So Donald McTrump unveiled his ridiculous tax plan, claiming it will be revenue neutral. Anyone who has had even a cursory glance at it can see that tax revenues will plummet, meaning the deficit will soar.
Every Republican President over the last 50 years has raised the deficit during their Presidency. In fact, there are only two Presidents in the last 50 years that have actually lowered the deficit. The problem is they all want to slash taxes, but they aren't willing to slash spending. Or at least not near as much as they slash taxes. This of course leads to a rising deficit. The more the deficit rises, the faster the debt rises. The higher the debt, the more way have to pay in interest on the debt. This is basic Economics.
Of all the Republicans running who have promised to slash taxes, none have made a convincing argument that they will cut spending as much as tax revenues. I can't see the deficit not rising under any of them.
Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
So Donald McTrump unveiled his ridiculous tax plan, claiming it will be revenue neutral. Anyone who has had even a cursory glance at it can see that tax revenues will plummet, meaning the deficit will soar.
Every Republican President over the last 50 years has raised the deficit during their Presidency. In fact, there are only two Presidents in the last 50 years that have actually lowered the deficit. The problem is they all want to slash taxes, but they aren't willing to slash spending. Or at least not near as much as they slash taxes. This of course leads to a rising deficit. The more the deficit rises, the faster the debt rises. The higher the debt, the more way have to pay in interest on the debt. This is basic Economics.
Of all the Republicans running who have promised to slash taxes, none have made a convincing argument that they will cut spending as much as tax revenues. I can't see the deficit not rising under any of them.
Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?
Have you tried knowing what you're talking about?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/sen-ted-cruz-top-priority-abolish-irs
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:58:22 AM
Have you tried knowing what you're talking about?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/sen-ted-cruz-top-priority-abolish-irs
No. Abolishing the IRS (which will never happen anyways, it's empty rhetoric) will not cut spending as much as Cruz's plan would cut taxes.
Now, does anyone have a serious, realistic plan that would cut the deficit and maybe even give us our first surplus in 15 years.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:10:34 AM
No.
Yes.
Quote
Abolishing the IRS (which will never happen anyways, it's empty rhetoric)
No it isn't. It is very doable, and isn't rhetoric.
Quote
will not cut spending as much as Cruz's plan would cut taxes.
Abolishing the IRS wouldn't affect spending?
Quote
Now, does anyone have a serious, realistic plan that would cut the deficit and maybe even give us our first surplus in 15 years.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/8-questions-about-the-media-with-rising-gop-star-ted-cruz/#ixzz25W1W1KVl
QuoteCruz: My first priority in the U.S. Senate will be to help lead the fight to repeal every single word of Obamacare. And that, come January, is going to be an epic battle. That's not going to be easy to accomplish. My second priority will be to lead the effort to bring people together to dramatically shrink the size, power and spending of the federal government. And a critical element of that, and what I would list as third, is to help lead the effort to pass a strong balanced budget amendment, so that the constitution can serve actually as Thomas Jefferson put it: as chains to bind the mischief of government.
TheDC: How do you come down on eliminating specific federal cabinet agencies and departments? Do you have specific ones you'd like to see thrown out?
Cruz: I am all for it. We're in a crisis. Our national debt is larger than our gross domestic product. We are barreling down the road to where Greece and Italy and much of Europe find themselves. And we need serious leadership to stop it. I think we should shrink the size and power of the federal government by every and any means possible. What does that mean?
That means eliminating unnecessary or unconstitutional agencies. The first agency I would eliminate would be the U.S. Department of Education. I think education is far too important to be governed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington. I think it should be at the state level, or even better, at the local level where parents have direct influence over the education of our kids.
I would eliminate the U.S. Department of Commerce. I would eliminate the U.S. Department of Energy. I would eliminate the National Endowment of the Arts. I think the arts are terrific. But I see no reason why unelected bureaucrats spend your and mine tax dollars on arts they happen to like.
And the agency I'd most like to eliminate is the IRS through fundamental tax reform.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
So Donald McTrump unveiled his ridiculous tax plan, claiming it will be revenue neutral. Anyone who has had even a cursory glance at it can see that tax revenues will plummet, meaning the deficit will soar.
Every Republican President over the last 50 years has raised the deficit during their Presidency. In fact, there are only two Presidents in the last 50 years that have actually lowered the deficit. The problem is they all want to slash taxes, but they aren't willing to slash spending. Or at least not near as much as they slash taxes. This of course leads to a rising deficit. The more the deficit rises, the faster the debt rises. The higher the debt, the more way have to pay in interest on the debt. This is basic Economics.
Of all the Republicans running who have promised to slash taxes, none have made a convincing argument that they will cut spending as much as tax revenues. I can't see the deficit not rising under any of them.
Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?
Therein lies the issue. It's not so much the system, rather us, for electing frauds.
Just changing the name of the arena where Caligula slaughtered for entertainment, does absolutely nothing to change the end result.
Tare down the arena, take away their power to hold such an event.
In other words, a fair/flat tax eliminates this as Cruz proposes.
The State takes it's cut first, thereby eliminating the threat of noncompliance the Fed uses in holding States captive.
Trumps plan does absolutely nothing to change the game.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?
In 2017 with Cruz, as I optimistically look at it.
He'll be elected on an anti-spending mandate. It won't be a remorseful case of
What is he doing now?, once he begins the process of eliminating unnecessary Cabinet Departments.
For example, the IRS would become a bookkeeping & resource firm. The
audit, as a weapon, is gone. So is the mystery of 'what you owe'... Because right now, we're relying on their word. Cruz is simply abiding by the 16th Amendment. As far as the Internal Revenue Code; Title 26, he'll have a Congress that will tweak the Subtitles:
Subtitle A—Income Taxes (§§ 1–1564)
Subtitle B—Estate and Gift Taxes (§§ 2001–2801)
Subtitle C—Employment Taxes (§§ 3101–3510)
Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Excise Taxes (§§ 4001–5000C)
Subtitle E—Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes (§§ 5001–5891)
Subtitle F—Procedure and Administration (§§ 6001–7874)
Subtitle G—The Joint Committee on Taxation (§§ 8001–8023)
Subtitle H—Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns (§§ 9001–9042)
Subtitle I—Trust Fund Code (§§ 9500–9602)
Subtitle J—Coal Industry Health Benefits (§§ 9701–9722)
Subtitle K—Group Health Plan Requirements (§§ 9801–9834)
There's no need of a giant, lumbering IRS to sort it all out. They're in-peril of Americans 'unlearning' about them. Once eliminated, they can never be 'learned about' again.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:49:03 AM
Yes.
No it isn't. It is very doable, and isn't rhetoric.
Abolishing the IRS wouldn't affect spending?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/8-questions-about-the-media-with-rising-gop-star-ted-cruz/#ixzz25W1W1KVl
Why do these Trumpets glom onto one issue as if that's all hat matters, and completely ignore the fact that this guy is a known liar.
Sure, Trump passes it off as "evolving" on the issues, but the obvious truth is, he has Zero Values and will change his mind like a Fall breeze changes direction.
These people remind me of the idiots that buy cars because they're pretty, never once inquiring about the manufacturers history of recalls.
"But it's pretty and gets great mileage". No, it's still a Yugo, and the mileage is tabulated using a yearly average against cars that actually run.
Sure, a car that spends more time in repair is going to use less fuel. :biggrin:
Regardless of the tax plan and who occupies the WH, the plan must clear CONgress first. Unless the makeup changes drastically in 2016, I really don't see any tax cuts making it through! Abolishing the IRS, as is proposed with the flat tax, will be a tough sell in CONgress, especially the one we have now. The caveat with all tax cuts is reducing spending along with or before reducing taxes. But it has to start by electing conservatives, not democrats or RINO's to Congress. If we don't, it's just more of the same.
Quote from: tac on September 29, 2015, 04:19:16 AM
Regardless of the tax plan and who occupies the WH, the plan must clear CONgress first. Unless the makeup changes drastically in 2016, I really don't see any tax cuts making it through! Abolishing the IRS, as is proposed with the flat tax, will be a tough sell in CONgress, especially the one we have now. The caveat with all tax cuts is reducing spending along with or before reducing taxes. But it has to start by electing conservatives, not democrats or RINO's to Congress. If we don't, it's just more of the same.
You're right Tac, the POTUS does not write law, so his proposal is nothing more than Trumptalk, in other words, bull shit.
You are incredibly naive. You probably believe in "trickle down economics" too.
If you eliminate the IRS, some other agency is going to have to carry out the functions currently performed by the IRS (like auditing to ensure people aren't cheating on their taxes). And there is no reason to believe such agency would be any more cost effective than the IRS is today.
So No.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 05:10:38 AM
You are incredibly naive. You probably believe in "trickle down economics" too.
If you eliminate the IRS, some other agency is going to have to carry out the functions currently performed by the IRS (like auditing to ensure people aren't cheating on their taxes). And there is no reason to believe such agency would be any more cost effective than the IRS is today.
So No.
The only one here that's naive is you and your inability to grasp the concept that paying a tax at time of purchase has zero chance of cheating, as in the Fair tax system.
A system that would essentially eliminate the IRS.
How do you cheat on Flat or Fair tax?
QuoteFlat tax. A flat tax is exactly what it sounds like: a consistent tax rate applied to all tax brackets. A true flat tax would mean, as Dr. Carson explained, that everyone would pay the same tax rate regardless of income (he suggested 10% since that "works for God"). Flat taxes are usually imposed on wages only, meaning that there's no tax on capital gains or investments. Russia is considered to be the world's largest economy with a flat tax (some of the Baltic states also have a flat tax).
People like a flat tax because it feels more fair: everyone pays the same percentage of tax across the board. A flat tax is more simple and should mean that there would be less call for taxpayers to pay to have returns prepared; some suggest that it would completely eliminate the need for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Flat taxes are also supported in the business and investment communities since dividends, distributions, capital gains and other income not tied to wages are generally exempt from tax: this should spur investment and savings.
QuoteFair Tax. The Fair Tax is capitalized for a reason: it's a formal proposal rather than a generic term. It differs from both the progressive income tax system and the flat tax in a very dramatic way: it is not a tax on income. The Fair Tax would replace all existing income taxes – as well as payroll taxes – with a single consumption tax. The tax, as proposed, would be a 30% tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to a "prebate." The "prebate" is akin to a refund and is offered at the beginning of each month so that certain purchases are essentially tax-free.
People like a Fair Tax because it eliminates taxes on payroll and income: taxpayers get to keep their entire check and won't have to make those dreaded estimated payments. It's considered more fair than a progressive income tax since taxpayers are taxed on consumption of goods and services which are, on some level, expenditures that can be controlled at will (the exception being necessities which are not exempt under the Fair Tax). Additionally, since certain kinds of goods and services are always going to be in demand, a tax on consumption is considered more stable than a tax on wages. All taxpayers would be subject to the tax, including those that are engaging in illegal activities. People also like a Fair Tax because, since retailers would collect and remit taxes directly to the Treasury, the IRS could be eliminated.
source (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/08/07/our-current-tax-v-the-flat-tax-v-the-fair-tax-whats-the-difference/)
One of the best ways to reduce spending is reduce the govt, no more Hot tubbing Las Vegas Junkets for GS 15's and no more $500 hammers bought by GSA.
Combing agencies is the best way to start. I'd put the EPA in with the Dept of energy and make them both figure out a way to get private energy production on a mass and efficient scale, thus reducing the budget of both agencies. Then I'd start in on their resources and start taking away their vehicles and give them bikes or skateboards, no more drones, no more guns and ammo, no more playing cowboys or cops and robbers, no more enforcement of your own regulations and stand down from all enforcement until some of these restrictive destructive regs are stricken from the books.
Back off the regs and lets get the coal, oil, natural gas industries up and running and create some jobs.
I'd auction just about everything they have to the public and pay off the national debt.
Off course I wouldn't stop with these two agencies but DEFUND AS MANY AS I COULD AND AUCTION OFF THEIR RESOURCES (iNCLUDING BUILDINGS) AS WEll. GOVT HIRING FREEZE!!!!!!!!
I personally favor a flat tax like ten percent, make some new start up businesses (especially in the energy field) tax exempt for three years. And watch the Corps return from overseas and watch the jobs take off.
MORE JOBS....MORE TAX REVENUE, Less regulation and Govt Poobahs to enforce them the more revenue in the kitty, maybe start paying down the national debt.
Now the only people I've heard say ANYTHING like this and support a flat tax is TED CRUZ and Perhaps Rand Paul.
Of course the rino and ht eleftists are gonna fight it tooth and nail...thats why you need somebody with string leadership skills and the proper moral conceince to back it up.
Donald Trump....who functions more as a dictator within his organizations has neither, for that matter none of the other R candidates are any better.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 29, 2015, 05:54:40 AM
One of the best ways to reduce spending is reduce the govt, no more Hot tubbing Las Vegas Junkets for GS 15's and no more $500 hammers bought by GSA.
Combing agencies is the best way to start. I'd put the EPA in with the Dept of energy and make them both figure out a way to get private energy production on a mass and efficient scale, thus reducing the budget of both agencies. Then I'd start in on their resources and start taking away their vehicles and give them bikes or skateboards, no more drones, no more guns and ammo, no more playing cowboys or cops and robbers, no more enforcement of your own regulations and stand down from all enforcement until some of these restrictive destructive regs are stricken from the books.
Back off the regs and lets get the coal, oil, natural gas industries up and running and create some jobs.
