Don't Just Tax the Rich

Pitbull

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
3,659
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
268
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm sure what you really mean is cut welfare for all the lazy people or the illegal immigrants and just get rid of the coloreds and slow down the browning of america.
I have a better idea. People start cooperating again in this country.

How did you come to the conclusion that you know what I "really mean"?
Based on...???
Nothing.
That right.
You have nothing to say of any worth
So your response is to accuse someone of being a racist.

Such a tired argument.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Pitbull said:
How did you come to the conclusion that you know what I "really mean"?
Based on...???
Nothing.
That right.
You have nothing to say of any worth
So your response is to accuse someone of being a racist.

Such a tired argument.

It's actually based on researchable statistics reflecting who and what kind of person would be negatively affected the most if things such as Welfare, Medicare and Social Security were eliminated. All one has to do is go to the websites of such programs, look up the social make and financial demographics of each and see by percentages how many poor, minority people benefit from these programs. Of course to most people who disagree, any mentioning or reference to such obvious statistics must mean that the mentioner is playing the race card. And once that accusation is placed, all hell breaks loose.

This is one of the main reasons why nothing can ever get done in this country. The truth hurts sometimes. And notice, I didn't call you a racist either so let's not go there. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Pitbull

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
3,659
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
268
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It's actually based on researchable statistics reflecting

Do you mean he is saying
I am a racist based on stereotyping?

Of course to most people who disagree, any mentioning or reference to such obvious statistics must mean that the mentioner is playing the race card. And once that accusation is placed, all hell breaks loose.

Nowhere did I mention race or what should be cut spending.
The youtube video did not either.
So why are you and srdude007 bringing it into the discussion?
I'll let you and he answer.
I really have no idea what "you really mean" so I won't put words into your mouth.

And notice, I didn't call you a racist
No directly.
Just insinuation.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Do you mean he is saying
I am a racist based on stereotyping?

I'm not even touching the subject of anyone being called a racist because that derails the thread.

Nowhere did I mention race or what should be cut spending.

You didn't have to. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the social make and financial demographics of Welfare recipients as well as those who receive Medicare & Social Security knows how this will affect lower income people & minorities. For now, I'm going to assume that you're familiar with this too.

The youtube video did not either.
So why are you and srdude007 bringing it into the discussion?

I didn't bring race into this issue or this thread, so don't even try to pin that on me. What you did say is that srdude007's conclusions were based on nothing, and I interjected with an argument that can be proven based on researchable statistics reflecting who and what kind of person would be negatively affected the most if things such as Welfare, Medicare and Social Security were eliminated. These statistics back srdude007's claims regardless of whether or not you approved of its tone. But since srdude007 made a snide comment about the "browning of America", you're trying to make this solely about race as if your character is being attacked.

The YouTube video I posted featured Warren Buffet, a prominent Billionaire that actually disagrees with your beliefs in regards to taxes. You suggest that we should be taxing everyone. The third wealthiest man in the world has been saying for years now that making the lower & middle class pay more in taxes is disingenuous and that we should tax the rich even more. Who should we believe?

I'll let you and he answer.
I really have no idea what "you really mean" so I won't put words into your mouth.

And this is where I tell you to stop acting naive. :rolleyes:
My intentions were perfectly clear. I even told you that I wasn't calling you a racist, yet here you are trying to twist my argument into one. Bottom line, I don't care whom you hate around here. But there's some truth to what srdude007 said if you're really willing to pay attention to the issue at hand. The elimination of Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and many other entitlement programs will have a major negative effect on lower income people and minorities. Do you want to disagree with that statement and really have a debate on the issue or not?

No directly.
Just insinuation.

Trust me, you insinuate a lot of things too. This isn't our first dance on this board, and I can list many instances where you "hinted" that the person you're debating with is unintelligent or stupid. Many times, you've also implied that they were bigoted and/or racist yourself. So again, let's not act naive here. On top of that, what does srdude007's insinuation have anything to do with me in this thread? Nothing. So the ball is in your court. Are we talking about taxation, entitlement programs and who they affect, or would you rather banter about the race card some more?
 
Last edited:

DaveUSADAV

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Posts
88
Media
5
Likes
32
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I will only quote two Noble Prize winning economists: John Kenneth Gailbraith and John Maynard Keynes. Keynes monetary policies help pull the US out of the Depression. Keynes said: "Capitalism is this extraordinary and mythical belief that the most greediest, meanest, and selfish of men will somehow work for the benefit of us all..." It don't and will never work that way. Government intervenes to prevent these kings from amassing all wealth and power. The vector force of capitalism is eventual slavery for all the workers, paradise, commerce and kingdoms only for the rich. Without government capitalism will try to return to feudalism. My second quote is from JKG: " We have income because of government, not in spite of it." This was suppose to be the lesson from 9/11. We need firefighters, and police, and intelligence agencies, and OSHA, and the military, and teachers, and national health care to secure commerce and civilization. Taxes are also income to many; their only income. More importantly, when the capitalists have the power to raise prices to satisfy for their relentless greed they impose "taxes" on the poor. The profits and prices the oil companies make are taxes on us who pay at the pump- that is what they are, taxes. When the buses raise the price of their fares on fix income riders, that is a tax. Bill Gates and the Koch brothers owe their fortunes to what government has given them: clean water that did not kill them at age five, potable food that did not kill them at age 13, basic education so they could use their minds to create new ideas, police and security that kept them alive in their persons and protective of their basic valuables, military that kept them out of constant war and chaos in their faces with the forces dedicated to destroy them and democracy, immunizations and basic medical care to live long enough to become rich, a justice system that did not jail them because they are simply white, or Christian, or rich because it is primarily on their side.
Democracy will truly come about only when the Government has an equal interest in the fate of all its citizens- not for one and not another, but for all..
 

Pitbull

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
3,659
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
268
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I even told you that I wasn't calling you a racist, yet here you are trying to twist my argument into one.

... But there's some truth to what srdude007 said

I'm sure what you really mean is cut welfare for all the lazy people or the illegal immigrants and just get rid of the coloreds and slow down the browning of america.

what does srdude007's insinuation have anything to do with me in this thread?

I posted a link to a video having to with the impossibility of balancing the budget with a tax the rich strategy.

Srdude007 response is that I want to get rid of coloreds.

I posted that he was without basis accused me of being racist.

Your response.
You defended him and his posts.
You try to turn this thread into something about welfare cuts.
You cite the existence of statistics when he did not mention any.
What he said was that I "wanted to get rid of coloreds."
And you defend him.
Try to explain things away with sugarcoating

You of course are not directly accusing me of being racist.
Not even suggesting it.

So now the thread on a video about the impossibility of balancing the budget through taxation of the rich becomes a thread about entitlement programs and who they affect.

You will not touch the subject of people being called racist and immediately turn around and say the issue is the demographics of welfare recipients. And you have to point out how you assume I am familiar with them.

And to you what srdude007 said was a snide comment and insinuation.
Don't play games with the language.
What he said was quite clear.

No I am not naive.
I understand your posts perfectly.
 

Kotchanski

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Posts
2,850
Media
10
Likes
104
Points
193
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Female
Don't you just love it when a thread goes off topic?

So what I've worked out is this:

1. Pitbull posts a link to a vid explaining why (in the opinion of the vid) a "Tax the rich" strategy won't get the desired effect.

2. Pitbull posts stating that the US government should "cut spending" - Note that he said "Cut spending" he did not give any examples of where said cuts should be made, simply that some should.

3. srdude007 interpreted this to mean Welfare cuts and various others (based on those being the "usual" suggestions from their experience I assume?) and included some rather graphic descriptions of who these cuts would effect.

4. Pitbull took great offence to this, since he made no suggestion of where these cuts should be made, and certainly made no reference to those they would effect, especially in such colourful (sorry) terms.

5. Vinyl jumped in to defend srdude007's post, which was based on an assumption not confirmed within the quoted post that started this.

6. Pitbull took this defence as further insult, though Vinyl was only defending the fact that those cuts mentioned by srdude007 would effect those mentioned by srdude007, though didn't attribute those cuts mentioned to Pitbull.

Is it any wonder so many people stay out of here?

