Cons say the government doesn't create jobs....

[Boss]

...they will never approve of raising revenue to pay for it. They will not approve a one percent raise in taxes...

It's because some people are too illiterate to understand that you don't always raise revenues by increasing tax rates. Here is a general rule of thumb: The more you tax something, the less of it you will have. So the more you increase taxes the less you get of whatever you're taxing. Illiterate liberals such as yourself don't realize this. You live in a vacuum where the thing your increasing the taxes on will continue unfettered without change.

Currently, someone who earns income of more than $10 million a year pays the top marginal tax rate of 39.6% and there are quite a few people in America who fall in this bracket. However... raise that rate to 70% or 92% as some have proposed, and suddenly you're going to discover there aren't hardly any Americans earning incomes over $10 million a year. You see... when you are earning that kind of income, you really don't need an income anymore. You can simply stop earning income and avoid the confiscatory taxes, then put all your wealth into securities and tax-free investments.

So this is what happens in reality... not in Liberal Utopialand where all your idiotic plans come to fruition and solve all the problems of the world. They have done extensive studies on increasing the top marginal tax rates and how it effects revenues. What they found is, every time (in modern history) we've raised the top marginal tax rates it has resulted in a decrease of revenue as compared to GDP. Subsequently, every time we've lowered the top marginal rates, we've experienced an increase in revenues as compared to GDP.

You are living in a delusional world of political commentary theories. When you need funds you go out and raise funds. Need something you can't afford, go out an get another job or ask the boss for overtime. Sure, it will put you in a higher tax bracket and cause you to pay more taxes, but it will also give you a bigger income to apply to your budget. In the end, your paycheck revenue is increased. If people making 10 million a year want to quit earning to avoid paying 1% more tax, let them. There are lines of competitors waiting to take their places.

No, the problem is, you've been immersed in Socialist kool-aid for too long and it's making you talk crazy. Competition? What the hell are you talking about? People who are making $10m a year aren't competing with others who want to be making $10m but can't because all the money is being made.

You've very modestly offered "1%" up as a proposed increase... much more 'conservative' than ANY of your liberal counterparts who have talked about 10%, 20%, 40%, 60% increases. But let's just stick with your 1%... that puts the top marginals at 40.6% tax rate on their earned incomes. Of course, there would be many who would not be effected and would just pay the tax. But there will also be a certain number who will look at this and say... Hey, I can move my operations to Mexico and only have to pay 35%. --Bye-bye jobs, bye-bye tax revenues. Or maybe they say... Hey, you know our CEO is going to get zapped by that new tax rate, so why don't we renegotiate his contract to pay him a salary of $9.9 million plus a condo in the Caymans? You see... there's always a way to get around an income tax rate for people like this. And they are really smart about it as well. They are basically two steps ahead of any liberal with a tax idea.

Finally, let me talk about a real life example. I don't know anyone who makes $10m a year... wish I did! I do know that Nick Saban makes $5m a year to coach the Alabama football team. So let's apply this tax increase idea to his earned income. Bottom line, it will result in less money going into Nick Saban's pocket at the end of the day. At some point Saban says... "Ya know what? This ain't worth it anymore! I'm tired of working my ass off and all my money going to pay my tax bill.... I'm going fishing!" I mean, the guy has wealth, money is not the issue, it's the principle of the matter. And yes, there would be another coach at Alabama... he wouldn't be Saban and he wouldn't be earning $5m a year.

 

[Camp]

...they will never approve of raising revenue to pay for it. They will not approve a one percent raise in taxes...

It's because some people are too illiterate to understand that you don't always raise revenues by increasing tax rates. Here is a general rule of thumb: The more you tax something, the less of it you will have. So the more you increase taxes the less you get of whatever you're taxing. Illiterate liberals such as yourself don't realize this. You live in a vacuum where the thing your increasing the taxes on will continue unfettered without change.

Currently, someone who earns income of more than $10 million a year pays the top marginal tax rate of 39.6% and there are quite a few people in America who fall in this bracket. However... raise that rate to 70% or 92% as some have proposed, and suddenly you're going to discover there aren't hardly any Americans earning incomes over $10 million a year. You see... when you are earning that kind of income, you really don't need an income anymore. You can simply stop earning income and avoid the confiscatory taxes, then put all your wealth into securities and tax-free investments.

So this is what happens in reality... not in Liberal Utopialand where all your idiotic plans come to fruition and solve all the problems of the world. They have done extensive studies on increasing the top marginal tax rates and how it effects revenues. What they found is, every time (in modern history) we've raised the top marginal tax rates it has resulted in a decrease of revenue as compared to GDP. Subsequently, every time we've lowered the top marginal rates, we've experienced an increase in revenues as compared to GDP.

You are living in a delusional world of political commentary theories. When you need funds you go out and raise funds. Need something you can't afford, go out an get another job or ask the boss for overtime. Sure, it will put you in a higher tax bracket and cause you to pay more taxes, but it will also give you a bigger income to apply to your budget. In the end, your paycheck revenue is increased. If people making 10 million a year want to quit earning to avoid paying 1% more tax, let them. There are lines of competitors waiting to take their places.

No, the problem is, you've been immersed in Socialist kool-aid for too long and it's making you talk crazy. Competition? What the hell are you talking about? People who are making $10m a year aren't competing with others who want to be making $10m but can't because all the money is being made.

You've very modestly offered "1%" up as a proposed increase... much more 'conservative' than ANY of your liberal counterparts who have talked about 10%, 20%, 40%, 60% increases. But let's just stick with your 1%... that puts the top marginals at 40.6% tax rate on their earned incomes. Of course, there would be many who would not be effected and would just pay the tax. But there will also be a certain number who will look at this and say... Hey, I can move my operations to Mexico and only have to pay 35%. --Bye-bye jobs, bye-bye tax revenues. Or maybe they say... Hey, you know our CEO is going to get zapped by that new tax rate, so why don't we renegotiate his contract to pay him a salary of $9.9 million plus a condo in the Caymans? You see... there's always a way to get around an income tax rate for people like this. And they are really smart about it as well. They are basically two steps ahead of any liberal with a tax idea.

Finally, let me talk about a real life example. I don't know anyone who makes $10m a year... wish I did! I do know that Nick Saban makes $5m a year to coach the Alabama football team. So let's apply this tax increase idea to his earned income. Bottom line, it will result in less money going into Nick Saban's pocket at the end of the day. At some point Saban says... "Ya know what? This ain't worth it anymore! I'm tired of working my ass off and all my money going to pay my tax bill.... I'm going fishing!" I mean, the guy has wealth, money is not the issue, it's the principle of the matter. And yes, there would be another coach at Alabama... he wouldn't be Saban and he wouldn't be earning $5m a year.

I suggested that special projects, like building a fence, wall or other project to secure the southern border is only important to conservatives until you mention paying for it. You prove the point by driving all over the map and pretending to read my mind and positions on all things related to economics to find excuses why the program can not be paid for. The next suggestion to come will be to decrease funding for entitlements and public aid to pay for it.
Meantime, about 100 workers have six month long jobs in my area building pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes along a busy highway. The project will no doubt save some lives because I live in a busy beach resort and we loose a couple of pedestrians and bike riders every summer. The government is paying for the project, hence the government created the jobs.

 

[Boss]

And since "We the People", who created the government, that created the environment businesses could thrive, corporate America is obligated to put that money back into the system for the benefit of "We the People".

There is no such obligation found in the Constitution. This is Basic Karl Marx 101.

 

[Boss]

...they will never approve of raising revenue to pay for it. They will not approve a one percent raise in taxes...

It's because some people are too illiterate to understand that you don't always raise revenues by increasing tax rates. Here is a general rule of thumb: The more you tax something, the less of it you will have. So the more you increase taxes the less you get of whatever you're taxing. Illiterate liberals such as yourself don't realize this. You live in a vacuum where the thing your increasing the taxes on will continue unfettered without change.

Currently, someone who earns income of more than $10 million a year pays the top marginal tax rate of 39.6% and there are quite a few people in America who fall in this bracket. However... raise that rate to 70% or 92% as some have proposed, and suddenly you're going to discover there aren't hardly any Americans earning incomes over $10 million a year. You see... when you are earning that kind of income, you really don't need an income anymore. You can simply stop earning income and avoid the confiscatory taxes, then put all your wealth into securities and tax-free investments.

So this is what happens in reality... not in Liberal Utopialand where all your idiotic plans come to fruition and solve all the problems of the world. They have done extensive studies on increasing the top marginal tax rates and how it effects revenues. What they found is, every time (in modern history) we've raised the top marginal tax rates it has resulted in a decrease of revenue as compared to GDP. Subsequently, every time we've lowered the top marginal rates, we've experienced an increase in revenues as compared to GDP.

You are living in a delusional world of political commentary theories. When you need funds you go out and raise funds. Need something you can't afford, go out an get another job or ask the boss for overtime. Sure, it will put you in a higher tax bracket and cause you to pay more taxes, but it will also give you a bigger income to apply to your budget. In the end, your paycheck revenue is increased. If people making 10 million a year want to quit earning to avoid paying 1% more tax, let them. There are lines of competitors waiting to take their places.

No, the problem is, you've been immersed in Socialist kool-aid for too long and it's making you talk crazy. Competition? What the hell are you talking about? People who are making $10m a year aren't competing with others who want to be making $10m but can't because all the money is being made.