I'd auction just about everything they have to the public and pay off the national debt.
Off course I wouldn't stop with these two agencies but DEFUND AS MANY AS I COULD AND AUCTION OFF THEIR RESOURCES (iNCLUDING BUILDINGS) AS WEll. GOVT HIRING FREEZE!!!!!!!!
I personally favor a flat tax like ten percent, make some new start up businesses (especially in the energy field) tax exempt for three years. And watch the Corps return from overseas and watch the jobs take off.
MORE JOBS....MORE TAX REVENUE, Less regulation and Govt Poobahs to enforce them the more revenue in the kitty, maybe start paying down the national debt.
Now the only people I've heard say ANYTHING like this and support a flat tax is TED CRUZ and Perhaps Rand Paul.
Of course the rino and ht eleftists are gonna fight it tooth and nail...thats why you need somebody with string leadership skills and the proper moral conceince to back it up.
Donald Trump....who functions more as a dictator within his organizations has neither, for that matter none of the other R candidates are any better.
The country would change almost instantly with a plan like that.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 05:10:38 AM
You are incredibly naive.
I am. This whole time, I figured even liberals could understand first grade economics. I was wrong.
QuoteYou probably believe in "trickle down economics" too.
Yes. Rich people spend money. I know you disagree, but it's actually true.
Quote
If you eliminate the IRS, some other agency is going to have to carry out the functions currently performed by the IRS (like auditing to ensure people aren't cheating on their taxes). And there is no reason to believe such agency would be any more cost effective than the IRS is today.
Wrong.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 29, 2015, 05:54:40 AM
One of the best ways to reduce spending is reduce the govt, no more Hot tubbing Las Vegas Junkets for GS 15's and no more $500 hammers bought by GSA.
Combing agencies is the best way to start. I'd put the EPA in with the Dept of energy and make them both figure out a way to get private energy production on a mass and efficient scale, thus reducing the budget of both agencies. Then I'd start in on their resources and start taking away their vehicles and give them bikes or skateboards, no more drones, no more guns and ammo, no more playing cowboys or cops and robbers, no more enforcement of your own regulations and stand down from all enforcement until some of these restrictive destructive regs are stricken from the books.
Back off the regs and lets get the coal, oil, natural gas industries up and running and create some jobs.
I'd auction just about everything they have to the public and pay off the national debt.
Off course I wouldn't stop with these two agencies but DEFUND AS MANY AS I COULD AND AUCTION OFF THEIR RESOURCES (iNCLUDING BUILDINGS) AS WEll. GOVT HIRING FREEZE!!!!!!!!
I personally favor a flat tax like ten percent, make some new start up businesses (especially in the energy field) tax exempt for three years. And watch the Corps return from overseas and watch the jobs take off.
MORE JOBS....MORE TAX REVENUE, Less regulation and Govt Poobahs to enforce them the more revenue in the kitty, maybe start paying down the national debt.
Now the only people I've heard say ANYTHING like this and support a flat tax is TED CRUZ and Perhaps Rand Paul.
Of course the rino and ht eleftists are gonna fight it tooth and nail...thats why you need somebody with string leadership skills and the proper moral conceince to back it up.
Donald Trump....who functions more as a dictator within his organizations has neither, for that matter none of the other R candidates are any better.
You describe the Constitution Party's tax policy except for the fair tax. The Federal government should not tax it's citizens that is infringing on states rights.
Of the many problems with the fair tax the worst is that the Fair Tax continues and expands the welfare state by establishing a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) provided to every registered household, regardless of income, which, if implemented, would constitute the single largest entitlement program in American history.
Quote from: Amred on September 29, 2015, 08:01:22 AM
You describe the Constitution Party's tax policy except for the fair tax. The Federal government should not tax it's citizens that is infringing on states rights.
Of the many problems with the fair tax the worst is that the Fair Tax continues and expands the welfare state by establishing a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) provided to every registered household, regardless of income, which, if implemented, would constitute the single largest entitlement program in American history.
Wrong.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 08:02:35 AM
Wrong.
How many sock puppets are going to come in and post?
Quote from: walkstall on September 29, 2015, 08:12:59 AM
How many sock puppets are going to come in and post?
Can't they at least send us a halfway smart one???
Quote from: Amred on September 29, 2015, 08:01:22 AM
Of the many problems with the fair tax the worst is that the Fair Tax continues and expands the welfare state by establishing a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) provided to every registered household, regardless of income, which, if implemented, would constitute the single largest entitlement program in American history.
The FCA's tied to a mythical (in my opinion) 'poverty level', set by HHS. It assumes I'm going to spend a pre-set amount on necessities. Cruz's plan eliminates the Government deciding what a family's necessities are. You buy a Suzuki King-Quad instead of groceries, you pay a tax on the King-Quad.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 08:17:03 AM
Can't they at least send us a halfway smart one???
They don't even look around. Just log in and post. :lol:
Quote from: Amred on September 29, 2015, 08:01:22 AM
Of the many problems with the fair tax the worst is that the Fair Tax continues and expands the welfare state by establishing a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) provided to every registered household, regardless of income, which, if implemented, would constitute the single largest entitlement program in American history.
Where the Hell do you get this crap?
The Fairtax is an end of sale tax, exactly in the same way you pay a sales tax now.
There is no such animal as a (FCA), never was and never will be. The State collects the tax at the register, takes it's cut off the top and sends the the rest to the fed.
Family Consumption Allowance
When you speak of the impact of taxes you tend to talk about whether they are progressive or regressive. Progressive taxes tend to tax the rich more than the poor, regressive taxes tend to tax the poor more than the rich. Sales taxes are usually seen as regressive because the poor must spend a greater percentage of their income on necessities than the rich, and thus have a greater portion of their income subject to taxation. In the past state governments have tried to overcome the regressivity of sales taxes by exempting necessities (like food). This inevidibly has led to market distortions and political manuevering for businesses to get their goods in a 'necessity' category. The FairTax takes a different approach to eliminating the regressivity of a sales tax.
The FairTax introduces a Family Consumption Allowance (FCA). The FCA is a check sent each month to each household registering to receive it (registration is voluntary) to reimburse the amount of sales taxes paid if that household spent up to the poverty level as specified by the department of Health and Human Services. This is how the FairTax 'exempts' necessities. It presumes that every household must spend up to the poverty line in order to purchase necessities and then refunds that portion of tax. The FCA would be administered by the Social Security Administration, which is quite proficient at sending out monthly checks. Complete details on the FCA can be found in the bill HR25 Chapter 3.
This is from 2004.
source (http://fairtaxblog.blogspot.com/2004/09/family-consumption-allowance.html)
Quote from: walkstall on September 29, 2015, 08:35:26 AM
They don't even look around. Just log in and post. :lol:
:lol: :lol:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgbqtqqftswbdrbxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fbsqdtbfbwxbsssdrrfb%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Ftalktoyoursockpuppet300x442-vi.jpg&hash=88f0eb9bc95d63f5e8e3075d09f941dfedfeed71)
Amred doesn't quite understand how the FairTax works.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 10:51:46 AM
Amred doesn't quite understand how the FairTax works.
I think he has VAT confused with Fairtax.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 10:57:40 AM
I think he has VAT confused with Fairtax.
He's doing the same thing stupid people have been doing for years with the FairTax, trying to misrepresent it. He's talking about the prebate. The FairTax doesn't tax the basic necessities. So, when that amount is sent back, he calls it a subsidy, even though it's a reimbursement. He simply has no idea what he's talking about and is just parroting something he was told.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 11:04:36 AM
He's doing the same thing stupid people have been doing for years with the FairTax, trying to misrepresent it. He's talking about the prebate. The FairTax doesn't tax the basic necessities. So, when that amount is sent back, he calls it a subsidy, even though it's a reimbursement. He simply has no idea what he's talking about and is just parroting something he was told.
I see. What he's refering to is a bastardized version of the Far Tax, called the Fairer Tax, which is just another way of keeping the IRS intact.
Like you said, necessities aren't taxed, such as food, consumables as in medicines.
In the true Fair Tax system, the only ones being taxed are those purchasing new products, while a poorer person simply avoids all tax by buying used.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 11:11:19 AM
I see. What he's refering to is a bastardized version of the Far Tax, called the Fairer Tax, which is just another way of keeping the IRS intact.
Like you said, necessities aren't taxed, such as food, consumables as in medicines.
In the true Fair Tax system, the only ones being taxed are those purchasing new products, while a poorer person simply avoids all tax by buying used.
Exactly. So, the stupid people who told him what to parrot and think have no idea what they're talking about, hence why he doesn't.
Scenario 1: Don't collect the tax in the first place. Government takes $0. Amred doesn't call that a subsidy.
Scenario 2: Do collect the $100, but send it back. Government has $0. Amred calls that subsidy/welfare.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 11:16:36 AM
Exactly. So, the stupid people who told him what to parrot and think have no idea what they're talking about, hence why he doesn't.
Scenario 1: Don't collect the tax in the first place. Government takes $0. Amred doesn't call that a subsidy.
Scenario 2: Do collect the $100, but send it back. Government has $0. Amred calls that subsidy/welfare.
Which is the beauty of the true Fair Tax, there is no subsidy or returns. They either buy new and pay a tax, or buy used, where there is no tax, because it was paid by the original purchaser, otherwise it's double taxation.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 11:24:16 AM
Which is the beauty of the true Fair Tax, there is no subsidy or returns. They either buy new and pay a tax, or buy used, where there is no tax, because it was paid by the original purchaser, otherwise it's double taxation.
The FairTax was a passion of mine back in my 20s. It always made perfect sense to me, and I did a lot of research and studying of it. It always amazed me how people are uncomfortable with the concept of the IRS going away, so they try and fight the FairTax. It always seems to boil down to the understanding that your earnings are yours, and DO NOT belong to the government. That's another side-effect of Stockholm Syndrome Marxism.
What also always amazed me was the frequency of people who have no clue about economics, or the FairTax, jump in and just continually misrepresent it. They have no idea the extent of research that went into it by many, many smart people. So, these dummies come along and think they have the silver bullet with no clue how their retort has been slapped down a million times and just end up looking like the clueless fools they are.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 11:34:34 AM
The FairTax was a passion of mine back in my 20s. It always made perfect sense to me, and I did a lot of research and studying of it. It always amazed me how people are uncomfortable with the concept of the IRS going away, so they try and fight the FairTax. It always seems to boil down to the understanding that your earnings are yours, and DO NOT belong to the government. That's another side-effect of Stockholm Syndrome Marxism.
What also always amazed me was the frequency of people who have no clue about economics, or the FairTax, jump in and just continually misrepresent it. They have no idea the extent of research that went into it by many, many smart people. So, these dummies come along and think they have the silver bullet with no clue how their retort has been slapped down a million times and just end up looking like the clueless fools they are.
Couldn't agree more. They're the quintessential LiV/Lib. Naive, emotional and in most cases kids.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 05:14:23 AM
The only one here that's naive is you and your inability to grasp the concept that paying a tax at time of purchase has zero chance of cheating, as in the Fair tax system.
A system that would essentially eliminate the IRS.
Wow. You really don't know what you are talking about. Fortunately for the politicians, most Americans are gullible like you. The pols depend on it.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 07:14:04 AM
I am. This whole time, I figured even liberals could understand first grade economics. I was wrong.
Yes. Rich people spend money. I know you disagree, but it's actually true.
Wrong.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's been proven for more than three decades that "trickle down economics" DOES NOT WORK. Bush Sr. even called it "voodoo economics". If something has not been working for more than 30 years and you still believe in it......
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 12:13:32 PM
Wow. You really don't know what you are talking about. Fortunately for the politicians, most Americans are gullible like you. The pols depend on it.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.threadbombing.com%2Fdata%2Fmedia%2F2%2FTHISGONBGUD.gif&hash=cc2ff57ab54db85d5c8fe115380824be80516c31)
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 12:17:06 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's been proven for more than three decades that "trickle down economics" DOES NOT WORK.
Wrong.
Quote
Bush Sr. even called it "voodoo economics".
So?
Quote
If something has not been working for more than 30 years and you still believe in it......
Sorry. Rich people spend money, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. You're in the low IQ minority who thinks poverty improves the economy. Supply and demand has been established for a long time.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/15/news/economy/trickle-down-theory-wrong-imf/
QuoteWealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.
QuoteThe researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.
This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.
Anybody who still believes in "trickle down economics" should be permanently relegated to the short bus.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 12:13:32 PM
Wow. You really don't know what you are talking about. Fortunately for the politicians, most Americans are gullible like you. The pols depend on it.
You know you're still wrong, right?
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 12:20:32 PM
Wrong.
So?
Sorry. Rich people spend money, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. You're in the low IQ minority who thinks poverty improves the economy. Supply and demand has been established for a long time.
Show me these studies proving that "trickle down economics" works. I just posted a link to a study proving that it doesn't work.
"Trickle down" evidently refers to those pissing on others.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 12:21:20 PM
You know you're still wrong, right?
Give me some links to this proof that voodoo economics works. You saying that it works does not make it so.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 12:23:50 PM
Show me these studies proving that "trickle down economics" works.
I seriously have to prove to you that rich people spend money?
Quote
I just posted a link to a study proving that it doesn't work.
No you didn't.
Quote
"Trickle down" evidently refers to those pissing on others.
Wrong. Rich people spend money.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 12:25:55 PM
I seriously have to prove to you that rich people spend money?