So, as I see it, the only option is to get back on topic, or admit that this is being continued on one side, the other or both for personal reasons? since this all came from an unconfirmed (as far as this thread goes) assumption...

I'll leave the decision up to you lot!
 
Last edited:

Pitbull

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
3,659
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
268
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
4. Pitbull took great offence to this, since he made no suggestion of where these cuts should be made, and certainly made no reference to those they would effect, especially in such colourful (sorry) terms.

Pitbull took great offense to srdude007 posting:

"what you really mean is cut welfare for all the lazy people or the illegal immigrants and just get rid of the coloreds and slow down the browning of america"

which is more than merely

"some rather graphic descriptions of who these cuts would effect."

He is accusing me of being a racist.
It is a totally unfounded accusation.

Setting the record straight in plain English.
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
The vector force of capitalism is eventual slavery for all the workers, paradise, commerce and kingdoms only for the rich.

More importantly, when the capitalists have the power to raise prices to satisfy for their relentless greed they impose "taxes" on the poor. The profits and prices the oil companies make are taxes on us who pay at the pump- that is what they are, taxes...

Hi David, nice to see you here again.

I find these quotes quite ironic two generations after they were made. I could now say in Europe

The vector force of State control is the eventual slavery of all the citizens, paradise, budgets and kingdoms only for the bureaucrats.

And then we pay 70% tax to the Government at the pump. The oil companies make nothing by comparison.

This thread is about the US though, not Europe and I just don't buy the Republican ideology that the US is successful because it is a low tax country. They may have maintained low taxation under Bush, but the reality is that that tax take wasn't enough to cover what even they wanted to spend, and that didn't include a national healthcare service.

I think the truth is that all earning Amercians will have to pay more tax and the majority will come from the middle earners as it always does. You just need a President who will sacrifice his career to end the bullshit.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I think the truth is that all earning Amercians will have to pay more tax and the majority will come from the middle earners as it always does. You just need a President who will sacrifice his career to end the bullshit.

Welcome to my recurrent dream.

Shit, I'd do it. I can't believe there's not someone out there who can pull it off.

Hope springs eternal, and all that.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
I just don't buy the Republican ideology that the US is successful because it is a low tax country. They may have maintained low taxation under Bush, but the reality is that that tax take wasn't enough to cover what even they wanted to spend, and that didn't include a national healthcare service.

There are plenty of good reasons that the US has been prosperous:

- lots of natural resources (the US was a net oil exporter until the 1960s, IIRC)
- natural trade routes (Atlantic, Pacific)
- control of markets in Central America and Caribbean
- no wars on US soil for @140 years
- steady population growth
- etc

You don't need to buy into the exceptionalism myths and the Repub bullshit - there are much simpler (and more logical) explanations out there.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
There are plenty of good reasons that the US has been prosperous:

- lots of natural resources (the US was a net oil exporter until the 1960s, IIRC)
- natural trade routes (Atlantic, Pacific)
- control of markets in Central America and Caribbean
- no wars on US soil for @140 years
- steady population growth
- etc

You don't need to buy into the exceptionalism myths and the Repub bullshit - there are much simpler (and more logical) explanations out there.

I agree, the US has had it easy in many ways. If things aren't going to be so easy in the future, I would suggest a robust contingency plan, and I wouldn't recommend starting with a monumental debt burden.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Don't you just love it when a thread goes off topic?

So what I've worked out is this:

1. Pitbull posts a link to a vid explaining why (in the opinion of the vid) a "Tax the rich" strategy won't get the desired effect.

2. Pitbull posts stating that the US government should "cut spending" - Note that he said "Cut spending" he did not give any examples of where said cuts should be made, simply that some should.

3. srdude007 interpreted this to mean Welfare cuts and various others (based on those being the "usual" suggestions from their experience I assume?) and included some rather graphic descriptions of who these cuts would effect.

4. Pitbull took great offence to this, since he made no suggestion of where these cuts should be made, and certainly made no reference to those they would effect, especially in such colourful (sorry) terms.

5. Vinyl jumped in to defend srdude007's post, which was based on an assumption not confirmed within the quoted post that started this.

