Class War Illustrated

[JBeukema]

Yep. It also means we're not North Korea and are not to be ruled by corpses.

 

[The T]

No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes under any circumstances perhaps with the exception of times of war.

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

It's also how they fund American colonialism and the bloated military, but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

Obama? Is that YOU?

 

[manifold]

Not sure if it's a fact, but I once heard that all the money the government has ever spent on welfare programs for the poor is still less than the combined bailouts of the Savings & Loans in the 80's and financial institutions on Wall Street a few years ago.

 

[The T]

Not sure if it's a fact, but I once heard that all the money the government has ever spent on welfare programs for the poor is still less than the combined bailouts of the Savings & Loans in the 80's and financial institutions on Wall Street a few years ago.

Then back your statement.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not sure if it's a fact, but I once heard that all the money the government has ever spent on welfare programs for the poor is still less than the combined bailouts of the Savings & Loans in the 80's and financial institutions on Wall Street a few years ago.

I'm sure it's not a fact. The War on Poverty has now cost something like $8 to 10 trillion since LBJ initiated it. The bailouts nowhere even nearly approached that.

And considered the state of our schools, inner cities, infrastructure, and the number of people receiving government subsidies, do you think we got our money's worth?

 

[skookerasbil]

This thread is gay..........the author and sheep that advocate for the authors point of view represent a fringe view........a sliver of the American populice.

Nether regions of the internet............like this site........are the only places where thinking like that is seriously debated. Nowhere else..........


Lets remember what all the post election maps told us from last November: Blue is OUT!!!

 

[JBeukema]

and Red is in? Ladies and gentlemen, you have your communist...

 

[skookerasbil]

and Red is in? Ladies and gentlemen, you have your communist...

Just 17% Believe American Muslims Are Treated Unfairly - Rasmussen Reports™



Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!!!


Time for the miserable feminist bulldog to take her bat and ball and go home..........

 

[Trajan]

Not sure if it's a fact, but I once heard that all the money the government has ever spent on welfare programs for the poor is still less than the combined bailouts of the Savings & Loans in the 80's and financial institutions on Wall Street a few years ago.

I'm sure it's not a fact. The War on Poverty has now cost something like $8 to 10 trillion since LBJ initiated it. The bailouts nowhere even nearly approached that.

And considered the state of our schools, inner cities, infrastructure, and the number of people receiving government subsidies, do you think we got our money's worth?

I wish I could find the site again, it was probably Cato or De Rugy over at Reason, but I saw a comprehensive listing and attempt in constant dollars to determine what the war on poverty, say AFDC etc. cost since 63, I remember a figure of 5 trillion.

For those playing at home thats; 5 TRILLION. Its probably another 10% at least due backdoor funding etc. easily.

 

[Trajan]

oh and hey, you wanna see class warfare on the ground?

here ya go

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ses-you-are-with-us-or-against-us-period.html

 

[The T]

Not sure if it's a fact, but I once heard that all the money the government has ever spent on welfare programs for the poor is still less than the combined bailouts of the Savings & Loans in the 80's and financial institutions on Wall Street a few years ago.

I'm sure it's not a fact. The War on Poverty has now cost something like $8 to 10 trillion since LBJ initiated it. The bailouts nowhere even nearly approached that.

And considered the state of our schools, inner cities, infrastructure, and the number of people receiving government subsidies, do you think we got our money's worth?

Exactly.

 

[Cuyo]

No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes under any circumstances perhaps with the exception of times of war.

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

The religion du jour for 'conservatives' is to be against any taxes - Maybe not up front but individually poll any sort of tax, and you'll say it's too high and certainly shouldn't be increased.

In the beginning a large percentage of government revenue was in tariffs. I'd be OK with looking at a plan that would reduce income taxes and revert back to tariffs - In fact I'd probably prefer it. But we can't have that - That's an impediment to FREE TRADE. You can sell anything as long as you throw that word "FREE" in there...

The US Federal government is the most powerful entity on the face of the earth, and it's massively expensive to maintain. Whatever form of commerce or service industry you count on for income, counts on infrastructure maintained by the government. So please, how exactly do you intend to maintain it?

