MagnetoSound said:There's a simple enough coefficient that explains this weird phenomenon: the more money you earn, the more tax you are able toevadesorry, avoid.
MagnetoSound said:There's a simple enough coefficient that explains this weird phenomenon: the more money you earn, the more tax you are able toevadesorry, avoid.
The basic, fundamental flaw in Marxism. Unfortunately.
(But of course you knew that. ;D)
It is human nature to pursue simple answers for complex problems. Life is not very accommodating.emrr said:Ah, but the 'family income' was reduced during a time of surplus, AND the various surpluses were diverted elsewhere. The surpluses really should have stayed put, given that 'income' was being reduced, but they took it and bought cocaine and beer instead. Now everyone is complaining after the party that they don't want 'income' raised again to adjust for reality. It's not really that spending is any different than it ever was, including during the time of surplus.
It's kinda ironic that the greedy on top crashed the system for everyone while robbing us all, yet we generally want to defend their right to keep their lower tax rates. It's our money they are sitting on.
living sounds said:Remember when the Bush administration borrowed billions for their wars, Cheney said "deficits don't matter" and Republicans didn't see this as a problem? Totally disingenuous.
No not exactly, but I recall President Bush dramatically increasing both entitlement spending and our public debt. A few of my major criticisms of him.emrr said:Remember when they diverted the massive Social Security surpluses and moved them into the war effort, then declared Social Security bankrupt and in need of privatisation? Totally disingenuous.
Perhaps your awareness has changed over last 20 years. Our founders a few hundred years ago were very critical of allowing too much federal government power to accumulate. Economists and students of government have long been critical of the shortcomings of central planning with expanding government control over major fractions of the private economy.dmp said:This apparent mindset in some conservatives that government can only do bad, taxes are bad, and cutting government is the answer seems to have continued to escalate for the past 20 yrs.
I will not respond in kind with more ad hominum. Please focus more on issues and less on personal attacks.Now with the fiscal cliff it seems like there is deliberate action to cripple the government and start the endgame. It seems like a conservative pathology. Psycopathic.
?? Bush was not the first president to have a budget deficit, but the federal deficit has grown faster and larger in the last several years since him. This never ending "blame it on bush" strategy seems to be yet another diversion from discussing current and future issues. I too have my criticisms about Bush, but it is a little late to change his history. We have current government business to attend to.Looking back, the Bush administration seemed to be deliberately debilitating various agencies and departments, while radically unbalancing the budget.
I am not sure how to interpret that last comment... but yes, I truly hope we can grow to be more fiscally conservative. If we don't slow the trajectory of our spending, our lenders will do it for us (like Southern Europe), at some later date where we don't have the luxury to do it under our own terms.Hopefully this country can marginalize the anti-government wingnuts from positions of authority while developing a reasonable party with fiscally conservative principles.
JohnRoberts said:Well which is it? Do deficits matter? Are you now agreeing with me, using Bush as an example for why they are bad?
I already offered a honest discussion about deficits. Why heap on more inflammatory partisan attacks?living sounds said:JohnRoberts said:Well which is it? Do deficits matter? Are you now agreeing with me, using Bush as an example for why they are bad?
It's pretty simple: Deficits matter only to the US right wing when they're not in power and where debt is incured for things that don't favour the plutocrat class around whose particular interests they have woven their economic ideology.
JohnRoberts said:Why heap on more inflammatory partisan attacks?
Enter your email address to join: