The Congressional Progressive Caucus has a Plan too!

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
what class envy? it sounds like you are making that up and trying to stick it on whoever you disagree with.

is it so absurd to be against oligarchy? because that is what reaganomics has lead us towards.

why don't you show me some evidence that reaganomics/supply-side/trickle down has had any positive effects for hard working americans like myself. i haven't seen shit from you so far.

edit: i haven't seen shit from you other than absurd caricatures/hyperbole, name calling, and you getting your panties in a wad. although that may be your best hope at dislodging the sand in your vagina.
I understand your frustration with not being able to keep up with what is going on and I am aware of the tactics you are trying to employ, it's very transparent and childish. I have provided substantive evidence of Libertarian, free market philosophy but have not seen anything from you except your snide little remarks and attempts to deflect your boorish behavior at others. Maybe, if you want to be taken seriously, you should clean up your act and pretend you're an adult. Also, I'm not the one calling others "fucktards".
So, just crawl back into your bong and let the adults discuss these things and when you grow up, maybe you'll understand.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I understand your frustration with not being able to keep up with what is going on and I am aware of the tactics you are trying to employ, it's very transparent and childish. I have provided substantive evidence of Libertarian, free market philosophy but have not seen anything from you except your snide little remarks and attempts to deflect your boorish behavior at others. Maybe, if you want to be taken seriously, you should clean up your act and pretend you're an adult. Also, I'm not the one calling others "fucktards".
So, just crawl back into your bong and let the adults discuss these things and when you grow up, maybe you'll understand.
not keep up? what is there to even keep up with? i am simply making sport out of you. and it is working...wildly.

the only thing you have posted in this thread is some verbal diarrhea about throwing acid into faces. but i suppose for someone on your level, that counts as 'substantive evidence of libertarian, free market philosophy'.

perhaps you might want to take a stab at explaining the unfettered success of the bush tax cuts or supply side economics before accusing others of not keeping up.

and if you can't see the complete and utter irony of what you have just typed, you may want to reflect on your posts in this thread as well as the definition of irony.

why you so angry, bro?
 

mame

Well-Known Member
I understand your frustration with not being able to keep up with what is going on and I am aware of the tactics you are trying to employ, it's very transparent and childish. I have provided substantive evidence of Libertarian, free market philosophy but have not seen anything from you except your snide little remarks and attempts to deflect your boorish behavior at others. Maybe, if you want to be taken seriously, you should clean up your act and pretend you're an adult. Also, I'm not the one calling others "fucktards".
So, just crawl back into your bong and let the adults discuss these things and when you grow up, maybe you'll understand.
I looked through the thread and found none of the evidence you speak of. Your argument about taxing the rich is actually way off base for a couple of reasons.

1) the U.S. is one of - if not the best market in the world - nobody is going to stop selling products here and seeing as we're already a market economy where most jobs are in retail and not manufacturing those jobs aren't going anywhere. Taxes are essentially irreverent in terms of manufacturing because labor costs - the biggest factor causing job loss in the sector - are more in the U.S. than developing nations with little to no workforce regulation. In order to compete with these developing nations cheap, near slave labor our standard of living would be slashed several times over. That's not an option.

2) Countries with much higher effective tax rates show near the same rate of growth in GDP overall, with better results as far as quality of living, etc.

For example, prior to the 08 global recession France's GDP per capita was only 74% of the U.S.. That sounds like a pretty compelling argument against the nanny state, right? Well, consider this. While France does have a lower GDP per capita, that's mostly because less of their population is in the workforce. The young (15-24) are only employed at a rate of ~25% while here in the U.S. 54% are employed; This largely reflects the fact that the French youth largely focuses on it's studies rather than having to drop out and work. 92% of french youth are in school and 45% of those aged 20-24 are in school compared with 85 and 35% in the U.S.. Only about 10% of French youth work and go to school at the same time, compared with 20% in the U.S.. The main working age group(between 25-54) participates in the workforce just as much as the U.S. at ~80%. The fact that the French often retire early is bad economically - due to the added taxpayer burden - and this is really the main cause of the lower overall GDP per capita.

Now, GDP per worker is 90% of the U.S. number. Well, again is this cause to move away from the nanny state? Not really, as most of the difference here is due to the fact that the French get more vacation time and work less hours weekly than we do. On average, they only work ~86% as many hours as Americans do yearly. International studies have shown that the French report more "life satisfaction" - which seems to argue that the French have sacrificed overall faster growth in GDP for slower gains and higher standard of living for the majority of citizens. The U.S. by contrast has seen most of it's economic growth go to the top 10%.