You've very modestly offered "1%" up as a proposed increase... much more 'conservative' than ANY of your liberal counterparts who have talked about 10%, 20%, 40%, 60% increases. But let's just stick with your 1%... that puts the top marginals at 40.6% tax rate on their earned incomes. Of course, there would be many who would not be effected and would just pay the tax. But there will also be a certain number who will look at this and say... Hey, I can move my operations to Mexico and only have to pay 35%. --Bye-bye jobs, bye-bye tax revenues. Or maybe they say... Hey, you know our CEO is going to get zapped by that new tax rate, so why don't we renegotiate his contract to pay him a salary of $9.9 million plus a condo in the Caymans? You see... there's always a way to get around an income tax rate for people like this. And they are really smart about it as well. They are basically two steps ahead of any liberal with a tax idea.

Finally, let me talk about a real life example. I don't know anyone who makes $10m a year... wish I did! I do know that Nick Saban makes $5m a year to coach the Alabama football team. So let's apply this tax increase idea to his earned income. Bottom line, it will result in less money going into Nick Saban's pocket at the end of the day. At some point Saban says... "Ya know what? This ain't worth it anymore! I'm tired of working my ass off and all my money going to pay my tax bill.... I'm going fishing!" I mean, the guy has wealth, money is not the issue, it's the principle of the matter. And yes, there would be another coach at Alabama... he wouldn't be Saban and he wouldn't be earning $5m a year.

I suggested that special projects, like building a fence, wall or other project to secure the southern border is only important to conservatives until you mention paying for it. You prove the point by driving all over the map and pretending to read my mind and positions on all things related to economics to find excuses why the program can not be paid for. The next suggestion to come will be to decrease funding for entitlements and public aid to pay for it.
Meantime, about 100 workers have six month long jobs in my area building pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes along a busy highway. The project will no doubt save some lives because I live in a busy beach resort and we loose a couple of pedestrians and bike riders every summer. The government is paying for the project, hence the government created the jobs.

We have this complete disconnect that constantly arises in these debates. The project you mention is not something our FEDERAL resources should be used to fund because they only really benefit your community. That is the kind of project best handled by state and local government. If you guys think it's a great idea, raise your property tax rates and do it! That's what democracy is all about.

It is NOT the FEDERAL government's place or responsibility to build your roads, bridges, sidewalks and bike lanes. Sure, they created jobs that are paid for by taxpayers and they don't produce a thing for profit or even a benefit to most taxpayers.

Contrasting this, the Federal government has the explicit Constitutional obligation to provide for security of the citizenry. This includes a secure national border. Now I don't know if you're having trouble comprehending what 40 million people look like, but we have a severe problem with illegal immigration, specifically from our southern border.

Now, I understand your argument about good paying government jobs being created and that helping stimulate the economy... I get that point because I have made it before when liberals are whining for cuts in defense spending. Close a military base and a whole entire town and it's economy goes tits up. So while it may seem like a great platitude to just start cutting defense spending, there is a consequence.

 

[Camp]

...they will never approve of raising revenue to pay for it. They will not approve a one percent raise in taxes...

It's because some people are too illiterate to understand that you don't always raise revenues by increasing tax rates. Here is a general rule of thumb: The more you tax something, the less of it you will have. So the more you increase taxes the less you get of whatever you're taxing. Illiterate liberals such as yourself don't realize this. You live in a vacuum where the thing your increasing the taxes on will continue unfettered without change.

Currently, someone who earns income of more than $10 million a year pays the top marginal tax rate of 39.6% and there are quite a few people in America who fall in this bracket. However... raise that rate to 70% or 92% as some have proposed, and suddenly you're going to discover there aren't hardly any Americans earning incomes over $10 million a year. You see... when you are earning that kind of income, you really don't need an income anymore. You can simply stop earning income and avoid the confiscatory taxes, then put all your wealth into securities and tax-free investments.

So this is what happens in reality... not in Liberal Utopialand where all your idiotic plans come to fruition and solve all the problems of the world. They have done extensive studies on increasing the top marginal tax rates and how it effects revenues. What they found is, every time (in modern history) we've raised the top marginal tax rates it has resulted in a decrease of revenue as compared to GDP. Subsequently, every time we've lowered the top marginal rates, we've experienced an increase in revenues as compared to GDP.

You are living in a delusional world of political commentary theories. When you need funds you go out and raise funds. Need something you can't afford, go out an get another job or ask the boss for overtime. Sure, it will put you in a higher tax bracket and cause you to pay more taxes, but it will also give you a bigger income to apply to your budget. In the end, your paycheck revenue is increased. If people making 10 million a year want to quit earning to avoid paying 1% more tax, let them. There are lines of competitors waiting to take their places.

No, the problem is, you've been immersed in Socialist kool-aid for too long and it's making you talk crazy. Competition? What the hell are you talking about? People who are making $10m a year aren't competing with others who want to be making $10m but can't because all the money is being made.

You've very modestly offered "1%" up as a proposed increase... much more 'conservative' than ANY of your liberal counterparts who have talked about 10%, 20%, 40%, 60% increases. But let's just stick with your 1%... that puts the top marginals at 40.6% tax rate on their earned incomes. Of course, there would be many who would not be effected and would just pay the tax. But there will also be a certain number who will look at this and say... Hey, I can move my operations to Mexico and only have to pay 35%. --Bye-bye jobs, bye-bye tax revenues. Or maybe they say... Hey, you know our CEO is going to get zapped by that new tax rate, so why don't we renegotiate his contract to pay him a salary of $9.9 million plus a condo in the Caymans? You see... there's always a way to get around an income tax rate for people like this. And they are really smart about it as well. They are basically two steps ahead of any liberal with a tax idea.

