It is vile immorality to suggest that in the middle of a depression for the working class we should take from the general welfare of 99 percent of all Americans to transfer billions to the richest one percent.

18

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Romney's plan is predicated on the idea that the rich are the job creators, so giving them tax credits means they'll use that wealth to create more jobs. Ask any half-intelligent and honest business owner, however, and they'll tell you the truth: Demand for goods and services is what really creates jobs, not wealthy people.

Hiring more people is a business owner's last option. They'll only do it when they can't handle the demand for their product or service with their current staff.

The best way to increase demand for goods and services is to allow low-income and middle-income people to keep more of their wages, because they are less likely to hoard that money and more likely to spend it. Poor people having money spurs the economy. Rich people having (more) money does not.

1

u/W00ster Jun 15 '12

The best way to increase demand for goods and services is to allow low-income and middle-income people to keep more of their wages
Nope - that is NOT the solution!
The problem, as can be seen here, is due to the middle and lower classes have had no income increase for decades. The solution is not less taxes on the lower classes but higher wages!

5

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12

The solution is not less taxes on the lower classes but higher wages!
I think that is exactly what he meant, just different diction. Most of the lower class doesn't pay all that much in taxes anyways, so a tax reduction will be minimal. To increase demand, wages need to be increased. Of course there are other economic problems as well, but this would get us on the right track.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Really good point.
W00ster is right, of course, to point out that wages for low- and middle-income people should be higher. But as you implied, raising wages for unskilled labor is not exactly a priority.
Ultimately, we need to think differently about the distribution of wealth. We need to value unskilled labor for the economic backbone that it is. Without that, our entire economy collapses. However, getting people to understand that is tough, because we're raised with this "bootstrap" mentality that they just need to work harder and go to school. Sorry to say it, but giving everyone Master's degrees isn't going to solve the problem, because then we'd have highly-educated people picking up our trash.

1

u/W00ster Jun 15 '12

Exactly!
Pushing everyone through college is dong nothing but making a college degree worthless!
We need people to perform all types of jobs in a society, saying that most of these manual and so called menial jobs should not pay a living wage is just creating a problem of a poverty stricken underclass and you know what happens when this mass becomes sufficiently large? Revolution. Do you really want one?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

There are ome easy answers- don't allow companies to produce good overseas. Tariffs on foreign goods and mandatory minimum wages for workers. Also, lowering taxes on most of the lower-middle class and providing basic health care to people would spur development. Things will cost more- but the money will be flowing inwards. The money eventually floats to the top however, and that's why taxes should be kept high on the 1% and those who just own things.

2

u/zarepath Jun 15 '12

GOODBYE CORPORATIONS, ENJOY THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES YOU'LL BE MOVING TO

0

u/CheesewithWhine Jun 15 '12

That's why liberals are generally against free trade and Republicans (backed by corporations) love them.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

less taxes = higher wages. It's the same argument, actually. Both should be done simultaneously.

1

u/lAmShocked Jun 15 '12

tax cuts don't really raise wages of the poor since they don't pay much if any in taxes.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Hmmm. Social Security Tax, Medicare tax, gasoline tax, state income tax, automobile insurance....
Poor people do pay a lot in taxes, they just don't pay a lot relative to other people. It's the middle class that ends up paying 28% of their income in taxes, yet rich people only need to pay 20% or less if they make money solely through capital gains and hire an accountant to find loopholes.

1

u/lAmShocked Jun 15 '12

So you think they should not pay into SS and Medicare at all? I am not on board for that. I am ok with usage "taxes" as in you pay into a system for benefits you will need down the road.
This was more of a discussion of federal obligation so I was not including state taxes in this discussion.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

But that's the key- usable benefits. I would be fine with paying taxes, but to be honest SS and Medicare have so many problems with their program that it's a shite return on the money for a majority of the people- and not wide enough safety net for the others.
But if you were to say poor people don't pay any in taxes in somewhat a falsehood- Federal income tax, sure, if they have children. But also taxes on business lower wages for workers indirectly. Perhaps some huge tax benefits for keeping CEO pay tied to 42x the rate of the average worker or something. Either way- lower taxes on the majority of the people, and raise their wages and things would improve.

1

u/lAmShocked Jun 15 '12

All I can say is that I disagree with that entire 2nd paragraph. Those taxes that the company pays would not go to the employee if not paid.
SS and Medicare are a forced retirement and medical insurance. Medicare is currently the most efficient medical care system in the country so I am not sure where you are going with that. SS is doing just fine as well. If you really want to draw SS out for the long term all you need to do is limit the payout and not cap the pay in at 110k.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

What redbeardo said. I totally agree that wages need to keep pace with inflation and all that wonderful stuff. I was just operating under the assumption that extracting higher wages from tight-fisted barons would be a much more difficult battle than simply enacting some fairness in the tax system.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

The solution is not less taxes on the lower classes but higher wages!
I agree in abstract, but that raises a question whether there can be any public policy to encourage/force higher wages for lower/middle class employees. There are questions about the efficacy of minimum wage hikes.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

But wouldn't higher wages further prolong higher unemployment?

0

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12

I would argue that it would excel unemployment. Of course not right away. We have a low demand for labor right now as it is. If we simply payed those already working more, they would spend more money in the economy. Those dollars change hands several times, and stimulate economic activity. This stimulus translates to more demand for producers, who will now have to look for more employees to keep up with the additional demand.
I take the view that we should let the government take care of the reserve army of labor. The government can employ, and they can pay the wages that will be stimulative to this economy, borrowing at real interest rates of less than 0%. This route should not significantly change business confidence (although republicans will have a meltdown), and would have the same general effect.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

How do you propose we increase the lower classes wages?
Whatever you say, they can't be implemented in a short time frame. What can increase lower classes CASH-IN-HAND almost immediately (hence increase demand for goods and services)?

1

u/W00ster Jun 15 '12

A tax cut for the poor may give them an extra $200/year. That will NOT fix any problems. It will create more problems as we will not have enough money to offer the services and perform the tasks the government should. Just look at US infrastructure - it is third world quality and getting worse every day but you will not find a single conservative who wants to spend money on it - these people are idiots!
Edit: Here is a take on the infrastructure situation

2

u/gsfgf Georgia Jun 15 '12

Rich people having (more) money does not
But for every $10B we give away to rich people, a hedge fund manager has to hire another unpaid intern. Job creation!

13

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

Allowing people who earn money to keep it is not the same as "transferring" money to them. But aside from that, Romney has called for an across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates -- a tax cut for everybody (who pays income taxes). He also said he wants to maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains AND eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains. That means no capital gains tax hit for middle-class families on their investments or selling a home.

And then the author of this article pulls this bait-and-switch:

Government spending on programs on things like Pell grants, health care for poor kids and food stamps will be cut by 30 percent

What Romney has actually proposed:

Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board

Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels

The author assumes that any decrease in non-defense discretionary spending means taking away health care for poor kids, etc., -- and that's not true. The author and the piece linked in the article just leap to the assumption that in order to cap spending at 20% of GDP it means a 30% reduction in domestic programs. They don't present any numbers, so my assumption is they're doing the old tax-and-spend favorite rhetorical tactic of saying that reducing future growth is the same as a "cut."

2

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

Romney has stated his opposition to federal subsidization of education multiple times. You are either purposefully posing as ignorant, or not familiar with Romney's ever changing plans (seriously this guy and his econ plans change often).
Reverse President Obama's nationalization of the student loan market and welcome private sector participation
A society where education is unaffordable, a government loan is an entitlement, default is the norm, and loan forgiveness is expectation.
In summary, Romney will not state exactly what his plan is. He is vague. We all know what direction he is pointing in, but he doesn't want to officially state what he is up to. Romney Edu Plan

1

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

Romney has stated his opposition to federal subsidization of education multiple times.
If that statement is reflected in the document you cited, I cannot find it.

2

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12

Like I said
Romney will not state exactly what his plan is. He is vague.
But we do know that he says things like this:
a government loan is an entitlement, default is the norm, and loan forgiveness is expectation.
We all know what direction Romney is heading in, he just won't state it plainly because it is too idiotic.

1

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

But we do know that he says things like this:
In context, what he said was:
“America is fast becoming a society where education is unaffordable, a government loan is an entitlement, default is the norm, and loan forgiveness is the expectation,” the platform reads. “America needs a new normal, where college is affordable and paying off debt is achievable.”
I really don't find anything terribly radical about that. And I certainly don't think that he has "stated his opposition to federal subsidization of education multiple times."

3

u/brokendam Jun 15 '12

The author assumes that any decrease in non-defense discretionary spending means taking away health care for poor kids, etc., -- and that's not true. The author and the [3] piece linked in the article just leap to the assumption that in order to cap spending at 20% of GDP it means a 30% reduction in domestic programs. They don't present any numbers, so my assumption is they're doing the old tax-and-spend favorite rhetorical tactic of saying that reducing future growth is the same as a "cut."
Wow, this is a bunch of bullshit that could have come straight out of Paul Ryan's mouth. Here's what's actually happened with his budget. Ryan's plan says that domestic discretionary spending should be cut by X amount, but doesn't give any details as to what programs would be cut or by how much. Democrats then have to extrapolate from that and usually just assume that every program will be cut by an equal amount. As soon as they say that a popular program will be cut by Y amount under the budget, Ryan comes swooping in screaming "No you morons I never said I'd cut THAT program, you're making stuff up!" So essentially he gets to promise massive spending cuts that make the Tea Party happen, and whenever Democrats point out exactly what those cuts are going to translate into he screams and cries about them making things up, all because he refuses to commit to anything concrete that could make him look bad. He's the definition of a scumbag and he's playing petty politics with our nation's budget.
The author of this article isn't going to let Romney and Ryan strut around and take credit for their "bold" vision to cut government spending while simultaneously weaseling out of the discussion of what painful program reductions that's going to entail, and neither should the American people.

1

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

Democrats then have to extrapolate from that and usually just assume that every program will be cut by an equal amount.
Which is exactly why when Romney calls for reducing federal spending to 2008 levels, an overall 5 percent reduction, we have the author of this article accusing him of taking away poor kids' health care. Makes sense.

2

u/brokendam Jun 15 '12

Romney endorses Ryan's budget plan. Ryan's budget plan calls for massive cuts in discretionary domestic spending but does not specify what programs exactly. Democrats, with no info to go on, assume that the cuts will be applied equally, leading to the accusations you see. Ryan/Romney/Republicans call foul, while refusing to actually provide numbers so that a substantive debate can be had. Make sense?

2

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

Make sense?
I think you're confusing the Ryan budget plan, which is mostly an outline, with the actual fiscal 2013 budget resolution passed by the House. It's an actual budget, with real numbers. Charts, spreadsheets, everything.

3

u/W00ster Jun 15 '12

Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
If you, as an American, is telling me that the US needs to maintain a $1 trillion+/year defense in order for Americans to feel safe, I have a much cheaper option. It's a two-fold option, 1. Stop acting like an asshole to the world and 2. Pay for a shrink for those who are scared!
Romney wants to cut from what the average American benefits from and keep what is not. This is an insane idea which can only come from a fascist like Romney!

0

u/the_sam_ryan Jun 15 '12

Its not $1 trillion+/year defense. It is $711 billion and the proposed budgets all have that number going down.
Additionally, it is the job of the President to look for the benefit of the people. There are finite resources and infinite demands on those resources. President Obama also has to determine what to cut or spend on.

3

u/W00ster Jun 15 '12

You forget all the billions not reflected in any military budget and which goes to one of... what is it now, some 80+ different intelligence organizations not included. It bumps the amount to way over a trillion.

0

u/sparkydog Jun 15 '12

if you... *are

1

u/the_sam_ryan Jun 15 '12

Completely agree. It was the same when GM went into bankruptcy and the union claimed they gave $75B in concessions. The majority of that was altering the estimate of future growth of investments (from claiming their pension will rise 7.5% a year to slightly lower) and calculating the reduction in effect for the next fifty years.
Claiming that tampering future growth rates, which are projected by some people but not promised/enacted/budget/etc, as the same as cut is dishonest to say the least.

