Let's carry liberal policies to ther conclusion.

[PredFan]

Let's try that shall we?

First off:

We need to identify what the liberals want.

How much taxes on the rich?
How serious are the other items on the wish list for the liberals?
What new regulations?

But one at a time. If the liberals get the tax hikes on the rich that they want, how much taxes will the rich (people over $250k/year) be paying?

 

[PredFan]

Would it be also fair to add that if the liberals had their way, every job would be a union job?

 

[PredFan]

Obama wants investment in education, green energy, and housing and he wants the rich to pay for it. But, how much more does he want the rich to pay? I cannot find an exact number.

Anyone?

 

[007]

Liberals won't be happy until America turns into North Korea.

You own nothing, it all belongs to the government.
No guns.
No freedom.

Liberals are happy.

 

[Katzndogz]

Let's try that shall we?

First off:

We need to identify what the liberals want.

How much taxes on the rich?
How serious are the other items on the wish list for the liberals?
What new regulations?

But one at a time. If the liberals get the tax hikes on the rich that they want, how much taxes will the rich (people over $250k/year) be paying?

What liberals want is what obama wants, which is what his father wanted.

Confiscatory Tax Rate Dreams from my Father - By Lisa Schiffren - The Corner - National Review Online

obama Sr. wrote an article about what liberals want.
The article, called “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” makes the economic case that high taxes are morally and practically good, if the government then uses them to provide for the people. How high should the tax rates be? ”Theoretically,” he wrote, “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” Yes, you read it: a 100% tax rate is fine. Obama Sr. continued, ” It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings.” Free enterprise — bad. (He was discussing future government economic development.)

In the paper, Obama Sr. also advocated nationalizing all industry — and most commerce — for racial/nationalist reasons. He wished to confiscate the large scale industries which had been owned and developed by Europeans. And, even more radically, he wished for the government to take away the small businesses that constituted much of the nation’s local economy, because, as in much of East Africa, they were owned by Asians — Indians in particular. He felt it was wrong for Europeans and Asians to benefit from their investments and hard work,

 

[Capstone]

Liberals won't be happy until America turns into North Korea.

I was thinking of something more along the lines of Norway.

Conversely, I guess conservatives won't be happy until America turns into Ethiopia, where the poverty-stricken outnumber the wealthy by an even larger margin.

 

[PredFan]

Liberals won't be happy until America turns into North Korea.

You own nothing, it all belongs to the government.
No guns.
No freedom.

Liberals are happy.

I understand the sentiment. That said, liberals here claim that this isn't true. The purpose of this thread is to deal with what the liberals will state that they do want and let's see where that leads us.

 

[PredFan]

Let's try that shall we?

First off:

We need to identify what the liberals want.

How much taxes on the rich?
How serious are the other items on the wish list for the liberals?
What new regulations?

But one at a time. If the liberals get the tax hikes on the rich that they want, how much taxes will the rich (people over $250k/year) be paying?

What liberals want is what obama wants, which is what his father wanted.

Confiscatory Tax Rate Dreams from my Father - By Lisa Schiffren - The Corner - National Review Online

obama Sr. wrote an article about what liberals want.
The article, called “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” makes the economic case that high taxes are morally and practically good, if the government then uses them to provide for the people. How high should the tax rates be? ”Theoretically,” he wrote, “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” Yes, you read it: a 100% tax rate is fine. Obama Sr. continued, ” It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings.” Free enterprise — bad. (He was discussing future government economic development.)

In the paper, Obama Sr. also advocated nationalizing all industry — and most commerce — for racial/nationalist reasons. He wished to confiscate the large scale industries which had been owned and developed by Europeans. And, even more radically, he wished for the government to take away the small businesses that constituted much of the nation’s local economy, because, as in much of East Africa, they were owned by Asians — Indians in particular. He felt it was wrong for Europeans and Asians to benefit from their investments and hard work,

I'm not sure about that. Many liberals I know and many here claim that the european model is ideal and clearly that wasn't enough for Obama Sr.

 

[PredFan]

Liberals won't be happy until America turns into North Korea.

I was thinking of something more along the lines of Norway.

Conversely, I guess conservatives won't be happy until America turns into Ethiopia, where the poverty-stricken outnumber the wealthy by an even larger margin.

Norway? Is that the number I should use? Are the rich paying enough in Norway? Wait. Are there any rich in Norway?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Obama wants investment in education, green energy, and housing and he wants the rich to pay for it. But, how much more does he want the rich to pay? I cannot find an exact number.

Anyone?

I was told in another thread that "pre-Reagan" would be "fair".

 

[PredFan]

Ok, so a quick check on the tax rates in Norway shows that income tax on average is 40%. That's on everybody. The Corporate tax is 28%, which btw is less than here in the US, and they have a VAT tax of 25%

Is this what the liberals want? This doesn't seem to be what they are saying.

