Deficit Denial?

[eflatminor]

You realize I could post the same types of books taking the opposite tact?

Yes, and I have read those books...or similar ones. I've studied all sides of these issues with an open mind. I was simply hoping you might consider the same.



Not at this point, no.



They already pay lots more. Again, we have the most progressive tax structure in the world. My point is attempting to extract even more will not get us more revenue and will harm the economy thereby hurting the very people you're defending.



There we agree. Please, show me someone, anyone, that is supporting an actual cut in spending...not just a slight decrease in the proposed rate of increased spending.

Personally, I like the Mack Penny plan. Worth a look:

Penny Plan

And you find that immoral?

I find the very idea of taxing a man's labor to be immoral. I find the notion of spending trillions on entitlements over decades, only to have the rate of poverty increase, to be immoral. I believe burdening those yet to be born with the debt from our largess to be immoral. I find the very idea of central planning, and those that are just sure they know what's best for everyone else, to be immoral.

The key, IMO, to avoiding all this immorality can be summed up in one word: voluntary. You want to help poor people? That's great. Just don't steal from others. No matter the cause or how well intentioned the legislation, theft is wrong. Free people making voluntary choices. That's what we should be shooting for whenever and wherever possible.

Anyway, thanks for the chat. All the best.

I think there was a time when we lived with voluntary charity and no central government control. It was called the dark ages.

Exaggeration. Nobody is calling for "no" central government, just one that lives within the confines of the enumerated powers. And yes, we lived that way for generations, a time during which more poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in human history. Then the central planners came along, just sure they knew what was best. They did not.

I think voluntary giving would mean people dying. Something I find immoral.

That was not the case in America before the entitlement programs, not compared to other advanced countries. That said, we get you're attempting to justify theft. Reminds me of the old saying about liberals...ideas so good they have to be mandatory...

Our government system is imperfect, no question. And nobody likes taxes. But the idea that taxes are immoral... far fetched.

Ever wonder why the Constitution specifically outlawed an income tax? Not so far fetched.

And that is being generous. Our government is of the people for the people and by the people. That means if it is imperfect, if it needs changing, then we have that power.

Then feel free to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

But it can, and has done a lot of good. You talk about social programs as a burden, and they are. But as someone who has used them in times of need I see them as what they are. A helping hand. Some abuse that generosity. And I am all for trying to fix that. But dismissing a system that has helped tens of millions of people legitimately in need because you don't like paying your taxes.... that seems immoral to me

Ah, but people have NOT been helped, your anecdotal example aside. As I stated previously, the rate of poverty has INCREASED under these entitlement programs. You've made the problem worse. Again, immoral, especially when you did so by taking other people's money.

 

[Underhill]

Wow.

So a few questions.

First. Which generations lived without social programs and thrived?

Second. So you think social programs are theft? Seriously?

Third. The constitution does not outlaw income tax. Ever hear of the 16th Amendment.. you know, 1913?

Fourth. What are you talking about?

And fifth. You are wrong. It's that simple. Anecdotal or not, I was helped. There are a great many things that affect poverty. And blaming it completely on social programs is dishonest as is claiming these programs have not helped people. Millions of people will tell you otherwise.

As for your claim that I was taking other peoples money, yes I was. My fathers money. My grandfathers money. The generations of people who paid taxes long before them. They built this country and it's social programs. And if you don't like them, try to change them. But don't try to equate my taking assistance in a time of need as stealing. It is no more stealing than someone collecting on an insurance policy.

That is where you have this all backwards. Social programs are not stealing from anyone. They are a national insurance plan. Everyone pays in and hopes they never use it. Stingy bastards never want to pay for their insurance. But they sure as hell are glad it's there when they need it.

 

[Underhill]

eflatminor,

You say you like reading. Here is a paper for you, researched and written by Lane Kenworthy Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University of Arizona.

http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf

 

[eflatminor]

Wow.

So a few questions.

First. Which generations lived without social programs and thrived?

Pretty much from colonial days up until the start of the so called 'great society', a MASSIVE failure.

Second. So you think social programs are theft? Seriously?

No, but confiscating the money to fund those programs? Theft. You know, we used to have a term for when when a minority of citizens were forced to labor on behalf of others they don't even know. A practice I'm just sure we outlawed...

Third. The constitution does not outlaw income tax. Ever hear of the 16th Amendment.. you know, 1913?

Exactly, the original Constitution embodied the idea that taxing a man's labor is immoral, which you called "far fetched". It took a central planner and his sheeple to change that in 1913. Doesn't make it less immoral.

