Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If the uber wealthy own most all of the wealth how do we expect those working for the little bit left to pay the same amount and still find necessities such as our strong and great military? Some poor person making 60 grand a year should pay the same amount as some billionaire? Cmon.
When the GOP demonstrates fiscal responsibility, some day, we'll see how it works.When the Republican Party begins demonstrating REAL fiscal responsibility, you can try to make your case.First, the GOP, despite its shallow libertarian droning about small government, spends like a 16 year old girl with Daddy's Gold Card. At least the Democrats are fiscally responsible enough to tax for the proceeds to use. You spend your way out of a financial catastrophe, as Obama was forced to do. You don't explode budgets in a period of growth, as Trump did.
Second, in any given economic system, there will always be individuals who are naturally, organically equipped to prosper significantly more within that system, and individuals who are not. An intelligent, prosperous, civilized society knows that you don't extravagantly reward only that select few and leave the rest to struggle. All that will inevitably lead to is...
....third, to steal a line from another poster, a smart socio-economic policy is valuable insurance against social revolution. The masses are human, and will only put up with increasing wealth disparity and income disparity for so long. At some point they will react, and when they do, it's human nature to over-react. The people below the top 5% vote, and they are paying attention.
Libertarian theory is fun 'n stuff, it has value as a general guardrail, but it's not realistic in the long run.
.
Democrats tax for the receipts?
No they don't, they may talk about it, but then the balless republicans talk about cuts also. Democrats are the least responsible people I know.
Until then, all you have is vague economic theory and platitudes.
.
Stop deflecting and straw-manning. I never said they were fiscally responsible, in fact the opposite.
And neither is the democrat party. You claimed that the democrats tax for their spending, that is factually incorrect. It's also laughable given their major attack campaigns against "austerians" during the Obama years. At least most non-democrats still value austerity, even if that's not what they are getting.
Well we know it works well because...we already do it! In fact, in the 50’s, the tax rate was 90% for the wealthy and that was a time of great economic growth.A progressive tax system isn’t “punishing the rich” or being a freeloader poor person in comparison. It’s about what makes goddamn sense. Republicans can whine about Medicare/Medicaid I guess (until they need it and don’t admit it), but man do they love our defense budget. Bigger the better! Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use! It makes us look tough! Okay, sure, but guess what? That shit still has to be paid for. That revenue has to be generated realistically to match the high price tag. That revenue out of sheer necessity must come from the abundant wealth that rich people are hoarding because it’s not like the shrinking middle class or poor has the income to pay their fair share. Forget about a flat tax because it’s “fair”. That isn’t the point. It’s about what makes economic sense.
Right, because imposing confiscatory taxes on the wealthy has worked so well in England, Cuba, Spain, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, etc., etc.
I'll tell you what makes sense, what has worked for every family, business, state, and country that has ever tried it: you spend a little less than you take in and put aside the remainder as a reserve fund.
When the GOP demonstrates fiscal responsibility, some day, we'll see how it works.When the Republican Party begins demonstrating REAL fiscal responsibility, you can try to make your case.First, the GOP, despite its shallow libertarian droning about small government, spends like a 16 year old girl with Daddy's Gold Card. At least the Democrats are fiscally responsible enough to tax for the proceeds to use. You spend your way out of a financial catastrophe, as Obama was forced to do. You don't explode budgets in a period of growth, as Trump did.
Second, in any given economic system, there will always be individuals who are naturally, organically equipped to prosper significantly more within that system, and individuals who are not. An intelligent, prosperous, civilized society knows that you don't extravagantly reward only that select few and leave the rest to struggle. All that will inevitably lead to is...
....third, to steal a line from another poster, a smart socio-economic policy is valuable insurance against social revolution. The masses are human, and will only put up with increasing wealth disparity and income disparity for so long. At some point they will react, and when they do, it's human nature to over-react. The people below the top 5% vote, and they are paying attention.
Libertarian theory is fun 'n stuff, it has value as a general guardrail, but it's not realistic in the long run.
.
Democrats tax for the receipts?
No they don't, they may talk about it, but then the balless republicans talk about cuts also. Democrats are the least responsible people I know.
Until then, all you have is vague economic theory and platitudes.
.
Stop deflecting and straw-manning. I never said they were fiscally responsible, in fact the opposite.
