Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,962
- 86,267
- 2,635
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?
1) False, the economy does not always improve following a tax cut. Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and the economy grew worse; getting stronger from 1983 after tax increases were passed. Taxes were cut in 2001 and 2002, and again, the economy grew worse. The economy did get better after the 2003 tax cut, but it's debatable how much the tax cut contributed to that versus the housing bubble, which was ballooning out of control between 2003 and 2006.
And about the Laffer Curve ... it symmetrical curve maximizes revenue at about a 50% tax rate. Why on Earth would you advocate that if you're against higher taxes??
2) False again. Words have meaning ...
Socialism
a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
Communism
a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property
There are no leaders of the Democrat party advocating the government take ownership of major industries. You confuse regulating private industries with taking ownership of them. And forget Communism. That is a complete absurdity as no leaders are advocating the government seizing all property from the people.
3. This one is completely subjectable and no one will ever agree on what is "wealthy." The fact is, generally speaking, the more you make, the more you spend. So there is no doubt that there are some folks making around a million dollars a year who still struggle financially while there are others making $100,000, living a much more meager lifestyle, but not struggling as much. As far as progressive taxes, there are pros and cons for both progressive taxes and a flat tax. I personally prefer progressive taxes because it produces more public revenue than a flat tax would, which benefits everyone.
Explain why the Communists, socialists and Marxists here in the states fully support the Dem party. Many of the radicals were delegates at the DNC convention. They hate those who are against their idiotic ideas, but love all the liberals.
I have no more of an explanation for that than I do why terrorists wanted Bush to defeat Kerry in the 2004 election. Regardless of what draws them to the Democrat party, as I pointed out -- there are no leaders of the party advocating either Socialism and especially Communism.