Fourth. What are you talking about?

And fifth. You are wrong. It's that simple. Anecdotal or not, I was helped. There are a great many things that affect poverty. And blaming it completely on social programs is dishonest as is claiming these programs have not helped people. Millions of people will tell you otherwise.

OF COURSE, the recipients appreciated the handouts. Who wouldn't? The problem is that when you look at overall trend of poverty, there is no escaping the fact that the rate of poverty, which was heading down before the entitlement spending took off (late sixties), has INCREASED since then. Trillions of dollars spent over decades and the problem is worse.

As for your claim that I was taking other peoples money, yes I was. My fathers money. My grandfathers money. The generations of people who paid taxes long before them. They built this country and it's social programs. And if you don't like them, try to change them. But don't try to equate my taking assistance in a time of need as stealing.

But it was.

It is no more stealing than someone collecting on an insurance policy.

Yes, thanks for making my point. Insurance is purchased on a VOLUNTARY basis. Not so the money taken for entitlement redistribution.

That is where you have this all backwards. Social programs are not stealing from anyone.

Yes, they are.

They are a national insurance plan.

Then it would conducted on a voluntary basis. Government forcing money from some citizens with the threat of incarceration is not an insurance plan. It's theft.

Stingy bastards never want to pay for their insurance.

Then they shouldn't be able to collect it when a loss occurs, which is exactly how actual insurance works. Not the case with forced redistribution.

We could do this all day. When you're ready to reconsider your collectivist worldview, you may begin to see the flaws and immorality in central planning. Again, I've recommended reading material that I hope you will consider.

All the best.

 

[Tambellini]

First. Which generations lived without social programs and thrived? None and cocial security and medicare are good. Medicaid is so abused and they need to pay a small co-pay for medical services to cut down on abuse

Second. So you think social programs are theft? Seriously? There are a considerable amount of social programs which are way out of line and produce negative or no results, definitely some can be cut, especially free cell phones, food stamp programs in some states need to be reigned in a little also

Third. The constitution does not outlaw income tax. Ever hear of the 16th Amendment.. you know, 1913? I agree with an income tax, but I would like to see them bring back tariffs and use the revenue to subsidze US manufacturing. Also, I think they need to add a 1 percent sales tax on everything to help bring down the deficit, that way everyone pays something

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think he means they can pay enough to balance the budget and even pay down the debt a bit. And he's right.

Actually, he's wrong.

The net worth of America's billionaires is about $1.7 trillion (just over 400 billionaires with an average net worth of $4.2 billion). You'd have to CONFISCATE their assets to balance the deficit, with little left over to address the skyrocketing debt. In other words, you could tax their income at 100% (and assume they'd keep working) and you couldn't come close to covering this year's deficit.

We aren't talking about billionaires, but those over $250k. And we aren't talking about taking all their money clearly.

And I realize that alone isn't enough. But with moderate and reasonable cuts it could certainly be.

The question I have is this. What is the alternative?

We can only cut programs so far. People have needs whether we like it or not. And cuts mean more unemployment (which accounts for much of the reason the economy hasn't sprung back, as states have been cutting left and right).

And taxing everyone sounds good. But half the country don't make enough to hit harder with more taxes. Even that next 40% will struggle with incomes of 75-150k (who are already paying a higher (affective) rate than those in the top brackets).

So that leaves us with few options. Moderate cuts (10% or less) to programs. And taxing the higher income brackets. Cutting the military is a popular option too, among some. But it has many of the same side affects as cutting social programs.

Even that next 40% will struggle with incomes of 75-150k (who are already paying a higher (affective) rate than those in the top brackets).

People making 75-150K don't pay a higher effective rate than those in the top bracket.

 

[eflatminor]

eflatminor,

You say you like reading. Here is a paper for you, researched and written by Lane Kenworthy Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University of Arizona.

http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf

I've read it. Two problems with the study. First, it was conducted in 1998, pretty much the peak of an extraordinary economic boom, so of course poverty rates were declining around that time. However, when you compare poverty rates over the entire period of major spending on entitlements (1970 until today), poverty rates are up, at least in America.

Secondly, the study fails to account for assistance to those in poverty in the absence of government enforced programs. All the study does is to look at poverty across several countries and proclaim that because there is generally less poverty around the world today compared to decades past, it must be the government programs that made it so. I say nonsense. The study does not, nor could it, account for what might have been accomplished with voluntary charitable contributions in lieu of forced redistribution. I can cite examples of where the charitable nature of humans did more for those in need than any forced program could of...the Texas seed drought under Grover Cleveland for one. In addition, the study fails to account for the downward pressure on poverty rates brought about by innovation, technology, and the continuing division of labor, all of which help to keep poverty low.