No you didn't.
Wrong. Rich people spend money.
I never said rich people don't spend money. I said that trickle down economics doesn't work.
And yes, I just posted a link to an IMF study proving that trickle down economics doesn't work. You have yet to post any proof that it does. Instead you keep parroting the same laughable talking points. "Rich people spend money" is not a study proving that it benefits anyone else.
I've asked multiple times for empirical proof that "trickle down economics" has actually worked. Not in theory, but in the real world. I'll take your inability to provide any proof that it works as a tacit admission that you are wrong.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 12:29:48 PM
I never said rich people don't spend money. I said that trickle down economics doesn't work.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You are so clueless about economics that you don't even know you're contradicting yourself...
QuoteAnd yes, I just posted a link to an IMF study proving that trickle down economics doesn't work.
No you didn't. It was a false premise that rich people make money and poor don't benefit from it. You posted nonsense.
Quote
You have yet to post any proof that it does. Instead you keep parroting the same laughable talking points. "Rich people spend money" is not a study proving that it benefits anyone else.
Why do businesses not cater to broke people? I'd love to hear this answer...
Quote
I've asked multiple times for empirical proof that "trickle down economics" has actually worked. Not in theory, but in the real world. I'll take your inability to provide any proof that it works as a tacit admission that you are wrong.
I don't have to prove that rich people spend money, benefiting those who provide the service (supply and demand). That's a basic concept everyone gets. Just because you don't think businesses benefit from rich people doesn't make it not real.
Here is another link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/16/imf-trickle-down-economics-inequality_n_7595860.html
'The Benefits Do Not Trickle Down': Reaganomics Bad For The Economy, IMF ArguesQuoteBut now the IMF is raising one little problem with the theory: Apparently it doesn't work. That's the argument in the fund's new research paper, "Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality."
Looking at data from 159 countries from 1980 to 2012, researchers found that when the wealthiest 20 per cent see their share of income rise by one per cent, the economy grows 0.08 percentage points slower over the next five years.
"In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth," the report says. When the poorest 20 per cent increase their share of total income by one per cent, the economy grows 0.38 percentage points faster.
Translation: Give tax breaks or higher wages to the poor, and the economy will grow. Give tax breaks or higher incomes to the rich, and you reduce economic growth.
"The benefits do not trickle down," the researchers conclude.
There is proof from an IMF study that "trickle down economics" DO NOT WORK. Now the onus is on you to provide proof to studies that it does work. Instead of repeating the same silly talking points that "rich spend money" or that "corporations spend money". No. "Rich spend money" is not proof that trickle down economics works.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 12:39:36 PM
Here is another link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/16/imf-trickle-down-economics-inequality_n_7595860.html
'The Benefits Do Not Trickle Down': Reaganomics Bad For The Economy, IMF Argues
You can post links from people who know nothing about simple, basic economics all day long, but that doesn't mean rich people don't spend money and start businesses.
Quote
There is proof from an IMF study that "trickle down economics" DO NOT WORK.
No, there was no proof. Your concept that poor people are better for the economy is just silly.
Quote
Now the onus is on you to provide proof to studies that it does work. Instead of repeating the same silly talking points that "rich spend money" or that "corporations spend money". No. "Rich spend money" is not proof that trickle down economics works.
How many poor people have you ever worked for?
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 12:43:54 PM
You can post links from people who know nothing about simple, basic economics all day long, but that doesn't mean rich people don't spend money and start businesses.
So the IMF knows nothing about economics now? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Trickle down economics" does not say simply that rich people spend money and start businesses. So stop posting this as "proof" that it works. What "trickle down economics" says is that is the theory that providing economic benefits to those with upper-level incomes will ultimately benefit society as a whole.
The IMF study proves that trickle down economics doesn't work. If you have proof that the IMF study is wrong, the onus is on you to post hat proof rather than parroting the same silly talking points. Yes, rich people spend money. No, that is not proof that trickle down economics works. If you can provide actual empirical proof that it has worked backed up with links to trustworthy sources and studies, go ahead and do so.
"Trickle down economics" has benefited those at the top, and no one else:
(https://capturethemind.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/trickle-down-economics-pissing.jpg)
QuoteNo, there was no proof. Your concept that poor people are better for the economy is just silly.
No. This is a strawman argument. I never said that "poor people are better for the economy". Learn to read. What I said is that trickle down economics does not work. Providing economic benefits to the wealthy does not provide any benefits to anyone else. That is not just a theory. Trickle down economics has been tried for decades, and the IMF study shows that it has not worked. Try reading the study instead of parroting your previous points.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 12:53:16 PM
So the IMF knows nothing about economics now? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Trickle down economics" does not say simply that rich people spend money and start businesses. So stop posting this as "proof" that it works. What "trickle down economics" says is that is the theory that providing economic benefits to those with upper-level incomes will ultimately benefit society as a whole.
You don't quite understand what you're talking about. When Marxists (you) talk about "trickle down economics", it's another way of saying wealthy people hurt poor people. That is a fallacy gobbled up by people who don't think (you).
Quote
The IMF study proves that trickle down economics doesn't work.
No it doesn't. Supply and demand works. Poor people benefit from rich people. Poor people can become rich because of rich people.
Quote
If you have proof that the IMF study is wrong, the onus is on you to post hat proof rather than parroting the same silly talking points. Yes, rich people spend money. No, that is not proof that trickle down economics works. If you can provide actual empirical proof that it has worked backed up with links to trustworthy sources and studies, go ahead and do so.
"Trickle down economics" has benefited those at the top, and no one else:
Wrong. The more money rich people have, the more they spend, save, and start businesses with, creating employment. I don't understand why that's hard for you to understand.
Quote
No. This is a strawman argument. I never said that "poor people are better for the economy". Learn to read. What I said is that trickle down economics does not work. Providing economic benefits to the wealthy does not provide any benefits to anyone else. That is not just a theory. Trickle down economics has been tried for decades, and the IMF study shows that it has not worked. Try reading the study instead of parroting your previous points.
You are so clueless about this topic that you don't even know your whole premise is built on a strawman. The Marxists try and preach that these "benefits" are tax cuts, when that money belongs to the rich people in the first place, NOT government. Allowing them to keep more of their money means they save and spend more, again, benefiting everyone.
Supply and demand is real no matter how much you want to say it isn't. Sorry.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:07:17 PM
You don't quite understand what you're talking about. When Marxists (you) talk about "trickle down economics", it's another way of saying wealthy people hurt poor people. That is a fallacy gobbled up by people who don't think (you).
No it doesn't. Supply and demand works. Poor people benefit from rich people. Poor people can become rich because of rich people.
Wrong. The more money rich people have, the more they spend, save, and start businesses with, creating employment. I don't understand why that's hard for you to understand.
You are so clueless about this topic that you don't even know your whole premise is built on a strawman. The Marxists try and preach that these "benefits" are tax cuts, when that money belongs to the rich people in the first place, NOT government. Allowing them to keep more of their money means they save and spend more, again, benefiting everyone.
Supply and demand is real no matter how much you want to say it isn't. Sorry.
Nope. I've provided two links proving that trickle down economics doesn't work (and I found a bunch more I can post if you'd like). You saying it does work and not providing any studies to show that it has actually worked in reality (and not in your pie-in-the-sky theory) does not make it so.
The onus is on you to prove that the IMF study is wrong. All you've done is repeat your same talking points ad nauseum without providing any proof. If you're right, prove it. All you've done is basically said "I'm right because I'm right".
Post proof that the IMF study is wrong. I'm waiting.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 12:13:32 PM
Wow. You really don't know what you are talking about. Fortunately for the politicians, most Americans are gullible like you. The pols depend on it.
I don't see any facts refuting what I said, so obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh, and trickle down does work.
I dare you to apply to a poor person for a job.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 01:20:35 PM
I don't see any facts refuting what I said, so obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh, and trickle down does work.
I dare you to apply to a poor person for a job.
I provided two links to a study proving that it doesn't work.
If you're going to say that it does work, you have to disprove the IMF study and/or provide links to other studies proving that it does work.
Saying "oh, and trickle down does work" is not sufficient. Your proclamation does not make it so. If it works, show actual data/studies proving that it has worked (not in theory, but in practice).
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:14:44 PM
Nope. I've provided two links proving that trickle down economics doesn't work (and I found a bunch more I can post if you'd like). You saying it does work and not providing any studies to show that it has actually worked in reality (and not in your pie-in-the-sky theory) does not make it so.
Sorry, you just don't understand basic economics, hence why you can't answer my questions and rely on links written by people who don't understand economics.
How many poor people have you ever worked for?
How does letting rich people keep more of their money hurt poor people?
How does a rich person hurt poor people?
Does supply and demand work?
See? You can't answer these, because you don't understand the topic, and don't have the intellect to handle these simple questions. Economics is just a mystery to you.
Quote
The onus is on you to prove that the IMF study is wrong.
No. It's a false premise. Poor people aren't hurt by the rich. They benefit. Sorry.
Quote
All you've done is repeat your same talking points ad nauseum without providing any proof. If you're right, prove it. All you've done is basically said "I'm right because I'm right".
Post proof that the IMF study is wrong. I'm waiting.
It's like trying to prove Santa Claus isn't real. I understand economics and have the experience. You don't. I'm right and can discuss it. You can't, and just want to post links to Marxist sources. Rich people benefit the economy and poor people. In fact, poor people, on up, should take time to write a thank you letter to at least one rich person. It would be a nice gesture.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 01:20:35 PM
I don't see any facts refuting what I said, so obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh, and trickle down does work.
I dare you to apply to a poor person for a job.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'd love to know what he does, but you know he won't say.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:25:21 PM
Sorry, you just don't understand basic economics, hence why you can't answer my questions and rely on links written by people who don't understand economics.
How many poor people have you ever worked for?
How does letting rich people keep more of their money hurt poor people?
How does a rich person hurt poor people?
Does supply and demand work?
See? You can't answer these, because you don't understand the topic, and don't have the intellect to handle these simple questions. Economics is just a mystery to you.
No. It's a false premise. Poor people aren't hurt by the rich. They benefit. Sorry.
It's like trying to prove Santa Claus isn't real. I understand economics and have the experience. You don't. I'm right and can discuss it. You can't, and just want to post links to Marxist sources. Rich people benefit the economy and poor people. In fact, poor people, on up, should take time to write a thank you letter to at least one rich person. It would be a nice gesture.
If the IMF study is wrong, and written by people who don't understand economics, you should have no problem disproving the study.
You have yet to provide any proof that trickle down economics works. Not one link. Not one study. You are asking me to take your word that you know what you are talking about, when you've proven that you don't.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:28:45 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'd love to know what he does, but you know he won't say.
I'm a software developer. Mostly mobile apps. And yes, I work for a rich person. But no, that does not prove that trickle down economics works.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:31:11 PM
If the IMF study is wrong, and written by people who don't understand economics, you should have no problem disproving the study.
You have yet to provide any proof that trickle down economics works. Not one link. Not one study. You are asking me to take your word that you know what you are talking about, when you've proven that you don't.
I don't need to post links. I know this subject. You won't answer because I'll use your answers against you and expose your idiocy, hence why you won't dare answer.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
I'm a software developer. Mostly mobile apps. And yes, I work for a rich person. But no, that does not prove that trickle down economics works.
You benefit from a rich person?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:33:18 PM
I don't need to post links. I know this subject. You won't answer because I'll use your answers against you and expose your idiocy, hence why you won't dare answer.
OK, forget about links. Post some verifiable economic numbers proving that trickle down economics has worked - that policies benefiting the wealthy have also benefited the poor and/or the middle class.
Because to be honest, your refusal to provide any backups to what you are saying are making you look like an idiot. You talk about exposing my idiocy, but you have yet to provide any proof that you aren't an idiot yourself. You're like a fucking parrot, repeating the same stupid shtick over and over.
If you want to be taken seriously and prove that you know what you're talking about, yes, you do need to post links. You don't "know the subject" just because you say you do. Prove that the IMF study is wrong. If you can't do that, than the study is right.
Principled Conservatism never had anything to do w/republicanism, from John Fremont in 1856 to the present. The latter is nothing but low party politics, the avocation of frauds and hustlers; as the DC republicrat gang demonstrates daily.
As for our reckless spending and taxes, they are symptoms of a system of governance that has lost its way; no longer bearing any resemblance to the vision of our founders.
Our problems are deep and fundamental and economics is hardly the answer.
hhmmm..... the economy always falters under democrats and rebounds under Republicans. The exception to that was the voodoo manipulations under Clinton and the democrat controlled congress under Clinton and Dubya. They gave us myriads of fiscally irresponsible Bills. They set up the financial crisis of 2008!
This is the first time we have had a Republican controlled Congress in decades! Democrats have historically blocked all attempts at fiscal responsibility. It will take fiscal conservatives controlling the Congress AND WH before we get truly fiscal reforms.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:24:07 PM
I provided two links to a study proving that it doesn't work.
If you're going to say that it does work, you have to disprove the IMF study and/or provide links to other studies proving that it does work.
Saying "oh, and trickle down does work" is not sufficient. Your proclamation does not make it so. If it works, show actual data/studies proving that it has worked (not in theory, but in practice).
Yeah, two idiot leftist sites that can't stand Free mkt Capitalism is all y6ou posted.
The IMF is a Marxist org. using Keynesian based economics theory. So again, all you've linked to is failed policy.
