The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

[editec]

Hmmm. It seems that you guys don't want to discuss anything that doesn't demonize or blame "the other side" completely. The points below don't point the finger at the rich but on the other side, they do legitimately criticize certain policies which are currently backed by the GOP. But nah. Keep on talking about why none of those points are relevant and it's the "the danm Socialist Dems fault" or that people who don't take the risk to start their own business, are "victimized". Okay, if that's your cup of tea. But neither ConservaRepubs nor LibDems seem to be posting much that is based on more than emotion or the talking points fed by the pundits. Just an observation...

I'm not a "Con" (although I've been called it a few times) but I'll offer a few ideas.
1. Technology. It has had the same effect on wealth creation as on many other things: acceleration. While technology has contributed to the decline of income from all those people who used to work at say, printing shops or travel agencies, it has increased the amount and rate at which the rich can leverage their specialized knowledge (i.e. how to get rich or richer) into even more wealth.
2. Globalization. We can monitor the NIKKEI in real time, send and receive contracts, orders etc... across the globe in seconds. So people who have the ability to get rich, have certain skills. Now they can leverage them even more efficiently and in more places.
3. In one respect you're right - but not when it comes to personal tax breaks. Where you're right is Corps. Corporations have been given BILLIONS is special tax breaks, subsidies etc... since the 80's, that they never used to get. It used to be, these tax breaks and subsidies were reserved only for businesses that were helping the public good (like phone companies putting phone lines in rural areas that wouldn't be profitible to them, because of the low number of customers) but now? Big Oil? Other Multi-National companies? They are not providing some new technology or service that Americans wouldn't otherwise have. They aren't building bridges or infrastructure. They haven't been for decades. But they still get our money. This defnitely helps the rich get richer and faster.

So I'm not demonizing the rich. I don't fault them their success and I feel blessed to have mine. I'm just making an Independent's observations.

hey man pick a side or SHUT THE HELL UP!!

TRUTH has no side, partisan.

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

What do you mean they took a trillion dollars "out" of the economy?? Unless you think it's all sitting in a swiss bank account, the money was invested in companies that help america, or spent (helping america), or loaned out (helping america).

Actually, I do think some of that trillion dollars is sitting in off-shore tax havens, or it's being used to speculate in food and oil stocks, spiking the Misery Index to new high highs for 90% of Americans (and others).

I also think we have to be careful when using the word "invested." I'm having a little trouble finding the appropriate link at the moment; however, much of today's "investing" takes the form of high-speed computer trades where the underlying securities are held for a fraction of a second.

I think gambling is probably a more accurate description of what the richest 1% have been doing with that trillion dollars.

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

Because they are smarter than you? Or perhaps better at football, basketball, or some other sport?

Or does that simple fact make you upset because you think performance is not a valid criteria for making money? Do you honestly believe that no one should make more money for being better at something?

Performance on level playing fields is a perfectly valid criteria for making money.

However, if NBA or NFL officials were legally bribed by competing players for special favors the way the rich bribe politicians for tax advantage, the corruption would kill both games.

Athletes and artists also invest the money their talent provides with hedge funds that speculate in the price of food and fuel, driving those costs higher for those of us without deep pockets.

Intelligence deserves reward, but that doesn't mean those who fabricate computer code that trades securities in fractions of a second deserve seven-figure bonuses. Some of them deserve supermax.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax cuts that shift the tax burden from FIRE sector incomes to wages and salaries are theft.

Taxpayer supplied bail outs supply the same service to our creditor class, as proven by the $14 trillion gift to Wall Street that doubled the richest 5% of Americans share of returns to wealth in less than a single decade while keeping the debt overhead in place for 98% of Americans.

$14 trillion gift? Please explain further.

"Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss..."

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

Are you a bondholder?
lol.

Still no evidence Henry Blodget (LOL!) was right?

 

[georgephillip]

$14 trillion gift? Please explain further.

"Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss..."

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

Are you a bondholder?
lol.

Still no evidence Henry Blodget (LOL!) was right?

Do you think he was right about the following three sentences published in March 2009:

"The outrage of all outrages in the last 18 months is the complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense.

"These bondholders lent money to reckless banks and corporations who bet the farm on the premise that house prices would always go up.

"And they lost."

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

 

[georgephillip]

Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

Too fucking bad....Those "gains" are in terms of money that belonged to them in the first place.

If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

The notion that someone "took money out of the economy" is pure commie bullshit, which is mind boggling in its sheer economic ignorance.

I gave George the figures once that proved that there is more wealth now than there was in the 80s and he still insists that finance is a zero sum game. The fact that there are more rich people, and that they have more money, makes no difference to his delusions.