So in short, yes, the nanny state creates slower economic growth overall. But at what cost? A more equal society? Is that a cost? I'd argue it's a benefit. The problems the French are having is due to their mismanaging of it pension policies (retiring at 60, etc) than anything. To say that the nanny state failed, however, and to point to France as an example is misleading. The numbers suggest that all economic growth lost literally went to boosting quality of living across the board for the French. Inequality in the U.S. - specifically stagnant income gains among all outside the top 10% - has become an undeniable problem. Countries with higher tax rates dont have this problem nearly to the extent of the U.S. and they sacrifice little growth.

The U.S. nanny state reduces poverty by only 28%, compared with 54% in Canada, 61% in Britain, and 78% in Sweden. To match the level of effectiveness found in these countries we'd have to spend an addtional 2.5%(Canada), 4%(most of Europe), or as much as 9%(Sweden) more towards welfare programs. The facts are, these programs are very successful and, as the numbers point out, most of the French workforce is just as likely to work as the American workforce(although they get more vacation time and work less hours by comparison... Which allows for a higher quality of living overall despite a loss in net income). So, that kind of put a dent in the whole "the nanny state reduces the incentive to work!" argument.

These countries are able to do this because they bring in more revenue. We are in debt, so we couldn't immediately bolster the welfare state without going further in debt - but we can raise taxes and cut defense spending. The CPC's plan balances the budget by 2021 - 20 years faster than the Ryan plan and it doesn't cut the vital American programs of the New Deal - which avoids lowering the standard of living for the little guy. The U.S. takes in less revenue than most of the other developed nations and has seen no growth in wages for those outside the top 10% in several decades (wages are barely keeping pace with inflation since the 80's). Now, you give me some real evidence to suggest that we should not be raising taxes... Go ahead, I'm waiting. but I wont hold my breath.

(note: all of this information is sourced out of "The conscience of a Liberal", by Paul Krugman. Chapter 12, pages 252-256. All information found within is sourced from various organizations including but not limited to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, OECD and the Tax Policy Center... Fuck off I'm not listing the 3 pages of sources from the bibliography I'd be here all day lol)
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
not keep up? what is there to even keep up with? i am simply making sport out of you. and it is working...wildly.

the only thing you have posted in this thread is some verbal diarrhea about throwing acid into faces. but i suppose for someone on your level, that counts as 'substantive evidence of libertarian, free market philosophy'.

perhaps you might want to take a stab at explaining the unfettered success of the bush tax cuts or supply side economics before accusing others of not keeping up.

and if you can't see the complete and utter irony of what you have just typed, you may want to reflect on your posts in this thread as well as the definition of irony.

why you so angry, bro?
Who's angry? It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that you are utterly and completely lost in your own ignorance and delusion. You accuse me of name calling when I have not but as for you... well, we both know the truth, don't we? You accuse me of not contributing anything substantive, maybe not in THIS thread but you know that is not true either, don't you? By the way, show me where you have contributed anything of value... anywhere. All I've seen from you is jumping into the middle of a discussion to spew your ignorant and childish barbs. That's real constructive. You're like the frightened little coward that hides in the background, afraid to come out in the open and make a stand on your own, but you don't have a stand of your own do you? Your blind allegiance to something that you don't understand fits your character well.
I've wasted enough time on you, I'll waste no more.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Who's angry?
clearly, the guy who can't tell me about the rousing achievements of supply side economics, the bush tax cuts, etc.

don't be angry, bro. learn from the failures of reaganomics.

the onion said:
HAZELWOOD, MO—Twenty-six years after Ronald Reagan first set his controversial fiscal policies into motion, the deceased president's massive tax cuts for the ultrarich at last trickled all the way down to deliver their bounty, in the form of a $10 bonus, to Hazelwood, MO car-wash attendant Frank Kellener.

The late President Ronald Reagan clearly had people like present-day car wash attendant Frank Kellener in mind when articulating his "trickle-down" economic theory in the early 1980s.

"Back when Reagan was in charge, I didn't think much of him," Kellener, 57, said, holding up two five-dollar bills nearly three decades in the making. "But who would have thought that in 2007 I'd have this extra $10 in my pocket? He may not have lived to see it, but I'm sure President Reagan is up in heaven smiling down on me right now."

Leading economists say Kellener's unexpected windfall provides the first irrefutable proof of the effectiveness of Reagan's so-called supply-side economics, and shows that the former president had "incredible, far-reaching foresight."

