In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 06 2013 05:06 oneofthem wrote: some of these budget outlays were already made ahead of time and altering them would cause some trauma, resulting in layoffs and so forth.
the problem with the republican proposal seems to be an expansion of executive power to make domestic cuts, but not military ones.
I thought the Rep proposal was for power over all cuts and the military fix was a separate bill?
the executive discretion is larger on the domestic side than it is on the military side.
from the wopo article
The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.
it's quite the deviously ingenious move.
A-ha! Thanks, great info!
On March 06 2013 05:55 farvacola wrote:
On March 06 2013 05:33 oneofthem wrote: it's what we would usually call a bait. there's no reason why the entire thing can't be scrapped or made less painful in other ways
Like....oh I don't know.....getting rid of tax loopholes only the super rich can enjoy? Nahhhhhhhh
Obama rejected that in favor of hiking tax rates. Now that rates have risen he wants to revisit that well.
Wealthy's Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013
With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
For a second there, I thought this "wealthy being overtaxed" was a serious concern. Then I realized 30 years ago was the beginning of the Reagan era, which can be considered as a good starting point of all the wealth redistribution to the top. I don't necessarily agree with brute force redistribution, but correcting the regressive nature of "capitalism" with a highly progressive tax structure seems like a reasonable cause. I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
Wealth was redistributed to the top? The new wealth that was created primarily went to the top. That's still a concern, but a different beast altogether.
As for the well running dry, France and the UK haven't been having too much success with their latest top tax brackets. Perhaps we should let the last two tax hikes on the rich take effect and measure the impact before going for round three?
Good point about growth. I still see it as a huge problem that should be corrected, and believe tax rates are an effective tool.
The EU austerity measures are hitting on multiple points. Not only are there tax hikes on the rich, but I believe there are also massive cuts to spending as well, which lowers employment and services for low and middle classes. This isn't a well running dry as much as a self induced drought.
That's not to suggest we shouldn't use a "wait and see" approach when it comes to tax rates, and what we've done is probably too much for now. But I've more than established myself as a person who wants us to focus on economic recovery first and foremost, not somebody that wants to solve some imagined fiscal crisis involving debts and deficits. My connection comes in as your first point with growth in that I don't want the economic recovery to be diverted to serve those that have benefited most from the last 30 years of growth.
Generally you want to solve these problems before they turn into a crisis :p
On March 06 2013 05:06 oneofthem wrote: some of these budget outlays were already made ahead of time and altering them would cause some trauma, resulting in layoffs and so forth.
the problem with the republican proposal seems to be an expansion of executive power to make domestic cuts, but not military ones.
I thought the Rep proposal was for power over all cuts and the military fix was a separate bill?
the executive discretion is larger on the domestic side than it is on the military side.
from the wopo article
The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.
it's quite the deviously ingenious move.
A-ha! Thanks, great info!
On March 06 2013 05:55 farvacola wrote:
On March 06 2013 05:33 oneofthem wrote: it's what we would usually call a bait. there's no reason why the entire thing can't be scrapped or made less painful in other ways
Like....oh I don't know.....getting rid of tax loopholes only the super rich can enjoy? Nahhhhhhhh
Obama rejected that in favor of hiking tax rates. Now that rates have risen he wants to revisit that well.
Wealthy's Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013
With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
For a second there, I thought this "wealthy being overtaxed" was a serious concern. Then I realized 30 years ago was the beginning of the Reagan era, which can be considered as a good starting point of all the wealth redistribution to the top. I don't necessarily agree with brute force redistribution, but correcting the regressive nature of "capitalism" with a highly progressive tax structure seems like a reasonable cause. I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
Wealth was redistributed to the top? The new wealth that was created primarily went to the top. That's still a concern, but a different beast altogether.
As for the well running dry, France and the UK haven't been having too much success with their latest top tax brackets. Perhaps we should let the last two tax hikes on the rich take effect and measure the impact before going for round three?