And neither is the democrat party. You claimed that the democrats tax for their spending, that is factually incorrect. It's also laughable given their major attack campaigns against "austerians" during the Obama years. At least most non-democrats still value austerity, even if that's not what they are getting.
I'd think your attention would be on how they have been such a disappointment in that area.
I'm not afraid to call out the Left on cultural issues. It's not that tough to be consistent and intellectually honest.
.
I didn't post to you. You jumped in. As you well know, the GOP claims to be the "party of fiscal responsibility". And they are not, as YOU have pointed out.When the GOP demonstrates fiscal responsibility, some day, we'll see how it works.When the Republican Party begins demonstrating REAL fiscal responsibility, you can try to make your case.First, the GOP, despite its shallow libertarian droning about small government, spends like a 16 year old girl with Daddy's Gold Card. At least the Democrats are fiscally responsible enough to tax for the proceeds to use. You spend your way out of a financial catastrophe, as Obama was forced to do. You don't explode budgets in a period of growth, as Trump did.
Second, in any given economic system, there will always be individuals who are naturally, organically equipped to prosper significantly more within that system, and individuals who are not. An intelligent, prosperous, civilized society knows that you don't extravagantly reward only that select few and leave the rest to struggle. All that will inevitably lead to is...
....third, to steal a line from another poster, a smart socio-economic policy is valuable insurance against social revolution. The masses are human, and will only put up with increasing wealth disparity and income disparity for so long. At some point they will react, and when they do, it's human nature to over-react. The people below the top 5% vote, and they are paying attention.
Libertarian theory is fun 'n stuff, it has value as a general guardrail, but it's not realistic in the long run.
.
Democrats tax for the receipts?
No they don't, they may talk about it, but then the balless republicans talk about cuts also. Democrats are the least responsible people I know.
Until then, all you have is vague economic theory and platitudes.
.
Stop deflecting and straw-manning. I never said they were fiscally responsible, in fact the opposite.
And neither is the democrat party. You claimed that the democrats tax for their spending, that is factually incorrect. It's also laughable given their major attack campaigns against "austerians" during the Obama years. At least most non-democrats still value austerity, even if that's not what they are getting.
I'd think your attention would be on how they have been such a disappointment in that area.
I'm not afraid to call out the Left on cultural issues. It's not that tough to be consistent and intellectually honest.
.
Mac, it seems you are incapable of reading what is said and instead deflect and insert your own interpretations. I never claimed they are fiscally responsible. I am not that sure that they even should be. If the democrats are going to spend to oblivion to satisfy their interest groups, the GOP probably should do the same.
This idea that you let others take advantage of you but play fair when its your turn, it's fucking stupid.
A progressive tax system isn’t “punishing the rich” or being a freeloader poor person in comparison. It’s about what makes goddamn sense. Republicans can whine about Medicare/Medicaid I guess (until they need it and don’t admit it), but man do they love our defense budget. Bigger the better! Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use! It makes us look tough! Okay, sure, but guess what? That shit still has to be paid for. That revenue has to be generated realistically to match the high price tag. That revenue out of sheer necessity must come from the abundant wealth that rich people are hoarding because it’s not like the shrinking middle class or poor has the income to pay their fair share. Forget about a flat tax because it’s “fair”. That isn’t the point. It’s about what makes economic sense.
How will that North Korean Army get here? They can`t and that`s why we have to go to other countries to start our wars.Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use!
You can always turn an aircraft carrier into a homeless shelter.
You can't very well hold back the North Korean Army with a battalion of crack addicts.
Well see the effective tax rate in the 50’s was still higher. Also, when measuring the percentage of GDP, the size of the economy also matters lolWell we know it works well because...we already do it! In fact, in the 50’s, the tax rate was 90% for the wealthy and that was a time of great economic growth.A progressive tax system isn’t “punishing the rich” or being a freeloader poor person in comparison. It’s about what makes goddamn sense. Republicans can whine about Medicare/Medicaid I guess (until they need it and don’t admit it), but man do they love our defense budget. Bigger the better! Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use! It makes us look tough! Okay, sure, but guess what? That shit still has to be paid for. That revenue has to be generated realistically to match the high price tag. That revenue out of sheer necessity must come from the abundant wealth that rich people are hoarding because it’s not like the shrinking middle class or poor has the income to pay their fair share. Forget about a flat tax because it’s “fair”. That isn’t the point. It’s about what makes economic sense.