"When the tax burden on the upper income brackets is lifted, the rich and not-rich alike all benefit," said Arthur Laffer, who was a former member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board. "Eventually."

The $10 began its long journey into Kellener's wallet in 1983, when a beefed-up national defense budget of $210 billion enabled the military to purchase advanced warhead-delivery systems from aerospace manufacturer Lockheed. Buoyed by a multimillion-dollar bonus, then-CEO Martin Lawler bought a house on a 5,000-acre plot in Montana. When a forest fire destroyed his home in 1986, Lawler took the federal relief check and invested it in a savings and loan run by a Virginia man named Michael Webber. After Webber's firm collapsed in 1989, and he was indicted on fraud and conspiracy charges, he retained the services of high- powered law firm Rabin & Levy for his defense. After six years and $7 million in legal fees, Webber received only a $250,000 fine, and the defense team went out to celebrate at a Washington, D.C.-area restaurant called Di Forenza. During dinner, lawyer Peter Smith overheard several investment bankers at an adjoining table discussing a hot Internet start-up that was about to go public. Smith took a portion of his earnings from the Webber case and bought several hundred shares in Gadgets.com, quadrupling his investment before selling them four months later. Gadgets.com's two founders used the sudden influx of investment capital to outfit their office with modern Danish furniture, in a sale brokered by the New York gallery Modern Now! in 1998. After the ensuing dot-com bust, Modern Now! was forced out of business, and Sotheby's auction house was put in charge of liquidating its inventory. The commission from that auction enabled auctioneer Mary Schafer to retire to the Ozark region of Missouri in 2006. Last month, while passing through Hazelwood, she took her Audi to Marlin Car Wash, where Kellener was one of the employees who tended to her car. She was so satisfied with the job that she left a $50 tip, which the manager divided among the people working that day.

"This money didn't just affect one life," Laffer said. "It affected five."

Prior to joining Marlin Car Wash in 2005, Kellener worked for nearly two decades at a local Ford assembly plant that is now defunct. Before that, he was employed by the FAA as an air traffic controller until his union went on strike and Reagan fired him, along with nearly 13,000 others. This is the largest tip he has received in his professional life.

"I thought Reaganomics was nothing more than a mirage that allowed President Reagan to reward his wealthy support base," Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said. "But two generations later I am seeing Reaganomics in action, and I like what I see. It just took a little longer than I thought it was supposed to."

The tip has not gone unnoticed by the economic team in the current administration.

"Had Mr. Kellener received that money in 1981, like the Democrats wanted, it would only be worth $4.24 today because of inflation," Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. said during an official announcement of the economic policy's success at a press conference Monday. "Instead, Kellener has a solid $10 to spend right here and now. The system works, and our current president intends to keep making it work."

Kellener, who has cared for his schizophrenic sister ever since her federally funded mental institution was closed in 1984, said that he plans to donate the full $10 to the Republican presidential candidate who best embodies Reagan's legacy.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Hey Mame?

Where do all those evil corporate profits go?
into a tax-sheltered offshore account?

a cocaine dealer and the stripper whose ass it is snorted from?

a stockpile of MREs for the compound's fallout shelter?

your parents' basement?

edit: how are all those awesome businesses of yours going?
 

mame

Well-Known Member
Hey Mame?

Where do all those evil corporate profits go?
I never said they were evil but for example, a large part of medical costs are due to administrative/executive pay as the top dogs are payed so much that prices are bloated in part because of it.

How many times the average income do American CEOs make? well, the answer is 364. Why should one man ever be worth 364 others? Is his skill really worth that much more? Not really. Comparing average American CEO wage to a European CEO's wage is actually quite interesting... US CEO's make significantly more than European CEO's. The highest payed Euro CEO in 2005 was payed $32 million a year meanwhile, over the last decade Steve Jobs -not even the highest payed US CEO - has been payed $749 million over the last decade, that's nearly $75 million a year - over double what the highest payed euro CEO was payed in a year.

The biggest reason why there is such a disparity? Well, one argument compares unionization rates in Europe and Canada to that of America; Europe has over 30% unionization rates and the U.S. has lower than 12%. The strength of unions keeps excessive CEO pay limited primarily via social and political means. The U.S. once had comparable equality - but the decline of unions and lower taxes on the rich have changed that. If the average Joe is going to be stuck with higher health insurance premiums to pay for some guys ridiculous salary - that same guy should pony up his fair share of taxes.