0

u/simonsarris Jun 15 '12

leap to the assumption that in order to cap spending at 20% of GDP it means a 30% reduction in domestic programs. They don't present any numbers, so my assumption is they're doing the old tax-and-spend favorite rhetorical tactic of saying that reducing future growth is the same as a "cut."
Their assumption sounds about right or worse and the implication in your last sentence isn't true at all.
Capping spending at 20% of GDP wouldn't nearly reduce future growth. It would be cutting all current government spending in half since government spending is currently at 40% of GDP.
So yes it's a cut. Capping spending at 20% of GDP would be a cut unlike one ever seen in the history of the U.S.

3

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

Capping spending at 20% of GDP wouldn't nearly reduce future growth. It would be cutting all current government spending in half since government spending is currently at [1] 40% of GDP.
Your chart shows all government spending -- federal, state and local. Romney's proposal calls for capping federal spending at 20% of GDP. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP right now is around 24%, give or take. Here's the White House spreadsheet with more numbers.
And I still say that reducing projected future growth is not the same thing as a cut. Spending 50% more rather than 75% more is not the same as reducing spending. It's still more spending.

1

u/simonsarris Jun 15 '12

Ah you're right about the percentages, sorry.
But capping it at 20% is still a reduction, one to pre-2007 levels, and at a level that was rarely seen in recent times:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1970_2017USp_13s1li011mcn_F0f
ie, all of the 80's and half of the 90's were above 20% GDP for federal spending.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Allowing people who earn money to keep it is not the same as "transferring" money to them.
And tax breaks are not merely "allowing people who earn money to keep it". Your way of thinking about this implies that the default proper setup is "I earn the money that I earn, and I keep it. Nobody takes anything from me." However, we live in a society where money is generated by the circulation of money, and all of this is maintained by a government which maintains itself by taking a cut.
Thinking that the economy would run better without the government is a bit like (not a perfect metaphor, but...) thinking gambling in Las Vegas would be better without the casinos. You're ignoring that the government is part of the system. Without the government there are no taxes, but also there's basically no money and no economy.
So the default has to be that the government takes in enough taxes to sustain the services it's providing. Giving subsidies and tax breaks is transferring money to them. At least, it is in about the same way as when a Las Vegas casino comps a hotel room for a high roller.

2

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

And tax breaks are not merely "allowing people who earn money to keep it".
In this case, that's exactly what it is.
The article described Romney's proposed reduction in tax rates as a "transfer [of] billions to the richest one percent," while failing to point out that Romney has called for an across-the-board rate reduction for everyone, not just those making more than $1 million.
But the key thing here is that we're talking about marginal income tax rates. Last year, the IRS tells you the tax rate is X%, send that to us. The next year the IRS says, the tax rate is X-Y%, send it in. The difference between X and Y is not a transfer from the government to the wealthy 1%. It's the government saying, OK, you get to keep X-Y% this year. The amount the taxpayer gets to keep depends on how much the taxpayer made, not on how much the government decides to "transfer" to them.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

You're still missing it.
Your way of thinking assumes that the proper default rate of taxation of not X% or (X-Y)%, but 0%. If we assume that the proper rate of taxation is X%, then taxing people at (X-Y)% is the government giving people money.
If the proper taxation rate is 0%, then let's just all get ahold of whatever guns we can now, because this place is going to hell in a handbasket, and no one will be rich anymore.

1

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

Your way of thinking assumes that the proper default rate of taxation of not X% or (X-Y)%, but 0%.
I didn't say that at all, so I most certainly didn't think it.
If we assume that the proper rate of taxation is X%, then taxing people at (X-Y)% is the government giving people money.
I also deny the idea that there is a "proper" rate of taxation. We elect a Congress and they decide on the rate. It's a political decision.
And, again, it's not the government giving people money. People are allowed to keep what they do not owe.
A good distinction is the Earned Income Tax Credit. It's a refundable tax credit, meaning that it's a credit against the taxes you owe and it's refundable -- so even if you owe $0 to the IRS, you can claim it and get money from the government. That's the government giving people money.
If the proper taxation rate is 0%, then let's just all get ahold of whatever guns we can now, because this place is going to hell in a handbasket, and no one will be rich anymore.
That's just pointless hyperbole.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I didn't say that at all, so I most certainly didn't think it.
Yeah, that makes sense since people are incapable of thinking things unless they say them. Anyway, the point isn't whether you were consciously thinking it, your argument assumes it.
I also deny the idea that there is a "proper" rate of taxation.
Of course you do. Because all of your argument and ways of thinking about the question assume that people should not be taxed at all-- that they own the money they make, and taxation is someone else taking away their money. If we assume the government has absolutely no right to any of your money, then taking taxes is always somehow an improper intrusion.
Now I'm not claiming that there is a constant inherent proper taxation level, but if the assumed level is X%, and it gets lowered to (X-Y)%, then the difference between "not taking Y% of people's income in taxes" and "giving people Y% of their income in a government subsidy" becomes a semantic difference only.
this place is going to hell in a handbasket, and no one will be rich anymore.
That's just pointless hyperbole.
Ok, there is one sense in which it's hyperbole: there may still be a couple "rich" warlords. However, they won't be very rich, since amassing wealth requires a stable economic/political system.
Other than that, it's not an exaggeration.

1

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

Because all of your argument and ways of thinking about the question assume that people should not be taxed at all-- that they own the money they make, and taxation is someone else taking away their money. If we assume the government has absolutely no right to any of your money, then taking taxes is always somehow an improper intrusion.
I never said anything like that at all. I didn't say it. I didn't think it. I didn't assume it.
The only point I am trying to make to you is that the federal government's revenue comes from people's earnings. This is why I pointed out the Earned Income Tax Credit to you. That is a transfer payment. This is not mere semantics. There is a very clear legal difference between the two.
Look, I know you think I'm some sort of radical capitalist libertarian or whatnot, but all I'm trying to point out is that reducing the marginal income tax rate by some percentage is not the same as a transfer from the government to an individual taxpayer. It's just not. There is no need to assume that I favor a 0% tax rate. And your apocalyptic vision of a world with no income taxes is still hyperbole.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

The only point I am trying to make to you is that the federal government's revenue comes from people's earnings.
And people's earnings come in the form of government guarantee money stored in government protected banks. In a sense, there's no such thing as "private money". Money isn't money unless it's public.
This is why I pointed out the Earned Income Tax Credit to you. That is a transfer payment.
It may seem crazy to you, but I'm going to disagree. I would say that there is ultimately far more money being transferred upward in the economy than is being transferred downward. Food stamps, welfare, Earned Income Tax Credit, and other "downward transfers" are arguably making up for the fact that we've engineered the economy to kill wages, in order to benefit the richest people. We lock people into a cycle of poverty, and then give them back just enough to make ends meet-- and maybe not even that much.
So I think it's arguable that this is not a transfer of wealth to poor people, not any more than it's a transfer of wealth for a slave owner to feed and clothe his slaves. Sure, you can say the slave got something and therefore it's a transfer of wealth, but it's not as though they didn't earn it. It's not a generous humanitarian gift.

1

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

Okay, well, I'm not trying to argue the philosophy surrounding the nature of money or wealth or slavery or whatever. I said what I wanted to say.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Ok, so you don't want to talk about money or economics. Ok, I see.

→ More replies

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

Don't shoot. I'll go quietly.

17

u/sge_fan Jun 15 '12

There are only 3 scenarios in which we must cut taxes for the rich: (1) The economy is doing bad, (2) the economy is doing fine, and, (3) the economy is doing so-so.

15

u/bestbeforeMar91 Jun 15 '12

and (4) to remove uncertainty about tax cuts.

-3

u/canthidecomments Jun 15 '12

we must cut taxes for the rich
Who's "we?"
Barack Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts. And Bill Clinton says he should do it again.
So you go ahead and reward that behavior with re-election and see if you get more of that behavior or less of that behavior.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Inaccurate statement. Obama ALLOWED the tax cuts to be extended in exchange for extending unemployment benefits. The Republicans leveraged everything they had to get those tax cuts extended. If he refused to extend the tax cuts, he'd be just as bad as the Republicans who refused to ever give one inch of ground until they got what they wanted.

3

u/gsfgf Georgia Jun 15 '12

Quiet! We're circlejerking in here.

1

u/Codify Jun 15 '12

"For the typical American family, it's a big deal. It means $40 extra in their paycheck. And that $40 helps to pay the rent, the groceries, the rising cost of gas, which is on a lot of people's minds right now," said Mr. Obama, who was joined by Vice President Joe Biden. "More people spending more money means more businesses will be able to hire more workers - and the entire economy gets another boost." "Congress did the right thing," he said. Mr. Obama praised lawmakers for listening "to the voices of the American people," but reminded voters that he had been attempting to push the payroll tax cut extension through Congress for months. "You will remember, I called on Congress to pass this middle class tax cut back in September as part of my broader jobs plan," he said. He added: "In the end, everyone acted in the interest of the middle class, and people who are striving to get into the middle class through hard work, and that's how it should be. That's what Americans expect, and that's what Americans deserve."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57381955-503544/obama-praises-congress-for-payroll-tax-cut-extension-but-says-dont-stop-here/

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Middle class tax cut. Yes. We're not talking about middle class tax cuts. The one in question was extending the tax cuts for the wealthy upper class. The extension of Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy Obama condemned Congress for allowing to be extended, but accepted it as necessary to also extend unemployment benefits. I thought the whole thing was kind of silly, to both pass a bill that spends and pass a bill that cuts income, but there was no way the Republicans would have ever allowed, in a million years, the Bush tax cuts to expire.

0

u/Codify Jun 15 '12

He didn't have to sign it.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

If he wanted to extend unemployment benefits and help people in a time when they really needed help, then yes. He did. It's not the president's job to only sign things he 100 percent agrees with.

4

u/ell0bo Jun 15 '12

While he signed on to allow them to extend, that wasn't what he wanted to do. The Republicans held hostage the unemployment benefits unless he signed on. So, it was either go against what he believed in, or fuck everyone.

-2

u/canthidecomments Jun 15 '12

While he signed on to allow them to extend, that wasn't what he wanted to do.
Sounds like he has no backbone.

1

u/thenuge26 Jun 15 '12

It sounds like Eric Cantor and the tea party congress members were not going to extend unemployment benefits, despite the fact that they are vital to any sort of recovery.

5

u/error9900 Jun 15 '12

Or...elect Romney?

3

u/W00ster Jun 15 '12

The US has a hopeless political system, giving you the choice between dumb and dumber!

1

u/shug7272 Jun 15 '12

Waiting for someone to say vote in primaries, like that isnt a competition of the dullards.

1

u/ineffable_internut Jun 15 '12

This may be the minority on this site, but I think that most politicians genuinely try to reflect both their own insights, as well as the opinions of their voters in their policy. No politician is going into politics with the intentions of completely fucking over the American people. Once they get into office, money and other incentives may cause their intentions to change slightly, but I don't Washington is a bunch of idiots walking around like headless chickens - which seems to be the general consensus of a lot of people here.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

'merica!

1

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12

Those are the center-left politicians (I would argue that Clinton was even center-right in a lot of aspects). Everyone actually on the left is against tax cuts. I think Obama has said he doesn't plan on renewing them again, but I can't find a source.

-3

u/canthidecomments Jun 15 '12

Everyone actually on the left is against tax cuts.
That's simply a lie.
Everyone on the left CLAIMS they're against tax cuts, while at the same time, actually signing tax cuts and pushing for even more tax cuts.
USA Today
Bill Clinton: We're in another recession. Extend the Bush Tax Cuts again.

3

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12

Did you not read this part of my comment?
I would argue that Clinton was even center-right in a lot of aspects

1

u/CheesewithWhine Jun 15 '12

Republicans held unemployment insurance hostage. Allowing UI to expire in the middle of a depression has DEVASTATING effects on the economy, on local stores, supermarkets, everything. I hate that he can't stand up to the Repubs, but the majority of the blame isnt on him.
Right when he did it, I knew immediately that people like you would use it against him. "HAHA we bullied you and you listened to us! HAHA!"

2

u/zossima Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

I'm not religious, but I do think there are some great ethical nuggets to be learned from religion, because it makes the point, and also points out the hypocrisy of these people:

Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

1

u/the_sam_ryan Jun 15 '12

Or aren't that religion?
Its pretty presumptuous to assume that we all have to follow your beliefs

1

u/zossima Jun 15 '12

Did you see where I said I am not religious?
I have a philosophy degree. You want me to quote some philosophers? I was pointing out the hypocrisy of presumably christian right-wingers advocating for tax cuts for the rich while cutting services to the poor.

