Rush explained the alleged "Trickle Down" theory....if you earn it you get to keep it...

[2aguy]

Today on Rush he went through hilary cliinton and her lies about "Trickle Down" economics. His explanation was very short and simple......if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you......

Very simple, very true, and that is what made this country great.

We don't "give" corporations, or the "rich" or any other class money when we keep taxes low......the government simply doesn't take that money and waste, steal or lose it. The people who make it save it in banks, spend it on their families or give it to charity....and that is the best way to keep an economy going.

The worst way to run an economy....giving the money to greedy, corrupt politicians, who tax, spend, borrow and spend....then tax some more, and then they take that money to buy votes, increase their power or reward their friends.

We don't have a tax revenue problem...we have a tax waste, fraud and abuse problem....

If you earn your money.

If you earn your money by using roads paid for and maintained by the US govt, or a state government, then you should pay for the use of these roads.
If you earn your money by using the security that the US armed forces and the police forces of the US give to the country, then you should pay for these security forces.
If you earn money and you have fire protection, you should pay for this protection.
If you earn money with employees who got a free education from the state and federal government money, then you should help pay for this education.
If you earn money that has been gained by the foreign department going abroad and oiling the chains of international commerce, then you should pay for that.
If you earn money because the government has made the economy much more stable than it would normally be, then you need to pay for that.
If you earn money you do so not only because of your own hard work, but because of the situation that is in place.

The same person in a country like Somalia simply would not be rich, no matter how hard they work. Many people work HARDER than those who earn billions, and they struggle to get through the month. Some people have something that allows them to make money, but not one single person in the USA makes their money because of their own ability and their own hard work. Not one. They use their ability and their hard work in correlation with the infrastructure and other things in order to make their money. And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

Great.

And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

And this is one of the great lies preached by the democrats. Conservatives want to pay taxes. They want to pay only enough to take care of things only the government can do, and no more than that. Then you don't have politicians granting favors to friends or punishing enemies because you gave them money.

So, if Conservatives are not insisting on ending our War on Drugs, they must want to pay for it?

Yes. They see it as an actual Constitutional action of the government. Law enforcement. Now, if you want to end the war on drugs, vote in politicians who will end it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Today on Rush he went through hilary cliinton and her lies about "Trickle Down" economics. His explanation was very short and simple......if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you......

Very simple, very true, and that is what made this country great.

We don't "give" corporations, or the "rich" or any other class money when we keep taxes low......the government simply doesn't take that money and waste, steal or lose it. The people who make it save it in banks, spend it on their families or give it to charity....and that is the best way to keep an economy going.

The worst way to run an economy....giving the money to greedy, corrupt politicians, who tax, spend, borrow and spend....then tax some more, and then they take that money to buy votes, increase their power or reward their friends.

We don't have a tax revenue problem...we have a tax waste, fraud and abuse problem....

If you earn your money.

If you earn your money by using roads paid for and maintained by the US govt, or a state government, then you should pay for the use of these roads.
If you earn your money by using the security that the US armed forces and the police forces of the US give to the country, then you should pay for these security forces.
If you earn money and you have fire protection, you should pay for this protection.
If you earn money with employees who got a free education from the state and federal government money, then you should help pay for this education.
If you earn money that has been gained by the foreign department going abroad and oiling the chains of international commerce, then you should pay for that.
If you earn money because the government has made the economy much more stable than it would normally be, then you need to pay for that.
If you earn money you do so not only because of your own hard work, but because of the situation that is in place.

The same person in a country like Somalia simply would not be rich, no matter how hard they work. Many people work HARDER than those who earn billions, and they struggle to get through the month. Some people have something that allows them to make money, but not one single person in the USA makes their money because of their own ability and their own hard work. Not one. They use their ability and their hard work in correlation with the infrastructure and other things in order to make their money. And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

Great.

And what one of those things is not paid for by the taxpayers? Where does the money for the road come from originally? Someone starts a business and pays taxes....then the government can build the road, there is nothing built by the government that doesn't come straight from someone paying taxes FIRST.

The reason they can't get rich in somalia is because they lack 3 things. The rule of law. Capitalism. A government that is bound by a separation of powers and checks and balances.

You have been brainwashed......there is no infrastructure no education, no army, no police until someone creates a business, hires someone, makes money......and then pays taxes....then they can build infrastructure.


The democrats want you to give them money to spend for you.

The conservatives want you to keep your money to be spent by you.

Who really has your best interest at heart.

".if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you...." You quoted.

The point being that this quote implies that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that benefit them.

If everything were private, how much more do you think US companies would have to pay?

In Russia in the 1990s the Kremlin was extremely weak. Essentially you had to pay for your own stuff. Roads didn't get fixed. Even in 2009 when I was in Russia many of the roads outside of Moscow/St Petersburg were not very good.

You'd pay about 30% of what you earned just paying for protection. And you had to have a good mafia behind you or you'd lose your life.

So how is it that these rich people are paying less and less, not covering what they're actually using while poorer people are often paying more than what they're using?

This is almost impossible to come up with a figure of how much someone "should" pay. However those who earned more appear to use more of the infrastructure, more of everything in order to benefit themselves and make more money.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And this is one of the great lies preached by the democrats. Conservatives want to pay taxes. They want to pay only enough to take care of things only the government can do, and no more than that. Then you don't have politicians granting favors to friends or punishing enemies because you gave them money.