 

[PredFan]

Obama wants investment in education, green energy, and housing and he wants the rich to pay for it. But, how much more does he want the rich to pay? I cannot find an exact number.

Anyone?

I was told in another thread that "pre-Reagan" would be "fair".

That wouldn't work unless we went back to pre-Reagan corporate taxes, pre-Reagan government regulations, etc.

But hey, if thats what the liberals say then we'll try that. Problem is that there aren't many liberals interested in trying this apparently. or, they haven't woken up yet.

 

[Moonglow]

Would it be also fair to add that if the liberals had their way, every job would be a union job?

Hardly, the union is not all that great.

 

[Moonglow]

Obama wants investment in education, green energy, and housing and he wants the rich to pay for it. But, how much more does he want the rich to pay? I cannot find an exact number.

Anyone?

I was told in another thread that "pre-Reagan" would be "fair".

That wouldn't work unless we went back to pre-Reagan corporate taxes, pre-Reagan government regulations, etc.

But hey, if thats what the liberals say then we'll try that. Problem is that there aren't many liberals interested in trying this apparently. or, they haven't woken up yet.

I would like to go back to pre-Reagan era, including laws.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Obama wants investment in education, green energy, and housing and he wants the rich to pay for it. But, how much more does he want the rich to pay? I cannot find an exact number.

Anyone?

I was told in another thread that "pre-Reagan" would be "fair".

That wouldn't work unless we went back to pre-Reagan corporate taxes, pre-Reagan government regulations, etc.

But hey, if thats what the liberals say then we'll try that. Problem is that there aren't many liberals interested in trying this apparently. or, they haven't woken up yet.

That was about as precise an answer as one lib gave me. He did also mention a balanced budget and low deficit, but I'm thinking he was more specifically thinking about higher taxes on "the rich".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As a classical liberal and absolutely nothing like the special interest group/social liberals of the day, I'd like to go back to pre 1913 laws and tax rates.

 

[PredFan]

Would it be also fair to add that if the liberals had their way, every job would be a union job?

Hardly, the union is not all that great.

Well, if other liberals agree with you then we can at least partially take that off the table.

 

[Moonglow]

Liberals won't be happy until America turns into North Korea.

You own nothing, it all belongs to the government.
No guns.
No freedom.

Liberals are happy.

Then surely you don't mind if I hunt deer on my own land.

 

[Moonglow]

Would it be also fair to add that if the liberals had their way, every job would be a union job?

Hardly, the union is not all that great.

Well, if other liberals agree with you then we can at least partially take that off the table.

I can never see the advantage of paying someone to find or give you a job.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Let's try that shall we?

First off:

We need to identify what the liberals want.

How much taxes on the rich?
How serious are the other items on the wish list for the liberals?
What new regulations?

But one at a time. If the liberals get the tax hikes on the rich that they want, how much taxes will the rich (people over $250k/year) be paying?

have you not been following any of the current debt negotiation? a return to the Clinton era tax rates as well as a return to taking capital gains as normal income would be good places to start. no matter how you want to twist it the wealthy do not pay their fair share when determined by percentage of income. when the top 2% control 85% of the wealth yet pay on average half the rate of a typical middle class family, basic logic and reasoning tells you that this is unfair. to be fair, i believe that the $250k threshold is too low and this should be increased to either $500k or $1M annually. Deductions can remain the same and revenues will rise just as they did under Clinton. (although Clinton did not get capital gains treated as normal income). this has to be coupled with spending cuts and those cuts will have to come from all of the high dollar spending programs including SS, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. We do not have to gut these programs, but there is enough waste in all of these programs that shooting for a 5-10% reduction in each of the programs should be easily obtainable. These cuts do not need to occur overnight as these would decimate the programs overall. they need to be phased in over the next several years. (say by the end of Obama's second term). during this same time you can look for cuts in other discretionary programs to further help cut the annual deficits. but with the current deficit over $1T it is impossible to have a balanced budget within 1-2 years. the cuts would have to be so dramatic the basic function of government would destroyed. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and Interest on the debt account for 80% of the current budget. the deficit is currently 1/3rd of the total budget so without substantial cuts to these 4 programs alone you will never be able to balance the budget on spending cuts alone. revenues need to be part of the equation and those revenues will need to come from the wealthy. they have benefited significantly more from the bush era tax cuts than the middle and lower classes. what many people fail to see is that during times of economic boom, ie when the middle class does well, the wealthy actually make more money overall. the stock market is increasing in values and middle class families have more money to purchase goods and services. this leads to more revenues for those at the top. sure they pay a higher percentage of taxes, but with the amount of increased revenues that are generated in the private sector, these additional taxes are more than offset by the increase in revenues and profits.