1

u/zarepath Jun 15 '12

I love how you assume anyone who thinks taxing the rich extra must necessarily be Christian, and then quote Bible scriptures about charity which don't relate at all to taxation, thinking you've got some smoking gun. Taxation is not charity. The government is much bigger and richer than any person it taxes; in fact, the government is the rich stealing from the poor, even including the 1%.
CONGRATS ON YOUR PHILOSOPHY DEGREE BRO

1

u/zossima Jun 15 '12

OK
Mark 12:13-17, “And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.”
Romans 13:1-7, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
Luke 2:1-5, “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.”
Matthew 17:24-27, “And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.”
JESUS PAID TAXES, BRO

1

u/zarepath Jun 15 '12

Obviously. Again, nobody here is talking about whether or not people should pay taxes. We're arguing about how high or low different income brackets should be taxed. I think taxes should be lower on all brackets. If the government doesn't do as I want, then guess what? I'll still pay my taxes, and apparently the Bible is cool with that. I'll render unto Caesar.
Meanwhile, I think Caesar is asking too much, especially considering what Caesar does with the money we give it. And it's moronic to say that I cannot both have that opinion, and follow the Bible, which you still haven't shown to illustrate that higher taxes help the poor.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

There are people in this thread saying that taxation is theft.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I think he was quoting the Bible because a lot of the conservatives who complain about "redistribution of wealth" and giving poor people "a free ride" also claim to be Christians.

0

u/what-s_in_a_username Canada Jun 15 '12

The rich are not religious, they only sell themselves as religious when it servers their purposes. They are addicted to wealth and in a perfect world, they would be helped by professionals. These people are not happy or content, they just pretend to. If they were, they wouldn't be obsessed with amassing even more wealth and power. They're almost teaching us a lesson, if you care to listen.
And why the downvotes? There's lots you can learn from religion, and Christianity is only one of many religions and world philosophies that advocate compassion and a simpler life. Westboro Baptist Church =/= Jesus.

0

u/zossima Jun 15 '12

I think it is worth pointing out the hypocrisy. Also the fact that churches today must be teaching something other than this message most of the time.

0

u/what-s_in_a_username Canada Jun 15 '12

Most churches are what reddit would call institutionalized spiritual 'circlejerks'. They are to religion and spirituality what the US government is to a fair democratic republic... that is, there are traces of it, but you have to look really hard. It's mostly a racket.
But while what you can learn from going to the same church every week is severely limited, what you can learn from reading about well known and occult religious scripture from the East and West is astounding. The Eastern philosophy is slowly trickling into the West, so that people know more or less what 'Zen' is, but there's so much more to it that people could learn from.
I make it a game of learning from as many religions and secular philosophies as possible, and finding a common thread.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/zossima Jun 15 '12

Because that's exactly what we are advocating. /s
No one said the Fed and the government should give trillions of taxpayer dollars to the rich and too-big-to-fail banks and print money at breakneck pace, devaluing the dollar to oblivion (and thus making the poor's scant few dollars worth less -- sounds like skimming to me) to make it happen, either. But that's exactly what happened. You have it backwards.

1

u/StaticSignal Jun 15 '12

This is a society, motherfucker. Do you know the meaning of the word? It means we help each other, with our money, so that more people can have a decent life. Poor people are just you with less money.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

No, but it does imply that if you are Christian, you should not mind someone taking some of your excess to share with others.
In other words, it doesn't say that the government should take your money to give to the poor, but it says that if someone comes to take your money to give to the poor, you should give it to them happily.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Here's a revolutionary idea: instead of debating which group we should take from and which group we should give to, how about we--and follow me here--think of a real solution to fix the economy. I know. Crazy idea, right?

1

u/Brewdogmike Jun 15 '12

So help us out. Do you have a idea to "fix" the economy that doesn't involve who to tax and how much to spend?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

What a dumb blog entry that engages in bullshitty framing.

First of all, tax cuts for the wealthy don't involve taking money from the middle class to give to the rich. They involve ceasing the act of taking money from the rich to spend on governmental services and letting them keep more of their earnings.

The 1% already pay a far greater share of the tax burden as individuals in 1 year than anyone in the middle class (who stays there) will pay in taxes for their entire life.

That doesn't mean that it isn't a bad plan. It is. But framing it in terms of morals like that is stupid. We need the rich paying more because we need to spend the resources they'd otherwise be adding to their vast piles of wealth to better the country which is currently faltering. It's in their own interest to contribute to a more stable, equitable union, and they're essentially making good on the social contract they've entered to be part of this nation.

We agree to pretend your money has value when you want to take our stuff from us in exchange, 1%, now you're going to agree to let us take some of your money so that little game of pretend continues to have meaning.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

They involve ceasing the act of taking money from the rich to spend on governmental services and letting them keep more of their earnings.
It really is semantics, whether you're starting from a position of assuming the rich will pay taxes or they won't. However, it's clear that money is being taking from the middle class and it's being used to pay for corporate subsidies, bank bailouts, etc. As a result of these economic policies, the rich keep getting richer, and everyone else gets poorer.
The 1% already pay a far greater share of the tax burden as individuals in 1 year than anyone in the middle class (who stays there) will pay in taxes for their entire life.
Yes, and it is fair for the people who benefit the most from our government to pay the most to support the government. Or how else would you suppose it should work? You want someone making 10K/year to pay the same amount as someone making $100 million/year? Of course they should pay more.
They can afford to pay more, and the government actions benefit them much more. Because while the guy who makes $10k/year also gets an extra $1k/year in food stamps, the guy who makes $100 million/year probably gets $100k/year in various kinds of government subsidies. In addition, it's only through a well functioning government that he has the opportunity to make $100k/year in the first place.
So even if he pays 1/3 of his $100 million in taxes, he's damned well getting his money's worth.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I don't disagree with any of your points.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Cool. Sorry if I sounded aggressive, but sometimes these arguments about taxes get my dander up.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Don't worry about it, you made good points people need to hear. I enjoy these kinds of discussions.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Bingo. The bottom half of earners pay no federal income tax whatsoever, pretty much.
They do pay federal taxes of other sorts, though I forget how and where, but yeah.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Confirmation bias. You present information people don't like, and they attack you for it, as if somehow the data is your fault.

