The mind of lefty and other oddities. . . .

[M.D. Rawlings]

Understanding Liberals
By Walter Williams
May 18, 2011 / 14 Iyar, 5771
Jewish World Report

Excerpt:

A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars or what some people call income redistribution.​

LINK

 

[editec]

snore

 

[Steelplate]

The mind of rightie implies that if you give big business all the breaks and dismantle governmental oversight and protections, that Big business will play fair, be generous with their windfalls and feel a sense of obligation to the society that gave them all this power.

How naive.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Lefty's rebuttal. *snore* Naïve. LOL!

How ironic.

 

[Steelplate]

Yeah... because we can spot bullshit a mile away. At least I offered my take.

 

[auditor0007]

Understanding Liberals
By Walter Williams
May 18, 2011 / 14 Iyar, 5771
Jewish World Report

Excerpt:

A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars or what some people call income redistribution.​

LINK

The true liberal believes that once the wealthy have gained complete power and there is nothing left for anyone else, then it is time to kill the truly wealthy, take whatever they have, and then start over.

 

[Steelplate]

Well, if that's what a "true Liberal" believes, then I guess I'm not a true liberal.

I just want to see the quality of life to go back to when I was young... My parents paid their house off in 10 years, we had a new car every other year, there were yearly family vacations, and money to pay the bills and keep us kids fed properly. Oh yeah... the top tax rate when I was young? 71%. Bottom? 14%.

And what do you know? Rich people were still rich... but the middle class lived much better. and the National Debt was under $1T($930B). Reaganomics fucked everything up... congratulations, GOP.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Understanding Liberals
By Walter Williams
May 18, 2011 / 14 Iyar, 5771
Jewish World Report

Excerpt:

A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars or what some people call income redistribution.​

LINK

You left out the excerpt about the bands of liberals that are aborting babies and marrying gays in the darkness of night. That's a more cleverly written and believable excerpt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, if that's what a "true Liberal" believes, then I guess I'm not a true liberal.

Then no one’s a ‘liberal’ because no one believes that.

 

[Too Tall]

Well, if that's what a "true Liberal" believes, then I guess I'm not a true liberal.

I just want to see the quality of life to go back to when I was young... My parents paid their house off in 10 years, we had a new car every other year, there were yearly family vacations, and money to pay the bills and keep us kids fed properly. Oh yeah... the top tax rate when I was young? 71%. Bottom? 14%.

And what do you know? Rich people were still rich... but the middle class lived much better. and the National Debt was under $1T($930B). Reaganomics fucked everything up... congratulations, GOP.

Jimmy Carter was a marvelous President, don't you agree?

 

[rdean]

Understanding Liberals
By Walter Williams
May 18, 2011 / 14 Iyar, 5771
Jewish World Report

Excerpt:

A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars or what some people call income redistribution.​

LINK

No one believes that except right wingers who believe such nonsense about others. How's that "Throw grandma over a cliff" bill workin' out for ya?

 

[Sallow]

Space Oddity..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhSYbRiYwTY]YouTube - ‪David Bowie's "Space Oddity"‬‏[/ame]

 

[Steelplate]

Well, if that's what a "true Liberal" believes, then I guess I'm not a true liberal.

I just want to see the quality of life to go back to when I was young... My parents paid their house off in 10 years, we had a new car every other year, there were yearly family vacations, and money to pay the bills and keep us kids fed properly. Oh yeah... the top tax rate when I was young? 71%. Bottom? 14%.

And what do you know? Rich people were still rich... but the middle class lived much better. and the National Debt was under $1T($930B). Reaganomics fucked everything up... congratulations, GOP.

Jimmy Carter was a marvelous President, don't you agree?

Yeah... How about all the ones before Carter?

U. S. National Debt History

Here's a link for you... Showing the HISTORY of the National Debt.. .look at when it started to explode.

Here's another link with the Historical top and Bottom Income tax percentages

National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

I know... a Conservative Mind finds it hard to deal in facts, but Ronald Reagan's Economic model was the worst thing to happen to the people of the United States and the Best thing to happen to the Ultra wealthy and the Conglomerate.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well, if that's what a "true Liberal" believes, then I guess I'm not a true liberal.

I just want to see the quality of life to go back to when I was young... My parents paid their house off in 10 years, we had a new car every other year, there were yearly family vacations, and money to pay the bills and keep us kids fed properly. Oh yeah... the top tax rate when I was young? 71%. Bottom? 14%.

And what do you know? Rich people were still rich... but the middle class lived much better. and the National Debt was under $1T($930B). Reaganomics fucked everything up... congratulations, GOP.