Finally, let me talk about a real life example. I don't know anyone who makes $10m a year... wish I did! I do know that Nick Saban makes $5m a year to coach the Alabama football team. So let's apply this tax increase idea to his earned income. Bottom line, it will result in less money going into Nick Saban's pocket at the end of the day. At some point Saban says... "Ya know what? This ain't worth it anymore! I'm tired of working my ass off and all my money going to pay my tax bill.... I'm going fishing!" I mean, the guy has wealth, money is not the issue, it's the principle of the matter. And yes, there would be another coach at Alabama... he wouldn't be Saban and he wouldn't be earning $5m a year.

I suggested that special projects, like building a fence, wall or other project to secure the southern border is only important to conservatives until you mention paying for it. You prove the point by driving all over the map and pretending to read my mind and positions on all things related to economics to find excuses why the program can not be paid for. The next suggestion to come will be to decrease funding for entitlements and public aid to pay for it.
Meantime, about 100 workers have six month long jobs in my area building pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes along a busy highway. The project will no doubt save some lives because I live in a busy beach resort and we loose a couple of pedestrians and bike riders every summer. The government is paying for the project, hence the government created the jobs.

We have this complete disconnect that constantly arises in these debates. The project you mention is not something our FEDERAL resources should be used to fund because they only really benefit your community. That is the kind of project best handled by state and local government. If you guys think it's a great idea, raise your property tax rates and do it! That's what democracy is all about.

It is NOT the FEDERAL government's place or responsibility to build your roads, bridges, sidewalks and bike lanes. Sure, they created jobs that are paid for by taxpayers and they don't produce a thing for profit or even a benefit to most taxpayers.

Contrasting this, the Federal government has the explicit Constitutional obligation to provide for security of the citizenry. This includes a secure national border. Now I don't know if you're having trouble comprehending what 40 million people look like, but we have a severe problem with illegal immigration, specifically from our southern border.

Now, I understand your argument about good paying government jobs being created and that helping stimulate the economy... I get that point because I have made it before when liberals are whining for cuts in defense spending. Close a military base and a whole entire town and it's economy goes tits up. So while it may seem like a great platitude to just start cutting defense spending, there is a consequence.

We pay gas taxes into the highway fund. My state gives more to the federal government in taxes than we get back. Why should some of that highway money and other tax money come back to benefit the people who provided the funds in the first place. There are a long lost of states that get back way more funds than they put in.
I believe the discussion you and I are having began with my commenting that Trumps and other peoples ideas for a wall or fence on the southern border would never come to fruition because conservatives would never raise revenues to fund such a project. Perhaps you have been in this thread for a much longer time than me and are viewing the topic in a broader concept than I am.

 

[rightwinger]

...they will never approve of raising revenue to pay for it. They will not approve a one percent raise in taxes...

It's because some people are too illiterate to understand that you don't always raise revenues by increasing tax rates. Here is a general rule of thumb: The more you tax something, the less of it you will have. So the more you increase taxes the less you get of whatever you're taxing. Illiterate liberals such as yourself don't realize this. You live in a vacuum where the thing your increasing the taxes on will continue unfettered without change.

Currently, someone who earns income of more than $10 million a year pays the top marginal tax rate of 39.6% and there are quite a few people in America who fall in this bracket. However... raise that rate to 70% or 92% as some have proposed, and suddenly you're going to discover there aren't hardly any Americans earning incomes over $10 million a year. You see... when you are earning that kind of income, you really don't need an income anymore. You can simply stop earning income and avoid the confiscatory taxes, then put all your wealth into securities and tax-free investments.

So this is what happens in reality... not in Liberal Utopialand where all your idiotic plans come to fruition and solve all the problems of the world. They have done extensive studies on increasing the top marginal tax rates and how it effects revenues. What they found is, every time (in modern history) we've raised the top marginal tax rates it has resulted in a decrease of revenue as compared to GDP. Subsequently, every time we've lowered the top marginal rates, we've experienced an increase in revenues as compared to GDP.

You are living in a delusional world of political commentary theories. When you need funds you go out and raise funds. Need something you can't afford, go out an get another job or ask the boss for overtime. Sure, it will put you in a higher tax bracket and cause you to pay more taxes, but it will also give you a bigger income to apply to your budget. In the end, your paycheck revenue is increased. If people making 10 million a year want to quit earning to avoid paying 1% more tax, let them. There are lines of competitors waiting to take their places.

No, the problem is, you've been immersed in Socialist kool-aid for too long and it's making you talk crazy. Competition? What the hell are you talking about? People who are making $10m a year aren't competing with others who want to be making $10m but can't because all the money is being made.