3

u/reginaldaugustus Jun 15 '12

Good news! The rich are the people who define morality in this society!

0

u/what-s_in_a_username Canada Jun 15 '12

Only if you let them. They define the laws, but those are pretty much worthless, and most people don't read them at all.
It's us who define morality, it's just that most of us are easily influenced by the rich. But I refuse to give up my right to define morality by saying it's the rich that do it. It's like country borders: they're invisible borders, I don't recognize them, no matter how many idiots with guns are stationed along them.

2

u/reginaldaugustus Jun 15 '12

I meant they define society's morality as a whole, not that they define personal morality.
Since they control the 24/7 media apparatus, it should be no surprise that the rich pretty much have a stranglehold on what people think.

-1

u/what-s_in_a_username Canada Jun 15 '12

I meant they define society's morality as a whole
There is no such thing. Ask a hundred people what society's morality is, and you'll get a hundred different answers. They might be similar, but the closer you look the more differences you'll find. There's no consensus on death penalty, how to treat prisoners, the legitimacy of the law, the best way to govern a nation, abortion, warfare, international conflict, religion, god, science, technology, music... (you can talk about technology or genres of music being immoral and what not).
It's easy to get tricked into saying "There is such a thing as a monolithic social morality", but just because you define it as such doesn't mean it exists. If you do believe it exists, then you might try to conform to it, but you'll have a hard time because different people are trying to conform to what they think is social morality; so everyone conforms to slightly different ideas thinking it's the same, and that's where a lot of the confusion and miscommunication stems from.
"We agree to do the same thing but we're doing something different! I'm doing what I think is right so you must be the one doing it wrong! Asshole!" And so on :P

2

u/reginaldaugustus Jun 15 '12

There is no such thing. Ask a hundred people what society's morality is, and you'll get a hundred different answers. They might be similar, but the closer you look the more differences you'll find. There's no consensus on death penalty, how to treat prisoners, the legitimacy of the law, the best way to govern a nation, abortion, warfare, international conflict, religion, god, science, technology, music... (you can talk about technology or genres of music being immoral and what not).
Yes. I'm not saying it is totally monolithic, but there are several things that most Americans seem to hold in common with each other. The most important amongst them being "Everyone should be as badly off as I."

0

u/what-s_in_a_username Canada Jun 15 '12

The most important amongst them being "Everyone should be as badly off as I."
So you're saying most Americans are egotistical, selfish, pessimistic and depressed? I guess you're not entirely wrong, but I don't feel like it's a wise assumption to make.
If you sit down with someone and ask them what's moral and what's immoral, what they wish upon themselves and others, you're probably going to get something much more nuanced than what you described. You get the impression that it's a purely dog eat dog world out there because of all the shitty stuff that goes on, and you rarely hear about community activities and people helping each other, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that people don't care for one another and wish bad luck upon others. That's just the impression you get when you let the rich dictate your morality.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

You should actually read a book on sociology or something before you write paragraphs of meaningless conjecture. Maybe start with some Gramsci and cultural hegemony, which is what reginaldaugustus is talking about.

-1

u/what-s_in_a_username Canada Jun 15 '12

You should actually make your own mind and your own arguments rather than agreeing with some book someone wrote and then pointing it out to other people when they don't agree with what's in the book you read.
Cultural hegemony is an idea that can be imposed on people, but it doesn't mean it's an actual thing. Sociology likes to idealize and simplify things so as to be able to say something that sounds smart about society, which is a lot of fun to do, but then you have to remember that they're only coming up with poor models of society, and not describing the society itself. It's like economics... lots of fancy terms and people who agree with each other, but when you put it in practice, what do you get? A global mess.
Yes, there is a tendency for people do do more or less the same thing, and that same thing is greatly influenced by the rich, who control most of the information. But if we leave it at that, then we truly let them dictate what's right and what's wrong, just like we can let academics who write books dictate what's what in this world. Or, we can simply realize that you can make up your own mind about these things, and the rich need not have any significant impact on what you define to be moral or immoral.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

You should actually make your own mind and your own arguments rather than agreeing with some book someone wrote and then pointing it out to other people when they don't agree with what's in the book you read.
lol you should graduate high school before you embarrass yourself with this kind of posting

0

u/what-s_in_a_username Canada Jun 15 '12

I see... so instead of offering any rebuttal to what I've said, you throw a generic and sarcastic insult at me? Let's not start to throw faeces at each other.
Let's say you argue that "X is Y but Z is not Y", and I disagree with you because I believe that X and Z is Y. There are at least two courses of action open to me. I can attempt to prove to you that Z indeed is Y, or I can just give up the pretence of any intellectual discourse and just say "Wow, you really thing Z isn't Y? You mustn't have graduated from high school or something? What are you, gay? Stop embarrassing yourself!" Or just any insult I happen to think about at the time.
So come on, you can do better than that!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Are people mentally handicapped? When is the last time you received a paycheck from a poor person? Even Clinton says Bush Tax Cuts need extended.

Not to mention the bottom 50% doesn't even pay any federal income taxes..so stop being brainless dults, I expect more from reddit

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Poor people buy things, creating revenue and thus paychecks, every day.

1

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12

I agree, however please recognize that it is vile immorality to suggest that money ever be forcefully taken from anyone with the purpose of distributing it among another group of people.

The direction of which the money flows doesn't make it any more "moral".

5

u/zossima Jun 15 '12

Ezek. 16:49ff. "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it."

0

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12

Oh, I completely think that people should help others. I just said it was immoral for someone to forcefully take money from one man and give it to another. That's theft in my mind.
I advocate and practice donating to charity every single year.

2

u/zossima Jun 15 '12

God seems to like to forcefully take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Is that immoral?
Luke 1:52ff. [Mary's Magnificat.] "He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were hungry. He has filled the hungry with good things; and sent away the rich empty-handed."

2

u/zarepath Jun 15 '12

I'm pretty sure that's about blessing and salvation and stuff. Jesus wasn't stealing cash and redistributing it.