Another thing to consider is that Euro CEO's also pay higher taxes than U.S. CEO's. They aren't going anywhere.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I never said they were evil but for example, a large part of medical costs are due to administrative/executive pay as the top dogs are payed so much that prices are bloated in part because of it.

How many times the average income do American CEOs make? well, the answer is 364. Why should one man ever be worth 364 others? Is his skill really worth that much more? Not really. Comparing average American CEO wage to a European CEO's wage is actually quite interesting... US CEO's make significantly more than European CEO's. The highest payed Euro CEO in 2005 was payed $32 million a year meanwhile, over the last decade Steve Jobs -not even the highest payed US CEO - has been payed $749 million over the last decade, that's nearly $75 million a year - over double what the highest payed euro CEO was payed in a year.

The biggest reason why there is such a disparity? Well, one argument compares unionization rates in Europe and Canada to that of America; Europe has over 30% unionization rates and the U.S. has lower than 12%. The strength of unions keeps excessive CEO pay limited primarily via social and political means. The U.S. once had comparable equality - but the decline of unions and lower taxes on the rich have changed that. If the average Joe is going to be stuck with higher health insurance premiums to pay for some guys ridiculous salary - that same guy should pony up his fair share of taxes.

Another thing to consider is that Euro CEO's also pay higher taxes than U.S. CEO's. They aren't going anywhere.
So, you chose to ignore my question and continue on about evil CEO's instead.

Try to follow along please Mame... A corporation's profits are after all expenses including the excessive (in your opinion) salaries of the management. Now, where do those profits go?

And BTW, Charlie Sheen is hardly worth 2 million dollars for an episode of 2 1/2 men but he got paid that... I bet you want to place a cap on what people make and any money above that should go to the government to subsidize other people who are not as *fortunate*...
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I read your post wrong. Obviously you can tell.

Just like gold prices are higher than ever before unless you adjust for inflation, factors like increased population size, economic growth, etc. U.S. revenue as a percentage of GDP is actually lower right now that at any other time since the late 60's. This is, in fact, a revenue problem just as much as it is a spending problem:
View attachment 1567124

Nope, thanks for trying though.
Your Graph shows 2 important things. The tech crash of 2001, and the subsequent housing bubble. The crash of 2008 and the very beginning of that bubble. Extrapolate that data out further and you will see another big rise. Lets also not forget that when Government Deficit spends, all that money gets added to GDP totals. This skews the graphs and makes them look worse ( Or better depending on viewpoint) than they really are. Take government spending out of GDP totals and the picture is very different, especially when you get rid of TRILLIONS of dollars in deficit spending.
GPD per Capita is down 1-2%, but you want to tax them a little bit more? Added to inflation, those taxes are going to be like a boot on the throat of every American.


420,000 people lost their jobs last week and applied for unemployment. Lets tax them.
 

mame

Well-Known Member
So, you chose to ignore my question and continue on about evil CEO's instead.

Try to follow along please Mame... A corporation's profits are after all expenses including the excessive (in your opinion) salaries of the management. Now, where do those profits go?

And BTW, Charlie Sheen is hardly worth 2 million dollars for an episode of 2 1/2 men but he got paid that... I bet you want to place a cap on what people make and any money above that should go to the government to subsidize other people who are not as *fortunate*...
No, I wouldn't place any caps on anything. If it were me I'd implement super brackets for people making over 1mil, 5mil, 50mil... I'd also close all corporate tax loopholes and subsidies and set the rate at at least 30% (it's supposed to be 35% atm but it's effectively far lower). I'd add a public option to encourage competition in the health insurance industry - limiting costs through free market principles (for example the state I live in, Oregon, essentially has two major providers of health insurance that take up over 60% of the market share... this leads to higher costs via lack of competition... a public option competing against these corporations would create downward pressure on premiums - Europe and Canada pay much less than we do and they all have some form of public option). I'd invest heavily in education and I'd cut defense spending to levels comparable to other advanced nations (or at least closer... we currently pay WAY more than any other country for defense).

Again, I never said corporations are evil but it's time they pay their fair share.

