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

[2aguy]

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?

Both.

 

[2aguy]

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

Laws were passed. You can't sell or buy illegal drugs. If you don't want to spend that money, then change the law.

Again...You didn't answer my question.......why do you want to give more money to the people who do these things you hate?

 

[rightwinger]

Rush isn't advocating trickle down......he is advocating anarchy

Let me translate:

Statist definition of individual liberty: Anarchy. ( and with enough mass graves they can end anarchy/individual liberty)

Seems Rush is advocating nobody pays taxes

No police, no schools, no fire protection, no infrastructure, no armed forces

Anarchy

Yeah...you don't listen to Rush....right? He and other conservatives like myself believe in paying enough taxes to take care of Constitutionally required spending by government, and starving the beast by only giving that revenue to fulfill it's obligations....not as a method of social engineering...the way the democrats see taxes...besides making them wealthy, as politicians...

Even Rush knows....."you didn't build that"

You got where you are today because you benefit from belonging to the greatest society in the history of man

That society is a 21 st century democracy, not an 18th century agrarian society

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yeah...the states can do all that on their own, without giving half the money to Washington who will waste, steal or lose it.

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

So.....you send them money and they don't use it properly, and your solution....give them more money?

You say government is broken, and your solution....give them more money? If you had a store and you paid them money to do something and they didn't do it......would you give them more money in the hope they would do it right the next time?

 

[skookerasbil]

All anybody has to do is take a gander to this k00k's site.........committed Keynesian..........just have to read a couple of articles and you realize there is definitely a thought process disorder going on. Fascinating stuff here.............

Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - The New York Times

 

[2aguy]

Rush isn't advocating trickle down......he is advocating anarchy

Let me translate:

Statist definition of individual liberty: Anarchy. ( and with enough mass graves they can end anarchy/individual liberty)

Seems Rush is advocating nobody pays taxes

No police, no schools, no fire protection, no infrastructure, no armed forces

Anarchy

Yeah...you don't listen to Rush....right? He and other conservatives like myself believe in paying enough taxes to take care of Constitutionally required spending by government, and starving the beast by only giving that revenue to fulfill it's obligations....not as a method of social engineering...the way the democrats see taxes...besides making them wealthy, as politicians...

Even Rush knows....."you didn't build that"

You got where you are today because you benefit from belonging to the greatest society in the history of man

That society is a 21 st century democracy, not an 18th century agrarian society

Yes....and it is the greatest because it wasn't controlled from Washington, it has become less great the more power Washington has been given. Rush knows the individual built what they have, and paid taxes....which allowed for all of the things like roads to be built....government didn't create anything.

 

[skookerasbil]

Rush isn't advocating trickle down......he is advocating anarchy

Let me translate:

Statist definition of individual liberty: Anarchy. ( and with enough mass graves they can end anarchy/individual liberty)

Seems Rush is advocating nobody pays taxes

No police, no schools, no fire protection, no infrastructure, no armed forces

Anarchy

Yeah...you don't listen to Rush....right? He and other conservatives like myself believe in paying enough taxes to take care of Constitutionally required spending by government, and starving the beast by only giving that revenue to fulfill it's obligations....not as a method of social engineering...the way the democrats see taxes...besides making them wealthy, as politicians...

Even Rush knows....."you didn't build that"

You got where you are today because you benefit from belonging to the greatest society in the history of man

That society is a 21 st century democracy, not an 18th century agrarian society

OK


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Cartman20Kicks20a20Field20Goal.gif.html'] [/URL]


Is it not guys like Rightwinger that keep this board from ever getting boring??!!

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Yeah...the states can do all that on their own, without giving half the money to Washington who will waste, steal or lose it.

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

So.....you send them money and they don't use it properly, and your solution....give them more money?

You say government is broken, and your solution....give them more money? If you had a store and you paid them money to do something and they didn't do it......would you give them more money in the hope they would do it right the next time?