Yeah right. They want to pay as little as possible. Who wouldn't? If I could pay 0% tax, I'd do it.

 

[2aguy]

Today on Rush he went through hilary cliinton and her lies about "Trickle Down" economics. His explanation was very short and simple......if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you......

Very simple, very true, and that is what made this country great.

We don't "give" corporations, or the "rich" or any other class money when we keep taxes low......the government simply doesn't take that money and waste, steal or lose it. The people who make it save it in banks, spend it on their families or give it to charity....and that is the best way to keep an economy going.

The worst way to run an economy....giving the money to greedy, corrupt politicians, who tax, spend, borrow and spend....then tax some more, and then they take that money to buy votes, increase their power or reward their friends.

We don't have a tax revenue problem...we have a tax waste, fraud and abuse problem....

If you earn your money.

If you earn your money by using roads paid for and maintained by the US govt, or a state government, then you should pay for the use of these roads.
If you earn your money by using the security that the US armed forces and the police forces of the US give to the country, then you should pay for these security forces.
If you earn money and you have fire protection, you should pay for this protection.
If you earn money with employees who got a free education from the state and federal government money, then you should help pay for this education.
If you earn money that has been gained by the foreign department going abroad and oiling the chains of international commerce, then you should pay for that.
If you earn money because the government has made the economy much more stable than it would normally be, then you need to pay for that.
If you earn money you do so not only because of your own hard work, but because of the situation that is in place.

The same person in a country like Somalia simply would not be rich, no matter how hard they work. Many people work HARDER than those who earn billions, and they struggle to get through the month. Some people have something that allows them to make money, but not one single person in the USA makes their money because of their own ability and their own hard work. Not one. They use their ability and their hard work in correlation with the infrastructure and other things in order to make their money. And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

Great.

And what one of those things is not paid for by the taxpayers? Where does the money for the road come from originally? Someone starts a business and pays taxes....then the government can build the road, there is nothing built by the government that doesn't come straight from someone paying taxes FIRST.

The reason they can't get rich in somalia is because they lack 3 things. The rule of law. Capitalism. A government that is bound by a separation of powers and checks and balances.

You have been brainwashed......there is no infrastructure no education, no army, no police until someone creates a business, hires someone, makes money......and then pays taxes....then they can build infrastructure.


The democrats want you to give them money to spend for you.

The conservatives want you to keep your money to be spent by you.

Who really has your best interest at heart.

".if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you...." You quoted.

The point being that this quote implies that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that benefit them.

If everything were private, how much more do you think US companies would have to pay?

In Russia in the 1990s the Kremlin was extremely weak. Essentially you had to pay for your own stuff. Roads didn't get fixed. Even in 2009 when I was in Russia many of the roads outside of Moscow/St Petersburg were not very good.

You'd pay about 30% of what you earned just paying for protection. And you had to have a good mafia behind you or you'd lose your life.

So how is it that these rich people are paying less and less, not covering what they're actually using while poorer people are often paying more than what they're using?

This is almost impossible to come up with a figure of how much someone "should" pay. However those who earned more appear to use more of the infrastructure, more of everything in order to benefit themselves and make more money.

The point being that this quote implies that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that benefit them.

Really? That is what you got from that....and all the other posts where I said we want to only pay that which is necessary and cut out any extra taxes that just go to increase the power of politicians....did you miss those posts?

In Russia in the 1990s the Kremlin was extremely weak. Essentially you had to pay for your own stuff. Roads didn't get fixed. Even in 2009 when I was in Russia many of the roads outside of Moscow/St Petersburg were not very good.

You must have lived in a different 90s....the Kremlin spent money on what their political leaders wanted and didn't use that money the way a democratic government would. Roads are a constitutional power...the general welfare.....taxes can be spent on that....but....as in all things, the politicians will steal from those tax monies all day long...please look up The Big Dig.....and see how that went.

You'd pay about 30% of what you earned just paying for protection. And you had to have a good mafia behind you or you'd lose your life.

the Russian government was not doing what a federal government is supposed to do, the politicians stole the money, spent it on themselves and their friends. They did not have a limited government constrained by a separation of powers and checks and balances....how did that work out for them? You know it worked like crap because you are posting to that point.

So how is it that these rich people are paying less and less, not covering what they're actually using while poorer people are often paying more than what they're using?

Because they are paying the politicians. Then the politicians make the laws the rich want. Right? They lack the rule of law, capitalism and a democratic government...they lack all three legs of the stool a society rests on.

And again......our politicians also steal the money the same way...you guys constantly bitch about Corporate welfare.....who is giving out our tax dollars in actual welfare, like subsidies to Green Energy companies...not tax breaks, but actually cash handed to these corporations....the same politicians you want to give more money to....right?

How does that make any sense? You want to give even more money to the guys taking your money and giving it to corporations...right? And you want to give them more...right?

 

[2aguy]

And this is one of the great lies preached by the democrats. Conservatives want to pay taxes. They want to pay only enough to take care of things only the government can do, and no more than that. Then you don't have politicians granting favors to friends or punishing enemies because you gave them money.

Yeah right. They want to pay as little as possible. Who wouldn't? If I could pay 0% tax, I'd do it.