 

[Cuyo]

The current tax rates are clearly not high enough, evidenced by the record deficits we're encountering.

You're only looking at half the equation. What about spending?

How do you propose we handle this issue? 84% +/- of the budget are Social Security, Medicare, and military

Then let us look at how we might trim them and make them more efficient and effective

Also, repeal NAFTA

I'm OK with spending cuts over a broad array of programs - Particularly military. But cuts alone CANNOT balance the budget, period... Nor can we 'Grow our way out of it,' popular soundbytes notwithstanding.

 

[Cuyo]

No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes under any circumstances perhaps with the exception of times of war.

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

It's also how they fund American colonialism and the bloated military, but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

Nah, I can vouch that Oddball does have a problem with it... But that's where the diversion from the Republican playbook seems to end.

 

[Oddball]

No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes under any circumstances perhaps with the exception of times of war.

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

The religion du jour for 'conservatives' is to be against any taxes - Maybe not up front but individually poll any sort of tax, and you'll say it's too high and certainly shouldn't be increased.

In the beginning a large percentage of government revenue was in tariffs. I'd be OK with looking at a plan that would reduce income taxes and revert back to tariffs - In fact I'd probably prefer it. But we can't have that - That's an impediment to FREE TRADE. You can sell anything as long as you throw that word "FREE" in there...

The US Federal government is the most powerful entity on the face of the earth, and it's massively expensive to maintain. Whatever form of commerce or service industry you count on for income, counts on infrastructure maintained by the government. So please, how exactly do you intend to maintain it?

'cept I'm a libertarian, not a so-called "conservative".

I've repeatedly stated that I'm all for lawful imposts, duties and excises (i.e. fuel taxes to pay for roads and bridges) to pay for legitimate functions of de jure government.

And the only "free" Fabian socialist progressives like you seem interested in is free lunch.

 

[The T]

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

The religion du jour for 'conservatives' is to be against any taxes - Maybe not up front but individually poll any sort of tax, and you'll say it's too high and certainly shouldn't be increased.

In the beginning a large percentage of government revenue was in tariffs. I'd be OK with looking at a plan that would reduce income taxes and revert back to tariffs - In fact I'd probably prefer it. But we can't have that - That's an impediment to FREE TRADE. You can sell anything as long as you throw that word "FREE" in there...

The US Federal government is the most powerful entity on the face of the earth, and it's massively expensive to maintain. Whatever form of commerce or service industry you count on for income, counts on infrastructure maintained by the government. So please, how exactly do you intend to maintain it?

'cept I'm a libertarian, not a so-called "conservative".

I've repeatedly stated that I'm all for lawful imposts, duties and excises (i.e. fuel taxes to pay for roads and bridges) to pay for legitimate functions of de jure government.

And the only "free" Fabian socialist progressives like you seem interested in is free lunch.

How little they KNOW and how much they assume...Must be a royal BITCH living in a two-dimensional world for them.

 

[JBeukema]

But cuts alone CANNOT balance the budget, period...

If you don't spend money... You don't seem to grasp the basics of what a budget is

 

[Toro]

No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes under any circumstances perhaps with the exception of times of war.

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

I'd be ok with taxing wealth instead.

Wealth taxes are the worst taxes because they destroy the capital stock. Its better to tax income.

 

[Toro]

But cuts alone CANNOT balance the budget, period...

If you don't spend money... You don't seem to grasp the basics of what a budget is

Of course you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone. You can also balance the budget with tax increases alone. The only people who say otherwise are strident ideologues with deeply held beliefs not rooted in empiricism.

 

[JBeukema]

But cuts alone CANNOT balance the budget, period...

If you don't spend money... You don't seem to grasp the basics of what a budget is

Of course you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone. You can also balance the budget with tax increases alone.

Currently yes. You'll allow me to stretch the meaning of 'tax increase' to include ending loopholes?

Of course, were spending to ever exceed GDP, then even a 100% tax (assuming gdp remained unchanged) would not be sufficient to balance the budget.