History proved it works, JFK could be considered the father of the concept, Reagan ran with it and the 80s proved it works.
But here's what you don't understand in the concept.
The money does not belong to the govt, it belongs to the producers, something JFK and Reagan understood.
They believed if people kept more of their earnings, the economy would improve, and the richest being the largest benefactor of said plan, would invest the most, and shock, it worked.
Now lets look at your version under the Marxist. How is the economy doing?
Well for starters, we're in the worst and longest depression in US history. The obverse evidence proves you know absolutely nothing about economics!
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:28:45 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'd love to know what he does, but you know he won't say.
Now I know why my tacos are cold. :lol:
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:37:59 PM
OK, forget about links. Post some verifiable economic numbers proving that trickle down economics has worked - that policies benefiting the wealthy have also benefited the poor and/or the middle class.
I just need to use your own words against you.
How many people have benefited from you economically?
Quote
Because to be honest, your refusal to provide any backups to what you are saying are making you look like an idiot. You talk about exposing my idiocy, but you have yet to provide any proof that you aren't an idiot yourself. You're like a fucking parrot, repeating the same stupid shtick over and over.
I have experience and you don't. It's that simple.
Quote
If you want to be taken seriously and prove that you know what you're talking about, yes, you do need to post links. You don't "know the subject" just because you say you do. Prove that the IMF study is wrong. If you can't do that, than the study is right.
I don't need to. I can use what you say against you. I have the experience and knowledge. You don't.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 01:39:56 PM
Now lets look at your version under the Marxist. How is the economy doing?
Well for starters, we're in the worst and longest depression in US history. The obverse evidence proves you know absolutely nothing about economics!
The economy is doing terribly because we've been practicing "trickle down economics" for nearly 40 years. Obama didn't change that. In fact, he extended the Bush tax cuts. Obama has done nothing to move the country away from "trickle down economics". Obama is nothing but empty rhetoric on the matter.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 01:41:04 PM
Now I know why my tacos are cold. :lol:
No moron. I already told you that I'm a software developer.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:43:29 PM
The economy is doing terribly because we've been practicing "trickle down economics" for nearly 40 years. Obama didn't change that. In fact, he extended the Bush tax cuts. Obama has done nothing to move the country away from "trickle down economics". Obama is nothing but empty rhetoric on the matter.
Wrong.
You're really bad at this. May I ask, when did you turn voting age?
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:42:55 PM
I have experience and you don't. It's that simple.
You don't know anything about me. So don't pretend to. I don't pretend to know anything about you. If you claim to know anything about me, you're exposing yourself as a liar and an idiot.
Stick to the topic and disprove the IMF study. Saying "their a marxist organization" is attacking the messenger. It does nothing to disprove the study.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:43:29 PM
The economy is doing terribly because we've been practicing "trickle down economics" for nearly 40 years. Obama didn't change that. In fact, he extended the Bush tax cuts. Obama has done nothing to move the country away from "trickle down economics". Obama is nothing but empty rhetoric on the matter.
Are you serious? The RINO'e killed the concept with tax increases after Reagan left office, there hasn't been a shadow of a ghost of the concept since.
I gave you solid evidence from history, and this is all you have to refute the truth?
You're a lost cause.
So tell me, how many poor people do you know that are hiring?
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:46:12 PM
You don't know anything about me. So don't pretend to. I don't pretend to know anything about you. If you claim to know anything about me, you're exposing yourself as a liar and an idiot.
Stick to the topic and disprove the IMF study. Saying "their a marxist organization" is attacking the messenger. It does nothing to disprove the study.
You post links to Marxist sources and parrot Marxist propaganda. I know your "positions" better than you do!
Keep dodging my questions though. I must say, I am impressed you were able to answer one. That's way more than others with your same perspective can answer, so big kudos!
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:44:59 PM
Wrong.
You're really bad at this. May I ask, when did you turn voting age?
Obama DID extend the Bush tax cuts moron. That's not opinion, that's fact:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html
QuoteObama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years
QuotePresident Obama signed into law the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade Friday, a day after overcoming liberal resistance in Congress to continue for two more years tax breaks enacted under president George W. Bush and to provide a fresh federal boost for the tepid economic recovery.
You're going to sit there and say that Obama did not extend the Bush tax cuts in 2010 when I can refute that with proof in less than 60 seconds? Wow. Get back on the short bus.
Obama has done NOTHING to end trickle down economics. He is practicing the same stupid economic policies that date back to Reagan.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:43:59 PM
No moron. I already told you that I'm a software developer.
Aww, so you're a young millenial. That explains soooo muuch. You have absolutely no historical reference.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:48:40 PM
You post links to Marxist sources and parrot Marxist propaganda. I know your "positions" better than you do!
Keep dodging my questions though. I must say, I am impressed you were able to answer one. That's way more than others with your same perspective can answer, so big kudos!
You haven't asked any questions related to trickle down economics. So there are no questions to answer.
You've repeated over and over that rich people and corporations spend money. Which I never refuted. What I refuted is the disproven notion that tax cuts and other economic benefits for the rich benefit the country as a whole. If they did benefit the country as a whole, it would not be the case that all income gains in recent years have gone to the top 10% of the richest Americans.
With regard to the IMF study, you're doing the same as Solar. Instead of disproving the study with numbers and/or another study, you're proof that it's wrong is calling the organization "Marxist". No. The organizations motives do not mean that the facts from the study are wrong. The onus is on you to disprove it.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:49:50 PM
Obama DID extend the Bush tax cuts moron. That's not opinion, that's fact:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html
I never said he didn't, so sorry, I have to strangle that straw man in its crib.
Quote
You're going to sit there and say that Obama did not extend the Bush tax cuts in 2010 when I can refute that with proof in less than 60 seconds? Wow. Get back on the short bus.
No. Straw men aside, you're wrong about the economy bad because of the free market and supply and demand.
Quote
Obama has done NOTHING to end trickle down economics. He is practicing the same stupid economic policies that date back to Reagan.
No he isn't. Hussein is nothing like Reagan.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 01:52:54 PM
Aww, so you're a young millenial. That explains soooo muuch. You have absolutely no historical reference.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That explains why my phone freezes up...
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 01:52:54 PM
Aww, so you're a young millenial. That explains soooo muuch. You have absolutely no historical reference.
And you've done nothing to prove that you know what you're talking about. You are unable to cite a single number proving that trickle down economics has worked in practice rather than in theory. You're entire argument is that you know what you're talking about, but you haven't shown any proof that this is the case.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:54:48 PM
You haven't asked any questions related to trickle down economics. So there are no questions to answer.
I have, but you just don't understand the topic to know that I did.
Quote
You've repeated over and over that rich people and corporations spend money. Which I never refuted. What I refuted is the disproven notion that tax cuts and other economic benefits for the rich benefit the country as a whole.
So, poor people DO or DO NOT benefit from rich people spending money?
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:54:56 PM
I never said he didn't, so sorry, I have to strangle that straw man in its crib.
Yes you did dummy.
I said:
QuoteObama didn't change that. In fact, he extended the Bush tax cuts.
And you responded with
QuoteWrong.
You explicitly said that I was wrong when I claimed that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. Anyone can read through the posts in order to see what I said, and what you said in response.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:59:49 PM
Yes you did dummy.
I said:
And you responded with
You explicitly said that I was wrong when I claimed that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. Anyone can read through the posts in order to see what I said, and what you said in response.
Go back and read. You said the economy is bad because of trickle down economics. That's what you're wrong about. I never said Hussein didn't extend Bush tax cuts. You're on a forum where people know these things.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 01:57:45 PM
I have, but you just don't understand the topic to know that I did.
So, poor people DO or DO NOT benefit from rich people spending money?
Of course poor people benefit from rich people spending money. That is not what trickle down economics claims dummy. Trickle down economics claims that tax cuts or other economic policies benefiting the rich also benefit the non-rich.
Those two things are not the same. Cutting taxes on the rich does not mean they will spend more money. It just means they will be able to save more.
Christ you're stupid.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:02:13 PM
Go back and read. You said the economy is bad because of trickle down economics.
I also said that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. You quoted that as well (as me saying the economy is bad because of trickle down economics), and replied "Wrong".
When you quote somebody and reply "Wrong", you are saying that everything they said inside those quotes is wrong, not just some of it. If I wasn't wrong about Obama extending the Bush tax cuts, you should have left that out of the quote.
You cannot really be as dumb as you're letting on. Please tell me that you're just portraying a character here.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:02:58 PM
Of course poor people benefit from rich people spending money.
If they benefit from rich people, then how can they be hurt when the rich people have more money?
Quote
That is not what trickle down economics claims dummy. Trickle down economics claims that tax cuts or other economic policies benefiting the rich also benefit the non-rich.
Cutting taxes on the rich helps poor people. I have no idea what "other" means. How about you 'splain it to me?
Quote
Those two things are not the same. Cutting taxes on the rich does not mean they will spend more money. It just means they will be able to save more.
Saving money hurts the economy and poor people? Please clarify so I have you on record clearly.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:06:00 PM
I also said that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. You quoted that as well (as me saying the economy is bad because of trickle down economics), and replied "Wrong".
When you quote somebody and reply "Wrong", you are saying that everything they said inside those quotes is wrong, not just some of it. If I wasn't wrong about Obama extending the Bush tax cuts, you should have left that out of the quote.
You cannot really be as dumb as you're letting on. Please tell me that you're just portraying a character here.
You're right, I wasn't clear.
See how easy that was? You saw something, used that software developer brain and applied thinking, and look! You were able to articulate. I think we made a breakthrough.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:06:03 PM
If they benefit from rich people, then how can they be hurt when the rich people have more money?
No. I didn't say they were hurt by rich people having more money. This is another of your strawman arguments. What I said is that rich people having more money doesn't help them. Even if it doesn't hurt them, that doesn't mean that it helps them either.
You have continually attributed comments and arguments to me that I never made. This seems to be your debate strategy.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:09:01 PM
You're right, I wasn't clear.
No, you were clear in your own mind. It was not until I pointed out your stupidity that you realized that you were wrong. :lol:
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:09:06 PM
No. I didn't say they were hurt by rich people having more money. This is another of your strawman arguments. What I said is that rich people having more money doesn't help them. Even if it doesn't hurt them, that doesn't mean that it helps them either.
You have continually attributed comments and arguments to me that I never made. This seems to be your debate strategy.
Remember when I said I'd use your own words against you?
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:02:58 PM
Of course poor people benefit from rich people spending money. That is not what trickle down economics claims dummy. Trickle down economics claims that tax cuts or other economic policies benefiting the rich also benefit the non-rich.
Those two things are not the same. Cutting taxes on the rich does not mean they will spend more money. It just means they will be able to save more.
Christ you're stupid.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Remember when I said I'd use your own words against you?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Poor people benefiting from rich people spending money is not the same as poor people benefiting from rich people getting tax cuts. Keeping more money does not mean spending more money.
Though I'm not surprised you can't differentiate. You probably spend every penny you earn on useless shit. You strike me as that type.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:57:17 PM
And you've done nothing to prove that you know what you're talking about. You are unable to cite a single number proving that trickle down economics has worked in practice rather than in theory. You're entire argument is that you know what you're talking about, but you haven't shown any proof that this is the case.
First off, there is no such animal as trickle down, that was a catch phrase designed for idiots like you that needed simple aphorisms to sound like they knew what they were talking about, and you have taken the bait.
In truth, Reganomics was supply side economics, a system designed at the turn of the 20 century as a means of heading off recession.
Simply cut taxes, decrease interest rates, and boom, the economy recovers.
What you see today is nowhere near what Reagan used.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:16:16 PM
Poor people benefiting from rich people spending money is not the same as poor people benefiting from rich people getting tax cuts. Keeping more money does not mean spending more money.
Are you saying rich people don't spend money when they are allowed to keep more of it?
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 02:18:10 PM
First off, there is no such animal as trickle down
You've argued that trickle down works. So if it doesn't exist and you're arguing about it, you're a fucking idiot.
QuoteSimply cut taxes, decrease interest rates, and boom, the economy recovers.
What you see today is nowhere near what Reagan used.
Wow. This just shows the ignorance of idiots like you.
And yes, you resorted to the personal attacks first. You called me an idiot (amongst other petty insults) prior to me insulting you. This proves that you know your arguments cannot stand on their own merits. So you feel the need to personally insult the other person.
You are pathetic.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:25:49 PM
Are you saying rich people don't spend money when they are allowed to keep more of it?
Another strawman argument. You continue to attribute things to me I didn't say.
You equate me saying that rich people spending more money means that tax cuts for the rich therefore must be beneficial to the economy. These two are not equivalent. If you cannot see that, there is no help for you.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 02:18:10 PM
First off, there is no such animal as trickle down, that was a catch phrase designed for idiots like you
It's pathetic that you have to resort to personal insults like calling someone you are debating an "idiot". It's just a sign that you know you are losing. If you thought you were winning the debate, you'd talk is a civil manner without resorting to petty insults.
I actually kind of pity you. You and your lack of intellect.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:28:05 PM
Another strawman argument. You continue to attribute things to me I didn't say.
It was a question I asked you. You say poor people benefit from rich people spending money. You then say they don't benefit from rich people keeping more money. So, why is it a strawman for me to ask if rich people don't spend money if they are allowed to keep it?
Quote
You equate me saying that rich people spending more money means that tax cuts for the rich therefore must be beneficial to the economy. These two are not equivalent. If you cannot see that, there is no help for you.