Yes...we want to pay as little as possible. We also want to pay for the things that only government can do....national defense, state and interstate roads......if you keep the job of government simple, it doesn't take a lot of tax money. And the less money they have, the less corrupt the politicians can be. If they have nothing to give away, their is no reason to buy them. Right?

 

[danielpalos]

Let me guess; they got bailed out with the Peoples' tax monies while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity.

So...riddle me this batman.....these corporations you bitch about.....they got these sweet deals from whom? Was it the politicians in Washington? The same people you want to collect the money you earned....so that they can take it and use it for their own purposes....including bailing out the corporations you bitch about...those are the guys you want to give your money to...is that right?

What sense does that make....? Can you explain that? Why do you think it is better to give them your money, than for you to keep your money?

Did you miss the point about being able to keep their multi-million dollar bonuses as a privilege and immunity while on means tested corporate welfare. How many non-Corporate welfare recipients get to keep their wealth while on Means Tested Welfare.

Again....who voted for that "corporate welfare?" Would it be the same politicians you want to give your tax money to....? What sense does that make? Can you explain that? You think corporations get special deals from corrupt politicians...right? So do I, big business and big government go hand in hand. Your solution.....give them more of your money. My solution, cut taxes so you and I get to keep more of our money, and the politicians get less.....which means they have less to give away as hand outs. Right?

Let me explain it you a little simpler; why do Only the least wealthy not get to keep their wealth when they get "bailed out" on means tested welfare?

Because big business and big government are best friends. That is why conservatives want small government. Why do you want to give the very politicians who set up the system you hate to get more of your money to do more of the same with? Who do you think spends that tax money you send in......the very people who make all of your complaints about corporations possible...why would you want to support that system?

Because the term small government is too ambiguous. Usually, the right just means, "starve the beast" and start with social spending on the least wealthy.

 

[2aguy]

Today on Rush he went through hilary cliinton and her lies about "Trickle Down" economics. His explanation was very short and simple......if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you......

Very simple, very true, and that is what made this country great.

We don't "give" corporations, or the "rich" or any other class money when we keep taxes low......the government simply doesn't take that money and waste, steal or lose it. The people who make it save it in banks, spend it on their families or give it to charity....and that is the best way to keep an economy going.

The worst way to run an economy....giving the money to greedy, corrupt politicians, who tax, spend, borrow and spend....then tax some more, and then they take that money to buy votes, increase their power or reward their friends.

We don't have a tax revenue problem...we have a tax waste, fraud and abuse problem....

If you earn your money.

If you earn your money by using roads paid for and maintained by the US govt, or a state government, then you should pay for the use of these roads.
If you earn your money by using the security that the US armed forces and the police forces of the US give to the country, then you should pay for these security forces.
If you earn money and you have fire protection, you should pay for this protection.
If you earn money with employees who got a free education from the state and federal government money, then you should help pay for this education.
If you earn money that has been gained by the foreign department going abroad and oiling the chains of international commerce, then you should pay for that.
If you earn money because the government has made the economy much more stable than it would normally be, then you need to pay for that.
If you earn money you do so not only because of your own hard work, but because of the situation that is in place.

The same person in a country like Somalia simply would not be rich, no matter how hard they work. Many people work HARDER than those who earn billions, and they struggle to get through the month. Some people have something that allows them to make money, but not one single person in the USA makes their money because of their own ability and their own hard work. Not one. They use their ability and their hard work in correlation with the infrastructure and other things in order to make their money. And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

Great.

And what one of those things is not paid for by the taxpayers? Where does the money for the road come from originally? Someone starts a business and pays taxes....then the government can build the road, there is nothing built by the government that doesn't come straight from someone paying taxes FIRST.

The reason they can't get rich in somalia is because they lack 3 things. The rule of law. Capitalism. A government that is bound by a separation of powers and checks and balances.

You have been brainwashed......there is no infrastructure no education, no army, no police until someone creates a business, hires someone, makes money......and then pays taxes....then they can build infrastructure.


The democrats want you to give them money to spend for you.

The conservatives want you to keep your money to be spent by you.

Who really has your best interest at heart.

".if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you...." You quoted.

The point being that this quote implies that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that benefit them.

If everything were private, how much more do you think US companies would have to pay?

In Russia in the 1990s the Kremlin was extremely weak. Essentially you had to pay for your own stuff. Roads didn't get fixed. Even in 2009 when I was in Russia many of the roads outside of Moscow/St Petersburg were not very good.

You'd pay about 30% of what you earned just paying for protection. And you had to have a good mafia behind you or you'd lose your life.

So how is it that these rich people are paying less and less, not covering what they're actually using while poorer people are often paying more than what they're using?

This is almost impossible to come up with a figure of how much someone "should" pay. However those who earned more appear to use more of the infrastructure, more of everything in order to benefit themselves and make more money.

So how is it that these rich people are paying less and less, not covering what they're actually using while poorer people are often paying more than what they're using?

This is almost impossible to come up with a figure of how much someone "should" pay. However those who earned more appear to use more of the infrastructure, more of everything in order to benefit themselves and make more money.

So...let's say a a rich guy is paying 1 million dollars in taxes.

A middle class guy is paying 10,000 dollars in taxes.

They drive down the same road. Who is actually paying more for that road?