You've very modestly offered "1%" up as a proposed increase... much more 'conservative' than ANY of your liberal counterparts who have talked about 10%, 20%, 40%, 60% increases. But let's just stick with your 1%... that puts the top marginals at 40.6% tax rate on their earned incomes. Of course, there would be many who would not be effected and would just pay the tax. But there will also be a certain number who will look at this and say... Hey, I can move my operations to Mexico and only have to pay 35%. --Bye-bye jobs, bye-bye tax revenues. Or maybe they say... Hey, you know our CEO is going to get zapped by that new tax rate, so why don't we renegotiate his contract to pay him a salary of $9.9 million plus a condo in the Caymans? You see... there's always a way to get around an income tax rate for people like this. And they are really smart about it as well. They are basically two steps ahead of any liberal with a tax idea.

Finally, let me talk about a real life example. I don't know anyone who makes $10m a year... wish I did! I do know that Nick Saban makes $5m a year to coach the Alabama football team. So let's apply this tax increase idea to his earned income. Bottom line, it will result in less money going into Nick Saban's pocket at the end of the day. At some point Saban says... "Ya know what? This ain't worth it anymore! I'm tired of working my ass off and all my money going to pay my tax bill.... I'm going fishing!" I mean, the guy has wealth, money is not the issue, it's the principle of the matter. And yes, there would be another coach at Alabama... he wouldn't be Saban and he wouldn't be earning $5m a year.

I suggested that special projects, like building a fence, wall or other project to secure the southern border is only important to conservatives until you mention paying for it. You prove the point by driving all over the map and pretending to read my mind and positions on all things related to economics to find excuses why the program can not be paid for. The next suggestion to come will be to decrease funding for entitlements and public aid to pay for it.
Meantime, about 100 workers have six month long jobs in my area building pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes along a busy highway. The project will no doubt save some lives because I live in a busy beach resort and we loose a couple of pedestrians and bike riders every summer. The government is paying for the project, hence the government created the jobs.

They find money for fences but claim poverty on schools, healthcare and meaningful infrastructure improvements

 

[rightwinger]

And since "We the People", who created the government, that created the environment businesses could thrive, corporate America is obligated to put that money back into the system for the benefit of "We the People".

There is no such obligation found in the Constitution. This is Basic Karl Marx 101.

Our Constitution provides a broad framework for our government to operate in. There was never an intention for our government to function in a 1780s mentality

 

[Boss]

It's because some people are too illiterate to understand that you don't always raise revenues by increasing tax rates. Here is a general rule of thumb: The more you tax something, the less of it you will have. So the more you increase taxes the less you get of whatever you're taxing. Illiterate liberals such as yourself don't realize this. You live in a vacuum where the thing your increasing the taxes on will continue unfettered without change.

Currently, someone who earns income of more than $10 million a year pays the top marginal tax rate of 39.6% and there are quite a few people in America who fall in this bracket. However... raise that rate to 70% or 92% as some have proposed, and suddenly you're going to discover there aren't hardly any Americans earning incomes over $10 million a year. You see... when you are earning that kind of income, you really don't need an income anymore. You can simply stop earning income and avoid the confiscatory taxes, then put all your wealth into securities and tax-free investments.

So this is what happens in reality... not in Liberal Utopialand where all your idiotic plans come to fruition and solve all the problems of the world. They have done extensive studies on increasing the top marginal tax rates and how it effects revenues. What they found is, every time (in modern history) we've raised the top marginal tax rates it has resulted in a decrease of revenue as compared to GDP. Subsequently, every time we've lowered the top marginal rates, we've experienced an increase in revenues as compared to GDP.

You are living in a delusional world of political commentary theories. When you need funds you go out and raise funds. Need something you can't afford, go out an get another job or ask the boss for overtime. Sure, it will put you in a higher tax bracket and cause you to pay more taxes, but it will also give you a bigger income to apply to your budget. In the end, your paycheck revenue is increased. If people making 10 million a year want to quit earning to avoid paying 1% more tax, let them. There are lines of competitors waiting to take their places.

No, the problem is, you've been immersed in Socialist kool-aid for too long and it's making you talk crazy. Competition? What the hell are you talking about? People who are making $10m a year aren't competing with others who want to be making $10m but can't because all the money is being made.

You've very modestly offered "1%" up as a proposed increase... much more 'conservative' than ANY of your liberal counterparts who have talked about 10%, 20%, 40%, 60% increases. But let's just stick with your 1%... that puts the top marginals at 40.6% tax rate on their earned incomes. Of course, there would be many who would not be effected and would just pay the tax. But there will also be a certain number who will look at this and say... Hey, I can move my operations to Mexico and only have to pay 35%. --Bye-bye jobs, bye-bye tax revenues. Or maybe they say... Hey, you know our CEO is going to get zapped by that new tax rate, so why don't we renegotiate his contract to pay him a salary of $9.9 million plus a condo in the Caymans? You see... there's always a way to get around an income tax rate for people like this. And they are really smart about it as well. They are basically two steps ahead of any liberal with a tax idea.

