Tax us more, say wealthy Europeans

[Ridgerunner]

Yes of course communistic socialism is, that wasn’t my issue, what was , was the way the radical right verbally abused the President of the United States of being that kind of socialist. And that is a lie. It was hate talk. Disgusting,! they are dangerous people. Excuse them if you are so inclined to buy into such ways. It is not my way. Peace, Carlan

Well, I don’t think any of us know what’s in his mind. He might be a full-bore socialist in his own mind, as far as any of us knows. Or maybe he isn’t.

But I think “lie” and “hate talk” are a bit excessive. Both his parents were socialists, or certainly of that cast of mind. His early associations were, thoughout his schooling years. I think “suspicion” might be a closer term, realizing, of course, that a true “socialist” wanting to be president isn’t terribly likely to characterize himself as one. yes, I realize there is one congressman who does.

Obama promised to change the country, but without really spelling out in concrete detail just exactly what he meant by that. That leaves people to guess, and it shouldn’t be taken as all that sinister when they do.

 

[Cristiano]

Well let’s see, during WW2 taxes were raised far higher than they are now. Industries were made subservient to govt goals, along with the average citizen. Everyone was made to render unto caesar what caesar required to win the war over fascist forces.

Why is the war time today any different?

We are fighting a war, trillions of dollars in debt, yet the tea party screams no new taxes, no how, no way! Yet taxes now are about half what they were during WW2.

These historic facts are what paints the tea party as greed driven spoiled brats when compared to their fathers, who knew that true patriots pay the price of freedom, though for many of them, that price was their lives.

The contrast between then and now is starkly self evident.

jomoco

I think that the big difference is that the the time there was the need to build an infrastructure. Today the infrastructure is present even if it is being eroded by greed. Greed is what is bringing taxes up and not the war alone. Greed can be rationalized in many manners and it goes from corporations that do not pay taxes to individuals that do not work because the claim (and they are told so) that they are entitled to government benefits.

Accusing the tea party of all the evil deeds the way you do without accusing the democratic party of evil doing for the same political reasons is naive at best, but it is also hypocritical and evil when done with cognition.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well let’s see, during WW2 taxes were raised far higher than they are now. Industries were made subservient to govt goals, along with the average citizen. Everyone was made to render unto caesar what caesar required to win the war over fascist forces.

Why is the war time today any different?

We are fighting a war, trillions of dollars in debt, yet the tea party screams no new taxes, no how, no way! Yet taxes now are about half what they were during WW2.

These historic facts are what paints the tea party as greed driven spoiled brats when compared to their fathers, who knew that true patriots pay the price of freedom, though for many of them, that price was their lives.

The contrast between then and now is starkly self evident.

jomoco

But is it?

Given the relatively low level of state and local taxes back then, I’m not persuaded yet that the average American is not paying as much as they did in WWII, or perhaps even more, taken as a whole. Tax brackets alone don’t tell us very much about what the average American actually paid.

During the first two or three years of Bush’s administration, deficits climbed sharply, then decreased steadily, despite two wars, until 2008, when it increased again. It isn’t all that clear that the country was unable to afford it without additional taxes.

After Obama took office, deficits soared far beyond Bush’s worst year or, in fact, all of them put together, and that in the face of winding down Iraq. I’m not defending Bush here. He was a big spender, or at least Congress was, and he didn’t oppose it. I’m just citing that information as a way to get some perspective on the necessity for new taxes occasioned solely by involvement in the two (now three) wars.

 

[jomoco]

Accusing the tea party of all the evil deeds the way you do without accusing the democratic party of evil doing for the same political reasons is naive at best, but it is also hypocritical and evil when done with cognition.

Oh really?

So this post of mine from yesterday was not read by you?

{quote}

I’m not arguing that clinton or obama are any less responsible for today’s mess than bush2 is. Clinton and obama both are quite obviously as guilty as bush2 for either enabling or continuing treacherous GOP legislation.

In many ways clinton and obama’s treachery is worse than bush2’s, in that they ostensibly are supposed to be representing middle class laborers as democratic presidents.

That they are in fact GOP neo-conservative enablers is now slowly sinking in to America’s thick skull. Dems, reps, there’s only cosmetic differences between them. That they’ve together landed us 15-16 trillion dollars in debt is the objective reality America has to now deal with. Both parties are guilty as all get out of betraying our constitution and perverting it to include communist red china as a represented constituent.

{end quote}

jomoco

 

[rlg94086]

Accusing the tea party of all the evil deeds the way you do without accusing the democratic party of evil doing for the same political reasons is naive at best, but it is also hypocritical and evil when done with cognition.

Oh really?

So this post of mine from yesterday was not read by you?

{quote}

I’m not arguing that clinton or obama are any less responsible for today’s mess than bush2 is. Clinton and obama both are quite obviously as guilty as bush2 for either enabling or continuing treacherous GOP legislation.