The same road, that cost a fixed amount to build and maintain....and who created the middle class guys job? So he can pay that 10,000 dollars in taxes?

 

[danielpalos]

Today on Rush he went through hilary cliinton and her lies about "Trickle Down" economics. His explanation was very short and simple......if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you......

Very simple, very true, and that is what made this country great.

We don't "give" corporations, or the "rich" or any other class money when we keep taxes low......the government simply doesn't take that money and waste, steal or lose it. The people who make it save it in banks, spend it on their families or give it to charity....and that is the best way to keep an economy going.

The worst way to run an economy....giving the money to greedy, corrupt politicians, who tax, spend, borrow and spend....then tax some more, and then they take that money to buy votes, increase their power or reward their friends.

We don't have a tax revenue problem...we have a tax waste, fraud and abuse problem....

If you earn your money.

If you earn your money by using roads paid for and maintained by the US govt, or a state government, then you should pay for the use of these roads.
If you earn your money by using the security that the US armed forces and the police forces of the US give to the country, then you should pay for these security forces.
If you earn money and you have fire protection, you should pay for this protection.
If you earn money with employees who got a free education from the state and federal government money, then you should help pay for this education.
If you earn money that has been gained by the foreign department going abroad and oiling the chains of international commerce, then you should pay for that.
If you earn money because the government has made the economy much more stable than it would normally be, then you need to pay for that.
If you earn money you do so not only because of your own hard work, but because of the situation that is in place.

The same person in a country like Somalia simply would not be rich, no matter how hard they work. Many people work HARDER than those who earn billions, and they struggle to get through the month. Some people have something that allows them to make money, but not one single person in the USA makes their money because of their own ability and their own hard work. Not one. They use their ability and their hard work in correlation with the infrastructure and other things in order to make their money. And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

Great.

And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

And this is one of the great lies preached by the democrats. Conservatives want to pay taxes. They want to pay only enough to take care of things only the government can do, and no more than that. Then you don't have politicians granting favors to friends or punishing enemies because you gave them money.

So, if Conservatives are not insisting on ending our War on Drugs, they must want to pay for it?

Yes. They see it as an actual Constitutional action of the government. Law enforcement. Now, if you want to end the war on drugs, vote in politicians who will end it.

Dude, there is no longer any social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States since the repeal of that historical mistake last millennium. Where in the Republican Doctrine is there any enumerated clause for a War on Drugs.

 

[2aguy]

So...riddle me this batman.....these corporations you bitch about.....they got these sweet deals from whom? Was it the politicians in Washington? The same people you want to collect the money you earned....so that they can take it and use it for their own purposes....including bailing out the corporations you bitch about...those are the guys you want to give your money to...is that right?

What sense does that make....? Can you explain that? Why do you think it is better to give them your money, than for you to keep your money?

Did you miss the point about being able to keep their multi-million dollar bonuses as a privilege and immunity while on means tested corporate welfare. How many non-Corporate welfare recipients get to keep their wealth while on Means Tested Welfare.

Again....who voted for that "corporate welfare?" Would it be the same politicians you want to give your tax money to....? What sense does that make? Can you explain that? You think corporations get special deals from corrupt politicians...right? So do I, big business and big government go hand in hand. Your solution.....give them more of your money. My solution, cut taxes so you and I get to keep more of our money, and the politicians get less.....which means they have less to give away as hand outs. Right?

Let me explain it you a little simpler; why do Only the least wealthy not get to keep their wealth when they get "bailed out" on means tested welfare?

Because big business and big government are best friends. That is why conservatives want small government. Why do you want to give the very politicians who set up the system you hate to get more of your money to do more of the same with? Who do you think spends that tax money you send in......the very people who make all of your complaints about corporations possible...why would you want to support that system?

Because the term small government is too ambiguous. Usually, the right just means, "starve the beast" and start with social spending on the least wealthy.

that is a democrat lie...I can't think of one conservative who doesn't want to help those who need help. You do know that conservatives give more time and money, after taxes, to charity than democrats...right? And of the tax money that is given to politicians to help the poor....tell me...how much is wasted, stolen or lost by the politicians and the beauracrats who run those programs?

 

[2aguy]

Today on Rush he went through hilary cliinton and her lies about "Trickle Down" economics. His explanation was very short and simple......if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you......

Very simple, very true, and that is what made this country great.

We don't "give" corporations, or the "rich" or any other class money when we keep taxes low......the government simply doesn't take that money and waste, steal or lose it. The people who make it save it in banks, spend it on their families or give it to charity....and that is the best way to keep an economy going.

The worst way to run an economy....giving the money to greedy, corrupt politicians, who tax, spend, borrow and spend....then tax some more, and then they take that money to buy votes, increase their power or reward their friends.

We don't have a tax revenue problem...we have a tax waste, fraud and abuse problem....

If you earn your money.

If you earn your money by using roads paid for and maintained by the US govt, or a state government, then you should pay for the use of these roads.
If you earn your money by using the security that the US armed forces and the police forces of the US give to the country, then you should pay for these security forces.
If you earn money and you have fire protection, you should pay for this protection.
If you earn money with employees who got a free education from the state and federal government money, then you should help pay for this education.
If you earn money that has been gained by the foreign department going abroad and oiling the chains of international commerce, then you should pay for that.
If you earn money because the government has made the economy much more stable than it would normally be, then you need to pay for that.
If you earn money you do so not only because of your own hard work, but because of the situation that is in place.