US GDP and productivity have increased vastly since 1980; however, the economic rewards from those increases have gone overwhelmingly to 1% of the population. It is not the 1% losing their jobs, homes and retirements or sending their children to Afghanistan.

In 1980 the richest 1% of Americans earned about 8% of the total number of dollars earned by all US workers in that year. In 2008 they earned 20%, and it's probably increased in the three years since that time.

The fact there are more rich people today and much more money in the economy doesn't mean that government tax policies haven't played a major role in creating all those newly minted millionaires and billionaires.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss..."

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

Are you a bondholder?
lol.

Still no evidence Henry Blodget (LOL!) was right?

Do you think he was right about the following three sentences published in March 2009:

"The outrage of all outrages in the last 18 months is the complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense.

"These bondholders lent money to reckless banks and corporations who bet the farm on the premise that house prices would always go up.

"And they lost."

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

I guess I'd be happy if you showed me the programs which gave "complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense".

Maybe you have a list, because I can't think of any?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Too fucking bad....Those "gains" are in terms of money that belonged to them in the first place.


And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

The notion that someone "took money out of the economy" is pure commie bullshit, which is mind boggling in its sheer economic ignorance.

I gave George the figures once that proved that there is more wealth now than there was in the 80s and he still insists that finance is a zero sum game. The fact that there are more rich people, and that they have more money, makes no difference to his delusions.

US GDP and productivity have increased vastly since 1980; however, the economic rewards from those increases have gone overwhelmingly to 1% of the population. It is not the 1% losing their jobs, homes and retirements or sending their children to Afghanistan.

In 1980 the richest 1% of Americans earned about 8% of the total number of dollars earned by all US workers in that year. In 2008 they earned 20%, and it's probably increased in the three years since that time.

The fact there are more rich people today and much more money in the economy doesn't mean that government tax policies haven't played a major role in creating all those newly minted millionaires and billionaires.

I suppose it's better to have taxes at the most confiscatory tax level possible so no one can become a millionaire.

Just imagine if we could rid the world of the scourge of evil millionaires via tax policy alone.

A libby wet dream is what that is.

 

[georgephillip]

Still no evidence Henry Blodget (LOL!) was right?

Do you think he was right about the following three sentences published in March 2009:

"The outrage of all outrages in the last 18 months is the complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense.

"These bondholders lent money to reckless banks and corporations who bet the farm on the premise that house prices would always go up.

"And they lost."

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

I guess I'd be happy if you showed me the programs which gave "complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense".

Maybe you have a list, because I can't think of any?

While I work on that list, would you agree with this assessment?

"Fund manager (and PhD) John Hussman explains the end game of this current policy:

"[T]he U.S. currently has a private debt to GDP ratio of about 3.5, which is nearly double the historical norm, at a time when the underlying collateral is being marked down easily by 20-30%.

"That implies total collateral losses of 70-100% of GDP; a figure that includes not only mortgage debt in the banking system, but consumer credit, corporate debt and so on.

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

 

[georgephillip]

I gave George the figures once that proved that there is more wealth now than there was in the 80s and he still insists that finance is a zero sum game. The fact that there are more rich people, and that they have more money, makes no difference to his delusions.

US GDP and productivity have increased vastly since 1980; however, the economic rewards from those increases have gone overwhelmingly to 1% of the population. It is not the 1% losing their jobs, homes and retirements or sending their children to Afghanistan.

In 1980 the richest 1% of Americans earned about 8% of the total number of dollars earned by all US workers in that year. In 2008 they earned 20%, and it's probably increased in the three years since that time.

The fact there are more rich people today and much more money in the economy doesn't mean that government tax policies haven't played a major role in creating all those newly minted millionaires and billionaires.

I suppose it's better to have taxes at the most confiscatory tax level possible so no one can become a millionaire.

Just imagine if we could rid the world of the scourge of evil millionaires via tax policy alone.

A libby wet dream is what that is.

While cons drool at the prospect of a nanny state without any taxes?

Some of our richest countrymen and women have "earned" vast fortunes built on taxpayer funded research at the DARPA (the Internet), the NIA (pharmaceuticals), and the National Science Foundation (the Digital Library Initiative).

Do you think the current tax levels these millionaires and billionaires pay is "confiscatory."

 

[georgephillip]

It was their money to begin with. They earned it.

When are you on the left going to realize that taxes burden the American people with labor they have to pay the government before they can take care of themselves? The money is theirs.

At what point have they paid their fair share?

At the point that they at least pay a representative percentage in taxes based on their income. While everyone on the right loves to throw out the fact that the wealthy pay most of the income taxes, they miss the true facts. When we look at the federal government, we need to look at all taxes and all revenue, not just a portion that is less than half.

