnitude to the 1930's. Once again the Laffer Curve had proven to be in error.
Now, you are a conservative and by definition that means you will refuse to listen to facts and reason. I suggest you read the the article given in the link I am posting. It literally shreds the Laffer Curve not that you will accept what it says. Nor will you accept the past history which shows it to be wrong.
Laffer curve - RationalWiki

The sagging economy was caused by an out of control housing bubble that burst. That bubble was caused by two things. One, loans made to home buyers that were ill equipped and unable to satisfy the terms of those loans.
Monetizing of the federal debt.
Look, you're a true believer in an all encompassing government. You will seek and find any piece of writing on the internet that satisfies your need to be correct in your assertions regarding command and control economics.
So why are you not in addition to paying you taxes, writing another check and sending it to Washington?

 

[rdean]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1) They do pay for themselves. You see, if you have more people paying taxes on more economic activity you can actually make MORE money then you currently have. In fact, every time taxes are cut, the economy improves and the treasury brings more money in. It's called the Laffer Curve, look it up.

2) The leadership sure leans that way. Progressives called themselves progressives because they believe in progresing society towards socialism/communism step by step. Through evolution rather than revolution. When progressives were exposed in the 1920s, they scared the heck out of the population and so rebranded themselves as liberals, while traditional "liberal" viewpoints were adopted by conservatives and libertarians.

3) Who the heck are you to determine what too wealthy is? If someone is blessed more for his labor, why should I have a right to force him to pay for what I want to be done? Why should I be angry at my brother because of his success? Rather, I should rejoice in it. And persuade and encourage him to use his resources wisely. But how he ultimately uses it is between him and God. Why do you want to be a robber in your heart?

If you don't have a job then taxes don't do shit.

 

[rdean]

We know there are way more than just three.

 

[candycorn]

1) They do pay for themselves. You see, if you have more people paying taxes on more economic activity you can actually make MORE money then you currently have. In fact, every time taxes are cut, the economy improves and the treasury brings more money in. It's called the Laffer Curve, look it up.

I will not respond to all of your nonsense but I will respond to the above. If you recall Reagan gave tax cuts with the promise that it would raise taxes. Recall also that George H. W. Bush referred to what Reagan wanted to do as "Voodoo economics." He was correct then but he tried to make it work when he came to office. Remember "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES." By the end of that presidency the economy was a mess and we were heading for recession/depression. To stop the pending crash bush raised taxes, the economy ended its nose dive, and bush was able to turn a decent economy rather than a basket case over to Clinton. The Laffer Curve had been shown to be wrong.
Now jump ahead to the George w. bush presidency. Gwb tried the same nonsense as Reagan and bush's father tried. He once again cut taxes. If the Laffer Curve had been correct the economy would have taken off. IT DID'T! By the end of the bush presidency Americans were losing 750,000 jobs A MONTH. Or in other words, American's were losing three quarters of a million jobs each month. Virtually every economist in the United States was predicting a depression equal in magnitude to the 1930's. Once again the Laffer Curve had proven to be in error.
Now, you are a conservative and by definition that means you will refuse to listen to facts and reason. I suggest you read the the article given in the link I am posting. It literally shreds the Laffer Curve not that you will accept what it says. Nor will you accept the past history which shows it to be wrong.
Laffer curve - RationalWiki

Why is it you believe the best thing for the country is for government to extract more of our earnings?
What do high taxes and out of control government spending have that is so appealing to you?
Why is it that you look upon MY money as the government's money?
Name one nation in modern history that has been able to tax itself into prosperity?
If you answer the previous question in the affirmative, show a direct correlation of taxation to an improved economy where taxation in and of itself was the direct cause of the expanding economy?
Gives solid independent examples. And be specific.

Taxes that funded the government lead to a common currency which allowed for interstate commerce to flourish and lead to a greater economy.

Taxes fund the military which has secured the shipping lanes which has lead to globalization making what you purchase cheaper

Taxes fund the FBI which investigates counterfeiting which secures the value of the currency

Taxes fund the government economists which work to prescribe economic policy which keeps interest rates low and inflation in check.

etc...

 

[Billy000]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1 ) Please explain why revenue went up after JFK's and Reagan's tax cuts.

It's the Spending that causes debt you dolt.

2 ) Today's liberals are socialists and Communists. They simply won't admit it.

3 ) So you are one of those idiots who think that, like the bitcoin, there is a finite amount of money and if I have dollar, that keeps you from getting one also.