The same person in a country like Somalia simply would not be rich, no matter how hard they work. Many people work HARDER than those who earn billions, and they struggle to get through the month. Some people have something that allows them to make money, but not one single person in the USA makes their money because of their own ability and their own hard work. Not one. They use their ability and their hard work in correlation with the infrastructure and other things in order to make their money. And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

Great.

And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

And this is one of the great lies preached by the democrats. Conservatives want to pay taxes. They want to pay only enough to take care of things only the government can do, and no more than that. Then you don't have politicians granting favors to friends or punishing enemies because you gave them money.

So, if Conservatives are not insisting on ending our War on Drugs, they must want to pay for it?

Yes. They see it as an actual Constitutional action of the government. Law enforcement. Now, if you want to end the war on drugs, vote in politicians who will end it.

Dude, there is no longer any social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States since the repeal of that historical mistake last millennium. Where in the Republican Doctrine is there any enumerated clause for a War on Drugs.

There are laws against selling or buying drugs. That is where it comes from. We spend money to enforce those laws. The primary responsibility of the federal government is law enforcement.

 

[2aguy]

And this is one of the great lies preached by the democrats. Conservatives want to pay taxes. They want to pay only enough to take care of things only the government can do, and no more than that. Then you don't have politicians granting favors to friends or punishing enemies because you gave them money.

Yeah right. They want to pay as little as possible. Who wouldn't? If I could pay 0% tax, I'd do it.

Can you explain something. If you live in a state...and you have poor people in your state. And you get your people and win elections and want to help the poor......why do you need to send your state tax dollars to washington first, and then get a little back to help those poor people? Why wouldn't it be wiser to not send those tax dollars to washington, saving the Washington politicians cut....thereby giving you more money to help the poor...right? Sending money to Washington just let's them "wet their beak".....does that make any sense?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Today on Rush he went through hilary cliinton and her lies about "Trickle Down" economics. His explanation was very short and simple......if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you......

Very simple, very true, and that is what made this country great.

We don't "give" corporations, or the "rich" or any other class money when we keep taxes low......the government simply doesn't take that money and waste, steal or lose it. The people who make it save it in banks, spend it on their families or give it to charity....and that is the best way to keep an economy going.

The worst way to run an economy....giving the money to greedy, corrupt politicians, who tax, spend, borrow and spend....then tax some more, and then they take that money to buy votes, increase their power or reward their friends.

We don't have a tax revenue problem...we have a tax waste, fraud and abuse problem....

If you earn your money.

If you earn your money by using roads paid for and maintained by the US govt, or a state government, then you should pay for the use of these roads.
If you earn your money by using the security that the US armed forces and the police forces of the US give to the country, then you should pay for these security forces.
If you earn money and you have fire protection, you should pay for this protection.
If you earn money with employees who got a free education from the state and federal government money, then you should help pay for this education.
If you earn money that has been gained by the foreign department going abroad and oiling the chains of international commerce, then you should pay for that.
If you earn money because the government has made the economy much more stable than it would normally be, then you need to pay for that.
If you earn money you do so not only because of your own hard work, but because of the situation that is in place.

The same person in a country like Somalia simply would not be rich, no matter how hard they work. Many people work HARDER than those who earn billions, and they struggle to get through the month. Some people have something that allows them to make money, but not one single person in the USA makes their money because of their own ability and their own hard work. Not one. They use their ability and their hard work in correlation with the infrastructure and other things in order to make their money. And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

Great.

And what one of those things is not paid for by the taxpayers? Where does the money for the road come from originally? Someone starts a business and pays taxes....then the government can build the road, there is nothing built by the government that doesn't come straight from someone paying taxes FIRST.

The reason they can't get rich in somalia is because they lack 3 things. The rule of law. Capitalism. A government that is bound by a separation of powers and checks and balances.

You have been brainwashed......there is no infrastructure no education, no army, no police until someone creates a business, hires someone, makes money......and then pays taxes....then they can build infrastructure.


The democrats want you to give them money to spend for you.

The conservatives want you to keep your money to be spent by you.

Who really has your best interest at heart.

".if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you...." You quoted.

The point being that this quote implies that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that benefit them.

If everything were private, how much more do you think US companies would have to pay?

In Russia in the 1990s the Kremlin was extremely weak. Essentially you had to pay for your own stuff. Roads didn't get fixed. Even in 2009 when I was in Russia many of the roads outside of Moscow/St Petersburg were not very good.

You'd pay about 30% of what you earned just paying for protection. And you had to have a good mafia behind you or you'd lose your life.

So how is it that these rich people are paying less and less, not covering what they're actually using while poorer people are often paying more than what they're using?

This is almost impossible to come up with a figure of how much someone "should" pay. However those who earned more appear to use more of the infrastructure, more of everything in order to benefit themselves and make more money.

The point being that this quote implies that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that benefit them.

Really? That is what you got from that....and all the other posts where I said we want to only pay that which is necessary and cut out any extra taxes that just go to increase the power of politicians....did you miss those posts?