Good point about growth. I still see it as a huge problem that should be corrected, and believe tax rates are an effective tool.
The EU austerity measures are hitting on multiple points. Not only are there tax hikes on the rich, but I believe there are also massive cuts to spending as well, which lowers employment and services for low and middle classes. This isn't a well running dry as much as a self induced drought.
That's not to suggest we shouldn't use a "wait and see" approach when it comes to tax rates, and what we've done is probably too much for now. But I've more than established myself as a person who wants us to focus on economic recovery first and foremost, not somebody that wants to solve some imagined fiscal crisis involving debts and deficits. My connection comes in as your first point with growth in that I don't want the economic recovery to be diverted to serve those that have benefited most from the last 30 years of growth.
Generally you want to solve these problems before they turn into a crisis :p
Of course. I would call our current economic situation a crisis though. So, I say we deal with the crisis we do have as opposed to the crisis we may have in the future.
On March 06 2013 05:06 oneofthem wrote: some of these budget outlays were already made ahead of time and altering them would cause some trauma, resulting in layoffs and so forth.
the problem with the republican proposal seems to be an expansion of executive power to make domestic cuts, but not military ones.
I thought the Rep proposal was for power over all cuts and the military fix was a separate bill?
the executive discretion is larger on the domestic side than it is on the military side.
from the wopo article
The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.
it's quite the deviously ingenious move.
A-ha! Thanks, great info!
On March 06 2013 05:55 farvacola wrote:
On March 06 2013 05:33 oneofthem wrote: it's what we would usually call a bait. there's no reason why the entire thing can't be scrapped or made less painful in other ways
Like....oh I don't know.....getting rid of tax loopholes only the super rich can enjoy? Nahhhhhhhh
Obama rejected that in favor of hiking tax rates. Now that rates have risen he wants to revisit that well.
Wealthy's Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013
With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
For a second there, I thought this "wealthy being overtaxed" was a serious concern. Then I realized 30 years ago was the beginning of the Reagan era, which can be considered as a good starting point of all the wealth redistribution to the top. I don't necessarily agree with brute force redistribution, but correcting the regressive nature of "capitalism" with a highly progressive tax structure seems like a reasonable cause. I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
Wealth was redistributed to the top? The new wealth that was created primarily went to the top. That's still a concern, but a different beast altogether.
As for the well running dry, France and the UK haven't been having too much success with their latest top tax brackets. Perhaps we should let the last two tax hikes on the rich take effect and measure the impact before going for round three?
Good point about growth. I still see it as a huge problem that should be corrected, and believe tax rates are an effective tool.
The EU austerity measures are hitting on multiple points. Not only are there tax hikes on the rich, but I believe there are also massive cuts to spending as well, which lowers employment and services for low and middle classes. This isn't a well running dry as much as a self induced drought.
That's not to suggest we shouldn't use a "wait and see" approach when it comes to tax rates, and what we've done is probably too much for now. But I've more than established myself as a person who wants us to focus on economic recovery first and foremost, not somebody that wants to solve some imagined fiscal crisis involving debts and deficits. My connection comes in as your first point with growth in that I don't want the economic recovery to be diverted to serve those that have benefited most from the last 30 years of growth.
Generally you want to solve these problems before they turn into a crisis :p
Of course. I would call our current economic situation a crisis though. So, I say we deal with the crisis we do have as opposed to the crisis we may have in the future.
I don't think of them as mutually exclusive goals.
On March 06 2013 05:06 oneofthem wrote: some of these budget outlays were already made ahead of time and altering them would cause some trauma, resulting in layoffs and so forth.
the problem with the republican proposal seems to be an expansion of executive power to make domestic cuts, but not military ones.
I thought the Rep proposal was for power over all cuts and the military fix was a separate bill?
the executive discretion is larger on the domestic side than it is on the military side.
from the wopo article
The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.
it's quite the deviously ingenious move.