In other words, the entitlement programs did not help with poverty, which was headed down before we started the spending. Once we started spending, poverty rates stopped heading down leveled off and in the case of America, they increased. That's hardly reason for celebration, especially considering the trillions spent in the effort....money taking involuntarily from the most productive citizens.

Thanks for reminding me of the study, but it's far from convincing.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

When did this become a thread on how best to cut down the deficit to a thread about protesting income taxes?

 

[Blooper]

When did this become a thread on how best to cut down the deficit to a thread about protesting income taxes?

Post #103 started talk about taxes, and it just snowballed from there.

 

[ReallyMeow]

First. Which generations lived without social programs and thrived? None and cocial security and medicare are good. Medicaid is so abused and they need to pay a small co-pay for medical services to cut down on abuse

see this is what the conservative media does, it leaves gaps in your knowledge and lets you fill those gaps in with bad info. its not people ON medicare that are committing fraud, its drs, hospitals or organizations that do business with them that will concoct elaborate excuses to bill medicare/medicaid for things their patients dont need, providers didnt ask for, or were never provided.

Second. So you think social programs are theft? Seriously? There are a considerable amount of social programs which are way out of line and produce negative or no results, definitely some can be cut, especially free cell phones, food stamp programs in some states need to be reigned in a little also

Im sorry, I thought I was here for a debate, not for a litany of assertions. The free cell phone thing is not paid for by tax dollars, phone use has a surcharge for this program. so its basically a marketing gimmick, the cell phone companies get to give cell phones to people who will genuinely appreciate having one, who are VERY likely to show that appreciation by being a loyal, paying customer when that cellphone is the ONE THING that enabled them to get a job. how are you going to land a job without a contact number? the govts only role in that is saying "yup, dudes broke as a joke".

No, but confiscating the money to fund those programs? Theft. You know, we used to have a term for when when a minority of citizens were forced to labor on behalf of others they don't even know. A practice I'm just sure we outlawed...

No, you taking those services without paying for them is theft.

http://i.imgur.com/Mpaco.png

Its a confused sense of entitlement, the foundation of the progressive income tax is that low taxes on the working poor lets them get ahead, to become middle class and even wealthy. Many people start off like this and cant wrap their head around the fact that they dont get to be cheapskates forever. The first nibble of income is taxed just the same as it was when they were starting out, thats fair, but now they want all of their income to be taxed like they're poor? No.

 

[Underhill]

Wow.

So a few questions.

First. Which generations lived without social programs and thrived?

Pretty much from colonial days up until the start of the so called 'great society', a MASSIVE failure.

Second. So you think social programs are theft? Seriously?

No, but confiscating the money to fund those programs? Theft. You know, we used to have a term for when when a minority of citizens were forced to labor on behalf of others they don't even know. A practice I'm just sure we outlawed...



Exactly, the original Constitution embodied the idea that taxing a man's labor is immoral, which you called "far fetched". It took a central planner and his sheeple to change that in 1913. Doesn't make it less immoral.



OF COURSE, the recipients appreciated the handouts. Who wouldn't? The problem is that when you look at overall trend of poverty, there is no escaping the fact that the rate of poverty, which was heading down before the entitlement spending took off (late sixties), has INCREASED since then. Trillions of dollars spent over decades and the problem is worse.



But it was.



Yes, thanks for making my point. Insurance is purchased on a VOLUNTARY basis. Not so the money taken for entitlement redistribution.



Yes, they are.

They are a national insurance plan.

Then it would conducted on a voluntary basis. Government forcing money from some citizens with the threat of incarceration is not an insurance plan. It's theft.

Stingy bastards never want to pay for their insurance.

Then they shouldn't be able to collect it when a loss occurs, which is exactly how actual insurance works. Not the case with forced redistribution.

We could do this all day. When you're ready to reconsider your collectivist worldview, you may begin to see the flaws and immorality in central planning. Again, I've recommended reading material that I hope you will consider.

All the best.

We live in a representative democracy.

We the people chose these programs through the people we elected. The majority wants them. You don't like them, you can move or try to change things.

As for your claim that we had a panacea before the first social programs started, you obviously aren't reading any history books. There are reasons why every one of those programs were started. And as the research paper I posted shows, they worked.

Trying to make a point based around revisionist history will get you no where.