I'm asking you. You said they benefit from spending, but not from saving. You said they don't benefit from rich people keeping more money. Therefore, do rich people not spend when allowed to keep more? Or, if they keep more, are they just saving it? I'm not building a straw man by simply asking you to clarify.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:26:11 PM
You've argued that trickle down works. So if it doesn't exist and you're arguing about it, you're a fucking idiot.
Wow. This just shows the ignorance of idiots like you.
And yes, you resorted to the personal attacks first. You called me an idiot (amongst other petty insults) prior to me insulting you. This proves that you know your arguments cannot stand on their own merits. So you feel the need to personally insult the other person.
You are pathetic.
No dumb ass, I was going with your nomenclature, knowing full well you had no clue what you were talking about.
And the use of the term idiot was not meant as an insult, rather a true descriptor of the poster.
IDIOT: A person of subnormal intelligence
So you see, I was simply pointing out the obvious. I hope you soon realize you're way in over your head and seriously out of your league here.
Many of us on this forum are retired business owners and former CEO's with decades on the subject of finance, it's why we were successful and still are.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:30:06 PM
It's pathetic that you have to resort to personal insults like calling someone you are debating an "idiot". It's just a sign that you know you are losing. If you thought you were winning the debate, you'd talk is a civil manner without resorting to petty insults.
I actually kind of pity you. You and your lack of intellect.
So you couldn't respond to the facts so you detour with some lame nonsense about how you pity the guy who just handed you you ass?
I gave you the facts, that your Trickle down BS is just that, Leftist BS talking points.
Now prove me wrong Genius!
Oh, and just so you know, the term Geniuse here? That was pure sarcasm, you person of lower, or subnormal intellect.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Remember when I said I'd use your own words against you?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This kid is waaaayyyy in olver his head.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 02:39:55 PM
So you couldn't respond to the facts so you detour with some lame nonsense about how you pity the guy who just handed you you ass?
I gave you the facts, that your Trickle down BS is just that, Leftist BS talking points.
Now prove me wrong Genius!
Oh, and just so you know, the term Geniuse here? That was pure sarcasm, you person of lower, or subnormal intellect.
He's trying to think of a way out of his spending/saving conundrum....
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 02:41:20 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This kid is waaaayyyy in olver his head.
I'm so glad it's election time. They come out of the woodworks...
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 02:35:11 PM
No dumb ass, I was going with your nomenclature, knowing full well you had no clue what you were talking about.
And the use of the term idiot was not meant as an insult, rather a true descriptor of the poster.
IDIOT: A person of subnormal intelligence
The term "idiot" is an insult, whether you meant it that way or not. And the fact that you have to resort to insults rather than treating your opponent in a debate with respect shows that you lack the intelligence to engage in a civilized debate without resorting to attacks or demeaning terms. IOW, is shows that you're the idiot, not me.
QuoteMany of us on this forum are retired business owners and former CEO's with decades on the subject of finance, it's why we were successful and still are.
It's too bad you cannot engage in civilized debate without personal attacks. Loser.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:46:13 PM
The term "idiot" is an insult, whether you meant it that way or not. And the fact that you have to resort to insults rather than treating your opponent in a debate with respect shows that you lack the intelligence to engage in a civilized debate without resorting to attacks or demeaning terms. IOW, is shows that you're the idiot, not me.
It's too bad you cannot engage in civilized debate without personal attacks. Loser.
I'm still waiting.....
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:41:52 PM
He's trying to think of a way out of his spending/saving conundrum....
Now he has to back to class and have his Prof give him new debate tips.
"Sir, I got my ass kicked, they didn't fall for your trickle down claims, they proved the term was invented by our party."
Prof: Really? I didn't know that. Did you play the race card, or how they hate women?
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 02:39:55 PM
So you couldn't respond to the facts so you detour with some lame nonsense about how you pity the guy who just handed you you ass?
No dummy. YOU started the personal insults, not me. Read the thread in sequence from the beginning. Find the first post where you insulted me, and the first post where I insulted you. You'll see that you insulted me first. I simply responded.
Had you not insulted me, I would not have responded in kind. Don't play the victim game and pretend that I started this.
I said that I pitied you because you made personal comments about me unprovoked. I had not called you an idiot or used any other insult until AFTER you did so to me.
QuoteOh, and just so you know, the term Geniuse here? That was pure sarcasm, you person of lower, or subnormal intellect.
Learn to spell retard. The term is "genius", not "geniuse".
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:46:13 PM
The term "idiot" is an insult, whether you meant it that way or not. And the fact that you have to resort to insults rather than treating your opponent in a debate with respect shows that you lack the intelligence to engage in a civilized debate without resorting to attacks or demeaning terms. IOW, is shows that you're the idiot, not me.
It's too bad you cannot engage in civilized debate without personal attacks. Loser.
Stop obfuscating and debate my points, that is, assuming you have the intellectual capacity to do so.
See, I didn't call you an Idiot. :biggrin:
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:41:52 PM
He's trying to think of a way out of his spending/saving conundrum....
When rich people get tax cuts they save that money. They don't go out spending out like you do every time you get a $.25/hour raise. That's how they became rich in the first place - by saving their money, not by spending it.
I know this is a tough concept for you to understand.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:42:31 PM
I'm so glad it's election time. They come out of the woodworks...
The term is "woodwork" dummy, not "woodworks". :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
TFC, when rich people are taxed less and allowed to keep more of their money, do they save it or spend it?
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 02:48:49 PM
Now he has to back to class and have his Prof give him new debate tips.
"Sir, I got my ass kicked, they didn't fall for your trickle down claims, they proved the term was invented by our party."
Prof: Really? I didn't know that. Did you play the race card, or how they hate women?
It doesn't matter who invented the term. You can call it "trickle down economics". You can call it "supply side economics", it's the same thing.
Tax cuts to the rich do not work you fucking retard.
If you want to stimulate the economy, cut taxes to corporations. The United States has among the highest corporate taxes in the world. That will work. Cutting taxes to wealthy individuals only benefits wealthy individuals. They save the money and pass it on to their heirs.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:42:31 PM
I'm so glad it's election time. They come out of the woodworks...
Why would kids come to a Conservative forum expecting to find noetically challenged individuals like themselves?
I mean really. Being liberal takes no thought whatsoever beyond emotion, Conservative on the other hand requires critical thinking and an understanding of the world around you.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
TFC, when rich people are taxed less and allowed to keep more of their money, do they save it or spend it?
For the 4th or 5th time (since you ignored me when I answered previously), they save it.
Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes on corporations. They are the "job creators". Not individuals.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 02:56:11 PM
Why would kids come to a Conservative forum expecting to find noetically challenged individuals like themselves?
I mean really. Being liberal takes no thought whatsoever beyond emotion, Conservative on the other hand requires critical thinking and an understanding of the world around you.
Only I'm not a liberal. That's why I have criticized Obama in this thread. It is also why I've called for lower corporate taxes.
You are just proving that you are what you accused me of: an idiot.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:51:34 PM
When rich people get tax cuts they save that money. They don't go out spending out like you do every time you get a $.25/hour raise. That's how they became rich in the first place - by saving their money, not by spending it.
I know this is a tough concept for you to understand.
Do they hurt poor people by saving that money?
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:52:34 PM
The term is "woodwork" dummy, not "woodworks". :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You got me on a typo. Yay.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 02:58:37 PM
Do they hurt poor people by saving that money?
I've answered this question at least twice previously. I'm not going to answer it again.
Plus, rich people hurting poor people by saving more money was never part of my argument.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
For the 4th or 5th time (since you ignored me when I answered previously), they save it.
Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes on corporations. They are the "job creators". Not individuals.
Do these lower corporate taxes benefit shareholders?
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:59:58 PM
I've answered this question at least twice previously. I'm not going to answer it again.
Plus, rich people hurting poor people by saving more money was never part of my argument.
So, yes or no? Are they hurt by rich people saving?
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 03:01:38 PM
So, yes or no? Are they hurt by rich people saving?
We still have a huge deficit. The country as a whole is hurt by the deficit. Let's eliminate the deficit, build a surplus to start paying off the debt, then talk about tax cuts for individuals. Every dollar in tax cuts is a dollar that could be used to reduce the deficit. It's basic fiscal prudency.
Corporate taxes are different. They are so high that companies are leaving for other countries with lower corporate taxes. Individuals, for the most part, are not.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:55:10 PM
It doesn't matter who invented the term. You can call it "trickle down economics". You can call it "supply side economics", it's the same thing.
Tax cuts to the rich do not work you fucking retard.
If you want to stimulate the economy, cut taxes to corporations. The United States has among the highest corporate taxes in the world. That will work. Cutting taxes to wealthy individuals only benefits wealthy individuals. They save the money and pass it on to their heirs.
Oh Jeeez, where to start?
Corporations can be a global entity, hiring 10s of thousands overseas, which would have little to no effect on our economy.
But an "Across The Board Tax Cut" effects everyone. Got that? Everyone!
Look at you energy bill, health care, food, etc. These are all a result of the opposite of supply side (meaning socialist Keynes theory).
Before the Marxist entered the WH, we used to lower the interest rate, that too spawned borrowing and growth, but what the Marxist is doing to the economy is the antithesis of supply side econ, which is why we're in the worst depression in US history.
Can you not see that? It is literally the opposite of supply side, so to say supply side doesn't work? Well, you know my response.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:04:46 PM
We still have a huge deficit. The country as a whole is hurt by the deficit. Let's eliminate the deficit, build a surplus to start paying off the debt, then talk about tax cuts for individuals. Every dollar in tax cuts is a dollar that could be used to reduce the deficit. It's basic fiscal prudency.
Corporate taxes are different. They are so high that companies are leaving for other countries with lower corporate taxes. Individuals, for the most part, are not.
Yes or no: are poor people hurt by rich people saving money?
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 03:05:49 PM
Oh Jeeez, where to start?
Corporations can be a global entity, hiring 10s of thousands overseas, which would have little to no effect on our economy.
But an "Across The Board Tax Cut" effects everyone. Got that? Everyone!
Look at you energy bill, health care, food, etc. These are all a result of the opposite of supply side (meaning socialist Keynes theory).
Before the Marxist entered the WH, we used to lower the interest rate, that too spawned borrowing and growth, but what the Marxist is doing to the economy is the antithesis of supply side econ, which is why we're in the worst depression in US history.
Can you not see that? It is literally the opposite of supply side, so to say supply side doesn't work? Well, you know my response.
So you advocate tax cuts on individuals when we still have a massive deficit and a massive debt? That's brilliant.
If you owe 10s of 1000s of dollars on a loan your first priority should be to pay the loan off. THEN you can go spending money on other things.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
For the 4th or 5th time (since you ignored me when I answered previously), they save it.
Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes on corporations. They are the "job creators". Not individuals.
Wrong son..... They invest it! Shock, the horror, they want to make more money, so they invest in industries with growth potential.
Oh man, this is like argiung with a kid and trying to explain why he won't get an allowance.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 03:06:44 PM
Yes or no: are poor people hurt by rich people saving money?
All people, including poor people, are hurt by a huge deficit. When you cut taxes on the rich, you are adding to the deficit because you have to borrow more to cover expenses.
Once we've eliminated the deficit and started paying off the debt, the argument changes.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:10:39 PM
All people, including poor people, are hurt by a huge deficit. When you cut taxes on the rich, you are adding to the deficit because you have to borrow more to cover expenses.
Once we've eliminated the deficit and started paying off the debt, the argument changes.
Yes or no: are poor people hurt by rich people saving money?
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 03:08:38 PM
Oh man, this is like argiung with a kid and trying to explain why he won't get an allowance.
Learn to spell, idiot.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:08:26 PM
So you advocate tax cuts on individuals when we still have a massive deficit and a massive debt? That's brilliant.
If you owe 10s of 1000s of dollars on a loan your first priority should be to pay the loan off. THEN you can go spending money on other things.
Please, hold onto that thought.
Tell me what would happen right now, this very moment, if they raised taxes across the board.
Keep in mind, this is very much like a microcosm of raising the min wage in the city, and how it effects business and employment.
Seriously, I want you to apply critical thought to this, not politics,.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 03:12:06 PM
Please, hold onto that thought.
Tell me what would happen right now, this very moment, if they raised taxes across the board.
Keep in mind, this is very much like a microcosm of raising the min wage in the city, and how it effects business and employment.
Seriously, I want you to apply critical thought to this, not politics,.
Only I never called for raising taxes. I called for not lowering taxes. This is another strawman argument.
Eliminate the deficit. Start slowly paying off the debt. THEN start lowering taxes.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:14:08 PM
Only I never called for raising taxes. I called for not lowering taxes. This is another strawman argument.
Eliminate the deficit. Start slowly paying off the debt. THEN start lowering taxes.
Yes or no: are poor people hurt by rich people saving money?
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:12:02 PM
Learn to spell, idiot.
So you've resorted to typo Nazi? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:14:08 PM
Only I never called for raising taxes. I called for not lowering taxes. This is another strawman argument.
Eliminate the deficit. Start slowly paying off the debt. THEN start lowering taxes.
As I suspected, you can't even approach the question, because you have no knowledge of the subject.
You claim supply side doesn't work, so I'm proposing the opposite, and trying to get you to wrap your mind around the concept oft allowing people to keep more of their own money, spurs growth.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 03:21:21 PM
As I suspected, you can't even approach the question, because you have no knowledge of the subject.