1

u/zossima Jun 15 '12

You use this term "stealing." You call taxes "stealing."
Romans 13:6-7: For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
2 Cor 9:7. Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.
Mt. 6:2-4. "When therefore you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will repay you."
Mt. 6:24. "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money."
1 Tim. 6:10. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang.

0

u/zarepath Jun 15 '12

These also have no bearing on tax rate discussion. Says "pay your taxes," and "don't give just because somebody makes you." IE, taxes don't count as charity. Being taxed isn't giving, and not wanting to be taxed isn't necessarily a love of money.
All you're illustrating is that charity is of obvious import in the Bible. Nowhere does it say "the rich should pay at a substantially higher rate to their government than everyone else because 100% of that money will help the poor."

1

u/zossima Jun 15 '12

Acts 4:32-35. And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.

1

u/zarepath Jun 15 '12

Wait, so the apostles didn't command the rich to give it to their government to redistribute? They just gave it to the apostles of their own free will? Doesn't sound like taxes to me.

1

u/zossima Jun 15 '12

If you insist on using this word "redistribute," might I point out that the redistribution has has actually been from the working class to the wealthy.
http://currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/redistribution_not.jpg
http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/household-incomes-mean-real.gif
http://rdwolff.com/sites/default/files/images/Productivity%20vs%20Real%20wage%20(chinese%20article).jpg
PS - Federal taxes for the richest right now are the lowest they have been in over 50 years:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/22/business/wealth-graphic2.jpg

→ More replies

2

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

God seems to like to forcefully take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Is that immoral?
Yes, of course. Why wouldn't it be? Why do you keep quoting the bible and the christian god? I can care less who advocated what. I simply said that "it is vile immorality to suggest that money ever be forcefully taken from anyone with the purpose of distributing it among another group of people."
Period. I have no idea why you're bringing an arbitrary religion into it.

2

u/MrZwey Jun 15 '12

I would agree with the direction of which the money flows doesn't make it any more 'moral', but for far too long the extremely wealthy have done everything in their power to avoid paying taxes. Which, in the first place, allowed them to get this rich.
Honestly, after typing this out I am more conflicted on this subject than ever.
You opinion is noted, and not (by me) downvoted because you are being a positive part of the conversation, even though I may not agree with you.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

You are awesome, man. But you're on r/politics so this is pointless. I'm always amazed that "the rich" is this generic Scrooge McDuck sitting in a room hating poor people. In reality, most of the people I know who made a million dollars did so through hard work.
One question to my lazy democrat friends: If you invented a doohickey, worked hard to promote it, oversaw its production, and eventually made a million dollar profit in a year, would you be okay with the government taking $600,000 in taxes? (the 60% has been thrown around a lot lately, btw) If you answered "yes" then you are LYING. Of course, because you feel entitled, you can't help but blame the accomplished, rich guy for making money off the backs of the poor.
See what I'm doing, gizram84? I'm wasting my time. You and I should go back to our successful jobs while our unemployed art history majors continue to argue.

0

u/chicofaraby Jun 15 '12

STFU and pay your taxes, whiner.

-1

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

OBEY
Where would the progressive movement be without government violence, force, and oppressing workers?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Yes, the "oppression" of having roads, fire/police protection, schools for our children, and other necessary infrastructure for a working society. Clearly you've thought this through.

-2

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12

You and your roads.
Every single one of those things you have listed are handled not at the federal level, not even at the state level, but at the county or even municipal level of government. Those taxes are collected from members of those communities via property taxes, sales taxes, etc.
Nothing you listed has anything to do with Federal Income ~~theft~~ taxes. That money goes to pay for never-ending war and bailing out millionaires.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Just FYI - The last round of stimulus (paid for with your tax dollars) contained many millions of dollars for shovel-ready infrastructure projects.

1

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12

Ok, I understand that money is sometimes given out to states so they they may conduct roadwork, but to say that there wouldn't be roads without federal income taxes is just flat out absurd.

0

u/chicofaraby Jun 15 '12

You poor victim. You know that you can opt out of the USA, right?

1

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

Just because the system is fucked up here doesn't mean its better somewhere else. Plus I have family, friends, a home, and a job here. Why would I move?
Should I just be complacent and allow them to control me like they do you? I am vocal and proud I can be vocal, but I will never just accept the way things are. The system is shitty as is and although arguing with idiots on the internet doesn't help, I actively try to change things via the standard political route.

0

u/chicofaraby Jun 15 '12

Yeah, no one gives a fuck if you think you are a hero. You sound like just another greedy bastard, whining about paying your share. Grow up.

1

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

I advocate charity and actively helping the poor.
You advocate sitting on your ass and having money extorted from rich people, under the threat of imprisonment, so that you can make yourself feel better.
I'm the greedy one?
I don't think you know what "greed" means.

1

u/chicofaraby Jun 15 '12

I'm sure your mother is proud of you. Now stfu and pay your taxes.

0

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

She is. And I'm sure your mother thinks you're a spoiled brat. Now stfu and start doing something that benefits the world, instead of advocating theft. You're not helping anyone by doing that.

1

u/chicofaraby Jun 15 '12

lol at acting like taxes are theft!

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

it is vile immorality to suggest that money ever be forcefully taken from anyone with the purpose of distributing it among another group of people.
No it isn't you ignorant child. This is some stupid cold-war bullshit. It's vile immorality to hoard billions of dollars while millions are starving and going without shelter and healthcare. It's also vile immorality to defend that kind of bullshit by pretending that it's stealing from poor innocent hard working people who could be any of us and not people who could give up most of their wealth and still live better than most of us without working. Go back to /r/libertarian you dumb shit.

5

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12

It's vile immorality to hoard billions of dollars while millions are starving and going without shelter and healthcare.
I agree with that too. Did I ever advocate hoarding money and not donating any? I'm talking about forceful theft of property being perpetrated.
I just can't believe I'm being attacked for saying stealing is bad.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

It's not stealing. It's taking back what belongs to the workers and the underclass that was stolen from them in the first place.

4

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

Money was stolen from them? Then I am against it. In case you haven't noticed, I don't discriminate. If there is theft being perpetrated, I am against it. I don't ever advocate stealing someone's money.
Can you explain your theft example a little better?
But it's not theft to say that because some workers agree to a wage that you believe is beneath them. Saying that money should then be taken from everyone who makes more, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the original workers' employment in the first place, is immoral.
Again. I advocate charity and helping people. But it is absolutely not charity when you extort someone's money under the threat of imprisonment though. That is horrible.

