A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
But beware all you rich conservative men, Obama is planning on raising taxes on you too, just the same as Edwards. He just doesn't make it one of his central mantras, but his position is the same. George Will is a schmuck!
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
Here's a little secret for you Mel, you can't build yourself up by tearing anyone else down. The Democrats would like to raise everyone's taxes. In fact it's impossible to raise taxes on just one class. If you tax corporations, they just pass their increased costs on to consumers. If you take venture capital out of the economy, you create fewer jobs and more unemployment. Our financial futures are intertwined. The only salvation is a government which spends within it's limits but encourages entrepreneurism, job creation and upward mobility.
You aren't an island, you live in a complex international community and the American economy is a very large part of that. If we tank, the world tanks with us. Go ahead and cheer the end of entrepreneurism, silly girl.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Mel is just envious. She and many other libs never had it, or had it and lost it, and they think everyone should share in their misery...and "corporate greed" is the "explanation of every unpleasantness."
Originally posted by ProudCon: Mel is just envious. She and many other libs never had it, or had it and lost it, and they think everyone should share in their misery...and "corporate greed" is the "explanation of every unpleasantness."
Never had what? Lost what? No actually, my husband and I would be in the tax bracket which would pay higher taxes, and you know what I think that is OK! Not all people who have money want to watch the US turn into a third world nation. I am not envious of your mindset, in fact I feel much pity for it, it is ignorance in the highest form.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
Sawdust posted: "Our financial futures are intertwined. The only salvation is a government which spends within it's limits but encourages entrepreneurism, job creation and upward mobility.
You aren't an island, you live in a complex international community and the American economy is a very large part of that. If we tank, the world tanks with us. Go ahead and cheer the end of entrepreneurism, silly girl."
What a complete load of malarky. Have you ever heard of the "Great Compression", Sawdust, as Paul Krugman describes it? In the era of New Deal through the early '70s, income disparity was greatly reduced through government policy (such as progressive taxation). Even Reagan realized this when, in 1967, he signed into law a very progressivve California tax code.
The U.S. capitalist economy grew at greater rates during the Great Compression than it did before or since. Reason: Keynesian economics (more purchasing power spread more evenly).
Entrepreneurial activity was not negatively affected by progressive government policies in the U.S.
And encouraging entrepreneurship does not mean catering to large, established corporations or long-established personal fortunes. It means helping the small businessman, who will not be affected by a realistic progressive taxation, adjusted for inflation.
(I'm not even a capitalist and I know these simple truths).
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by BrentBoz-Hell: It means helping the small businessman, who will not be affected by a realistic progressive taxation, adjusted for inflation.
What is
"realistic progressive taxation, adjusted for inflation."
and how will it help the small businessman?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
I just want to add, having spent much time in Western Europe, I have seen (and experienced) first hand, what a strong, progressive middle class can do for a society.
I want to live in a country which spends money on infrastructure, schools, health care. If that means that I would have to pay a higher tax to obtain these pretty basic aspects of a progressive, competitive society, than I am all for that.
When you have a society where the richest among us, pay little or no tax and the largest tax burden falls on the middle class, eventually that middle class is squeezed out of the picture. Not the kind of place which appeals to me.
There are neighborhoods here in Seattle (as I am sure there are in many places in the US) which are almost completely gated communities. The last country I lived in where I have seen such a large number of these types of places, Russia!
Yes, Brent, I completely agree with you, Saw's tunnel vision is totally ridiculous, and I still don't understand why even as a rich man, you would want to live in a crumbling society.
I suspect this is fundamentally why the democratic party will take control in 2008, you republicans are very out of touch with what the majority of the country want!
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
There are neighborhoods here in Seattle (as I am sure there are in many places in the US) which are almost completely gated communities. The last country I lived in where I have seen such a large number of these types of places, Russia!
I haven't been to Russia nor do I plan to, but what is wrong with gates? The appeal is that it keeps traffic to a bare minimum and is a deterant to drive by burglers. As a small community, it filters who comes in da hood to visit. Last year when we relocated, I was real close to moving into a couple of them but there wasn't sufficient land for my needs. (I wanted an MX track out back) Some neighborhoods have too many restrictions that I'm not willing to comply with, but if it works for them, more power to 'em. We moved down a long private road with 6 neighbors. Everyone has 3-6 acres. One of them talked about a mega gate out front but it was rejected by the rest of us. The only reason I could see a gate around my place is if I wanted to corral dogs, but invisible fences work fine. The boogieman is welcome and I'll even give him a head start upon exiting.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
"realistic progressive taxation, adjusted for inflation.""