Right, because imposing confiscatory taxes on the wealthy has worked so well in England, Cuba, Spain, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, etc., etc.
I'll tell you what makes sense, what has worked for every family, business, state, and country that has ever tried it: you spend a little less than you take in and put aside the remainder as a reserve fund.
The taxes used to be so, so bad! Average American paid 5 percent in taxes. Massive tax cuts obviously...
So I suppose I agree, go back to the lower taxed time. And instead of taking the rates, also take all the deductions that the above post fails to mention.
Well see the effective tax rate in the 50’s was still higher. Also, when measuring the percentage of GDP, the size of the economy also matters lolWell we know it works well because...we already do it! In fact, in the 50’s, the tax rate was 90% for the wealthy and that was a time of great economic growth.A progressive tax system isn’t “punishing the rich” or being a freeloader poor person in comparison. It’s about what makes goddamn sense. Republicans can whine about Medicare/Medicaid I guess (until they need it and don’t admit it), but man do they love our defense budget. Bigger the better! Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use! It makes us look tough! Okay, sure, but guess what? That shit still has to be paid for. That revenue has to be generated realistically to match the high price tag. That revenue out of sheer necessity must come from the abundant wealth that rich people are hoarding because it’s not like the shrinking middle class or poor has the income to pay their fair share. Forget about a flat tax because it’s “fair”. That isn’t the point. It’s about what makes economic sense.
Right, because imposing confiscatory taxes on the wealthy has worked so well in England, Cuba, Spain, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, etc., etc.
I'll tell you what makes sense, what has worked for every family, business, state, and country that has ever tried it: you spend a little less than you take in and put aside the remainder as a reserve fund.
The taxes used to be so, so bad! Average American paid 5 percent in taxes. Massive tax cuts obviously...
So I suppose I agree, go back to the lower taxed time. And instead of taking the rates, also take all the deductions that the above post fails to mention.
Uh no. The effective tax rate was still higher in the 50’s than it is now. It’s interesting how you only care about such facts in this context yet ignore the effective tax rate when there is any mention to our “official” tax rate as being too high.Well we know it works well because...we already do it! In fact, in the 50’s, the tax rate was 90% for the wealthy and that was a time of great economic growth.
Oh. My. Goodness. You're kidding, right? Really? How many times has this myth been debunked in print, on TV, etc.? Here's the Cliff Notes version: Yes, the top marginal rate was 90%, but it was loaded with loopholes--intentionally loaded with loopholes, not to mention the fact that it was graduated--so that the actual tax rate was around 20%. Plus, in the 50s, there was no FICA tax.
I might add that in the 1950s, Eisenhower held the growth in federal spending to just a few points above the rate of inflation, the smallest rate of increase for any presidency in the modern era.
Yes I know moron, but it matters if the economy is bigger now than it was back then.Well see the effective tax rate in the 50’s was still higher. Also, when measuring the percentage of GDP, the size of the economy also matters lolWell we know it works well because...we already do it! In fact, in the 50’s, the tax rate was 90% for the wealthy and that was a time of great economic growth.A progressive tax system isn’t “punishing the rich” or being a freeloader poor person in comparison. It’s about what makes goddamn sense. Republicans can whine about Medicare/Medicaid I guess (until they need it and don’t admit it), but man do they love our defense budget. Bigger the better! Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use! It makes us look tough! Okay, sure, but guess what? That shit still has to be paid for. That revenue has to be generated realistically to match the high price tag. That revenue out of sheer necessity must come from the abundant wealth that rich people are hoarding because it’s not like the shrinking middle class or poor has the income to pay their fair share. Forget about a flat tax because it’s “fair”. That isn’t the point. It’s about what makes economic sense.
Right, because imposing confiscatory taxes on the wealthy has worked so well in England, Cuba, Spain, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, etc., etc.
I'll tell you what makes sense, what has worked for every family, business, state, and country that has ever tried it: you spend a little less than you take in and put aside the remainder as a reserve fund.
The taxes used to be so, so bad! Average American paid 5 percent in taxes. Massive tax cuts obviously...
So I suppose I agree, go back to the lower taxed time. And instead of taking the rates, also take all the deductions that the above post fails to mention.
That is measured relative to the GDP you moron. Can't even read, yet lectures us about taxes.
Taxes were about 50 percent lower in the 50's. Are you ready to start the cutting?