6. Pitbull took this defence as further insult, though Vinyl was only defending the fact that those cuts mentioned by srdude007 would effect those mentioned by srdude007, though didn't attribute those cuts mentioned to Pitbull.

Is it any wonder so many people stay out of here?

So, as I see it, the only option is to get back on topic, or admit that this is being continued on one side, the other or both for personal reasons? since this all came from an unconfirmed (as far as this thread goes) assumption...

I'll leave the decision up to you lot!

You've ignored the fact that I provided links to a video referring to Warren Buffet's comments about taxing the rich on the first page. So in reality, my first two posts on this thread were indeed on topic even if the OP decided to ignore it... and seemingly everyone else for that matter.

Here they are again:
http://www.lpsg.org/242887-dont-just-tax-the-rich.html#post3420229
http://www.lpsg.org/242887-dont-just-tax-the-rich.html#post3420262

But yeah, I guess defending a statement from someone else that in some ways can be related to the thread topic from a different angle is the reason why so many people "stay out of here". No offense, Aconitum, because I don't expect everyone to read every single word in a thread... but I am not the one trying to derail this thread. Nor am I the reason why people "stay out of here".

However, if we need some scribe to tie in srdude007's comments to the thread topic then let me do so right now: It's obvious that our nation needs to generate some form of revenue in order to fix our faltering economy. What the current members of the GOP have provided as a solution is continued tax cuts for the wealthiest people, and to pay for these tax cuts they wind up cutting entitlement programs like Medicare, Welfare, Social Security... precisely the programs that srdude007 mentioned. Granted, anyone knows that just taxing the rich isn't going to solve all the problems we have with our economy long term. However, it makes a much more sensible start at this point since the alternative would have an adverse affect on people with poor, lower class & middle class incomes who just so happen to be minorities... another point that srdude007 made (using more colorful language if you pardon the pun). The GOP truly believe that if we give the wealthiest people more money they will create all the jobs we need in this country, when in reality we have seen more jobs outsourced overseas and the gap between the rich and the poor grow exponentially. It's the second coming of the trickle down theory that has already been proven to be a failure the first time. We need a different idea this time... and "don't just tax the rich" is not one of them.

This is all connected and none of it is really "off topic". Now if you'll excuse me, the perceived "evil, bitter ogre queen of LPSG" needs to get some rest now.
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Read the PM, Aconitum, and responded. It's all good in the neighborhood. :wink:
Now, where were we in this thread? Or better yet, how we provide a question to the OP - If we should cut spending (which we all agree to some extent does need to happen), where should we doing this first and why?
 

Pitbull

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
3,659
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
268
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I should not take the bait but here goes

#1.) Defense budget.
Why?
i.) The Biggest Item - Must be something in there we can do without.
ii.) Federal Government is full of fraud, waste and abuse.
Military is famous for $100.00 toilet seats (adjusted for inflation they are probably $300 now)
Dept. of Hundred-Dollar Toilet Seats - NYTimes.com
I don't think much has changed in $25 years. Most likely worse.
iii.) Military is doing things in places it should not be.
Hard to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan at this point without totally screwing up our efforts (misguided as they arguably are) of almost 10 years (almost 20 if you go back to 1st Gulf War).
But Libya?
At minimum $100 million for tomahawk missiles and total costs of over 1/2 billion first week.
Conservative estimates started out at $100 million a week on going costs.

Anyway that is just for starters.
But every dollar cut is a dollar taken out of someone's pocket.
Some defense contractor
Some congressional representatives district.
Not going to be easy
 

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I should not take the bait but here goes

#1.) Defense budget.
Good start.

Why?
i.) The Biggest Item - Must be something in there we can do without.
Exactly: Tackle the biggest expenses first and then worry about the small programs if necessary.
ii.) Federal Government is full of fraud, waste and abuse.
Military is famous for $100.00 toilet seats (adjusted for inflation they are probably $300 now)
Dept. of Hundred-Dollar Toilet Seats - NYTimes.com
I don't think much has changed in $25 years. Most likely worse.
Largely the result of "special relationships" i.e. conflicts of interest, between persons in charge and the suppliers who are offered no-bid contracts. Enact stronger conflict-of-interest laws and make no-bid arrangements illegal, and maybe those extra costs will go down.

iii.) Military is doing things in places it should not be.
I've posted before how we need to make a distinction between legitimate defense spending and illegitimate offense spending. The Constitution provides for the national defense in case we were ever invaded (you know, by the British who might've wanted their colonies back), but it does not provide for offensive actions except after a formal declaration of war. So any spending not related to defending our country from invasion or incurred as the result of a formally declared war is something that could/should be eliminated.