You really are a simpleton, aren't you?

How about you explain why job growth under Bush was so pathetic despite being responsible for the biggest tax cut in US history. I would say other factors were at play during the time periods you gave. What is with all this talk about finite money? No shit it is finite. My point is that people should be paid fairly regardless of whether or not it affects the pay of the bigwigs.

And yet you can't even explain the definition of a liberal. How about you give me an objective definition.

 

[ScienceRocks]

1. believing in things that haven't caused debt in decades and benefit the American people are the program. Why not go back into the goddamn cave?

 

[OriginalShroom]

How about you explain why job growth under Bush was so pathetic despite being responsible for the biggest tax cut in US history. I would say other factors were at play during the time periods you gave. What is with all this talk about finite money? No shit it is finite. My point is that people should be paid fairly regardless of whether or not it affects the pay of the bigwigs.

And yet you can't even explain the definition of a liberal. How about you give me an objective definition.

Did I say anything about President Bush? Stop moving the goal posts.

So you think that there is finite amount of money and that if I earn a dollar, that is keeping someone else from earning a dollar? You truly are an idiot if you believe that. Why not go after the big dollar earners in Hollywood or sports?

Today's Liberals, the ones pushing for single payer health care on a National Level and other Big Government cradle to grave programs are socialists.

If You think that someone has too much money and that the Government needs to take some from them to give to someone else? You're a Socialist.

 

[Billy000]

How about you explain why job growth under Bush was so pathetic despite being responsible for the biggest tax cut in US history. I would say other factors were at play during the time periods you gave. What is with all this talk about finite money? No shit it is finite. My point is that people should be paid fairly regardless of whether or not it affects the pay of the bigwigs.

And yet you can't even explain the definition of a liberal. How about you give me an objective definition.

Did I say anything about President Bush? Stop moving the goal posts.

So you think that there is finite amount of money and that if I earn a dollar, that is keeping someone else from earning a dollar? You truly are an idiot if you believe that. Why not go after the big dollar earners in Hollywood or sports?

Today's Liberals, the ones pushing for single payer health care on a National Level and other Big Government cradle to grave programs are socialists.

If You think that someone has too much money and that the Government needs to take some from them to give to someone else? You're a Socialist.

Who cares if you didn't mention Bush? Bringing him up is obviously relevant given the facts.

Again my wishes are completely fair if I support fair wages based on productivity. However, that doesn't mean I don't think skill and experience shouldn't be valued more. That's why I have nothing against sports players or movie stars being paid so well. I am still completely fine with the idea of the big wigs making the most money. I just think the people below him deserve a fair wage based on their position.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

Redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity for who?

..... apparently those who don't want to take financial risks with their OWN money to invest in establish their OWN business and put a little more effort in achieving and building their OWN wealth. It's so much easier comparing (whining and complaining if we are to be honest) about the financial achievements of another when you aren't the one having to labor in maintaining the successful operations of a business, a success that others depend on for employment. They "want" the prosperity of wealth, but then limit themselves to what they are only willing to accept (within the efforts that only come with maintaining a much simpler 40 hour work week). How many that look to the top 5% are willing to take some financial risk, to put more of your own personal time away from family to invest in building and maintaining your wealth, as well as place more of an effort in doing what it takes to attain that goal rather than all their time vested in merely complaining about it? Those who complain about the top 5% really have no desire of EARNING that kind of path for themselves.

 

[NightFox]

Redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity for who?

The redistributor's of course, the entertaining portion of the equation is the part where the gub'mint worshippers think they're going to somehow magically become part of the redistributor class, wait until they realize they're part of the redistributee class and their standard of living starts dropping like a stone...... great gnashing of teeth and cries of 'fuck the poor' from the formerly so generous with other peoples money crowd will surely follow...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1) They do pay for themselves. You see, if you have more people paying taxes on more economic activity you can actually make MORE money then you currently have. In fact, every time taxes are cut, the economy improves and the treasury brings more money in. It's called the Laffer Curve, look it up.

2) The leadership sure leans that way. Progressives called themselves progressives because they believe in progresing society towards socialism/communism step by step. Through evolution rather than revolution. When progressives were exposed in the 1920s, they scared the heck out of the population and so rebranded themselves as liberals, while traditional "liberal" viewpoints were adopted by conservatives and libertarians.