In Russia in the 1990s the Kremlin was extremely weak. Essentially you had to pay for your own stuff. Roads didn't get fixed. Even in 2009 when I was in Russia many of the roads outside of Moscow/St Petersburg were not very good.

You must have lived in a different 90s....the Kremlin spent money on what their political leaders wanted and didn't use that money the way a democratic government would. Roads are a constitutional power...the general welfare.....taxes can be spent on that....but....as in all things, the politicians will steal from those tax monies all day long...please look up The Big Dig.....and see how that went.

You'd pay about 30% of what you earned just paying for protection. And you had to have a good mafia behind you or you'd lose your life.

the Russian government was not doing what a federal government is supposed to do, the politicians stole the money, spent it on themselves and their friends. They did not have a limited government constrained by a separation of powers and checks and balances....how did that work out for them? You know it worked like crap because you are posting to that point.

So how is it that these rich people are paying less and less, not covering what they're actually using while poorer people are often paying more than what they're using?

Because they are paying the politicians. Then the politicians make the laws the rich want. Right? They lack the rule of law, capitalism and a democratic government...they lack all three legs of the stool a society rests on.

And again......our politicians also steal the money the same way...you guys constantly bitch about Corporate welfare.....who is giving out our tax dollars in actual welfare, like subsidies to Green Energy companies...not tax breaks, but actually cash handed to these corporations....the same politicians you want to give more money to....right?

How does that make any sense? You want to give even more money to the guys taking your money and giving it to corporations...right? And you want to give them more...right?

So what is essential? You tell me.

Because for one person what is essential and for another are two different things. Simply saying "essential" doesn't mean anything.

Welfare. Essential or not essential? Should a country look after its own? There are times when most people would agree that welfare has gone too far.

As for the Kremlin, it took in taxes, but was nowhere to be seen. I'm not talking about the Kremlin per se, I'm talking about businessmen and women in Russia in the 1990s who had to pay for what they wanted. So you clearly decided to miss the point on that one.

Again, in Russia in the 1990s businessmen and women had to pay for their own things. Security, the sort that is provided by the police, didn't exist so they had to spend around 30% of what they earned on the Mafia. How much should the rich be paying for security in the US?

But yes, the politicians are paid by the rich, and do the bidding for the rich.

Who is trying to change this? Some say Trump is the guy to bring change. Why would he want change? He's rich.

 

[danielpalos]

Did you miss the point about being able to keep their multi-million dollar bonuses as a privilege and immunity while on means tested corporate welfare. How many non-Corporate welfare recipients get to keep their wealth while on Means Tested Welfare.

Again....who voted for that "corporate welfare?" Would it be the same politicians you want to give your tax money to....? What sense does that make? Can you explain that? You think corporations get special deals from corrupt politicians...right? So do I, big business and big government go hand in hand. Your solution.....give them more of your money. My solution, cut taxes so you and I get to keep more of our money, and the politicians get less.....which means they have less to give away as hand outs. Right?

Let me explain it you a little simpler; why do Only the least wealthy not get to keep their wealth when they get "bailed out" on means tested welfare?

Because big business and big government are best friends. That is why conservatives want small government. Why do you want to give the very politicians who set up the system you hate to get more of your money to do more of the same with? Who do you think spends that tax money you send in......the very people who make all of your complaints about corporations possible...why would you want to support that system?

Because the term small government is too ambiguous. Usually, the right just means, "starve the beast" and start with social spending on the least wealthy.

that is a democrat lie...I can't think of one conservative who doesn't want to help those who need help. You do know that conservatives give more time and money, after taxes, to charity than democrats...right? And of the tax money that is given to politicians to help the poor....tell me...how much is wasted, stolen or lost by the politicians and the beauracrats who run those programs?

I am not a democrat. Every conservative I have argued with Only pays lip service to limited government as long as only the least wealthy receive the least benefit under our form of Capitalism.

 

[2aguy]

Again....who voted for that "corporate welfare?" Would it be the same politicians you want to give your tax money to....? What sense does that make? Can you explain that? You think corporations get special deals from corrupt politicians...right? So do I, big business and big government go hand in hand. Your solution.....give them more of your money. My solution, cut taxes so you and I get to keep more of our money, and the politicians get less.....which means they have less to give away as hand outs. Right?

Let me explain it you a little simpler; why do Only the least wealthy not get to keep their wealth when they get "bailed out" on means tested welfare?

Because big business and big government are best friends. That is why conservatives want small government. Why do you want to give the very politicians who set up the system you hate to get more of your money to do more of the same with? Who do you think spends that tax money you send in......the very people who make all of your complaints about corporations possible...why would you want to support that system?

Because the term small government is too ambiguous. Usually, the right just means, "starve the beast" and start with social spending on the least wealthy.

that is a democrat lie...I can't think of one conservative who doesn't want to help those who need help. You do know that conservatives give more time and money, after taxes, to charity than democrats...right? And of the tax money that is given to politicians to help the poor....tell me...how much is wasted, stolen or lost by the politicians and the beauracrats who run those programs?

I am not a democrat. Every conservative I have argued with Only pays lip service to limited government as long as only the least wealthy receive the least benefit under our form of Capitalism.

No. Conservatives understand that money is most efficiently and wisely spent, by the people who earn it.

You failed to answer my question.

If you believe that conservative politicians will not use tax money wisely......why do you want to give them even more of it?