But every dollar cut is a dollar taken out of someone's pocket.
Some defense contractor
Some congressional representatives district.
Not going to be easy
And that's the heart of the problem. Cutting money from the budget ultimately cuts someone's paycheck or job somewhere. In a strong economy, that would not (necessarily) be a problem since in principle people could switch to other economic sectors to replace their incomes; in the current weakened economy, these people would just end up on unemployment, which means government spending just shifts from one column of the ledger to another.

So, ironically, the key to economic recovery is higher government spending to keep people on the payroll until the economy recovers to the point where these people can be cut loose and be able to replace their incomes, but the higher government spending necessitates higher taxes (either directly or indirectly through government borrowing that needs to be repaid) and these higher taxes slow the rate of recovery. Catch-22 anyone?
 

Pitbull

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
3,659
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
268
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
So, ironically, the key to economic recovery is higher government spending to keep people on the payroll until the economy recovers to the point where these people can be cut loose and be able to replace their incomes, but the higher government spending necessitates higher taxes (either directly or indirectly through government borrowing that needs to be repaid) and these higher taxes slow the rate of recovery. Catch-22 anyone?

No the key is not higher government spending.
You properly pointed out that in order to maintain a higher level of spending that taxes have to increase (not happening unless I'm missing something - at the point of the original video posted is that we cannot raise taxes enough to support the high spending rate)
or
BORROW MORE.
Which is what is happening.
Which results in increased interest costs.
and much of that money goes overseas to China and other countries and whoever else owns our debt.
That does not help our economy.

The government needs to spend less.
No getting around it.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
They can do that today if they have the money.
Most companies are for sale on the NY Stock Exchange.

or are you talking about stealing the companies?

I would have been CHEERING if instead of the government "bailing" out General Motors -- they would have loaned THAT money to the employees to buy the company outright (at a premium price BTWay since GM was practically in -- or WAS in bankruptcy!). Don't think it was even discussed! Just too "out of the box" thinking for some. Take a looksee sometime -- Grabar Electric!!
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I will only quote two Noble Prize winning economists: John Kenneth Gailbraith and John Maynard Keynes. Keynes monetary policies help pull the US out of the Depression. Keynes said: "Capitalism is this extraordinary and mythical belief that the most greediest, meanest, and selfish of men will somehow work for the benefit of us all..." It don't and will never work that way. Government intervenes to prevent these kings from amassing all wealth and power. The vector force of capitalism is eventual slavery for all the workers, paradise, commerce and kingdoms only for the rich. Without government capitalism will try to return to feudalism. My second quote is from JKG: " We have income because of government, not in spite of it." This was suppose to be the lesson from 9/11. We need firefighters, and police, and intelligence agencies, and OSHA, and the military, and teachers, and national health care to secure commerce and civilization. Taxes are also income to many; their only income. More importantly, when the capitalists have the power to raise prices to satisfy for their relentless greed they impose "taxes" on the poor. The profits and prices the oil companies make are taxes on us who pay at the pump- that is what they are, taxes. When the buses raise the price of their fares on fix income riders, that is a tax. Bill Gates and the Koch brothers owe their fortunes to what government has given them: clean water that did not kill them at age five, potable food that did not kill them at age 13, basic education so they could use their minds to create new ideas, police and security that kept them alive in their persons and protective of their basic valuables, military that kept them out of constant war and chaos in their faces with the forces dedicated to destroy them and democracy, immunizations and basic medical care to live long enough to become rich, a justice system that did not jail them because they are simply white, or Christian, or rich because it is primarily on their side.
Democracy will truly come about only when the Government has an equal interest in the fate of all its citizens- not for one and not another, but for all..

Thanks so much for this post -- honest -- direct and truth!! YES!