A-ha! Thanks, great info!
On March 06 2013 05:55 farvacola wrote:
On March 06 2013 05:33 oneofthem wrote: it's what we would usually call a bait. there's no reason why the entire thing can't be scrapped or made less painful in other ways
Like....oh I don't know.....getting rid of tax loopholes only the super rich can enjoy? Nahhhhhhhh
Obama rejected that in favor of hiking tax rates. Now that rates have risen he wants to revisit that well.
Wealthy's Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013
With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
For a second there, I thought this "wealthy being overtaxed" was a serious concern. Then I realized 30 years ago was the beginning of the Reagan era, which can be considered as a good starting point of all the wealth redistribution to the top. I don't necessarily agree with brute force redistribution, but correcting the regressive nature of "capitalism" with a highly progressive tax structure seems like a reasonable cause. I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
Wealth was redistributed to the top? The new wealth that was created primarily went to the top. That's still a concern, but a different beast altogether.
As for the well running dry, France and the UK haven't been having too much success with their latest top tax brackets. Perhaps we should let the last two tax hikes on the rich take effect and measure the impact before going for round three?
Good point about growth. I still see it as a huge problem that should be corrected, and believe tax rates are an effective tool.
The EU austerity measures are hitting on multiple points. Not only are there tax hikes on the rich, but I believe there are also massive cuts to spending as well, which lowers employment and services for low and middle classes. This isn't a well running dry as much as a self induced drought.
That's not to suggest we shouldn't use a "wait and see" approach when it comes to tax rates, and what we've done is probably too much for now. But I've more than established myself as a person who wants us to focus on economic recovery first and foremost, not somebody that wants to solve some imagined fiscal crisis involving debts and deficits. My connection comes in as your first point with growth in that I don't want the economic recovery to be diverted to serve those that have benefited most from the last 30 years of growth.
Generally you want to solve these problems before they turn into a crisis :p
Of course. I would call our current economic situation a crisis though. So, I say we deal with the crisis we do have as opposed to the crisis we may have in the future.
I don't think of them as mutually exclusive goals.
Totally not mutually exclusive. That's why we've been talking about reducing the deficit for the last 3 years. Makes sense.
aksfjh says he doesn't want "to solve some imagined fiscal crisis involving debts and deficits". Well, regardless of whether aksfjh wants it solved, we've solved it nonetheless for the next 10 years. Debt to GDP has been stabilized. With the sequester in place, we've done $4 trillion in deficit reduction, which is approximately the same amount as recommended by Simpson-Bowles.
Because of our serious fiscal discipline, the confidence fairy will surely come.
On March 06 2013 05:02 rusedeguerre wrote: Oh, the horrible sequestration! The DEEP cuts which only amount to a decrease in the amount that spending is going to increase, since the government will have a bigger budget this year than the previous! Deep, painful, harsh cuts that will leave us with more spending. Let the fear mongering begin!
It would, according to the president on Tuesday, “jeopardize military readiness ... eviscerate job creating investments in education and energy and research ... emergency responders ... border agents ... FBI agents...federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go ... air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks ... more delays at airports across the country ... thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off ... tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care ... hundreds of thousands will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings,” and the list went on.
The media is doing their best to drum up the horrors and the chaos that results of taking a dime away from the federal government. Thousands are expected to die, children starve to death, police sit by while cities are looted and ransacked. The horrors.
"There’s a lot of posturing — ‘I’m going to lay off my employees today unless you do something. We’re going to close the hospitals down. We're going to take all the prisoners from jail and put them on the street. Spare me. I live in that world. I mean come on, let's get serious here."
-Michael Bloomberg
The government is doing their best to drum up the horrors as well. From Janet Napolitano blatantly lying about longer lines at the airports, to Barack Obama blatantly lying that the janitors where he is giving his speech are going to have their pay cut, which the Washington Post gave four pinocchio's.
Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week. But this error is particularly bad--and nerve-wracking to the janitors and security guards who were misled by the president’s comments.
We originally thought this was maybe a Two Pinocchio rating, but in light of the AOC memo and the confirmation that security guards will not face a pay cut, nothing in Obama’s statement came close to being correct.
Ms. Napolitano also cited Chicago’s O’Hare and Atlanta’s Hartfield-Jackson airports as suffering from security checkpoint lines that were “150 to 200 percent as long as we would normally expect” at a recent meeting to discuss sequester fallout.
The Telegraph reported Tuesday, however, that officials with these very same airports denied any longer lines or airline delays.
Oh, and sequestration will leave us more vulnerable to attack, yeah, that's the ticket!
Meanwhile government is trying to make the cuts as painful as possible. The only thing that can be cut in the multi-trillion dollar government budget is food for starving children, police, etc. They punish the American people, let's close Yosemite National Park this spring, one of the favorite national parks in the nation, that will show them. "This is what you get when you decrease the increase in our spending."
"It's so terrible, we don't even have any discretion in where the cuts take place!" Oh wait, that is another bald faced lie. And of course the media doesn't do much reporting on the fact that Republicans offered a bill giving the president more discretion in where the cuts take place, and the White House and Democrats rejected it. Because obviously the White House wants to use the cuts as a bat to swing against Republicans. Duh!
Today, Senate Republicans are pushing legislation that would hand Obama a scalpel rather than a meat cleaver. The Toomey-Inhofe alternative would give the president discretion to allocate the sequester’s cut largely as he sees fit.
The bottom line is that Republican bill makes the sequester easier to live with, and the White House doesn’t want the sequester to be easier to live with. The point of these poorly constructed spending cuts, in the White House’s view, is that they’re hard to live with, and that forces both sides to compromise. Making the sequester a bit better makes it much harder to replace.
The chart you produced is misleading. Sure the sequester looks like roughly 2% of the budget as it is, but take out SS and Medicare, they are programs that are non-discretionary spending, we pay in money that we get back later. The government spent $1338 billion in discretionary spending last year, yet it had $2252 billion in mandatory spending of which $1605 was SS and Medicare.
So by only looking at discretionary spending suddenly the sequester is over 6% of the budget. Then realize that some federal programs are exempt from the sequester. So these draconian cuts hit some programs incredibly hard, so hard that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the sequester would cost 750,000 jobs. That isn't a joke.
Both sides agreed to the sequester, because they knew it would force them to work together to cut spending, and both sides never thought it would actually happen when the bill was passed by Congress and signed by the President. Unfortunately it happened.
Why? Because Republicans continue to refuse to close a single tax loophole for the rich in order to reduce the deficit, and prefer to cut programs that help the poor and middle class... And Obama refuses to consider an alternative where taxes do not go up the rich.
But then realize that 1% of the country owns 40% of the wealth. While the poor and middle class (80% of the nation) owns just 7% of the wealth. Do we really need to squeeze the 80% more?
But the top 20% who own 93% of the wealth, should receive the tax loopholes they enjoy because the money "trickles down" right? Actually, most of the money the 20% own ends up as a drag on the economy because it gets shipped off to offshore accounts which have lower tax rates...
And the Toomey-Inhofe alternative is a joke. It basically puts the burden on Obama to decide where the cuts go and how much, and absolves Republicans from having to work with Democrats for an alternative (and of course it allows Republicans in next election to say "Obama unilaterally cut this key program X percent"!). That is not the solution. The solution is to get both sides to see the reality of the situation. Toomey-Inhofe alternative is political theater.