You claim supply side doesn't work, so I'm proposing the opposite, and trying to get you to wrap your mind around the concept oft allowing people to keep more of their own money, spurs growth.
My favorite so far is him saying rich people don't spend money, only save when they get tax breaks.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:14:08 PM
Only I never called for raising taxes. I called for not lowering taxes. This is another strawman argument.
Eliminate the deficit. Start slowly paying off the debt. THEN start lowering taxes.
Simple scenario. You claimed rich people save money they aren't taxed, correct?
I said "Wrong son..... They invest it! Shock, the horror, they want to make more money, so they invest in industries with growth potential.
Oh man, this is like argiung with a kid and trying to explain why he won't get an allowance."
So here's your assignment. You are rich, and trying to make your money work for you by investing, not saving. Follow me so far?
What happens when I, "the govt" remove your tax loopholes and raise your taxes? The simple answer is you divest to pay the taxes, along with every other American, business slows or halts in many sectors.
That's basic econ. But what happens if I, ( govt here again) tell you that you'll get tax shelter if you invest in companies manufacturing on American soil?
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 03:27:30 PM
My favorite so far is him saying rich people don't spend money, only save when they get tax breaks.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I loved that, it never even occurred to him that us rich bastards don't save money, we invest.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 03:34:18 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I loved that, it never even occurred to him that us rich bastards don't save money, we invest.
It just occured to me that he actually does believe that. Wow.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 03:34:18 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I loved that, it never even occurred to him that us rich bastards don't save money, we invest.
No, making $35,000 an hour does not make you rich. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you really were rich, you would not be arguing with someone you don't know on an internet forum. And before you tell me I'm not rich either then - I never claimed to be rich.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:41:16 PM
No, making $35,000 an hour does not make you rich. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you really were rich, you would not be arguing with someone you don't know on an internet forum. And before you tell me I'm not rich either then - I never claimed to be rich.
We know.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:41:16 PM
No, making $35,000 an hour does not make you rich. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you really were rich, you would not be arguing with someone you don't know on an internet forum. And before you tell me I'm not rich either then - I never claimed to be rich.
No, I retired in my mid 40s, decades ago, and I own this forum, and Taxed is my partner.
Rich is relative.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 03:44:14 PM
No, I retired in my mid 40s, decades ago, and I own this forum, and Taxed is my partner.
Rich is relative.
I have a feeling this kid isn't from this country. His understanding of economics is just too foreign.
Yeah, I bet he's your "partner" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 03:41:59 PM
We know.
But Solar did claim to be rich, which is obviously a lie.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:48:29 PM
But Solar did claim to be rich, which is obviously a lie.
I know for a fact he is. Sorry.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:47:35 PM
Yeah, I bet he's your "partner" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Let me ask my question again. 6th time a charm.
Simple yes or no: does a rich person saving money hurt poor people?
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 03:45:26 PM
I have a feeling this kid isn't from this country. His understanding of economics is just too foreign.
DOH!!! That makes total sense! Yep, Canadian. :lol:
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 11:04:36 AM
He's doing the same thing stupid people have been doing for years with the FairTax, trying to misrepresent it. He's talking about the prebate. The FairTax doesn't tax the basic necessities. So, when that amount is sent back, he calls it a subsidy, even though it's a reimbursement. He simply has no idea what he's talking about and is just parroting something he was told.
You are correct about the Prebate. The federal government sending out checks monthly to almost everyone. Every politician will promise to send out larger checks than the other politician. You think we are in debt now ... this will be a disaster!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Read and think.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 03:51:26 PM
Let me ask my question again. 6th time a charm.
Simple yes or no: does a rich person saving money hurt poor people?
For the umpteenth time: if there is a deficit, cutting taxes on individuals hurts ALL people, including poor. It is not the saving of money that hurts poor people. It is the deficit, which adds to the debt, which contributes to ever-increasing interest payments on the debt.
Advocating tax cuts while there is still a huge deficit and a huge debt make no sense. Eliminate the deficit, THEN start worrying about tax cuts.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 05:10:38 AM
You are incredibly naive. You probably believe in "trickle down economics" too.
If you eliminate the IRS, some other agency is going to have to carry out the functions currently performed by the IRS (like auditing to ensure people aren't cheating on their taxes). And there is no reason to believe such agency would be any more cost effective than the IRS is today.
So No.
If the IRS was abolished a very simple tax system would be needed. A few people in a small office could handle it. The behemoth that is the IRS wouldn't be needed.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 03:52:33 PM
DOH!!! That makes total sense! Yep, Canadian. :lol:
Ahhhh. That explains it.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:54:23 PM
For the umpteenth time: if there is a deficit, cutting taxes on individuals hurts ALL people, including poor. It is not the saving of money that hurts poor people. It is the deficit, which adds to the debt, which contributes to ever-increasing interest payments on the debt.
Advocating tax cuts while there is still a huge deficit and a huge debt make no sense. Eliminate the deficit, THEN start worrying about tax cuts.
How do you plan to grow the economy?
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:54:23 PM
For the umpteenth time: if there is a deficit, cutting taxes on individuals hurts ALL people, including poor. It is not the saving of money that hurts poor people. It is the deficit, which adds to the debt, which contributes to ever-increasing interest payments on the debt.
Advocating tax cuts while there is still a huge deficit and a huge debt make no sense. Eliminate the deficit, THEN start worrying about tax cuts.
Let's try this again. yes or no: does rich people saving money hurt poor people?
Come on, you can do it. You're going to get through this.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 03:57:09 PM
Ahhhh. That explains it.
I used to live in Kentucky though. Unlike you two hicks, I've lived and traveled in multiple countries. You losers probably don't even have passports :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Here we go.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 03:58:56 PM
Let's try this again. yes or no: does rich people saving money hurt poor people?
Come on, you can do it. You're going to get through this.
I've answered your question multiple times. Apparently you can't read.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 04:00:35 PM
I've answered your question multiple times. Apparently you can't read.
Oh. Which post is your yes or no answer to poor people being hurt if the rich save their money?
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:59:33 PM
I used to live in Kentucky though. Unlike you two hicks, I've lived and traveled in multiple countries. You losers probably don't even have passports :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I used to live in Germany. Does that count?
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 04:02:14 PM
Oh. Which post is your yes or no answer to poor people being hurt if the rich save their money?
For the umpteenth time: if there is a deficit, cutting taxes on individuals hurts ALL people, including poor. It is not the saving of money that hurts poor people. It is the deficit, which adds to the debt, which contributes to ever-increasing interest payments on the debt.
Advocating tax cuts while there is still a huge deficit and a huge debt make no sense. Eliminate the deficit, THEN start worrying about tax cuts.
----------------------
That is my response to your spamming me with the same question ad nauseum.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:59:33 PM
I used to live in Kentucky though. Unlike you two hicks, I've lived and traveled in multiple countries. You losers probably don't even have passports :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
OHHHHH world traveler eh....then you should know how foreign countries, especially third world operate, most of them are going to a
fair tax system to gather revenue because they have no way of collecting "income tax" from poor people.....and if you really traveled overseas you will understand me when I say we have NO POOR PEOPLE IN THE USA....only those who have less than others.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:47:35 PM
Yeah, I bet he's your "partner" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Wait, was that meant as a slander against gays, I thought you poeople saw that as a protected class?
So are you a bigot, claiming that being gay is somehow to be seen as insulting?
Ohhhh Myyyy....
Quote from: The Boo Man... on September 29, 2015, 04:00:26 PM
Here we go.
I'll give you the Cliff Notes:
Poor people DO benefit from rich people spending money.
Poor people DON'T benefit from rich people keeping more of their money from taxes.
Rich people DON'T spend money if they get tax cuts. They just save it.
I'm stuck on trying to get him to answer if poor people are hurt by rich people saving money. It's a simple yes or no, but won't answer.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 04:04:57 PM
For the umpteenth time: if there is a deficit, cutting taxes on individuals hurts ALL people, including poor. It is not the saving of money that hurts poor people. It is the deficit, which adds to the debt, which contributes to ever-increasing interest payments on the debt.
Advocating tax cuts while there is still a huge deficit and a huge debt make no sense. Eliminate the deficit, THEN start worrying about tax cuts.
----------------------
That is my response to your spamming me with the same question ad nauseum.
I didn't ask you about the other stuff. I asked you directly if poor people are hurt by rich people saving their money. I'm just trying to get a simple yes or no.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:47:35 PM
Yeah, I bet he's your "partner" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Use more emoticons next time.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:54:23 PM
For the umpteenth time: if there is a deficit, cutting taxes on individuals hurts ALL people, including poor. It is not the saving of money that hurts poor people. It is the deficit, which adds to the debt, which contributes to ever-increasing interest payments on the debt.
Advocating tax cuts while there is still a huge deficit and a huge debt make no sense. Eliminate the deficit, THEN start worrying about tax cuts.
NO ONE is eliminating the deficit!!! That is a red herring!
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:54:23 PM
For the umpteenth time: if there is a deficit, cutting taxes on individuals hurts ALL people, including poor. It is not the saving of money that hurts poor people. It is the deficit, which adds to the debt, which contributes to ever-increasing interest payments on the debt.
Advocating tax cuts while there is still a huge deficit and a huge debt make no sense. Eliminate the deficit, THEN start worrying about tax cuts.
I keep hearing your nonsense about tax cuts, but never once have you addressed the real issue, Govt Spending. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 03:48:29 PM
But Solar did claim to be rich, which is obviously a lie.
I asked you a question, are you going to answer it?
"Simple scenario. You claimed rich people save money they aren't taxed, correct?
I said "Wrong son..... They invest it! Shock, the horror, they want to make more money, so they invest in industries with growth potential.
Oh man, this is like argiung with a kid and trying to explain why he won't get an allowance."
So here's your assignment. You are rich, and trying to make your money work for you by investing, not saving. Follow me so far?
What happens when I, "the govt" remove your tax loopholes and raise your taxes? The simple answer is you divest to pay the taxes, along with every other American, business slows or halts in many sectors.
That's basic econ. But what happens if I, ( govt here again) tell you that you'll get tax shelter if you invest in companies manufacturing on American soil?"
Should I give this kid a hint and tell him that there are other sources of revenue the Govt can raise other than thru taxes or should I keep my big mouth shut? :popcorn:
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 29, 2015, 04:22:27 PM
Should I give this kid a hint and tell him that there are other sources of revenue the Govt can raise other than thru taxes or should I keep my big mouth shut? :popcorn:
He's still trying to figure out how to answer a yes or no question.
It's not and never has been a revenue problem, it has always been a spending problem.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 04:07:02 PM
Wait, was that meant as a slander against gays, I thought you poeople saw that as a protected class?
So are you a bigot, claiming that being gay is somehow to be seen as insulting?
Ohhhh Myyyy....
a. It's "people", not "poeople".
b. Who are you referring to when you say "you poeople"? You mean black people?
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 04:23:46 PM
He's still trying to figure out how to answer a yes or no question.
I noticed that.. I felt kinda sorry for him like one of the slow kids in those special classes at school...that's why I gave him a hint.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 04:27:58 PM
a. It's "people", not "poeople".
b. Who are you referring to when you say "you poeople"? You mean black people?
Oh, are you black?
Quote from: kroz on September 29, 2015, 04:15:37 PM
NO ONE is eliminating the deficit!!! That is a red herring!
Why can't the deficit be eliminated? It's been done before.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 29, 2015, 04:28:42 PM
I noticed that.. I felt kinda sorry for him like one of the slow kids in those special classes at school...that's why I gave him a hint.
It's so adorable when they venture off script. Now he's caught in his own web.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 04:30:00 PM
It's so adorable when they venture off script. Now he's caught in his own web.
It's hilarious watching you trying to present the same talking points in as many ways as possible.
You haven't proven a single thing you've said to be true. Proof requires links to reliable sources. No links = no proof. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
The founders designed our government to work best as a Capitalist system. Competition is what drives a capitalist system. Our federal government has perverted the competition within by taxing citizens incomes, cigarettes, communication etc .. etc, nationwide. Eliminating creative thought and the dynamics or our nation. The taxing should be done by state governments creating an environment of competitive ideas. Closer and more accountable to the citizens it taxes. The first thought many may worry about is "What about FDA, EPA and other federal agencies?" Would not the governance of these areas be better with fifty different approaches to these problems, with the best idea adopted by many? Multiple states could cooperate with an agency for cost efficiency. Imagine a East, West and South FDA each adopting the best practices.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 04:35:03 PM
It's hilarious watching you trying to present the same talking points in as many ways as possible.
You haven't proven a single thing you've said to be true. Proof requires links to reliable sources. No links = no proof. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Proof??????....something to do with an 18 Trillion dollar credit card bill and 96 Million Americans out of work.
So prove how 'spending your way out of debt' is going to become a reality.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 04:35:03 PM
It's hilarious watching you trying to present the same talking points in as many ways as possible.
You haven't proven a single thing you've said to be true. Proof requires links to reliable sources. No links = no proof. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm just asking you simple questions. Yes or no: are poor people hurt by rich people saving money? You can post smilies all you want, but everyone sees you can't answer this question.
It doesn't hurt poor people if rich save money. Do you agree or disagree?
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 04:26:41 PM
It's not and never has been a revenue problem, it has always been a spending problem.
:thumbup:
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 04:27:58 PM
a. It's "people", not "poeople".
b. Who are you referring to when you say "you poeople"? You mean black people?