 

[eflatminor]

Wow.

So a few questions.

First. Which generations lived without social programs and thrived?

Pretty much from colonial days up until the start of the so called 'great society', a MASSIVE failure.



No, but confiscating the money to fund those programs? Theft. You know, we used to have a term for when when a minority of citizens were forced to labor on behalf of others they don't even know. A practice I'm just sure we outlawed...



Exactly, the original Constitution embodied the idea that taxing a man's labor is immoral, which you called "far fetched". It took a central planner and his sheeple to change that in 1913. Doesn't make it less immoral.



OF COURSE, the recipients appreciated the handouts. Who wouldn't? The problem is that when you look at overall trend of poverty, there is no escaping the fact that the rate of poverty, which was heading down before the entitlement spending took off (late sixties), has INCREASED since then. Trillions of dollars spent over decades and the problem is worse.



But it was.



Yes, thanks for making my point. Insurance is purchased on a VOLUNTARY basis. Not so the money taken for entitlement redistribution.



Yes, they are.



Then it would conducted on a voluntary basis. Government forcing money from some citizens with the threat of incarceration is not an insurance plan. It's theft.

Stingy bastards never want to pay for their insurance.

Then they shouldn't be able to collect it when a loss occurs, which is exactly how actual insurance works. Not the case with forced redistribution.

We could do this all day. When you're ready to reconsider your collectivist worldview, you may begin to see the flaws and immorality in central planning. Again, I've recommended reading material that I hope you will consider.

All the best.

We live in a representative democracy.

We the people chose these programs through the people we elected. The majority wants them. You don't like them, you can move or try to change things.

Over time, the majority have wanted many things that later generations realized were downright immoral. I suggest you'll be on the wrong side of history.

As for your claim that we had a panacea before the first social programs started, you obviously aren't reading any history books.

You're not supposed to lie in the clean zone. I never said it was a panacea, I stated the rate of poverty was headed down, a trend that ceased once we started spending heavily on entitlements. Big difference.

There are reasons why every one of those programs were started.

Yes, recipients want to receive...we get that.

And as the research paper I posted shows, they worked.

That research paper showed no such thing. Highly flawed and incomplete work, as I and many others have pointed out. Heck, even that studied acknowledged that entitlements in America have not done the job of lowering the rate of poverty. It only calls for even more European style nanny statism without considering any aspect of voluntary assistance.

Pass.

Trying to make a point based around revisionist history will get you no where.

Of course, I've revised nothing. Only stated the facts. I get you don't like what those facts demonstrate...so let's just ignore them. You're not the first to try that tact.

 

[jwoodie]

Since "sequestration" is in the law, I say let's enforce it!

 

[Underhill]

Pretty much from colonial days up until the start of the so called 'great society', a MASSIVE failure.



No, but confiscating the money to fund those programs? Theft. You know, we used to have a term for when when a minority of citizens were forced to labor on behalf of others they don't even know. A practice I'm just sure we outlawed...



Exactly, the original Constitution embodied the idea that taxing a man's labor is immoral, which you called "far fetched". It took a central planner and his sheeple to change that in 1913. Doesn't make it less immoral.



OF COURSE, the recipients appreciated the handouts. Who wouldn't? The problem is that when you look at overall trend of poverty, there is no escaping the fact that the rate of poverty, which was heading down before the entitlement spending took off (late sixties), has INCREASED since then. Trillions of dollars spent over decades and the problem is worse.



But it was.



Yes, thanks for making my point. Insurance is purchased on a VOLUNTARY basis. Not so the money taken for entitlement redistribution.



Yes, they are.



Then it would conducted on a voluntary basis. Government forcing money from some citizens with the threat of incarceration is not an insurance plan. It's theft.



Then they shouldn't be able to collect it when a loss occurs, which is exactly how actual insurance works. Not the case with forced redistribution.

We could do this all day. When you're ready to reconsider your collectivist worldview, you may begin to see the flaws and immorality in central planning. Again, I've recommended reading material that I hope you will consider.

All the best.

We live in a representative democracy.

We the people chose these programs through the people we elected. The majority wants them. You don't like them, you can move or try to change things.

Over time, the majority have wanted many things that later generations realized were downright immoral. I suggest you'll be on the wrong side of history.



You're not supposed to lie in the clean zone. I never said it was a panacea, I stated the rate of poverty was headed down, a trend that ceased once we started spending heavily on entitlements. Big difference.



Yes, recipients want to receive...we get that.

And as the research paper I posted shows, they worked.