As David Kay Johnston points out, the small group which is really getting away with murder in the U.S. are those with annual incomes in the multi-millions, at least. The progressivity will be written so's to heavily tax these and the entrepreneur in the $100K-$200K range would go on with rates as they are currently.
Originally posted by BrentBoz-Hell: Slabmaster posted: "What is
"realistic progressive taxation, adjusted for inflation.""
As David Kay Johnston points out, the small group which is really getting away with murder in the U.S. are those with annual incomes in the multi-millions, at least. The progressivity will be written so's to heavily tax these and the entrepreneur in the $100K-$200K range would go on with rates as they are currently.
Why the penalty for earning millions and how on earth is that "getting away with murder"? Better yet, why the penalty for earning over $200K? Progressive means that I would take a 10 year step backwards in earnings so I could stay with current rates. Who in their right mind would approve such assbackwards socialism?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
Originally posted by BrentBoz-Hell: Slabmaster posted: "What is
"realistic progressive taxation, adjusted for inflation.""
As David Kay Johnston points out, the small group which is really getting away with murder in the U.S. are those with annual incomes in the multi-millions, at least. The progressivity will be written so's to heavily tax these and the entrepreneur in the $100K-$200K range would go on with rates as they are currently.
Why the penalty for earning millions and how on earth is that "getting away with murder"? Better yet, why the penalty for earning over $200K? Progressive means that I would take a 10 year step backwards in earnings so I could stay with current rates. Who in their right mind would approve such assbackwards socialism?
So paying taxes is a penalty? If so why should anyone have to pay a "penalty" on his/her earnings?
Let's just do away with income tax period!!!
I am sure the market will take care of everything
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
The conservative's compassion for the rich is touching. If I had to pay hundreds of thousands or millions in taxes wouldn't that mean I was pocketing hundreds of thousands or millions each and every year?
The conservatives believe they are entitled to wallow in money and luxury while others scrape by for the essentials. I guess that's compassionate conservatism.
Let's make a deal and end this squabble. We'll only charge the ultra rich the same tax rate on all goods and services that the middle and lower class rate pays, but they also have to pay for their dirty little NeoCon Republican, Conservative war out of the rest of their income instead of off loading the debt onto to future generations.
If we don't rescind King George's tax cuts for the wealthy then the ultra rich won't have bridges or roads to drive their Bentley's on and will have to park them. Pitty.
What I would add at this point is this question: Why do right-wingers such as Sawdust and Slab even participate in discussions of public affairs, as they have no interest in public affairs? They are interested only in accumulation of personal wealth.
Originally posted by choco: The conservatives believe they are entitled to wallow in money and luxury while others scrape by for the essentials. I guess that's compassionate conservatism.
Every person that earns money is entitled to spend it how they choose. You wallow in luxury compared to some people. Lets takes half of your wages and invest it in a government program. You'll sleep better.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
Originally posted by BrentBoz-Hell: What I would add at this point is this question: Why do right-wingers such as Sawdust and Slab even participate in discussions of public affairs, as they have no interest in public affairs? They are interested only in accumulation of personal wealth.
How on earth can you make that statement? Wait....I briefly forgot where I was.... For myself, I work each day to accumulate personal wealth. No doubt about it. Why do you go to work Brent?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
Originally posted by choco: The conservatives believe they are entitled to wallow in money and luxury while others scrape by for the essentials. I guess that's compassionate conservatism.
Every person that earns money is entitled to spend it how they choose. You wallow in luxury compared to some people. Lets takes half of your wages and invest it in a government program. You'll sleep better.
You're correct up to a point. Few people had issues with the fact that some people live a more luxurious life, with shinier cars and bigger houses. The trouble with accumulated money is that these people tend to become obsessive compulsive about money as if it's some game to see who can accumulate the most net worth and these people join organizations and form lobbying groups and buy off politicians so that the laws that were intended to work for the common good of all people are contorted and corrupted until the playing field is not fair, not free and biased toward the super rich. This is no accident that the rich are becoming far richer at the expense of the middle class and working class. It's unconstitutional and un Christian and that's the rub, most of these money grubbers claim to be holier than thou Christians. I don't know if you're in that camp, but you get my drift.
And your challenge about taking half my wages and investing it in a government program makes my point. They take about half my wages and instead of putting them into infrastructure, education, health etc, it mainly goes to supporting our war machine which in turn supports the free market capitialist overseas financial adventures.
Read-Only Topic