 

[2aguy]

Today on Rush he went through hilary cliinton and her lies about "Trickle Down" economics. His explanation was very short and simple......if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you......

Very simple, very true, and that is what made this country great.

We don't "give" corporations, or the "rich" or any other class money when we keep taxes low......the government simply doesn't take that money and waste, steal or lose it. The people who make it save it in banks, spend it on their families or give it to charity....and that is the best way to keep an economy going.

The worst way to run an economy....giving the money to greedy, corrupt politicians, who tax, spend, borrow and spend....then tax some more, and then they take that money to buy votes, increase their power or reward their friends.

We don't have a tax revenue problem...we have a tax waste, fraud and abuse problem....

If you earn your money.

If you earn your money by using roads paid for and maintained by the US govt, or a state government, then you should pay for the use of these roads.
If you earn your money by using the security that the US armed forces and the police forces of the US give to the country, then you should pay for these security forces.
If you earn money and you have fire protection, you should pay for this protection.
If you earn money with employees who got a free education from the state and federal government money, then you should help pay for this education.
If you earn money that has been gained by the foreign department going abroad and oiling the chains of international commerce, then you should pay for that.
If you earn money because the government has made the economy much more stable than it would normally be, then you need to pay for that.
If you earn money you do so not only because of your own hard work, but because of the situation that is in place.

The same person in a country like Somalia simply would not be rich, no matter how hard they work. Many people work HARDER than those who earn billions, and they struggle to get through the month. Some people have something that allows them to make money, but not one single person in the USA makes their money because of their own ability and their own hard work. Not one. They use their ability and their hard work in correlation with the infrastructure and other things in order to make their money. And now they think they don't have to pay for the things they're using.

Great.

And what one of those things is not paid for by the taxpayers? Where does the money for the road come from originally? Someone starts a business and pays taxes....then the government can build the road, there is nothing built by the government that doesn't come straight from someone paying taxes FIRST.

The reason they can't get rich in somalia is because they lack 3 things. The rule of law. Capitalism. A government that is bound by a separation of powers and checks and balances.

You have been brainwashed......there is no infrastructure no education, no army, no police until someone creates a business, hires someone, makes money......and then pays taxes....then they can build infrastructure.


The democrats want you to give them money to spend for you.

The conservatives want you to keep your money to be spent by you.

Who really has your best interest at heart.

".if you earn the money, you get to keep the money and spend it the way you want, and you don't have to give it to Washington D.C. to spend it instead of you...." You quoted.

The point being that this quote implies that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that benefit them.

If everything were private, how much more do you think US companies would have to pay?

In Russia in the 1990s the Kremlin was extremely weak. Essentially you had to pay for your own stuff. Roads didn't get fixed. Even in 2009 when I was in Russia many of the roads outside of Moscow/St Petersburg were not very good.

You'd pay about 30% of what you earned just paying for protection. And you had to have a good mafia behind you or you'd lose your life.

So how is it that these rich people are paying less and less, not covering what they're actually using while poorer people are often paying more than what they're using?

This is almost impossible to come up with a figure of how much someone "should" pay. However those who earned more appear to use more of the infrastructure, more of everything in order to benefit themselves and make more money.

The point being that this quote implies that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that benefit them.

Really? That is what you got from that....and all the other posts where I said we want to only pay that which is necessary and cut out any extra taxes that just go to increase the power of politicians....did you miss those posts?

In Russia in the 1990s the Kremlin was extremely weak. Essentially you had to pay for your own stuff. Roads didn't get fixed. Even in 2009 when I was in Russia many of the roads outside of Moscow/St Petersburg were not very good.

You must have lived in a different 90s....the Kremlin spent money on what their political leaders wanted and didn't use that money the way a democratic government would. Roads are a constitutional power...the general welfare.....taxes can be spent on that....but....as in all things, the politicians will steal from those tax monies all day long...please look up The Big Dig.....and see how that went.

You'd pay about 30% of what you earned just paying for protection. And you had to have a good mafia behind you or you'd lose your life.

the Russian government was not doing what a federal government is supposed to do, the politicians stole the money, spent it on themselves and their friends. They did not have a limited government constrained by a separation of powers and checks and balances....how did that work out for them? You know it worked like crap because you are posting to that point.

So how is it that these rich people are paying less and less, not covering what they're actually using while poorer people are often paying more than what they're using?

Because they are paying the politicians. Then the politicians make the laws the rich want. Right? They lack the rule of law, capitalism and a democratic government...they lack all three legs of the stool a society rests on.

And again......our politicians also steal the money the same way...you guys constantly bitch about Corporate welfare.....who is giving out our tax dollars in actual welfare, like subsidies to Green Energy companies...not tax breaks, but actually cash handed to these corporations....the same politicians you want to give more money to....right?

How does that make any sense? You want to give even more money to the guys taking your money and giving it to corporations...right? And you want to give them more...right?

So what is essential? You tell me.

Because for one person what is essential and for another are two different things. Simply saying "essential" doesn't mean anything.

Welfare. Essential or not essential? Should a country look after its own? There are times when most people would agree that welfare has gone too far.

As for the Kremlin, it took in taxes, but was nowhere to be seen. I'm not talking about the Kremlin per se, I'm talking about businessmen and women in Russia in the 1990s who had to pay for what they wanted. So you clearly decided to miss the point on that one.