There is a reason every other first world country has higher tax rates on the rich, and uses that to fund the government. If you raised taxes 4% on the 80% of Americans in the poor and middle class, you'd raise 30% less income than if you raised taxes 1% on the richest 1% of Americans. Simple math. And raising taxes on the rich doesn't lead to the economic hardships that raising taxes on the middle class and poor does. If taxes on billionaires went up 1%, they would still buy ketchup, still go out to eat, still buy fancy cars and houses, and would still have a reason to keep their investments and businesses doing well. But you can't say the same for the 80% when their taxes go up 4%. Suddenly, people eat out less, which means restaurants and those employed by restaurants take a hit, people don't buy new cars and the car industry takes a hit, and more people working in those industries lose their job and take a pay cut, and then they can't buy daily staples of life and the whole things snowballs... into recession.
And even after the recent tax hike, Warren Buffett admitted he still pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. And that isn't Obama's fault... but yeah we can't close any tax loopholes right to raise income, we have to cut the budget right?
Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor.
^^^ i just saw and re-posted that video. i had an idea, but it was not that ridiculous. makes me wish we were socialist, because we would all be well above middle class. that is, if ALL the money were evenly distributed. of course, how do you make more then...
I feel a lot of citizens in the US don't realize what it truely means to be socialist. If I compare the income tax brackets of the US to a pretty socialist country like my own (NL). ( I'm not very familiar with US income tax so I took the info from wiki )
As you can see the lowest tax bracket in NL is almost as high as the highest tax bracket in the US. For the 3rd tax bracket in the US for 25% you would already fall in the highest tax bracket in NL.
What I want to say is is that socialism isn't just taxing for the rich but in countries like NL it's also taxing the middle class. In fact a lot of the taxes in NL hit the middle class the hardest and don't hit the rich all that much since they have their money somewhere else anyway.
Just wanted to show you folks the other side of the fence too and that it's not as cracked up as it looks like.
Why don't you include the nice list of social services, healthcare, and education that go along with those higher tax rates? That is, if you truly want to show us folks on the other side of the fence how things really are.
On March 06 2013 21:07 paralleluniverse wrote: Because of our serious fiscal discipline, the confidence fairy will surely come.
Stockmarket is back to all time highs. If you want something more substantial look to the housing recovery. Housing Starts
On March 07 2013 01:57 BronzeKnee wrote: Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor.
Taxes and spending has already shifted over the past few decades to place a greater tax burden on the rich and give greater benefits to the poor.
I already thought I was going to but after today I'm definitely backing Rand Paul in 2016. One of the few politicians left who bullshits less than 50% of the time and actually stands up for what he believes in. A real filibuster in the Senate? Good gracious I didn't think anyone had the balls to do that anymore.
On March 07 2013 04:00 farvacola wrote: Why don't you include the nice list of social services, healthcare, and education that go along with those higher tax rates? That is, if you truly want to show us folks on the other side of the fence how things really are.
Of course it's a trade off just saying you'll have to pay a lot for it too.
@ Velr
How are we not socialist? NL is like Scandinavia in that regard.
On March 07 2013 01:57 BronzeKnee wrote: Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor.
Taxes and spending has already shifted over the past few decades to place a greater tax burden on the rich and give greater benefits to the poor.
The "greater tax burden on the rich" is simply a misdirection to what has actually happened. Since most of the growth has gone to them, most of the increased revenue has come from them. At the same time, much of welfare has become means-tested and adjusted to prevent abuse and fraud.
I mean, come on. Which story seems more likely?
Rich people are more productive and the government wants to take that away so lazy people can be more lazy.
Rich people have used their power and leverage to slowly take more of the wealth, pushing more and more people into relative poverty.
I'll go ahead and tell you the latter is historically/logically consistent and fits human nature fairly well.
While taxes may have been shifted to place greater burden on the rich, I thought the whole discussion over the last year was regarding the rich's ability to utilize loopholes or move their money into less taxed environments?
On March 07 2013 01:57 BronzeKnee wrote: Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor.
Taxes and spending has already shifted over the past few decades to place a greater tax burden on the rich and give greater benefits to the poor.