3) Who the heck are you to determine what too wealthy is? If someone is blessed more for his labor, why should I have a right to force him to pay for what I want to be done? Why should I be angry at my brother because of his success? Rather, I should rejoice in it. And persuade and encourage him to use his resources wisely. But how he ultimately uses it is between him and God. Why do you want to be a robber in your heart?

If you don't have a job then taxes don't do shit.

So why does Obama feel unemployment extensions is a better boost for the economy than placing an opportunity through a pipeline that actually creates jobs, jobs that in turn extracts what unemployment can't - revenue. Only this president would choose a sinkhole of additional government debt through federal extensions, and say it's more beneficial than providing what the people really want - jobs.

 

[Mojo2]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

The irritating tendency of emotionally wired libs and progs is that not only are they starting from a flawed premise (that Progressivism actually works and that Big Government and more taxes are the answer...when it's never been proven before to succeed!!) but that libs and progs are so emotionally limited by their emotions that when you point out to them they are wrong they immediately lose ANY rationality they MIGHT have had to start with.

They go berzerk or as the song said, "Insane in the Brain!" So, they start out wrong and their inherent nature keeps them stupid.

They say ignorance is bliss and I'm proof of that my damn self!

And I'm not one who believes in keeping someone else from enjoying their bliss unless their bliss means I pay more or I lose my freedoms or I have to endure or tolerate policies and laws that are only going to increase my difficulty in pursuing life, liberty and happiness.


But, I'll give it a try...once again.

Number One:

Should Taxes Be Higher?

It's the million dollar question! Up? Down? No change? Where in the world should taxes go? In election years, the question of tax rates fills the airwaves. In non-election years, the question of tax rates, again, fills the airwaves. So what's the answer? UCLA Professor of Economics Tim Groseclose explains his research on the topic. Basically, there's a certain point at which higher tax rates actually reduce the amount of revenue the government collects. What's that point? When are tax rates too high? Learn a valuable lesson in economics, and public policy.

Transcript
Let’s discuss an important concept from economics, the Laffer Curve.

This concept is named after the man who developed it, Arthur Laffer, a major American economist who has taught at the University of Chicago, University of Southern California, and elsewhere.

The Laffer Curve illustrates the two most important things we need to know about taxes: how much money the government can raise from taxes and at what level of taxation the government might start getting less, not more, revenue.

The Laffer Curve is illustrated here by a two-dimensional graph. The horizontal line is the tax rate that the government chooses, and the vertical line is the revenue that the government receives from that tax rate.

First, because zero times any number is zero, if the tax rate is zero, the government receives zero revenue. Accordingly, zero-zero is our first point on the curve.

Now suppose the government chooses a very small tax rate, say 1 percent. The government will then begin to receive some revenue from citizens. This means that another point on the curve must be something like this.

Obviously, if the government charges a 2 percent tax rate, then it will receive even more revenue—which means that another point on the graph must be something like this.

And if the government keeps raising the rate, then revenue will continue to go up.
at least when we’re in the low-tax-rate part of the graph.

This means that if we fill in the graph, our curve has an upward slope -- at least when we’re in the low-tax-rate-part of the graph.

Now suppose the government charges a 100% tax rate. If this happens, no one would work. Why would anyone work when the government is going to take all the money they make?

And if no one works, then the national income will be zero. This means that government revenue will be 100% of zero, which is zero. This means that another point on the curve must be here.

Now let’s complete the curve. And when we do, the curve must have a hump.

That is, it could look like this, or this, or this. But it has to have a hump – because the revenue line has to go up at some point after zero taxes and it has to start going down again at some point before a hundred percent in taxes.

But if the curve slopes downward it implies something remarkable—something that few of those who push for higher and higher taxes want to admit. It means that when tax rates are high, if you make them higher, you’ll actually bring in less revenue to the government.

This has in fact occurred in practice. For instance, during the Great Depression, when Congress passed the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill, although the bill raised taxes on imported goods, the revenue that came from those taxes actually decreased. A more recent example occurred in the early 1980s. After President Reagan and Congress drastically reduced the tax rates on the rich, the tax revenue that came from the rich actually increased.

All economists—even the most leftwing ones—agree that the true Laffer Curve, the one that reflects real life, has a hump, and that therefore the curve has a downward sloping part, meaning at some point tax revenues start going down.

So where, then, do economists disagree? They disagree about exactly where the hump occurs.

When I took my first economics class, in 1984 at Stanford University, the textbook said that the hump occurs somewhere around 70% tax rate. But was I taught something wrong!