All the fault of Reaganomics? What? Which president just came in and nearly doubled the deficit in less than two years? According to Obama's logic and yours the economy should be booming! You don't comprehend what has been happening at all.

I've already refuted this nonsense. . . .

georgephillip: The 30s through 50s were the time of the New Deal, low-cost loans from the Federal Housing Administration, the GI Bill, huge subsidies for defense contractors during the Cold War and other industries that employed millions of people, massive transfer of funding from cities to the burgeoning suburbs, federal projects like interstate highway construction and the space program, generous investment in public schools, record union membership, high tax rates for corporations and the wealthy, good job benefits, and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which ensured financial stability in old age and medical crises…

And then . . . it all came crashing down in the 1970s in the era of stagflation, and Keynesianism was out for the next thirty years. During that period, America saw the biggest expansion of its economy in history. Now Obama returns to socialist economics, I mean, Keynesianism and . . . well, sensible people know the rest. It doesn't work. It impedes economic growth, always has, and, after a certain threshold, reverses economic growth.

rightwinger: There has been a revenue problem since Reagan arbitrarily cut our taxes while raising spending. We have not recovered since.....nor have we learned.

Nonsense. It's you who hasn't learned anything.

Reagan put the country right. Mostly stopped excessive growth in spending, and the Republican Congress of the 90s carried on his legacy. The result: the first surplus in decades, the beginning of paying off the debt. You're confounding the increased spending on the military with general spending. Initially the deficit went up in the face of this increased spending and an economy still lagging behind the reforms that addressed the stagflation of Keynesianism. But in just over two years the economy kicked in, full steam ahead, and so the greatest expansion of the Republic's economy began, lasting for nearly three decades. And what was happening during that same period? Revenue! More revenue than the government had ever realized before poured in.

Some of you will never get it. A small percentage rate of taxation levied against a large economic pie gives more revenue against real spending than a large percentage rate against a small economic pie. High rates of taxation shrink economies and, beyond a certain threshold, diminish the amount of revenue the government actually collects. Low rates of taxation grow economies and the influx of revenue.

We need to cut taxes even further, say, to 20% top bracket, 10% lower bracket. Stop taxing income twice altogether. End the inheritance tax, capital gains tax. We need to cut spending as well, for sure. But the only lasting solution for that, beyond cutting taxes, is tort reform, universal competition among healthcare insurers and providing for the private ownership of the funds derived from payroll taxes. In other words, you have to also prevent the government from spending the surplus of economic growth by way of expanding entitlements that the people should own and control.

Problem solved.

But lefty wants to control your life. You've bought into his lies about taxation and revenue. That's sad.

rightwinger: Reagan set the country on the path of record deficits.

borrow now to make your short term economy look good and hope for an economic upswing

Then take credit for it.

Nonsense. Reagan cut taxes, and the economy took off like never before and revenues went through the roof, eventually overtaking growth in spending. Facts. There's no hoping about it. Simple economics. There was never any question that it would work just so. The government was spending too much and taxing too much. Reagan addressed the latter problem and rightly so, and defeated the Soviet Union along the way. You don't grasp the real-world implications of that period in our history at all. Over spending and over spending alone is the problem, not lower tax rates.

I'm giving you gold here. Gold. But I see that I might as well be talking to a fence post, the nuances beyond the black-and-white world in which you live don't sparkle in your mind. They just fade away and leave you clueless. Sad.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah... because we can spot bullshit a mile away. At least I offered my take.

No you can't. You feed on a steady diet of bullshit. Liberalism is 100% bullshit.

 

[Bones]

blah blah blah...divide and conquer.

 

[jillian]

The mind of rightie implies that if you give big business all the breaks and dismantle governmental oversight and protections, that Big business will play fair, be generous with their windfalls and feel a sense of obligation to the society that gave them all this power.

How naive.

the rightwingnuts (not moderate conservatives) are naive...their ideas counter intuitive... and simplistic.

 

[elvis]

oddities?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhSYbRiYwTY]YouTube - ‪David Bowie's "Space Oddity"‬‏[/ame]

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The mind of rightie implies that if you give big business all the breaks and dismantle governmental oversight and protections, that Big business will play fair, be generous with their windfalls and feel a sense of obligation to the society that gave them all this power.

How naive.

the rightwingnuts (not moderate conservatives) are naive...their ideas counter intuitive... and simplistic.

Counter intuitive implies nuance, complexity, not simplicity.

You don't know what you're talking about. And of course all we're going to get from you is the sort of blurbs in the above . . . because you cannot intelligently talk about the matter.

Lefty Economics:
High tax rates = high revenue.
High government spending = economic growth.
Lefty's economics IQ = 0.