When all forms of taxation are included into revenues, the top 10% only pay 30% of all federal taxes. And that is definitely unfair, because the top 10% take in 45% of all income. They are undertaxed and because of this, they have accumulated enormous amounts of wealth while the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or diminish. This is not about stealing from the rich; it's about making them pay their fair share. All I hear on this board is how we have a spending problem, which we do. However, revenues have fallen 30% in the last ten years as a percentage of GDP, so we definitely have a revenue problem also. But God forbid we should suggest asking the wealthy to pay a fair share. Instead, we see ridiculous examples of how the wealthy pay 70% out of 40% of all revenues, while paying next to nothing out of the other 60% of revenues.

That 30% decline in revenue over the last ten years fits in with the oft-quoted contention that only the USSR in the last decade of its existence lost more jobs than the US did during the first decade of the 21st Century.

We seem to be at that point in Capitalism's demise when unearned income's biggest paydays come at the expense of productive labor only.

Maybe Capitalism is just as dead as Communism, and capitalists are too busy to notice?

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

I'm not a "Con" (although I've been called it a few times) but I'll offer a few ideas.
1. Technology. It has had the same effect on wealth creation as on many other things: acceleration. While technology has contributed to the decline of income from all those people who used to work at say, printing shops or travel agencies, it has increased the amount and rate at which the rich can leverage their specialized knowledge (i.e. how to get rich or richer) into even more wealth.
2. Globalization. We can monitor the NIKKEI in real time, send and receive contracts, orders etc... across the globe in seconds. So people who have the ability to get rich, have certain skills. Now they can leverage them even more efficiently and in more places.
3. In one respect you're right - but not when it comes to personal tax breaks. Where you're right is Corps. Corporations have been given BILLIONS is special tax breaks, subsidies etc... since the 80's, that they never used to get. It used to be, these tax breaks and subsidies were reserved only for businesses that were helping the public good (like phone companies putting phone lines in rural areas that wouldn't be profitible to them, because of the low number of customers) but now? Big Oil? Other Multi-National companies? They are not providing some new technology or service that Americans wouldn't otherwise have. They aren't building bridges or infrastructure. They haven't been for decades. But they still get our money. This defnitely helps the rich get richer and faster.

So I'm not demonizing the rich. I don't fault them their success and I feel blessed to have mine. I'm just making an Independent's observations.

Does the following data appear flawed to you?

"But based on 1980 dollars and IRS data, this is how U.S. income has been redistributed since that time:

"Incomes for the top 1% have gone from $148,000 to $450,000
"Incomes for the next 9% have gone from $46,000 to $50,000
"Incomes for the next 40% have gone from $17,500 to $15,000
"Incomes for the bottom 50% have gone from $5,400 to $3,750"

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

 

[Sactowndog]

It was their money to begin with. They earned it.

When are you on the left going to realize that taxes burden the American people with labor they have to pay the government before they can take care of themselves? The money is theirs.

At what point have they paid their fair share?

You think huh... in our company much of the money earned by our CEO came via stock gains. Stock gains he earned by agressively off shoring US jobs.

The rest he earned by eliminating benefits like retiree medical benefits, pension benefits, and a myriad of other benefit cuts. He has done little to innovate but be excels at moving money from the employee to the shareholder.

For all that he was paid significant bonuses and stock options. Essentially transferring money from our pockets to his. Oh yeah on the stock he pays 15% when he sells it.

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

C'mon s0n.........."CommonDreams" is a hyper-far left website like all the k00k left websites you post up.

The class warfare crap is an excercise in epic fAiL in 2011. Taxes aint going up s0n = 100% certainty. Whine like a limpwrister all you want........I'll be sitting here on the sidelines laughing my balls off. Just like the president.......9 months have gone by since the political map of the country went deep red..............and they still havent figured out what hit them. Its fcukking fascinating.


Anyway......the fact is, the wealthy have paid 11 trillion in taxes over the last 40 years to help the plight of the poor and nothing has changed........in fact, its gotten progressively worse for these people as theyve morped into a mindset of dependency. These people are walking around with better cell phones than I have and having their food paid for by others........with many out there taking in money off the books from someplace else. BS to that s0n............

Anyway.......the whole thread is a moot point. Higher taxes arent happening. Time to accept and move on s0n..........because elections have consequences!!

When are you going to get over that damn map?

The ONLY REASON it went deep red was because about half as many people voted in 2010 as in 2008.

I think some Dems have figured out what hit them, but they're caught between a rock and a hard place.

The Democratic base is no longer fired up by Obama's screeds.
Elite Dems need Wall Street at least as much as Elite Republicans, and the Tea Party doesn't seem to need any of them at all (except for target practice)

If I were you, I would be very careful what I wished for.
The US economy is about to scream loudly enough to focus your attention the way 911 did.
Then who will you vote for?
"Money Mitt"?