Finally, let me talk about a real life example. I don't know anyone who makes $10m a year... wish I did! I do know that Nick Saban makes $5m a year to coach the Alabama football team. So let's apply this tax increase idea to his earned income. Bottom line, it will result in less money going into Nick Saban's pocket at the end of the day. At some point Saban says... "Ya know what? This ain't worth it anymore! I'm tired of working my ass off and all my money going to pay my tax bill.... I'm going fishing!" I mean, the guy has wealth, money is not the issue, it's the principle of the matter. And yes, there would be another coach at Alabama... he wouldn't be Saban and he wouldn't be earning $5m a year.

I suggested that special projects, like building a fence, wall or other project to secure the southern border is only important to conservatives until you mention paying for it. You prove the point by driving all over the map and pretending to read my mind and positions on all things related to economics to find excuses why the program can not be paid for. The next suggestion to come will be to decrease funding for entitlements and public aid to pay for it.
Meantime, about 100 workers have six month long jobs in my area building pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes along a busy highway. The project will no doubt save some lives because I live in a busy beach resort and we loose a couple of pedestrians and bike riders every summer. The government is paying for the project, hence the government created the jobs.

We have this complete disconnect that constantly arises in these debates. The project you mention is not something our FEDERAL resources should be used to fund because they only really benefit your community. That is the kind of project best handled by state and local government. If you guys think it's a great idea, raise your property tax rates and do it! That's what democracy is all about.

It is NOT the FEDERAL government's place or responsibility to build your roads, bridges, sidewalks and bike lanes. Sure, they created jobs that are paid for by taxpayers and they don't produce a thing for profit or even a benefit to most taxpayers.

Contrasting this, the Federal government has the explicit Constitutional obligation to provide for security of the citizenry. This includes a secure national border. Now I don't know if you're having trouble comprehending what 40 million people look like, but we have a severe problem with illegal immigration, specifically from our southern border.

Now, I understand your argument about good paying government jobs being created and that helping stimulate the economy... I get that point because I have made it before when liberals are whining for cuts in defense spending. Close a military base and a whole entire town and it's economy goes tits up. So while it may seem like a great platitude to just start cutting defense spending, there is a consequence.

We pay gas taxes into the highway fund. My state gives more to the federal government in taxes than we get back. Why should some of that highway money and other tax money come back to benefit the people who provided the funds in the first place. There are a long lost of states that get back way more funds than they put in.
I believe the discussion you and I are having began with my commenting that Trumps and other peoples ideas for a wall or fence on the southern border would never come to fruition because conservatives would never raise revenues to fund such a project. Perhaps you have been in this thread for a much longer time than me and are viewing the topic in a broader concept than I am.

I understand we have a highway fund... it maintains the U.S. Highway system across America. That money is not intended for building bicycle paths for your community. It's not an argument about who contributes more or who gets more back, it's about the fact that Federal government isn't supposed to be funding about 90% of what it does.

When I hear a lefty say "raise revenues" it means "raise tax rates" and I disagree with that principle. You don't increase revenue by increasing tax rates. Yes, we have to find a way to pay for a border fence but we can't do it by raising taxes and we can't throw up our hands and ignore the problem because we don't have the money (...and oh by the way, can you print up another trillion dollars to keep this out-dated and antiquated federal program afloat.)

 

[rightwinger]

You are living in a delusional world of political commentary theories. When you need funds you go out and raise funds. Need something you can't afford, go out an get another job or ask the boss for overtime. Sure, it will put you in a higher tax bracket and cause you to pay more taxes, but it will also give you a bigger income to apply to your budget. In the end, your paycheck revenue is increased. If people making 10 million a year want to quit earning to avoid paying 1% more tax, let them. There are lines of competitors waiting to take their places.

No, the problem is, you've been immersed in Socialist kool-aid for too long and it's making you talk crazy. Competition? What the hell are you talking about? People who are making $10m a year aren't competing with others who want to be making $10m but can't because all the money is being made.

You've very modestly offered "1%" up as a proposed increase... much more 'conservative' than ANY of your liberal counterparts who have talked about 10%, 20%, 40%, 60% increases. But let's just stick with your 1%... that puts the top marginals at 40.6% tax rate on their earned incomes. Of course, there would be many who would not be effected and would just pay the tax. But there will also be a certain number who will look at this and say... Hey, I can move my operations to Mexico and only have to pay 35%. --Bye-bye jobs, bye-bye tax revenues. Or maybe they say... Hey, you know our CEO is going to get zapped by that new tax rate, so why don't we renegotiate his contract to pay him a salary of $9.9 million plus a condo in the Caymans? You see... there's always a way to get around an income tax rate for people like this. And they are really smart about it as well. They are basically two steps ahead of any liberal with a tax idea.