So not only are you a bigot and typo NAZI, your a racist as well? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This is like hitting week old road kill.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 04:41:02 PM
So not only are you a bigot and typo NAZI, your a racist as well? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This is like hitting week old road kill.
He listens to socialists about economics.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 04:48:18 PM
He listens to socialists about economics.
So is he representative of what Canadian schools are producing? God I hope not...
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 04:41:02 PM
So not only are you a bigot and typo NAZI, your a racist as well? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This is like hitting week old road kill.
Hot damned, I have not been this entertained in a long time.
All the money that I have invested over the years so other could put it to work has been paying off in my retirement years. Who would'a thunk it? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on September 29, 2015, 04:55:09 PM
Hot damned, I have not been this entertained in a long time.
All the money that I have invested over the years so other could put it to work has been paying off in my retirement years. Who would'a thunk it? :lol: :lol: :lol:
:biggrin:
According to him, you are greedy for not paying more in taxes.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 05:00:04 PM
:biggrin:
According to him, you are greedy for not paying more in taxes.
I don't see him paying my bills. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on September 29, 2015, 05:12:09 PM
I don't see him paying my bills. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you had voted for Obozo, he'd be paying your bills. :laugh:
Quote from: tac on September 29, 2015, 05:30:46 PM
If you had voted for Obozo, he'd we'd be paying your bills. :laugh:
Never forget who is paying the bills
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 29, 2015, 04:37:43 PM
Proof??????....something to do with an 18 Trillion dollar credit card bill and 96 Million Americans out of work.
So prove how 'spending your way out of debt' is going to become a reality.
What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anything about spending the way out of debt. In fact, my argument is the exact opposite. That spending needs to be reduced so the deficit can be eliminated. Try reading the thread from the start. Not once did I advocate for an increase in spending. I specifically said that all these pols want to cut taxes a lot, but cut spending less if at all. That is the entire purpose of the thread.
Quote from: taxed on September 29, 2015, 04:39:08 PM
I'm just asking you simple questions. Yes or no: are poor people hurt by rich people saving money? You can post smilies all you want, but everyone sees you can't answer this question.
It doesn't hurt poor people if rich save money. Do you agree or disagree?
I will answer your question when you provide links proving the conclusions reached in the IMF study are false. I asked for proof that the IMF study is false long before you asked me if rich people spending money hurt or helped the poor.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 05:00:04 PM
:biggrin:
According to him, you are greedy for not paying more in taxes.
Another lie. Not once did I call for taxes to be raised. You continue to lie about what claims I've made.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 06:42:37 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anything about spending the way out of debt. In fact, my argument is the exact opposite. That spending needs to be reduced so the deficit can be eliminated. Try reading the thread from the start. Not once did I advocate for an increase in spending. I specifically said that all these pols want to cut taxes a lot, but cut spending less if at all. That is the entire purpose of the thread.
Liar! Not one time did you advocate spending cuts, until I broached the issue.
Your whole premise has been about taxes and that the evil rich aren't paying enough.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 06:44:53 PM
Another lie. Not once did I call for taxes to be raised. You continue to lie about what claims I've made.
Not a lie when one can easily deduce form your bull shit that the problem is not enough taxes beinng paid, and never once did you mention cutting spending.
What do you take us for, idiots like you?
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 07:14:12 PM
Liar! Not one time did you advocate spending cuts, until I broached the issue.
Your whole premise has been about taxes and that the evil rich aren't paying enough.
This is what I said in the first post in the entire thread:
QuoteThe problem is they all want to slash taxes, but they aren't willing to slash spending. Or at least not near as much as they slash taxes. This of course leads to a rising deficit. The more the deficit rises, the faster the debt rises. The higher the debt, the more way have to pay in interest on the debt. This is basic Economics.
And no, not once did I say that the "evil rich aren't paying enough". If I did make such a claim, either quote me, or tell me the post number where I made this claim.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 07:16:30 PM
Not a lie when one can easily deduce form your bull shit that the problem is not enough taxes beinng paid, and never once did you mention cutting spending.
What do you take us for, idiots like you?
Read the first post in the thread, idiot. I said that the problem is that all these Republicans want to slash taxes, but don't want to slash spending. That was the entire basis of the thread. Lower taxes + same spending = higher deficit.
Christ almighty. Can you even read?
And not once have I called for taxes to be raised. Again, if I did say taxes should be raised, quote me, or tell me the post numbers. That's a lie.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 07:30:10 PM
Read the first post in the thread, idiot. I said that the problem is that all these Republicans want to slash taxes, but don't want to slash spending. That was the entire basis of the thread. Lower taxes + same spending = higher deficit.
Christ almighty. Can you even read?
And not once have I called for taxes to be raised. Again, if I did say taxes should be raised, quote me, or tell me the post numbers. That's a lie.
But threw a fit when I suggested that lowering them spurs on economic growth.
Which is when you tossed out your little Trickle down BS claiming cutting taxes doesn't create growth.
Son, you can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 07:36:39 PM
But threw a fit when I suggested that lowering them spurs on economic growth.
Which is when you tossed out your little Trickle down BS claiming cutting taxes doesn't create growth.
Son, you can't have it both ways.
Yes, I said that taxes should not be lowered. That is not the same as saying taxes should be raised. Even if your feeble mind cannot tell the difference.
I'm all for lowering personal taxes when we're back into a surplus and have started paying off the debt. We are not there. Not even close.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 07:39:34 PM
Yes, I said that taxes should not be lowered. That is not the same as saying taxes should be raised. Even if your feeble mind cannot tell the difference.
I'm all for lowering personal taxes when we're back into a surplus and have started paying off the debt. We are not there. Not even close.
At the rate we're going the debt never will be paid down. Tax cuts spur on growth, growth means more people working, growth also means wages increase.
Tax increases as in what the IMF propose staggers growth, because those with money refuse to invest in a threatened economy.
Reagan proved that lowering taxes during a recession improved the economy and brought in more revenue to the fed.
This is all basic Econ 101.
Quote from: Solar on September 29, 2015, 07:46:53 PM
At the rate we're going the debt never will be paid down. Tax cuts spur on growth, growth means more people working, growth also means wages increase.
Tax increases as in what the IMF propose staggers growth, because those with money refuse to invest in a threatened economy.
Reagan proved that lowering taxes during a recession improved the economy and brought in more revenue to the fed.
This is all basic Econ 101.
They don't broach that subject in schools anymore Solar, because the instant they do, the lunacy of the leftist's economic policies, is clearly and abundantly revealed.
Holy crap it's Sioux Rebel's brother.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on September 29, 2015, 08:17:06 PM
Holy crap it's Sioux Rebel's brother.
Sue has a twin brother? :lol:
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 06:44:02 PM
I will answer your question when you provide links proving the conclusions reached in the IMF study are false. I asked for proof that the IMF study is false long before you asked me if rich people spending money hurt or helped the poor.
(* sigh *)
You didn't post a "study". You, "The Fiscal Conservative", posted an article about a socialist/Marxist economist's incorrect opinion on "trickle-down". One reason I was trying to ask you some basic, simple boolean questions was I wanted to transition you into understanding the term "trickle down economics" is a pejorative against what is known as "supply side economics".
Anyway, here's a few articles:
http://fee.org/freeman/supply-side-economics-in-one-lesson/
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/02/time-for-lower-income-tax-rate
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp
Since you're young, here's a nice little rap to help understand some basics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
Back to savings. Here's a great article using cartoons to illustrate the concept:
https://mises.org/library/how-saving-grows-economy
I hope you read these and are able to discuss.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on September 29, 2015, 08:17:06 PM
Holy crap it's Sioux Rebel's brother.
Oh...the idiot brother,Toothless Brave Face Plant, the only brave in the tribe with a chicken feather in his head band and allowed but one arrow in his quiver.
Yeah, the inspiration behind Fife.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 07:39:34 PM
Yes, I said that taxes should not be lowered. That is not the same as saying taxes should be raised. Even if your feeble mind cannot tell the difference.
I'm all for lowering personal taxes when we're back into a surplus and have started paying off the debt. We are not there. Not even close.
This short summary of why we see you as a naive kid, is we remember this like it was yesterday, while for you, some idiot Marxist econ Prof. teaches you a warped version of history and failed Keynes nonsense.
Yes, most of us lived through the Carter debacle and saw first hand how Capitalism and Free mkt principles applied by Reagan will always fix leftist interference and damage.
Read and learn.
Supply-Side Economics
Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
The broader supply-side policy mix points to the importance of sound money; free trade; less regulation; low, flat-rate taxes; and spending restraint, as the keys to real economic growth. These ideas are grounded in a classical economic analysis that understands that people adjust their behavior when the incentives change. Accordingly, the lower the regulatory and trade barriers, and the lower and flatter the tax rate, the greater the incentive to produce.
The supply-side approach stands in sharp contrast to economic theories that held sway from the 1930s through the 1970s which were preoccupied with boosting demand, ideas most closely associated with economist John Maynard Keynes and his publication of The General Theory. These ideas enjoy a resurgence today as growth in spending, along with growing government involvement in the economy, has given new life to Keynesian ideas. Indeed, the idea of government spending as a stimulus to help boost demand and consumption, is rooted in quintessentially Keynesian ideas.
Yet in the roughly 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply-side ideas contributed to the longest boom in United States history and an incredible transformation of the world economy. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1982-1999 was one continuous mega-economic expansion. In fact, as it stretched into 2007, this 25 Year Boom saw a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. households and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion by 2007. When adjusted for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year boom than in the previous 200 years.
This sustained economic growth is not only impressive on its own, but even more astonishing as it compares to the period immediately preceding it. In the 10 years from 1972-1982, recessions were deep and recoveries were short. In fact, throughout American history, the nation's economy has been in recession or depression roughly one-third of the time. But from 1981-2005, the annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. was 3.4 percent per year, and 3.8 percent per year during the 1983-1989 Reagan expansion alone.
http://www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics/
Quote from: Amred on September 29, 2015, 03:52:52 PM
You are correct about the Prebate. The federal government sending out checks monthly to almost everyone. Every politician will promise to send out larger checks than the other politician. You think we are in debt now ... this will be a disaster!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Read and think.
Politicians try and promise things? I can't imagine a world like that.
Quote from: Solar on September 30, 2015, 06:24:45 AM
This short summary of why we see you as a naive kid, is we remember this like it was yesterday, while for you, some idiot Marxist econ Prof. teaches you a warped version of history and failed Keynes nonsense.
Yes, most of us lived through the Carter debacle and saw first hand how Capitalism and Free mkt principles applied by Reagan will always fix leftist interference and damage.
Read and learn.
Supply-Side Economics
Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services. In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
The broader supply-side policy mix points to the importance of sound money; free trade; less regulation; low, flat-rate taxes; and spending restraint, as the keys to real economic growth. These ideas are grounded in a classical economic analysis that understands that people adjust their behavior when the incentives change. Accordingly, the lower the regulatory and trade barriers, and the lower and flatter the tax rate, the greater the incentive to produce.
The supply-side approach stands in sharp contrast to economic theories that held sway from the 1930s through the 1970s which were preoccupied with boosting demand, ideas most closely associated with economist John Maynard Keynes and his publication of The General Theory. These ideas enjoy a resurgence today as growth in spending, along with growing government involvement in the economy, has given new life to Keynesian ideas. Indeed, the idea of government spending as a stimulus to help boost demand and consumption, is rooted in quintessentially Keynesian ideas.
Yet in the roughly 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply-side ideas contributed to the longest boom in United States history and an incredible transformation of the world economy. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1982-1999 was one continuous mega-economic expansion. In fact, as it stretched into 2007, this 25 Year Boom saw a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. households and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion by 2007. When adjusted for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year boom than in the previous 200 years.
This sustained economic growth is not only impressive on its own, but even more astonishing as it compares to the period immediately preceding it. In the 10 years from 1972-1982, recessions were deep and recoveries were short. In fact, throughout American history, the nation's economy has been in recession or depression roughly one-third of the time. But from 1981-2005, the annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. was 3.4 percent per year, and 3.8 percent per year during the 1983-1989 Reagan expansion alone.
http://www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics/
Maybe Cruz could put in his Flat Tax plan, create jobs and excite corporations enough to stay in the United States, but with the revenue from abolishing the IRS and cutting spending on useless governmental departments, couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful? As long as the large majority of revenue was going to reducing the deficit, the government could help fix a few communities and create jobs. I'd be fine with that as long as Cruz didn't do something crazy with that money like pleasing the leftist democrats by pumping funds into "the crisis of police brutality and racism".
Quote from: taxed on November 24, 2015, 12:04:52 PM
Politicians try and promise things? I can't imagine a world like that.
Well, in my neck of the woods they don't just try. They set land speed records on how many lies they can stuff into a two-fib sack.
If a politician offers to shake your hand and you're wearing your watch on the right wrist...
remove it. If you wear the watch on your left hand, shake hands with your right...then immediately count your fingers.
Quote from: ChristieForPres on November 28, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
Maybe Cruz could put in his Flat Tax plan, create jobs and excite corporations enough to stay in the United States, but with the revenue from abolishing the IRS and cutting spending on useless governmental departments, couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful?
Govt so called jobs are a net loss to tax payers, the produce nothing, and suck income directly from the taxpayer.
If anything, govt should always contract with the private sector and never employ directly.