But new evidence from an unexpected source suggests that the hump occurs at much lower tax rate, something like 33 to 40 percent.

That source is a study by Christina Romer and her husband David Romer. Both are economics professors at University of California Berkeley. Christina Romer was the chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic advisors. In other words, the study was written by one of the most influential liberal economists in the United States. And it was published in the American Economic Review, the most widely respected economics journal in the world.

This study examined how the national income responds to tax rates. But as far what concerns us here, if you do the math, this means that the hump on the Laffer Curve occurs where the tax rate is around 33 percent – much lower than economists previously thought.

Let’s put this into political terms. No matter what your politics, you should not want tax rates to be above around 33 percent. Obviously, conservatives and many moderates think the rate should be lower than that. But even if you are an extreme leftwinger and your only goal is to make government as big as possible – you should oppose a tax rate than 33 percent because when taxes go higher than that, the government actually gets less money.

Everyone of every political persuasion should pay attention to Romer and Romer Study and its important implications. Because they suggest that when we decrease taxes, government revenues . . . will actually rise.

This is big news. And it’s astounding the U.S. media hasn’t reported it more widely. It’s one more demonstration of how you can learn interesting and important things at Prager University that you’re unlikely to learn elsewhere.

I’m Tim Groseclose, professor of political science and economics at UCLA for Prager University.

Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue - Prager University


Number Two:

PROGRESSIVISM

“It is hard to fix a specific starting date for the progressive race to the Great Society,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “but a good guess might be 1888, the year [when socialist] Edward Bellamy's novel Looking Backward burst on the American scene.” Set in the year 2000, this futuristic book depicts a utopian society run with the hierarchical efficiency of a military battalion. All workers in this idealized world belong to a unified “industrial army” that labors within the confines of an economy controlled by a coterie of central planners who are deemed to be more capable of fostering prosperity and productivity than is a free marketplace. A preacher in the story lauds the earthly paradise, while the population at large looks back upon the “age of individualism” with a blend of amusement and derision.

Bellamy's book became immensely influential, selling hundreds of thousands of copies. It was particularly effective at setting afire the hearts of idealistic young people who were moved by the author's vision of a socialist utopia. All across America, “Nationalist Clubs” were formed to advocate for “the nationalization of industry and the promotion of the brotherhood of humanity.” Bellamy presented his utopia as a forum for the genuine expression of Jesus Christ's teachings. The author's cousin Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister who penned the “Pledge of Allegiance,” shared this perspective, as he stated forthrightly in a sermon titled “Jesus, the Socialist.”

By the turn of the 20th century, many intellectuals had wedded this socialist-utopian vision with the psychological confidence spawned by the technological and scientific advances of the age. People saw that they clearly lived in an era of progress, where, for the first time in human history, the darkness of night had been overcome by the electric light; where the need for efficient, safe transportation had been met by the automobile; and where the chains of gravity had been broken by the airplane. The ability of scientific ingenuity and expertise to master the physical world, suggested that similar mastery might be achievable in the realms of politics and economics; i.e., that an intellectual elite might be able to assess society's defects and prescribe appropriate remedies. That belief was part and parcel of the progressive vision that flourished in America from the 1890s through the 1920s.

As progressives saw things, most societal flaws were attributable to capitalism's inherent injustices.

(Cut off here for brevity's sake.)


Progressivism - Discover the Networks

Number Three:

Milton Friedman on Income Inequality

Julio H. Cole Professor of Economics
Universidad Francisco MarroquínGuatemala
Journal of Markets & Morality
Volume 11, Number 2 (Fall 2008): 239–253

Copyright © 2008

There is a certain tension in Milton Friedman’s views on the issue of freedom versus equality, which was much more nuanced than is commonly assumed. On the one
hand, he argued that economic policy should focus on freedom as a primary value;stressing equality per se could lead to economic inefficiency as well as jeopardizing
freedom itself.

On the other hand, he famously advocated government-sponsored poverty alleviation by way of the negative income tax, a form of income redistribution that is inconsistent with his general theory of the free-market economy. His justification for this policy, however, was not on egalitarian grounds. Rather, his main motivation seems to have been compassion.

Introduction

A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.… On the other hand,a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.

Milton Friedman on Income Inequality | Julio Cole - Academia.edu

My take on this is; Ask not what new laws and regulations should be enacted to get more $$ to the lower income earners. Focus on making the society freer. And you'll get both more freedom and the wealth distribution you want.