Finally, let me talk about a real life example. I don't know anyone who makes $10m a year... wish I did! I do know that Nick Saban makes $5m a year to coach the Alabama football team. So let's apply this tax increase idea to his earned income. Bottom line, it will result in less money going into Nick Saban's pocket at the end of the day. At some point Saban says... "Ya know what? This ain't worth it anymore! I'm tired of working my ass off and all my money going to pay my tax bill.... I'm going fishing!" I mean, the guy has wealth, money is not the issue, it's the principle of the matter. And yes, there would be another coach at Alabama... he wouldn't be Saban and he wouldn't be earning $5m a year.

I suggested that special projects, like building a fence, wall or other project to secure the southern border is only important to conservatives until you mention paying for it. You prove the point by driving all over the map and pretending to read my mind and positions on all things related to economics to find excuses why the program can not be paid for. The next suggestion to come will be to decrease funding for entitlements and public aid to pay for it.
Meantime, about 100 workers have six month long jobs in my area building pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes along a busy highway. The project will no doubt save some lives because I live in a busy beach resort and we loose a couple of pedestrians and bike riders every summer. The government is paying for the project, hence the government created the jobs.

We have this complete disconnect that constantly arises in these debates. The project you mention is not something our FEDERAL resources should be used to fund because they only really benefit your community. That is the kind of project best handled by state and local government. If you guys think it's a great idea, raise your property tax rates and do it! That's what democracy is all about.

It is NOT the FEDERAL government's place or responsibility to build your roads, bridges, sidewalks and bike lanes. Sure, they created jobs that are paid for by taxpayers and they don't produce a thing for profit or even a benefit to most taxpayers.

Contrasting this, the Federal government has the explicit Constitutional obligation to provide for security of the citizenry. This includes a secure national border. Now I don't know if you're having trouble comprehending what 40 million people look like, but we have a severe problem with illegal immigration, specifically from our southern border.

Now, I understand your argument about good paying government jobs being created and that helping stimulate the economy... I get that point because I have made it before when liberals are whining for cuts in defense spending. Close a military base and a whole entire town and it's economy goes tits up. So while it may seem like a great platitude to just start cutting defense spending, there is a consequence.

We pay gas taxes into the highway fund. My state gives more to the federal government in taxes than we get back. Why should some of that highway money and other tax money come back to benefit the people who provided the funds in the first place. There are a long lost of states that get back way more funds than they put in.
I believe the discussion you and I are having began with my commenting that Trumps and other peoples ideas for a wall or fence on the southern border would never come to fruition because conservatives would never raise revenues to fund such a project. Perhaps you have been in this thread for a much longer time than me and are viewing the topic in a broader concept than I am.

I understand we have a highway fund... it maintains the U.S. Highway system across America. That money is not intended for building bicycle paths for your community. It's not an argument about who contributes more or who gets more back, it's about the fact that Federal government isn't supposed to be funding about 90% of what it does.

When I hear a lefty say "raise revenues" it means "raise tax rates" and I disagree with that principle. You don't increase revenue by increasing tax rates. Yes, we have to find a way to pay for a border fence but we can't do it by raising taxes and we can't throw up our hands and ignore the problem because we don't have the money (...and oh by the way, can you print up another trillion dollars to keep this out-dated and antiquated federal program afloat.)

We can find money for a useless border fence but not essential infrastructure that helps We the People

 

[Boss]

And since "We the People", who created the government, that created the environment businesses could thrive, corporate America is obligated to put that money back into the system for the benefit of "We the People".

There is no such obligation found in the Constitution. This is Basic Karl Marx 101.

Our Constitution provides a broad framework for our government to operate in. There was never an intention for our government to function in a 1780s mentality

No, the Constitution provides a very limited framework for our government to operate. The Articles are well-written and easy to understand and any misunderstandings can be easily cleared up by reviewing the Federalist Papers, where the actual arguments and cases were made.

You are somewhat correct that the Founding Fathers realized times would change and the people would have the need to adjust the Constitution to keep up. This is why they established a process in which we can amend the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

And since "We the People", who created the government, that created the environment businesses could thrive, corporate America is obligated to put that money back into the system for the benefit of "We the People".

There is no such obligation found in the Constitution. This is Basic Karl Marx 101.

Our Constitution provides a broad framework for our government to operate in. There was never an intention for our government to function in a 1780s mentality

No, the Constitution provides a very limited framework for our government to operate. The Articles are well-written and easy to understand and any misunderstandings can be easily cleared up by reviewing the Federalist Papers, where the actual arguments and cases were made.

You are somewhat correct that the Founding Fathers realized times would change and the people would have the need to adjust the Constitution to keep up. This is why they established a process in which we can amend the Constitution.

Unfortunately, no court agrees with your narrow interpretation. Neither does 200 years of legislation.
The Federalist Papers were anonymous letters and are not legally binding

 

[Boss]

We can find money for a useless border fence but not essential infrastructure that helps We the People

I am going to assume this is a question. It appears to be but you didn't use any punctuation. Come to think of it, you never do. The short answer is yes. We can find money to build a border fence because that falls under national security and is one of the federal government's primary obligations. Infrastructure projects are not.