I love the "States are models of efficiency, while the Feds can't do anything right"

Some function as are best performed at the state level, some are best done at the federal......all I expect is do it where it makes the most sense

 

[rightwinger]

Rush isn't advocating trickle down......he is advocating anarchy

Let me translate:

Statist definition of individual liberty: Anarchy. ( and with enough mass graves they can end anarchy/individual liberty)

Seems Rush is advocating nobody pays taxes

No police, no schools, no fire protection, no infrastructure, no armed forces

Anarchy

Yeah...you don't listen to Rush....right? He and other conservatives like myself believe in paying enough taxes to take care of Constitutionally required spending by government, and starving the beast by only giving that revenue to fulfill it's obligations....not as a method of social engineering...the way the democrats see taxes...besides making them wealthy, as politicians...

Even Rush knows....."you didn't build that"

You got where you are today because you benefit from belonging to the greatest society in the history of man

That society is a 21 st century democracy, not an 18th century agrarian society

Yes....and it is the greatest because it wasn't controlled from Washington, it has become less great the more power Washington has been given. Rush knows the individual built what they have, and paid taxes....which allowed for all of the things like roads to be built....government didn't create anything.

Actually, when we were controlled more by states, we were a two bit democracy with no global standing

After FDR turned us into a modern democracy, we became an economic and military superpower

 

[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.

Yeah...the states can do all that on their own, without giving half the money to Washington who will waste, steal or lose it.

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

So.....you send them money and they don't use it properly, and your solution....give them more money?

You say government is broken, and your solution....give them more money? If you had a store and you paid them money to do something and they didn't do it......would you give them more money in the hope they would do it right the next time?

So, the solution to bad government is to pay government less, or at least get this bad govt to take less from you, and keep voting for the same people, in the same manner?

Do you not think if people put as much effort into getting government that was represented the people, rather than other interests, and represented the people in a fair manner, like with Proportional Representation or something like that, then these problems would be massively reduced?

 

[Stephanie]

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.

we do, it's called State taxes AND a Federal Gas tax.
now next

 

[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.

we do, it's called State taxes AND a Federal Gas tax.
now next

"We", who is we? We being the rich people who seem to pay less than they should?

 

[Stephanie]

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.

they why aren't you bitching about those WHO DON'T. ? millions receives EOC where they get BACK more monies than they paid into

 

[danielpalos]

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

Laws were passed. You can't sell or buy illegal drugs. If you don't want to spend that money, then change the law.

Again...You didn't answer my question.......why do you want to give more money to the people who do these things you hate?

Those laws are unconstitutional. The Right doesn't seem to have a clue, Cause, or Care in the world as long as they can cut social spending on the least wealthy.

Did you miss it; we may not need taxes on Individuals, if we can convince the Right to dump their useless wars on abstractions. Only a warfare-State needs to Tax Individuals, not a welfare-State.

 

[Stephanie]

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?

how many more Examples of the failures of government to run things?
Post office, Amtak , webistes from Oscamcare they couldn't even get running with millions taken from us, etc
these people have been brainwashed into think GOVERMENT IS THE best thing at running things. we read about WASTE, trying to collect taxes on people who are dead, and the stupid beat goes on and on

 

[rdean]

GOP funi. They think water, sewers, electricity, highways and all the other infrastructure are "free". They just "happened". That no one "invested". That's what happens when you think education is for snobs.

 

[Stephanie]

 

[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.

they why aren't you bitching about those WHO DON'T. ? millions receives EOC where they get BACK more monies than they paid into

Because I'm talking about it from a different angle to one you appear to be able to cope with.

 

[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?

Both.

Wrong!

 

[2aguy]

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?

how many more Examples of the failures of government to run things?
Post office, Amtak , webistes from Oscamcare they couldn't even get running with millions taken from us, etc
these people have been brainwashed into think GOVERMENT IS THE best thing at running things. we read about WASTE, trying to collect taxes on people who are dead, and the stupid beat goes on and on

I was listening to Amy and Dan on Chicago radio this morning... they were comparing government funded research, and how much money they wasted...study to find out why lesbians are overweight...3.5 million, study to see the effects of wives nagging their husbands, 2 million dollars.

So.....these are the people we just have to give more money to............because they use that money to help the poor.....?