In many ways clinton and obama’s treachery is worse than bush2’s, in that they ostensibly are supposed to be representing middle class laborers as democratic presidents.

That they are in fact GOP neo-conservative enablers is now slowly sinking in to America’s thick skull. Dems, reps, there’s only cosmetic differences between them. That they’ve together landed us 15-16 trillion dollars in debt is the objective reality America has to now deal with. Both parties are guilty as all get out of betraying our constitution and perverting it to include communist red china as a represented constituent.

{end quote}

jomoco

Yep. You are an equal opportunity hater.

 

[SamH]

Yep. You are an equal opportunity hater.

Wasn’t it Obama that said “Got to spread it around so everyone gets a chance”?

 

[rlg94086]

Wasn’t it Obama that said “Got to spread it around so everyone gets a chance”?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Wasn’t it Obama that said “Got to spread it around so everyone gets a chance”?

“When you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody.”

I.e., take money from Joe the Plumber and give it to his broke neighbor, so that the broke neighbor can afford to pay Joe for his plumbing services.

Make sense.

You might as well force Joe to work for free.

 

[Darryl1958]

Just mark my words , Darryl, you had better look deeper, it isn’t fear-mongering, this new right is nasty ,the conservative middle are not keeping their mouth shut about them for nothing, they are scared to death of them and I just don’t understand why the are biding their time.
Peace, Carlan

Who is to say whether indeed each and every last one of the Tea party supporters is not from the depths of the pits of hell, snarling demons of perditon?

Still, the issue that they have raised is a totally fair one that has been raised from long before the time that a tea party movement came to the fore. The question of the amount of debt to impose on our children’s children, and the sustainability of social programs in the face of that debt— and in the face of entire countries on the brink of insolvency— are not really beneath us to discuss here in a political forum.

Is there no rational answer to the questions that the Evil One here raises? Does the liberal’s response of “Get behind me Satan!” suffice?
Verily, it was good enough for Jesus. I guess.

If your argument focuses on an ad hominen against the tea party as evil, that also ends any further discussion. It is as Jimmy Hoffa advocates Obama’s army of workers to do—eradicate the evil, “take the sob’s out”!
If conservative ideology is evil, then of course jihad and crusades are the course of action to take against such evil.

Fair enough then. any pretense at dialogue is a mere ploy then, when it is all about seizing power from the tea party devils, the lecherous “pharisee fat cat bankers” that they all are.
Just as long as we are clear.

 

[Cristiano]

Oh really?
**
So this post of mine from yesterday was not read by you?**

{quote}

I’m not arguing that clinton or obama are any less responsible for today’s mess than bush2 is. Clinton and obama both are quite obviously as guilty as bush2 for either enabling or continuing treacherous GOP legislation.

In many ways clinton and obama’s treachery is worse than bush2’s, in that they ostensibly are supposed to be representing middle class laborers as democratic presidents.

That they are in fact GOP neo-conservative enablers is now slowly sinking in to America’s thick skull. Dems, reps, there’s only cosmetic differences between them. That they’ve together landed us 15-16 trillion dollars in debt is the objective reality America has to now deal with. Both parties are guilty as all get out of betraying our constitution and perverting it to include communist red china as a represented constituent.

{end quote}

jomoco

Yes, you are correct, I did not see your post. That to me means that you are neither naive nor hypocritical.

 

[jomoco]

Yes, you are correct, I did not see your post. That to me means that you are neither naive nor hypocritical.

Thank you sir.

Surely if a war is worth fighting, it is worth toeing the sacrifices our fathers made?

What I’d like to know, is why today’s tea partiers believe that wars can be all of a sudden paid for by lowering taxes, deregulating industries and paying far less than our fathers did to win wars?

I’ve yet to comprehend the math or logic behind bush2’s American wartime precedent of taxcuts to somehow pay for war?

Doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Which may be why it had never happened before during a hot shooting war in our entire history as a nation. Yet I vividly recall bush2 exhorting us to go shopping and buy stuff, so that we could continue staying the course of his new method of paying for active shooting wars. The debt at that time was 9 trillion and climbing!

Where were the tea partiers then?

In the white house?

jomoco

 

[rlg94086]

Thank you sir.

Surely if a war is worth fighting, it is worth toeing the sacrifices our fathers made?

What I’d like to know, is why today’s tea partiers believe that wars can be all of a sudden paid for by lowering taxes, deregulating industries and paying far less than our fathers did to win wars?

I’ve yet to comprehend the math or logic behind bush2’s American wartime precedent of taxcuts to somehow pay for war?

Doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Which may be why it had never happened before during a hot shooting war in our entire history as a nation. Yet I vividly recall bush2 exhorting us to go shopping and buy stuff, so that we could continue staying the course of his new method of paying for active shooting wars. The debt at that time was 9 trillion and climbing!