According to Milton Friedman.

 

[racewright]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

The irritating tendency of emotionally wired libs and progs is that not only are they starting from a flawed premise (that Progressivism actually works and that Big Government and more taxes are the answer...when it's never been proven before to succeed!!) but that libs and progs are so emotionally limited by their emotions that when you point out to them they are wrong they immediately lose ANY rationality they MIGHT have had to start with.

They go berzerk or as the song said, "Insane in the Brain!" So, they start out wrong and their inherent nature keeps them stupid.

They say ignorance is bliss and I'm proof of that my damn self!

And I'm not one who believes in keeping someone else from enjoying their bliss unless their bliss means I pay more or I lose my freedoms or I have to endure or tolerate policies and laws that are only going to increase my difficulty in pursuing life, liberty and happiness.


But, I'll give it a try...once again.

Number One:

Should Taxes Be Higher?

It's the million dollar question! Up? Down? No change? Where in the world should taxes go? In election years, the question of tax rates fills the airwaves. In non-election years, the question of tax rates, again, fills the airwaves. So what's the answer? UCLA Professor of Economics Tim Groseclose explains his research on the topic. Basically, there's a certain point at which higher tax rates actually reduce the amount of revenue the government collects. What's that point? When are tax rates too high? Learn a valuable lesson in economics, and public policy.

Transcript
Let’s discuss an important concept from economics, the Laffer Curve.

This concept is named after the man who developed it, Arthur Laffer, a major American economist who has taught at the University of Chicago, University of Southern California, and elsewhere.

The Laffer Curve illustrates the two most important things we need to know about taxes: how much money the government can raise from taxes and at what level of taxation the government might start getting less, not more, revenue.

The Laffer Curve is illustrated here by a two-dimensional graph. The horizontal line is the tax rate that the government chooses, and the vertical line is the revenue that the government receives from that tax rate.

First, because zero times any number is zero, if the tax rate is zero, the government receives zero revenue. Accordingly, zero-zero is our first point on the curve.

Now suppose the government chooses a very small tax rate, say 1 percent. The government will then begin to receive some revenue from citizens. This means that another point on the curve must be something like this.

Obviously, if the government charges a 2 percent tax rate, then it will receive even more revenue—which means that another point on the graph must be something like this.

And if the government keeps raising the rate, then revenue will continue to go up.
at least when we’re in the low-tax-rate part of the graph.

This means that if we fill in the graph, our curve has an upward slope -- at least when we’re in the low-tax-rate-part of the graph.

Now suppose the government charges a 100% tax rate. If this happens, no one would work. Why would anyone work when the government is going to take all the money they make?

And if no one works, then the national income will be zero. This means that government revenue will be 100% of zero, which is zero. This means that another point on the curve must be here.

Now let’s complete the curve. And when we do, the curve must have a hump.

That is, it could look like this, or this, or this. But it has to have a hump – because the revenue line has to go up at some point after zero taxes and it has to start going down again at some point before a hundred percent in taxes.

But if the curve slopes downward it implies something remarkable—something that few of those who push for higher and higher taxes want to admit. It means that when tax rates are high, if you make them higher, you’ll actually bring in less revenue to the government.

This has in fact occurred in practice. For instance, during the Great Depression, when Congress passed the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill, although the bill raised taxes on imported goods, the revenue that came from those taxes actually decreased. A more recent example occurred in the early 1980s. After President Reagan and Congress drastically reduced the tax rates on the rich, the tax revenue that came from the rich actually increased.

All economists—even the most leftwing ones—agree that the true Laffer Curve, the one that reflects real life, has a hump, and that therefore the curve has a downward sloping part, meaning at some point tax revenues start going down.

So where, then, do economists disagree? They disagree about exactly where the hump occurs.

When I took my first economics class, in 1984 at Stanford University, the textbook said that the hump occurs somewhere around 70% tax rate. But was I taught something wrong!

But new evidence from an unexpected source suggests that the hump occurs at much lower tax rate, something like 33 to 40 percent.

That source is a study by Christina Romer and her husband David Romer. Both are economics professors at University of California Berkeley. Christina Romer was the chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic advisors. In other words, the study was written by one of the most influential liberal economists in the United States. And it was published in the American Economic Review, the most widely respected economics journal in the world.

This study examined how the national income responds to tax rates. But as far what concerns us here, if you do the math, this means that the hump on the Laffer Curve occurs where the tax rate is around 33 percent – much lower than economists previously thought.