Listen, I know where you're going with this. You're going to say higher taxes "crowds out investment" and eliminates the "incentive" to work and invest. These things sound like they could be true but the facts dont support these assertions. As I've already pointed out, despite high taxes and a prevalent nanny state in France, CEOs live quite lavishly with several million dollars in after tax income. Also, French workers are just as likely to be employed as Americans (and enjoy higher quality of living and class mobility). Also, this report asserts that tax cuts dont really grow the economy so well after all.... So I guess you're out of ammo.
Creating jobs and growing the economy are top priorities for state and local officials. Their tools of choice to achieve these goals may, however, be the least effective among those available to them. Too often public officeholders first embrace lowering taxes and creating tax incentives as their chief economic development tools, with public investment usually ranking as a distant third option. An analysis of the relevant research literature, however, finds little grounds to support tax cuts and incentives—especially when they occur at the expense of public investment—as the best means to expand employment and spur growth.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
No, I wouldn't place any caps on anything. If it were me I'd implement super brackets for people making over 1mil, 5mil, 50mil... I'd also close all corporate tax loopholes and subsidies and set the rate at at least 30% (it's supposed to be 35% atm but it's effectively far lower). I'd add a public option to encourage competition in the health insurance industry - limiting costs through free market principles (for example the state I live in, Oregon, essentially has two major providers of health insurance that take up over 60% of the market share... this leads to higher costs via lack of competition... a public option competing against these corporations would create downward pressure on premiums - Europe and Canada pay much less than we do and they all have some form of public option). I'd invest heavily in education and I'd cut defense spending to levels comparable to other advanced nations (or at least closer... we currently pay WAY more than any other country for defense).

Again, I never said corporations are evil but it's time they pay their fair share.

Listen, I know where you're going with this. You're going to say higher taxes "crowds out investment" and eliminates the "incentive" to work and invest. These things sound like they could be true but the facts dont support these assertions. As I've already pointed out, despite high taxes and a prevalent nanny state in France, CEOs live quite lavishly with several million dollars in after tax income. Also, French workers are just as likely to be employed as Americans (and enjoy higher quality of living and class mobility). Also, this report asserts that tax cuts dont really grow the economy so well after all.... So I guess you're out of ammo.
Apparently you have no idea where I am going with this. One more time... WHERE DO THE CORPORATION PROFITS GO???

You havent answered the question because you dont want to face the truth.

Currently the government is spending nearly 40% of GDP. That means the government is spending 40 cents on every dollar created in this country. Let me ask you another question... How much is fair?

If I can show you that Shawn Hannity of Fox News currently pays over 50% of his income in federal, state, and local taxes would you agree that its too much? What is a superbracket? 90%??? Why are you entitled to tax people more heavily based on their income?

The problem with competition in your state is that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PREVENTS HEALTHCARE POLICIES TO BE OFFERED BETWEEN STATES... Yes, it is legislation that prevents competition at this time. And your solution? Create a government entity that has no responsibility to stay within a budget and no responsibility for paying any taxes (because it is a federal agency) and put it against private insurance companies that are forced to comply with federal legislation and you call that competition??? ROFLMAO!!!

Seriously dude, you are so deluded by your political handlers I dont expect to get through that thick skull of propaganda.

Do you know why the Beatles split up? Because in England at the time their taxes were above 90% They were in one of your "Supercategories"... They simply gave up because it was almost as if they were working for free.

I want government off my back. I want to be able to start a business and make a profit and actually keep most of it. I want to be able to have a fair playing field without having to donate millions of dollars to political campaigns for tax loopholes and/or hiring lobbyists to support my causes in Washington.

I want lower taxes, less regulation, and the government to responsibly pay down the debt and do with less like all the taxpayers have to do.

I want the freedom that this country was built on rather than the overreaching bureaucracy that stifles innovation and entrepreneurship.

You want to tax the shit out of the rich because some politician told you they havent paid enough.


Do you want to answer the question about where corporate profits go or are you going to continue to filibuster?
 

mame

Well-Known Member
Apparently you have no idea where I am going with this. One more time... WHERE DO THE CORPORATION PROFITS GO???
Corporate profits, in an ideal world, would be reinvested. Recent history however, shows this to be untrue. Consider these two graphs:
profit-chart.JPGinvestment, unemployment.jpg
Notice how investment isn't following the same trend as profits? Around the time of the Bush tax cuts, we actually saw less investment despite increased profit. The same thing is happening again... Record profits, low investment, high unemployment.
You want to tax the shit out of the rich because some politician told you they havent paid enough.