Yes I know moron, but it matters if the economy is bigger now than it was back then.Well see the effective tax rate in the 50’s was still higher. Also, when measuring the percentage of GDP, the size of the economy also matters lolWell we know it works well because...we already do it! In fact, in the 50’s, the tax rate was 90% for the wealthy and that was a time of great economic growth.Right, because imposing confiscatory taxes on the wealthy has worked so well in England, Cuba, Spain, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, etc., etc.
I'll tell you what makes sense, what has worked for every family, business, state, and country that has ever tried it: you spend a little less than you take in and put aside the remainder as a reserve fund.
The taxes used to be so, so bad! Average American paid 5 percent in taxes. Massive tax cuts obviously...
So I suppose I agree, go back to the lower taxed time. And instead of taking the rates, also take all the deductions that the above post fails to mention.
That is measured relative to the GDP you moron. Can't even read, yet lectures us about taxes.
Taxes were about 50 percent lower in the 50's. Are you ready to start the cutting?
A progressive tax system isn’t “punishing the rich” or being a freeloader poor person in comparison. It’s about what makes goddamn sense. Republicans can whine about Medicare/Medicaid I guess (until they need it and don’t admit it), but man do they love our defense budget. Bigger the better! Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use! It makes us look tough! Okay, sure, but guess what? That shit still has to be paid for. That revenue has to be generated realistically to match the high price tag. That revenue out of sheer necessity must come from the abundant wealth that rich people are hoarding because it’s not like the shrinking middle class or poor has the income to pay their fair share. Forget about a flat tax because it’s “fair”. That isn’t the point. It’s about what makes economic sense.
Nah, as usual, my logic is undeniable.A progressive tax system isn’t “punishing the rich” or being a freeloader poor person in comparison. It’s about what makes goddamn sense. Republicans can whine about Medicare/Medicaid I guess (until they need it and don’t admit it), but man do they love our defense budget. Bigger the better! Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use! It makes us look tough! Okay, sure, but guess what? That shit still has to be paid for. That revenue has to be generated realistically to match the high price tag. That revenue out of sheer necessity must come from the abundant wealth that rich people are hoarding because it’s not like the shrinking middle class or poor has the income to pay their fair share. Forget about a flat tax because it’s “fair”. That isn’t the point. It’s about what makes economic sense.
Billy after he's been on some weird stuff late at night, cranking up about rich people, GOP, yadda yadda:
It doesn't make sense. The gov't has no right to MORE of people's money just because they have MORE of it, Billy.
Make your "logical" case for that, if you dare.
A progressive tax system isn’t “punishing the rich” or being a freeloader poor person in comparison. It’s about what makes goddamn sense. Republicans can whine about Medicare/Medicaid I guess (until they need it and don’t admit it), but man do they love our defense budget. Bigger the better! Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use! It makes us look tough! Okay, sure, but guess what? That shit still has to be paid for. That revenue has to be generated realistically to match the high price tag. That revenue out of sheer necessity must come from the abundant wealth that rich people are hoarding because it’s not like the shrinking middle class or poor has the income to pay their fair share. Forget about a flat tax because it’s “fair”. That isn’t the point. It’s about what makes economic sense.
Why should some get money to buy a yacht but it's wrong for others to get some for an education?
Nah, as usual, my logic is undeniable.A progressive tax system isn’t “punishing the rich” or being a freeloader poor person in comparison. It’s about what makes goddamn sense. Republicans can whine about Medicare/Medicaid I guess (until they need it and don’t admit it), but man do they love our defense budget. Bigger the better! Who cares if we have a shit load of tanks and airpower we’ll never use! It makes us look tough! Okay, sure, but guess what? That shit still has to be paid for. That revenue has to be generated realistically to match the high price tag. That revenue out of sheer necessity must come from the abundant wealth that rich people are hoarding because it’s not like the shrinking middle class or poor has the income to pay their fair share. Forget about a flat tax because it’s “fair”. That isn’t the point. It’s about what makes economic sense.
Billy after he's been on some weird stuff late at night, cranking up about rich people, GOP, yadda yadda:
It doesn't make sense. The gov't has no right to MORE of people's money just because they have MORE of it, Billy.
Make your "logical" case for that, if you dare.
It's not all the "people's money". The government simply printed it up. No one earned it. With this being the case why should it not be more equitably dispersed?
Why should some get money to buy a yacht but it's wrong for others to get some for an education?