Where were the tea partiers then?

In the white house?

jomoco

I realize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been costly, but the total amount spent since 2001 has been ~1.26 Trillion. How much has the debt risen since 2001? It was ~5.8 Trillion in 9/2001 and is now ~14.5 Trillion…that’s more than 7 times the amount spent on those wars. Clearly, that isn’t the issue.

 

[jomoco]

I realize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been costly, but the total amount spent since 2001 has been ~1.26 Trillion. How much has the debt risen since 2001? It was ~5.8 Trillion in 9/2001 and is now ~14.5 Trillion…that’s more than 7 times the amount spent on those wars. Clearly, that isn’t the issue.

But why would any of that change the fact that prior to 2003, America had invariably raised taxes, regulated industries(dictated to them), during wartime to win wars?

What changed so suddenly in 03 to ignore both logic, and historical precedent?

jomoco

 

[rlg94086]

But why would any of that change the fact that prior to 2003, America had invariably raised taxes, regulated industries(dictated to them), during wartime to win wars?

What changed so suddenly in 03 to ignore both logic, and historical precedent?

jomoco

My point is that your point is moot. Revenues were dropping prior to the Bush tax cuts. They increased after the Bush tax cuts. If he hadn’t made the cuts, the debt would have been worse during the early war years. Revenue didn’t drop again until the economy took another bad turn.



Higher tax rates don’t necessarily equate to increased revenue. Lower tax rates do not necessarily equate to decreasing revenue. In fact, they are often the opposite. It’s a math thing…

 

[stinkcat_14]

Higher tax rates don’t necessarily equate to increased revenue. Lower tax rates do not necessarily equate to decreasing revenue. In fact, they are often the opposite. It’s a math thing…

Except of course, your graph does not show a situation where tax revenue goes down when tax rates go up. So there is no opposite correlation there.

 

[rlg94086]

Except of course, your graph does not show a situation where tax revenue goes down when tax rates go up. So there is no opposite correlation there.

I said not necessarily. If you think that raising taxes during a recession and/or struggling economy is a good thing, then you are free to believe that.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I said not necessarily. If you think that raising taxes during a recession and/or struggling economy is a good thing, then you are free to believe that.

Can you give an example of where income tax rates went up and tax revenue went down? If you claim “not necessarily” then you have to have at least one example of that.

Where did I claim raising taxes in a recession was a good thing. I never said that. I was just commenting on the relationship between tax rates and revenue.

 

[rlg94086]

Can you give an example of where income tax rates went up and tax revenue went down? If you claim “not necessarily” then you have to have at least one example of that.

Where did I claim raising taxes in a recession was a good thing. I never said that. I was just commenting on the relationship between tax rates and revenue.

I could care less, and I don’t feel like researching it. I’m not writing an economic thesis. Amend my statement to say that lowering taxes generally raises revenue.

Your question is boring, if you aren’t advocating raising taxes in our currently failing economy. Clinton raised taxes during a booming economy, so I guess it’s okay to do it when the economy starts booming. Bring it on.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I could care less, and I don’t feel like researching it. I’m not writing an economic thesis. Amend my statement to say that lowering taxes generally raises revenue.

In other words, you are just spouting what seems convenient and cannot defend what you say. I understand. Actually, your second statement isn’t true either, since when Bush cut taxes revenue fell before it increased. In 2001 when Bush took office total federal receipts were $1,991.1 billion. It took four years for federal government receipts to exceed what they were in 2001. So if cutting taxes causes higher revenues it sure does take a long time for them to show up.

But then, as you say, you are not really interested in facts.

Your question is boring, if you aren’t advocating raising taxes in our currently failing economy. Clinton raised taxes during a booming economy, so I guess it’s okay to do it when the economy starts booming. Bring it on.

I guess focusing on the truth is boring. The question is: are you interested in the truth about the economy? Actually when Clinton raised taxed the economy was not booming at well, since George Bush lost the election in part based on the poor economy. The economy boomed after the tax increases were in place.

 

[rlg94086]

In other words, you are just spouting what seems convenient and cannot defend what you say. I understand. Actually, your second statement isn’t true either, since when Bush cut taxes revenue fell before it increased. In 2001 when Bush took office total federal receipts were $1,991.1 billion. It took four years for federal government receipts to exceed what they were in 2001. So if cutting taxes causes higher revenues it sure does take a long time for them to show up.

But then, as you say, you are not really interested in facts.

I guess focusing on the truth is boring. The question is: are you interested in the truth about the economy? Actually when Clinton raised taxed the economy was not booming at well, since George Bush lost the election in part based on the poor economy. The economy boomed after the tax increases were in place.

:yawn:

My primary point to jomoco has now been lost in your pedantic exercise.