That research paper showed no such thing. Highly flawed and incomplete work, as I and many others have pointed out. Heck, even that studied acknowledged that entitlements in America have not done the job of lowering the rate of poverty. It only calls for even more European style nanny statism without considering any aspect of voluntary assistance.

Pass.

Trying to make a point based around revisionist history will get you no where.

Of course, I've revised nothing. Only stated the facts. I get you don't like what those facts demonstrate...so let's just ignore them. You're not the first to try that tact.

Most of what we think of today as welfare came about in the 60's in most of the civilized world...

Poverty in the US in 1960. 21%. Poverty in the US in 1991. 11.7%

Poverty in France in 1960. 36.1% Poverty in France in 1991. 9.8%

Poverty in the UK in 1960. 16.8% Poverty in the UK in 1991. 8.7%

Poverty in Germany in 1960. 15.2% Poverty in Germany in 1991. 4.3%

The definition of poverty being anyone under 40% of US median household income.

I think it's fairly clear it has worked. But I'm sure you'll wriggle your way out. You seem skilled at twisting things.

 

[Tambellini]

US Poverty rate in 2011 15.1 percent and entitlements have increased big time since 1991

 

[eflatminor]

We live in a representative democracy.

We the people chose these programs through the people we elected. The majority wants them. You don't like them, you can move or try to change things.

Over time, the majority have wanted many things that later generations realized were downright immoral. I suggest you'll be on the wrong side of history.



You're not supposed to lie in the clean zone. I never said it was a panacea, I stated the rate of poverty was headed down, a trend that ceased once we started spending heavily on entitlements. Big difference.



Yes, recipients want to receive...we get that.



That research paper showed no such thing. Highly flawed and incomplete work, as I and many others have pointed out. Heck, even that studied acknowledged that entitlements in America have not done the job of lowering the rate of poverty. It only calls for even more European style nanny statism without considering any aspect of voluntary assistance.

Pass.

Trying to make a point based around revisionist history will get you no where.

Of course, I've revised nothing. Only stated the facts. I get you don't like what those facts demonstrate...so let's just ignore them. You're not the first to try that tact.

Most of what we think of today as welfare came about in the 60's in most of the civilized world...

Poverty in the US in 1960. 21%. Poverty in the US in 1991. 11.7%

More accurately, what we think of welfare today started in the mid sixties. HOWEVER, there was next to nothing spent in the way of funding on those programs during the 60s. It was a pittance at best. Tiny, tiny, tiny!

We didn't really begin spending on welfare in any significant amount until around 1970. Even since, the spending has increased exponentially.

So, while poverty was about 21% in 1960, what you've failed to grasp is that it was MUCH higher in 1950 and even higher in 1940, higher still in 1930, etc. The point being that the rate of poverty was headed down, BIG TIME, prior to any entitlement spending.

Then, when entitlement spending really took off around 1970, that downward trend in poverty STOPPED heading down and leveled off. No matter how you try to slice and dice the numbers, the rate of poverty has INCREASED during the period in which we spent significantly on entitlements (1970 - today). By our own government's figures, the rate of poverty is up over 2% since 1969/1970.

Trillions spent over decades and the problem is worse. That's a massive failure of central planning. The truth sometimes hurts. Deal with it.

 

[eflatminor]

US Poverty rate in 2011 15.1 percent and entitlements have increased big time since 1991

Correct. It would appear the more we spend on entitlements, the worse the rate of poverty gets. Unfortunately, for some, it's not about actual results but about what feels right.

 

[Underhill]

US Poverty rate in 2011 15.1 percent and entitlements have increased big time since 1991

No they really haven't. About the only thing that has changed is some additional medicare drug benefits Bush put in place.

And comparing the poverty rate during a recession isn't exactly reasonable.

 

[Underhill]

US Poverty rate in 2011 15.1 percent and entitlements have increased big time since 1991

Correct. It would appear the more we spend on entitlements, the worse the rate of poverty gets. Unfortunately, for some, it's not about actual results but about what feels right.

Wow, brilliant.

Except you have that backward. The recession means more poverty, which means more spent on entitlements. It's absurd to blame the recession on entitlements.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Over time, the majority have wanted many things that later generations realized were downright immoral. I suggest you'll be on the wrong side of history.

Maybe you should try to spell out what you think is "immoral" about helping your countrymen. Then move to some country where you arnt subjected to this tyranny.

Fraud on wallstreet caused the crash, not people being given the medical help they need or offering them the opportunity to pay for a home.