Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Then get a second job and pay more taxes, but don't expect me to solve my problems the same way you do. You speak for yourself, and yourself alone.
I know that the US has more red welfare states than blue welfare states
#1 is ABSOLUTELY false. If government hires people to build roads, schools, electric infrastructure (either directly or through contracts) it most definitely creates jobs.
If you cut government spending, you cut jobs and raise unemployment. If federal, state, and local governments hadn't had to shed so many jobs over the past year and half or so, the unemployment picture would look vastly different right now.
The only ne'er-do-wells suckling the government teat I see is now the leading contender for the GOP - between farm subsidies, her husbands Medicaid receipts to "pray away the gay", and her salary, Bachmann is pulling in about $541,000/year in taxpayer dollars.
She just doesn't want government spending on anybody but her.
I honestly do not see anything wrong with raising taxes. No I don't like taxes, but I am obligated to pay for the spending. I cannot expect the next generation to pay for them or feel good about borrowing foreign money to cover my own yearly spending. It's wrong, just morally wrong. If I spend 100 I will pay 100 tax to cover it. If we don't pay taxes to cover our spending we are essentially been irresponsible people who spend and spend but just borrow from younger generation or foreign creditors. People who do not like to raising national debt, should talk about paying taxes. I'm not talking about paying more than the government needs, just your share that you spent for that year. No more no less. I don't understand how republicans can talk about lowering national debt while give out tax cuts, it's like talking about lower dependence on foreign oil while encourage using gas gulping v8 engines in every car. It's self contradictory.
That was pretty funny.What do you mean?? this is his birth certificate :lamo
I take a second job. And having been in that situation, that is exactly what I would do. A two pronged approach attacks the problem better than limiting your options.
No. He is a Marxist. He is conspiratorial. He uses the government against the people. He believes in wealth redistribution. He has seized some sectors of the economy and uses vast bureaucracies to stifle and control everything. His agenda is the centralization of power and control over everything in the equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The closest match is Marxism. I actually prefer Regain's term, Statist. But no one would understand just how evil and anti-American that is.Look, I understand how you feel, but let's nut go nuts. He's socialist, not marxist. Although pinko commie is a fun phrase.
i agree with your solution. the way out of this mess is greater growth and the resultant job creation. fortunately, we have an entire history of economic recoveries to study if we want to learn how to do that. for example, if we had matched the 1982 recovery rate, today annual per-capita income would be $4,154 higher than before the recession—that's an extra $16,600 for a family of four—and some 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs. That's enough jobs to employ 100% of the 13.5 million Americans currently classified as unemployed. In addition, we would have provided jobs for 30% of both the 2.4 million discouraged or marginally attached workers and the 4.8 million who have totally dropped out of the work force since January 2008.
now :thinking: what did we do different in '82?
Haha, where do you keep finding this crap?
And what's up with these ranges anyway?
- Are we supposed to believe that a 38.6% tax creates almost no jobs, but a 39.6% tax creates huge amounts of jobs?
- That 35% is the magic number for no jobs, and 28-31% will get you some jobs?
Why 1950-2010?
- Why do you bother to but the 38.6% number on the chart (in effect for one year) -- and not put the 92% tax bracket on the chart, which was in effect for two years?
- Is it because at 92% tax, there was negative job growth (-1.0), so you hide that in a 90+ category?
- You wouldn't be using ranges for the high income tax brackets because you know that job creation goes up predictably with a few blips during recessions, and by averaging out over long periods of time you're guaranteed a nice, high value... nahh, couldn't be.
- Is it because including the 63% and 73% tax brackets from the 1930's and the pitiful growth associated with that period would destroy the illusion you're trying to put together?
Those folks at the Center for American Progress are a real class act.
You do realize 82 isn't the only year to study. I've shown in the past that we've done well with high tax rates and low tax rates, and that we've done poorly with both. I've also linked earlier in this that there is noevidence that tax cuts produce jobs, or that tax increases hurt jobs. Too often your side on this makes what is called a causal relationship error. Not to mention the cherry picking of data.
The problem is, whenever the facts are pointed out, it confuses some people so much, they think you're saying that high tax rates create jobs. They think saying "low tax rates don't create jobs" implies that "high tax rates do create jobs" :roll:
You don't seem to understand the argument that is being made. No one here is arguing that high taxes creates job. The chart merely rebuts the wingnut notion that low tax rates create jobs. Why do you think the chart is labelled "Lower taxes on the rich don't lead to job growth"??
You don't seem to understand the argument that is being made. No one here is arguing that high taxes creates job. The chart merely rebuts the wingnut notion that low tax rates create jobs. Why do you think the chart is labelled "Lower taxes on the rich don't lead to job growth"??
The chart is a complete mess, the data has been doctored to imply something, but it can't be used to draw any conclusions.
So you've given up on your ridiculously unsubstantiated claim that someone was arguing that high tax rates create jobs?
so other than providing an excuse for the dems to spend more and appealing to class envy what do higher taxes do?
provide the strong foundation for a sustainable democratic society in which our children can enjoy the benefits of America as the rest us did.
It has been claimed on this board today. which thread-couldn't tell you but one of your fellow travelers said more taxes means more government jobs
that sounds really good so I hope you want tax increases to apply to everyone rather than those who already pay far more than their share
and tell me how is more money going to an irresponsible government going to achieve that
I never said that... I believe I asked you where you come up with the crap you post.So you've given up on your ridiculously unsubstantiated claim that someone was arguing that high tax rates create jobs?
So you think tax increases increases tax revenues? So do I!!
But how do you square that with your claim that tax cuts also increase tax revenues? :lol:
I never said that... I believe I asked you where you come up with the crap you post.
Haha, where do you keep finding this crap?
- Are we supposed to believe that a 38.6% tax creates almost no jobs, but a 39.6% tax creates huge amounts of jobs?
- That 35% is the magic number for no jobs, and 28-31% will get you some jobs?
You do realize 82 isn't the only year to study.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...eal-without-tax-hikes-100.html#post1059653811I believe that was a misinterpretation on your part. :coffeepap
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?