Again, in Russia in the 1990s businessmen and women had to pay for their own things. Security, the sort that is provided by the police, didn't exist so they had to spend around 30% of what they earned on the Mafia. How much should the rich be paying for security in the US?

But yes, the politicians are paid by the rich, and do the bidding for the rich.

Who is trying to change this? Some say Trump is the guy to bring change. Why would he want change? He's rich.

As for the Kremlin, it took in taxes

yes it did, no doubt. And it was not reigned in by checks and balances and a separation of power.....and they stole more blatantly than even our politicians do. I didn't miss the point, you just refuse to answer mine....

So...knowing that the kremlin was corrupt, and stealing and using tax money for their own purposes.......why would you want to send the kremlin even more tax money...right? Since you could give them all of the money you earned, and they still wouldn't do the things you want them to do...right?

Where is the sense in doing that, or doing the same thing here?

As to what we need....I will go by the Constitution.....the things the federal government is allowed to do are well defined, the rest should be left to the states. The federal government should not be involved in welfare, or socials security......I would rather the control over those things be a 3 hour drive from where I live, not all the way across the country.

I always ask lefties this.....wouldn't money be more closely watched if it stays in your state? Then you only have one level of political corruption to pay for...right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Can you explain something. If you live in a state...and you have poor people in your state. And you get your people and win elections and want to help the poor......why do you need to send your state tax dollars to washington first, and then get a little back to help those poor people? Why wouldn't it be wiser to not send those tax dollars to washington, saving the Washington politicians cut....thereby giving you more money to help the poor...right? Sending money to Washington just let's them "wet their beak".....does that make any sense?

It can make sense. It can also not make sense.

There's a difference between what SHOULD happen and what does happen. Politicians generally reduce what should happen and make it something else.

In theory the US federal govt should be helping the states by devising plans of action that the states could take up if they wished to. Doing research, going to different states and finding out works, what doesn't work, then going back to all states and telling them. Having 50 states all looking for the best way of doing something on their own doesn't make sense.

However the feds are less inclined to do things they should do.

We're back at the situation where politics (poly meaning many and tics meaning small blood sucking things) in the US is broken. The US presidential campaign shows its broken, government shows its broken and yet no one is willing to do anything about it.
Some shout "change" and the people say "yeah, we want some change so we'll vote for you" and then the change that comes isn't the change they actually wanted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

yes it did, no doubt. And it was not reigned in by checks and balances and a separation of power.....and they stole more blatantly than even our politicians do. I didn't miss the point, you just refuse to answer mine....

So...knowing that the kremlin was corrupt, and stealing and using tax money for their own purposes.......why would you want to send the kremlin even more tax money...right? Since you could give them all of the money you earned, and they still wouldn't do the things you want them to do...right?

Where is the sense in doing that, or doing the same thing here?

As to what we need....I will go by the Constitution.....the things the federal government is allowed to do are well defined, the rest should be left to the states. The federal government should not be involved in welfare, or socials security......I would rather the control over those things be a 3 hour drive from where I live, not all the way across the country.

I always ask lefties this.....wouldn't money be more closely watched if it stays in your state? Then you only have one level of political corruption to pay for...right?

Because your point has gone completely against the point of what we were talking about. You've taken an example of how much money people were having to pay when government wasn't there to provide security, and turned it into whether you'd pay taxes to a corrupt government.

Get back on track or don't bother.

 

[danielpalos]

Let me explain it you a little simpler; why do Only the least wealthy not get to keep their wealth when they get "bailed out" on means tested welfare?

Because big business and big government are best friends. That is why conservatives want small government. Why do you want to give the very politicians who set up the system you hate to get more of your money to do more of the same with? Who do you think spends that tax money you send in......the very people who make all of your complaints about corporations possible...why would you want to support that system?

Because the term small government is too ambiguous. Usually, the right just means, "starve the beast" and start with social spending on the least wealthy.

that is a democrat lie...I can't think of one conservative who doesn't want to help those who need help. You do know that conservatives give more time and money, after taxes, to charity than democrats...right? And of the tax money that is given to politicians to help the poor....tell me...how much is wasted, stolen or lost by the politicians and the beauracrats who run those programs?

I am not a democrat. Every conservative I have argued with Only pays lip service to limited government as long as only the least wealthy receive the least benefit under our form of Capitalism.

No. Conservatives understand that money is most efficiently and wisely spent, by the people who earn it.

You failed to answer my question.

If you believe that conservative politicians will not use tax money wisely......why do you want to give them even more of it?

Who are you trying to kid. Conservatives cannot seem to tell the difference between the common Defense and the common Offense, or that there is no longer Any delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States since the repeal of that historical mistake, last millennium.

All conservatives claim to want to do is cut social spending on the least wealthy.

In case you missed it, I am for ending our useless wars on abstractions such as crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is the right soo willing to spend the (other) Peoples tax monies on wars on abstractions.

 

[edthecynic]

So...let's say a a rich guy is paying 1 million dollars in taxes.

A middle class guy is paying 10,000 dollars in taxes.

They drive down the same road. Who is actually paying more for that road?

The government protects the individual's Right To Private Ownership, so who benefits most from government, someone who is worth billions like Drumpf Truck or someone below the poverty line?