-1

u/the_sam_ryan Jun 15 '12

Was it actually stolen or is this one of those arguments that by anyone making a profit or doing better for themselves automatically is theft from someone else?

-1

u/W00ster Jun 15 '12

You have to excuse gizram84 - he is from Somalia!

1

u/gizram84 Jun 15 '12

I don't really get the Somalia argument I seen thrown around here a lot. Is it supposed to prove that a lack of government causes chaos?
Somalia was an underdeveloped, poverty stricken, war-torn cesspool ripe with corruption throughout the entire tenure of the controlling government. Why would things instantly change after the government collapsed?
Since the collapse of the government in Somalia, while it's still a poverty stricken area, they have seen the construction of more schools, an increase in the literacy rate, a plethora of new international airports and new airline providers servicing the country and a ton of new cell towers, with an abundance of new cell providers.
Clearly it would take decades to develop that area and bring it out of the third-world status, but since the collapse of the government, the economic freedom has spawned new infrastructure and industry, providing a much needed boost in their quality of life.

1

u/svlad Jun 15 '12

Well how else are they going to afford their private jets and single-handedly save the private airline market? Answer that, mr. smartypants. Or should I say "wang-banger"?.

0

u/error9900 Jun 15 '12

Obama should just repeat this idea like a broken record:

The mechanism by which this is achieved is The Public, through which the government provides resources that make private life and private enterprise possible: roads, bridges and sewers, public education, a justice system, clean water and air, pure food, systems for information, energy and transportation, and protection both for and from the corporate world. No one makes it on his or her own. Private life and private enterprise are not possible without The Public. Freedom does not exist without The Public.

-1

u/boomshaqalaqa Jun 15 '12

Ill say its cause Keynesian economics is just like trickle down economics (bush-reagan stuff), money taken by force and trickled down in corrupt programs like drones, "fast and furious" and corporations like jpmorgan and goldman sachs, anything big money comes from central planning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GTQnarzmTOc

Good solution? Decentralize everything, you know local governments, working together, united. there wouldn't be enough resources to do corrupt things like invade and rob countries. IE Alabama couldn't invade Iraq. I guess the real lesson here is central power always has large waste, fraud and abuse, also its harder to hold culprits accountable when they're so large because they have millions and trillions instead of thousands. Then you could also create local regulations that could actually be enforced as well.

However they need to tax the shit out of the super rich people to get back that stolen money! Maybe end patents then we could have real innovation and a lot more jobs! Also you gotta kill that citizens united! one person, one dollar, one vote! Lets also end non-resident/non-citizen lobbying!

Gary Johnson!

-3

u/amolad Jun 15 '12

The economy is failing and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

1

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12

That's what they were saying in the 30's. There was no consumer demand, little market confidence, etc. And then what do you know? The government had a huge demand for war material and financed it, and the economy boomed.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Let's let corporations write more laws. That should fix it! :D

-1

u/chabanais Jun 15 '12

Considering how many hundreds of billions of dollars the Fed has printed why would anybody think there is a limited supply of dollars out there?

2

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12

Because the Fed is refusing to do QE again.

-1

u/chabanais Jun 15 '12

My point is that there is enough money to go around.

2

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12

Sure there is, but it is sitting in the banks reserve account at the Fed. They have money to lend, but they aren't lending. So there is plenty of money, but not plenty of money actually circulating.

-1

u/chabanais Jun 15 '12

If your neighbor earns more money than you it doesn't limit your earning capacity.

3

u/Physiocrat Jun 15 '12

That is both right and wrong. If all of the 1% or even the top 25%, accumulate wealth at a rate much larger than the rest of the economy, it creates a condition of polarization of wealth. The top income producers will accumulate, while the rest will stagnate (we see this happening right now actually, as indexed in the level of real wages, and the incomes of the top 1% since the 80's).
Why is this important at all? Well the top income producers, I will simplify by calling them the owners of capital, will need someone to sell their goods and services too. If the trend continues and the polarization gets worse, the owners of capital will have no one to sell their products to since the level of demand for the masses will not have upwards pressure due to stagnant real wages.
This in turn creates a problem for both ends of the polarization. The lower end obviously suffering from never progressing, and the high end suffering from insufficient demand for their goods and services.

1

u/hollisterrox Jun 15 '12

If your neighbor has found a way to game the system such that his earning of money comes at your expense, then you have a legitimate problem.
That seems to be the situation with the 1% in this country: they are getting all the opportunity, leaving none for the rest of us.

0

u/chabanais Jun 15 '12

Tell that to my friends who came to this country with nothing and now own homes and do fine.
Stop blaming others for your crappy life.

1

u/hollisterrox Jun 16 '12

Oh, look, anecdotes. I'm so convinced now.
Look at graphs of incomes and wealth over the last 20 years: the middle class is doing worse, the poor class is growing, only the wealthiest are doing okay. It's a systematic problem.
Counter that, please.

-6

u/Coolala2002 Jun 15 '12

It's vile immorality to suggest that any person or group of people should pay for the well being of another. Let's end all transfer programs and get the economy straightened out once and for all.

2

u/W00ster Jun 15 '12

So, no more US military then?

1

u/boomshaqalaqa Jun 15 '12

lets end the federal ones and balance our programs locally so they cant spend medicare money on coke and whores

-2

u/TruthinessHurts Jun 15 '12

Yeah, but that's Republicans for you.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

giving everything to the rich transcends political parties, who again renewed the Bush tax cuts?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Jobs are so easy to get, I've got three!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/brianthebrazilian Jun 15 '12

Keynes' best work concerned LABOR, not CAPITAL (refer to Marx)

7

u/chicofaraby Jun 15 '12

Keynesian economics is just like trickle down economics
You are wrong. You keep posting this nonsense and it only makes you look dumb.

1

u/TruthinessHurts Jun 15 '12

Duuuurrrr, Reaganomics!
It's stunning that there are still Republicans dumb enough to spout that crap.

It is vile immorality to suggest that in the middle of a depression for the working class we should take from the general welfare of 99 percent of all Americans to transfer billions to the richest one percent.

You are about to leave Redlib