If you think an infrastructure project benefits "We the People" in your community, you guys can take your suggestions to the county commission or city council. If it's an idea that means a benefit to "We the People" in your whole state, you guys can go to the state legislators. If needed, you can put an initiative on the ballot and vote for it.

The Federal government was never intended or designed to take care of those things. Again, the Constitution outlines a very specific role for the Federal government and it does not include funding infrastructure projects in local communities. Whether it benefits people or not, it's not the job of Federal government.

 

[rightwinger]

We can find money for a useless border fence but not essential infrastructure that helps We the People

I am going to assume this is a question. It appears to be but you didn't use any punctuation. Come to think of it, you never do. The short answer is yes. We can find money to build a border fence because that falls under national security and is one of the federal government's primary obligations. Infrastructure projects are not.

If you think an infrastructure project benefits "We the People" in your community, you guys can take your suggestions to the county commission or city council. If it's an idea that means a benefit to "We the People" in your whole state, you guys can go to the state legislators. If needed, you can put an initiative on the ballot and vote for it.

The Federal government was never intended or designed to take care of those things. Again, the Constitution outlines a very specific role for the Federal government and it does not include funding infrastructure projects in local communities. Whether it benefits people or not, it's not the job of Federal government.

Infrastructure is in the constitution.....border fences are not

Could a local community build the Hoover Dam?

 

[Billo_Really]

lol, again you prove your stupidity.

I never said anything you said was wrong, I only said you didn't have the intelligence to understand the argument.

Thanks for again proving I'm right.

How is not being wrong, unintelligent?

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh? .....So I guess you're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton then, huh?

Uh no, I'm not. She's a closet neocon.

 

[Billo_Really]

There is no such obligation found in the Constitution. This is Basic Karl Marx 101.

If it was in the Constitution, then it wouldn't be an obligation.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are completely misguided. Capital gains investments are not companies investing in supplying a demand. You're talking about the source the company turns to in order to fund various ventures which may or may not pan out. Venture capitalists risk their wealth for the chance of realizing a profit on their investment... a capital gain. Tax that gain too much and they are just better off not investing and keeping their wealth in securities or tax shelters.

The .003% tax is cute, but who here believes that would; a.) produce enough revenue to even pay for one of Obama's vacations? b.) remain at .003% after liberal democrats get it instituted? c.) do anything to stimulate the economy? What it WOULD do is have an effect on stocks traded. Especially for large stock trades and the more risky trades.

Yes, I know the economy doesn't care if what we are spending is taxpayer dollars or dollars earned through production, talent, ingenuity, etc. Obama has proven that. We can actually GROW the economy that way for a while, and we have done this the past few years at about 1~2% or so. The problem is, it's not sustainable.

Corporations are sitting on $6 trillion in record profits, so where's all the investments?

I'll tell you where, they're waiting for demand to go up.

 

[bripat9643]

Building a wall or a fence is just another conservative proposal that will never be attained because they will never approve of raising revenue to pay for it. They will not approve a one percent raise in taxes for people making over ten million dollars a year or a one cent per gallon tax on gasoline to pay for their proposed wall and fence.

Horseshit. The fence will cost far less than a 1% increase in taxes. It will cost less than a 0.25% in taxes. IT will be far cheaper than the welfare, free schooling and free healthcare we provide to illegals.

Liberals only wail about the cost of something when it foils their schemes to impose tyranny and loot us all.

 

[PredFan]

lol, again you prove your stupidity.

I never said anything you said was wrong, I only said you didn't have the intelligence to understand the argument.

Thanks for again proving I'm right.

How is not being wrong, unintelligent?

Just keep doing it! Dumbass. Lol.

 

[bripat9643]

You are as usual, confused.

The government does NOT create jobs and both Bush and Trump would tell you that. If you had a functioning brain cell to your name, you'd know what they meant but you are an idiot so it has to be explained to you.

What they mean is to create an environment where private businesses can create jobs. Like reducing taxes, giving tax incentives, cutting regulations, and basically getting the goverent out if the way.

Another ignorant left wing nut thread killed. My job is done here.

Shove that right wing bullshit up your ass, fuckface.

I personally worked on a DOE contract for 4 years. That's 4 years collecting a paycheck. That's 4 years with a fucking job, you asshole.

You were sucking off the taxpayers and providing them with nothing of value in return. You were a drain on the economy, a boat anchor, a useless tick on the ass of society.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much taxes or regulations are reduced, the only thing that creates jobs, is demand.

Demand comes from people with jobs. So what you've said is that jobs create jobs.

When will you libturds ever tire of regurgitating this idiocy?

No company, let me repeat, NO COMPANY is going to invest capitol in a market that's not in demand.

Really? What was the demand for the iPhone before Apple invested billions of dollars in it?