Let’s put this into political terms. No matter what your politics, you should not want tax rates to be above around 33 percent. Obviously, conservatives and many moderates think the rate should be lower than that. But even if you are an extreme leftwinger and your only goal is to make government as big as possible – you should oppose a tax rate than 33 percent because when taxes go higher than that, the government actually gets less money.

Everyone of every political persuasion should pay attention to Romer and Romer Study and its important implications. Because they suggest that when we decrease taxes, government revenues . . . will actually rise.

This is big news. And it’s astounding the U.S. media hasn’t reported it more widely. It’s one more demonstration of how you can learn interesting and important things at Prager University that you’re unlikely to learn elsewhere.

I’m Tim Groseclose, professor of political science and economics at UCLA for Prager University.

Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue - Prager University


Number Two:

PROGRESSIVISM

“It is hard to fix a specific starting date for the progressive race to the Great Society,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “but a good guess might be 1888, the year [when socialist] Edward Bellamy's novel Looking Backward burst on the American scene.” Set in the year 2000, this futuristic book depicts a utopian society run with the hierarchical efficiency of a military battalion. All workers in this idealized world belong to a unified “industrial army” that labors within the confines of an economy controlled by a coterie of central planners who are deemed to be more capable of fostering prosperity and productivity than is a free marketplace. A preacher in the story lauds the earthly paradise, while the population at large looks back upon the “age of individualism” with a blend of amusement and derision.

Bellamy's book became immensely influential, selling hundreds of thousands of copies. It was particularly effective at setting afire the hearts of idealistic young people who were moved by the author's vision of a socialist utopia. All across America, “Nationalist Clubs” were formed to advocate for “the nationalization of industry and the promotion of the brotherhood of humanity.” Bellamy presented his utopia as a forum for the genuine expression of Jesus Christ's teachings. The author's cousin Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister who penned the “Pledge of Allegiance,” shared this perspective, as he stated forthrightly in a sermon titled “Jesus, the Socialist.”

By the turn of the 20th century, many intellectuals had wedded this socialist-utopian vision with the psychological confidence spawned by the technological and scientific advances of the age. People saw that they clearly lived in an era of progress, where, for the first time in human history, the darkness of night had been overcome by the electric light; where the need for efficient, safe transportation had been met by the automobile; and where the chains of gravity had been broken by the airplane. The ability of scientific ingenuity and expertise to master the physical world, suggested that similar mastery might be achievable in the realms of politics and economics; i.e., that an intellectual elite might be able to assess society's defects and prescribe appropriate remedies. That belief was part and parcel of the progressive vision that flourished in America from the 1890s through the 1920s.

As progressives saw things, most societal flaws were attributable to capitalism's inherent injustices.

(Cut off here for brevity's sake.)


Progressivism - Discover the Networks

Number Three:

Milton Friedman on Income Inequality

Julio H. Cole Professor of Economics
Universidad Francisco MarroquínGuatemala
Journal of Markets & Morality
Volume 11, Number 2 (Fall 2008): 239–253

Copyright © 2008

There is a certain tension in Milton Friedman’s views on the issue of freedom versus equality, which was much more nuanced than is commonly assumed. On the one
hand, he argued that economic policy should focus on freedom as a primary value;stressing equality per se could lead to economic inefficiency as well as jeopardizing
freedom itself.

On the other hand, he famously advocated government-sponsored poverty alleviation by way of the negative income tax, a form of income redistribution that is inconsistent with his general theory of the free-market economy. His justification for this policy, however, was not on egalitarian grounds. Rather, his main motivation seems to have been compassion.

Introduction

A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.… On the other hand,a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.

Milton Friedman on Income Inequality | Julio Cole - Academia.edu

My take on this is; Ask not what new laws and regulations should be enacted to get more $$ to the lower income earners. Focus on making the society freer. And you'll get both more freedom and the wealth distribution you want.

According to Milton Friedman.

And you are a modern patriot. We need more like you.
My take on this is the Liberals want a ride in the boat without buying a ticket. They despise the plain and simple fact that Wealth built this nation as wealth builds all prosperous nations.
Why do they despise this? because human nature makes most afraid of failure but still want the things wealth provides. They get Jobs and then force the wealthy to provide for them AKA Unions. The rest acquire government jobs with the same intentions. Only a select few have the lack of fear to go start a business and achieve wealth on there own. Todays politicians capitalize on this to keep their careers going and the scared voter in check.