On March 06 2013 21:07 paralleluniverse wrote: Because of our serious fiscal discipline, the confidence fairy will surely come.
Stockmarket is back to all time highs. If you want something more substantial look to the housing recovery. Housing Starts
On March 07 2013 01:57 BronzeKnee wrote: Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor.
Taxes and spending has already shifted over the past few decades to place a greater tax burden on the rich and give greater benefits to the poor.
The "greater tax burden on the rich" is simply a misdirection to what has actually happened. Since most of the growth has gone to them, most of the increased revenue has come from them. At the same time, much of welfare has become means-tested and adjusted to prevent abuse and fraud.
I mean, come on. Which story seems more likely?
Rich people are more productive and the government wants to take that away so lazy people can be more lazy.
Rich people have used their power and leverage to slowly take more of the wealth, pushing more and more people into relative poverty.
I'll go ahead and tell you the latter is historically/logically consistent and fits human nature fairly well.
Couldn't it be just as feasible that both are true? I guess your first statement is worded in a way that makes you have to say its false... the government doesn't take away for the purpose of enabling "lazy" people, but couldn't it be doing that unintentionally?
On March 06 2013 21:07 paralleluniverse wrote: Because of our serious fiscal discipline, the confidence fairy will surely come.
Stockmarket is back to all time highs. If you want something more substantial look to the housing recovery. Housing Starts
On March 07 2013 01:57 BronzeKnee wrote: Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor.
Taxes and spending has already shifted over the past few decades to place a greater tax burden on the rich and give greater benefits to the poor.
The "greater tax burden on the rich" is simply a misdirection to what has actually happened. Since most of the growth has gone to them, most of the increased revenue has come from them. At the same time, much of welfare has become means-tested and adjusted to prevent abuse and fraud.
I mean, come on. Which story seems more likely?
Rich people are more productive and the government wants to take that away so lazy people can be more lazy.
Rich people have used their power and leverage to slowly take more of the wealth, pushing more and more people into relative poverty.
I'll go ahead and tell you the latter is historically/logically consistent and fits human nature fairly well.
Couldn't it be just as feasible that both are true? I guess your first statement is worded in a way that makes you have to say its false... the government doesn't take away for the purpose of enabling "lazy" people, but couldn't it be doing that unintentionally?
That would be making an assumption that there are more lazy people and those lazy people are even lazier now. At the same time, rich people are just that much more beneficial to society than they used to be. It requires a fundamental shift in how humans seem to be, which just doesn't make sense. In fact, it makes as little sense as the idea that the poor influence policy so much that they were able to tilt it into their favor.
On March 06 2013 21:07 paralleluniverse wrote: Because of our serious fiscal discipline, the confidence fairy will surely come.
Stockmarket is back to all time highs. If you want something more substantial look to the housing recovery. Housing Starts
On March 07 2013 01:57 BronzeKnee wrote: Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor.
Taxes and spending has already shifted over the past few decades to place a greater tax burden on the rich and give greater benefits to the poor.
The "greater tax burden on the rich" is simply a misdirection to what has actually happened. Since most of the growth has gone to them, most of the increased revenue has come from them. At the same time, much of welfare has become means-tested and adjusted to prevent abuse and fraud.
I mean, come on. Which story seems more likely?
Rich people are more productive and the government wants to take that away so lazy people can be more lazy.
Rich people have used their power and leverage to slowly take more of the wealth, pushing more and more people into relative poverty.
I'll go ahead and tell you the latter is historically/logically consistent and fits human nature fairly well.
Couldn't it be just as feasible that both are true? I guess your first statement is worded in a way that makes you have to say its false... the government doesn't take away for the purpose of enabling "lazy" people, but couldn't it be doing that unintentionally?
Pretty sure that, if I wanted to, I could find the statistics that show that Americans are working more than they were 30 years ago for less than they were 30 years ago.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/58016/thumbs/s-BUSH-large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T7SZ9ZX.jpg)