QuoteAs long as the large majority of revenue was going to reducing the deficit, the government could help fix a few communities and create jobs. I'd be fine with that as long as Cruz didn't do something crazy with that money like pleasing the leftist democrats by pumping funds into "the crisis of police brutality and racism".
Oh, you mean that false crisis created by communist Soros and his Marxist minion followers, all under the guise of Black Lies Matter?
The only racism and brutality comes from the left, it's akin to "Do you still beat your wife"?
Accuse someone of being racist, and with the new leftist narrative in place, you're guilty until you give into our demands.
Quote from: ChristieForPres on November 28, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
Maybe Cruz could put in his Flat Tax plan, create jobs and excite corporations enough to stay in the United States, but with the revenue from abolishing the IRS and cutting spending on useless governmental departments, couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful? As long as the large majority of revenue was going to reducing the deficit, the government could help fix a few communities and create jobs. I'd be fine with that as long as Cruz didn't do something crazy with that money like pleasing the leftist democrats by pumping funds into "the crisis of police brutality and racism".
"couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful?"
If that is Christie's position it is a prime example of why he has no chance. When has the government spent money wisely?
Quote from: supsalemgr on November 29, 2015, 08:10:46 AM
"couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful?"
If that is Christie's position it is a prime example of why he has no chance. When has the government spent money wisely?
Thats what I'm saying, that's the change I'm asking for? Government to spend wisely
Quote from: ChristieForPres on November 29, 2015, 10:56:16 AM
Thats what I'm saying, that's the change I'm asking for? Government to spend wisely
I believe you missed my point. Government is incapable of spending wisely.
Quote from: supsalemgr on November 29, 2015, 11:33:15 AM
I believe you missed my point. Government is incapable of spending wisely.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Yep, it's the nature of the bureaucratic beast.
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
So Donald McTrump unveiled his ridiculous tax plan, claiming it will be revenue neutral. Anyone who has had even a cursory glance at it can see that tax revenues will plummet, meaning the deficit will soar.
Every Republican President over the last 50 years has raised the deficit during their Presidency. In fact, there are only two Presidents in the last 50 years that have actually lowered the deficit. The problem is they all want to slash taxes, but they aren't willing to slash spending. Or at least not near as much as they slash taxes. This of course leads to a rising deficit. The more the deficit rises, the faster the debt rises. The higher the debt, the more way have to pay in interest on the debt. This is basic Economics.
Of all the Republicans running who have promised to slash taxes, none have made a convincing argument that they will cut spending as much as tax revenues. I can't see the deficit not rising under any of them.
Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?
Fiscal, you have made quite an effort in support of your beliefs, but alas, to no avail for my fellow forum members. I absolutely agree with your main premise---politicians want to cut taxes but not spending.
I am sure Ted Cruz and some others will work mightily to cut many domestic programs but all of his savings will go to military spending. Many will agree with that but it will not solve our
debt problems.
A part of the problem: Somewhere between 45 and 60% of GOP supporters of the 1994 Contract With America sincerely believed that the budget could be balanced by simply getting rid of AFDC, support for the Arts, foreign aid, and Amtrak. We on this forum know that is a pantsload, but the problem continues: we can not agree on what to cut. Every member of Congress (and every one of us) can propose a balanced budget, but getting one through Congress is the rub.
Here are a couple of ancient links, I will try to find some newer ones. The problem has not changed in all these years.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/legal_reform/repub-renew.htm
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-1995/whatever-happened-contract-america
(Start at paragraph 5 on this one)
Quote from: Wyatt5 on November 30, 2015, 06:22:42 AM
Fiscal, you have made quite an effort in support of your beliefs, but alas, to no avail for my fellow forum members. I absolutely agree with your main premise---politicians want to cut taxes but not spending.
I am sure Ted Cruz and some others will work mightily to cut many domestic programs but all of his savings will go to military spending. Many will agree with that but it will not solve our debt problems.
A part of the problem: Somewhere between 45 and 60% of GOP supporters of the 1994 Contract With America sincerely believed that the budget could be balanced by simply getting rid of AFDC, support for the Arts, foreign aid, and Amtrak. We on this forum know that is a pantsload, but the problem continues: we can not agree on what to cut. Every member of Congress (and every one of us) can propose a balanced budget, but getting one through Congress is the rub.
Here are a couple of ancient links, I will try to find some newer ones. The problem has not changed in all these years.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/legal_reform/repub-renew.htm
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-1995/whatever-happened-contract-america
(Start at paragraph 5 on this one)
And you're certain of this, how?
Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
Where is our hope?
Hope? Don't hold your breath. You will not see ANY republican in office next year. I lament. :mad:
What I do hope for...is to be completely wrong.
Quote from: Traninit on December 21, 2015, 11:50:37 AM
Hope? Don't hold your breath. You will not see ANY republican in office next year. I lament. :mad:
What I do hope for...is to be completely wrong.
Not to worry, you are.
Quote from: Traninit on December 21, 2015, 11:50:37 AM
Hope? Don't hold your breath. You will not see ANY republican in office next year. I lament. :mad:
What I do hope for...is to be completely wrong.
I believe you are totally disregarding the fact that Hillary is a disaster. She can't help it and cannot be cleaned up. When it is only her and the GOP candidate she will no longer be able to hide. The more she is seen and heard she becomes more irritating. Say what you will about Trump, but he has her pegged about about no stamina.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 21, 2015, 12:28:07 PM
I believe you are totally disregarding the fact that Hillary is a disaster. She can't help it and cannot be cleaned up. When it is only her and the GOP candidate she will no longer be able to hide. The more she is seen and heard she becomes more irritating. Say what you will about Trump, but he has her pegged about about no stamina.
I can't wait to see her debate Cruz. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2015, 01:11:26 PM
I can't wait to see her debate Cruz. :lol:
That will be a debate that goes down in history as a classic!!
I cannot see Hillary doing anything but melting down and babbling! Or resorting to that irritating laugh that is so obviously phony. :laugh:
Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2015, 01:11:26 PM
I can't wait to see her debate Cruz. :lol:
You know what? Cruz will ream her a new a-hole in any debate as will Rubio. You know what else? Her cult doesn't care whatsoever how inept she is at anything she does or says, how corrupt, etc... Very sad.
Quote from: Traninit on December 21, 2015, 01:24:43 PM
You know what? Cruz will ream her a new a-hole in any debate as will Rubio. You know what else? Her cult doesn't care whatsoever how inept she is at anything she does or says, how corrupt, etc... Very sad.
Understand that Clinton, Inc. is not all that popular with a large number of democrats. The party has moved so far left that many consider her too moderate. They have burned a lot of bridges. She will not blindly receive the support of much of the Black community like Obama did. She does not create excitement and that is imperative for her to win. Polls still reflect that the GOP is much more energized than the democrats for 2016. That adds up to a loss for her.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 21, 2015, 01:37:14 PM
Understand that Clinton, Inc. is not all that popular with a large number of democrats. The party has moved so far left that many consider her too moderate. They have burned a lot of bridges. She will not blindly receive the support of much of the Black community like Obama did. She does not create excitement and that is imperative for her to win. Polls still reflect that the GOP is much more energized than the democrats for 2016. That adds up to a loss for her.
That is the death stake in her heart. She cannot create one iota of excitement in the Party.
Getting out the vote will be next to impossible for her!!
Quote from: kroz on December 21, 2015, 01:42:04 PM
That is the death stake in her heart. She cannot create one iota of excitement in the Party.
Getting out the vote will be next to impossible for her!!
Exactly. Maybe the campaign is planning to hide her. Let Bubba do all the campaigning to say, "Vote for my wife and make her the first female president". :lol: :lol:
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 21, 2015, 01:55:36 PM
Exactly. Maybe the campaign is planning to hide her. Let Bubba do all the campaigning to say, "Vote for my wife and make her the first female president". :lol: :lol:
Bubba will definitely be on the campaign trail for her after the Primaries!
The question is... does Bill still have the clout he once had?
I don't think so. He was from a different era. Many young voters have no memory of him.
Also, the many victims of Bill's sexual assaults are prepared to come out and attack him and let the younger voters know exactly what happened. This is especially important among the younger women voters. Kathleen Wiley is especially angry with Hillary's orchestrated attempt to silence her and make her life miserable. Expect her to make a campaign ad or two!
Nope, I don't think Bill can even save Hillary.
Quote from: kroz on December 21, 2015, 02:12:32 PM
Bubba will definitely be on the campaign trail for her after the Primaries!
The question is... does Bill still have the clout he once had?
I don't think so. He was from a different era. Many young voters have no memory of him.
Also, the many victims of Bill's sexual assaults are prepared to come out and attack him and let the younger voters know exactly what happened. This is especially important among the younger women voters. Kathleen Wiley is especially angry with Hillary's orchestrated attempt to silence her and make her life miserable. Expect her to make a campaign ad or two!
Nope, I don't think Bill can even save Hillary.
Agree. Too much Bubba and she/he will be "swift boated". My goodness how many dead end streets we are identifying. I love it.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 21, 2015, 01:37:14 PM
Understand that Clinton, Inc. is not all that popular with a large number of democrats. The party has moved so far left that many consider her too moderate. They have burned a lot of bridges. She will not blindly receive the support of much of the Black community like Obama did. She does not create excitement and that is imperative for her to win. Polls still reflect that the GOP is much more energized than the democrats for 2016. That adds up to a loss for her.
Sounds great to me. I can only hope you are correct.
Quote from: kroz on December 21, 2015, 01:42:04 PM
That is the death stake in her heart. She cannot create one iota of excitement in the Party.
Getting out the vote will be next to impossible for her!!
I love all of your optimism. I wished I had as much! If the dems don't take the election, I WILL dance on my dining room table, and hope not to fall off and break my hip. :smile:
Quote from: Traninit on December 21, 2015, 02:58:30 PM
I love all of your optimism. I wished I had as much! If the dems don't take the election, I WILL dance on my dining room table, and hope not to fall off and break my hip. :smile:
Be sure and take a picture. We all want to see that!! :laugh:
Quote from: kroz on December 21, 2015, 03:34:29 PM
Be sure and take a picture. We all want to see that!! :laugh:
Okay. But I'm warning you...it won't be pretty. Have your airsick bag at the ready.
The problem is that no Republican president has ever been able to cut spending and government waste as much as necessary (whether by not being able to or not being willing to). Trump's tax plan could be revenue neutral if he were able to cut spending and government waste as much as he says he wants to, but he never conveys an understanding that he won't be able to just do whatever he wants once he is president.
Quote from: Conservative IQ on December 28, 2015, 07:11:01 PM
The problem is that no Republican president has ever been able to cut spending and government waste as much as necessary (whether by not being able to or not being willing to). Trump's tax plan could be revenue neutral if he were able to cut spending and government waste as much as he says he wants to, but he never conveys an understanding that he won't be able to just do whatever he wants once he is president.
I don't believe a word Trump says, Hell, not only did he praise Commiecare, he thinks he can fix it.
How can we ever balance the budget with that kind of nonsense?
Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2015, 07:45:57 PM
I don't believe a word Trump says, Hell, not only did he praise Commiecare, he thinks he can fix it.
How can we ever balance the budget with that kind of nonsense?
There's no reason to believe a word Donald Trump says. He will say whatever it takes to win.
1) Saying the Bible is his favorite book. No... I guarantee he hasn't even read it.
2) There have been several well known people in the financial world to point out that most of what he blames our problems on, such as China ripping us off and their currency devaluation is mostly exaggerated or isn't true at all. But his supporters eat it up because they like hearing someone is to blame and they don't know any better.
Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2015, 07:45:57 PM
I don't believe a word Trump says, Hell, not only did he praise Commiecare, he thinks he can fix it.
How can we ever balance the budget with that kind of nonsense?
Reminds me of the time he tried to "fix" Eastern Air Shuttle...
Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2015, 07:45:57 PM
I don't believe a word Trump says, Hell, not only did he praise Commiecare, he thinks he can fix it.
How can we ever balance the budget with that kind of nonsense?
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: We need to get people in congress who understand that it is the people's hard work that allow taxes to be taken and can treat tax payers $ with the respect that it deserves and not treat it like "governments $$". Trump is not that man. I do not know if anyone born with a silver spoon in their mouth can understand that the average person has to work hard in order to pay the bills, save for the future, ect.
Quote from: Conservative IQ on December 28, 2015, 08:12:45 PM
There's no reason to believe a word Donald Trump says. He will say whatever it takes to win.
1) Saying the Bible is his favorite book. No... I guarantee he hasn't even read it.
2) There have been several well known people in the financial world to point out that most of what he blames our problems on, such as China ripping us off and their currency devaluation is mostly exaggerated or isn't true at all. But his supporters eat it up because they like hearing someone is to blame and they don't know any better.
Sorry I missed your post.
You're right, and bitching about what China does while our Reps endlessly print money is in the least hypocritical, if anything, it's criminal.
Quote from: Amred on September 29, 2015, 08:01:22 AM
You describe the Constitution Party's tax policy except for the fair tax. The Federal government should not tax it's citizens that is infringing on states rights.
Of the many problems with the fair tax the worst is that the Fair Tax continues and expands the welfare state by establishing a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) provided to every registered household, regardless of income, which, if implemented, would constitute the single largest entitlement program in American history.
True to an extent, that "The Fair Tax Act of 2005." is currently pending and it's a piece of shit Bill, the clause you refer to is qualified as a Prebate (welfare).
A true Fairtax has no such pork, it's a basic Flat Tax without all the frills of a flat Tax.