No, I want to tax the rich because they dont pay their fair share. Sean Hannity may pay 50% but what about hedge fund managers? They pay 15%. how is that fair? Corporations are posting effective tax rates, on average between 13-15% despite the fact the the rate is 35%. Many, like GE, paid nothing at all last year. This is fair? Some politician doesn't need to tell me what the data quite clearly already does. You are the one ignoring facts and listening to discredited anti-tax rhetoric. It's called a Zombie lie, they just dont die... They just keep getting repeated over and over and over...
 

mame

Well-Known Member
Also, health insurance companies don't do business accross state lines because each state has different rules and regulations... If were allowed to compete accross state line, it would be a "race to the bottom." When credit card issuers were suddenly allowed to loan across state lines (when the Glass-Steagal Act was repealed) -- companies rushed to put their corporate HQ's in states with the fewest consumer protections and the least regulation. This is obviously a bad thing for us as the consumer.

Consider car insurance. We have national "brands" but actually Geico in California is different from Geico in Pennsylvania - the companies are slightly different, and the policies are different based on the state's standards, mandates, and policies. The car insurance companies, however, do not have a stranglehold on large markets the way health insurance companies do because we generally aren't forced by contract into an insurer based on our employer.

If regulation were the same across every state, it'd be possible... but they aren't. BTW, a public option would likely consistently post prices 5-10% lower than private insurers - mostly because there is no CEO to pay $50 million a year. Currently, executive pay is a notable chunk of premiums... The companies would be forced to lower executive pay to be able to compete. This is hardly a tragedy.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Currently, executive pay is a notable chunk of premiums...
This is laughable... Show me company where executive pay even reaches 1% of gross income. Most companies you are talking about are multi-nationals bringing down billions or hundreds of billions of dollars.

I have never EVER seen any proof that any one of these executives are being compensated more than a tiny fraction of the companies worth.

Our government is spending 40 cents of every dollar we take in and you are bitching about profits of less than 10%??? Seriously?

Our government charges 60 cents or MORE per gallon of gas in taxes. What percentage of profit do you think that is? They are skimming 10 times the amount of *profit* the evil oil companies are making yet they demonize these companies... It is such a joke.

You dont get it, you wont get it. The government will confiscate more profit, income, etc... And unemployment rates will rise due to less money to re-invest in the economy. And then government will tell you that the companies simply dont give enough again... And you will scream for higher taxes to cover the unemployment and welfare cases generated by the evil companies not hiring people cause they are bastards and just want profit...

I am tired of this argument. For some reason you cannot see that the government has spent us 14 trillion dollars in debt that they will admit. They have 3 trillion dollars of IOU's in social security that they count as an asset and there is no inflation if you dont count things that inflate like fuel and food. Yep, the government just needs more money and everything will be peachy keen...

Such a waste of time.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
(or at least closer... we currently pay WAY more than any other country for defense).
The actual statistic is that the USA pays more for military defense than ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD COMBINED!!!!!!
 

mame

Well-Known Member
Such a waste of time.
Yes, you are a waste of time. you haven't cited any facts to suggest that current rates are just fine or that they are too high. I've posted plenty of information arguing that our taxes are low. They are low compared to historical standards within the U.S., they are low compared to other advanced nations, they are low period. I am well aware of the nations debt problem. You seem to consider yourself a deficit hawk so consider this, how much debt would the U.S. be in if the bush tax cuts never took effect? How does 2.1 trillion in lost revenue sound(assuming they were to end in 2010, which they didn't... add another 2 trillion for the next 10 years if they stay)? Surely that lost revenue contributes every year to the deficit? What about the two unfunded wars?
funding for Iraq,
Afghanistan and the Global War on Terror could total from about $1.56 trillion to about $1.88 trillion for FY2001-FY2020 depending on the scenario.
(source)
That's all borrowed money. By 2020 these policies can cost as much as 6 trillion by themselves. Furthermore, here is another study that asserts tax cuts are a weak tool for spurring economic growth. Seriously, how can you consider these low taxes as helpful at all? They line your pockets? Surely they do.

The evidence shows that the revenue lost via these tax cuts would have better contributed towards economic growth if the cut never happened. The facts also show that these cuts contribute towards the deficit that you claim to care about - did you care then? I'm sure you applauded the Tax cuts and believed that they would lead to higher revenue and growth... they didn't.

My point? We need that money to help close our deficit. Throw in the money from the wars and the rest of our bloated defense spending... Take into consideration that receipts are down atm because we're in a recession(and so they are bound to increase once the recovery is complete) - and bam, our fiscal situation doesn't look that bad anymore... This is what you fail to realize, government isn't as "big" as you think. As I've pointed out in this thread already, we pay less towards the "nanny state" than most other developed nations... We also happen to pay less taxes. What you're asking for, even lower taxes, less regulation it's been tried. It failed. Get over it... You've lost.
 
Top