 

[Sactowndog]

When all forms of taxation are included into revenues, the top 10% only pay 30% of all federal taxes. And that is definitely unfair, because the top 10% take in 45% of all income. They are undertaxed and because of this, they have accumulated enormous amounts of wealth while the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or diminish. This is not about stealing from the rich; it's about making them pay their fair share. All I hear on this board is how we have a spending problem, which we do. However, revenues have fallen 30% in the last ten years as a percentage of GDP, so we definitely have a revenue problem also. But God forbid we should suggest asking the wealthy to pay a fair share. Instead, we see ridiculous examples of how the wealthy pay 70% out of 40% of all revenues, while paying next to nothing out of the other 60% of revenues.

Do you have a source for this. I happen to believe it but would love to see a source....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think he was right about the following three sentences published in March 2009:

"The outrage of all outrages in the last 18 months is the complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense.

"These bondholders lent money to reckless banks and corporations who bet the farm on the premise that house prices would always go up.

"And they lost."

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

I guess I'd be happy if you showed me the programs which gave "complete protection of bank and corporate bondholders at taxpayer expense".

Maybe you have a list, because I can't think of any?

While I work on that list, would you agree with this assessment?

"Fund manager (and PhD) John Hussman explains the end game of this current policy:

"[T]he U.S. currently has a private debt to GDP ratio of about 3.5, which is nearly double the historical norm, at a time when the underlying collateral is being marked down easily by 20-30%.

All collateral is being marked down that much? I haven't seen that figure before. Does he provide any backup? As far as the 350% number, how much of that is double counted?

"That implies total collateral losses of 70-100% of GDP; a figure that includes not only mortgage debt in the banking system, but consumer credit, corporate debt and so on.

What corporate debt is being marked down by 20%?

Bailouts Of Bondholders Will Sock Taxpayers With $10-$14 Trillion Loss

Bond holders lose money all the time.
Still waiting for some evidence that taxpayers are on the hook.
Except for Fannie and Freddie, I can't think of any way taxpayers are on the hook to bondholders.

 

[Sactowndog]

I'm not a "Con" (although I've been called it a few times) but I'll offer a few ideas.
1. Technology. It has had the same effect on wealth creation as on many other things: acceleration. While technology has contributed to the decline of income from all those people who used to work at say, printing shops or travel agencies, it has increased the amount and rate at which the rich can leverage their specialized knowledge (i.e. how to get rich or richer) into even more wealth.
2. Globalization. We can monitor the NIKKEI in real time, send and receive contracts, orders etc... across the globe in seconds. So people who have the ability to get rich, have certain skills. Now they can leverage them even more efficiently and in more places.
3. In one respect you're right - but not when it comes to personal tax breaks. Where you're right is Corps. Corporations have been given BILLIONS is special tax breaks, subsidies etc... since the 80's, that they never used to get. It used to be, these tax breaks and subsidies were reserved only for businesses that were helping the public good (like phone companies putting phone lines in rural areas that wouldn't be profitible to them, because of the low number of customers) but now? Big Oil? Other Multi-National companies? They are not providing some new technology or service that Americans wouldn't otherwise have. They aren't building bridges or infrastructure. They haven't been for decades. But they still get our money. This defnitely helps the rich get richer and faster.

I think you are leaving out one important factor relative to globalization and that is a break in the link between investing and local jobs. The Capital Gains rate is predicated on I invest locally where I live. That is no longer true. I am likely to invest anywhere in the world but we still reward capital gains as if the investment is local and will result in local jobs.... Big policy problem.....

Capital gains should be taxed at income tax rates and Corporate income taxes should be lowered for those creating jobs in the US.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

US GDP and productivity have increased vastly since 1980; however, the economic rewards from those increases have gone overwhelmingly to 1% of the population. It is not the 1% losing their jobs, homes and retirements or sending their children to Afghanistan.

In 1980 the richest 1% of Americans earned about 8% of the total number of dollars earned by all US workers in that year. In 2008 they earned 20%, and it's probably increased in the three years since that time.

The fact there are more rich people today and much more money in the economy doesn't mean that government tax policies haven't played a major role in creating all those newly minted millionaires and billionaires.

I suppose it's better to have taxes at the most confiscatory tax level possible so no one can become a millionaire.

Just imagine if we could rid the world of the scourge of evil millionaires via tax policy alone.

A libby wet dream is what that is.

While cons drool at the prospect of a nanny state without any taxes?

Some of our richest countrymen and women have "earned" vast fortunes built on taxpayer funded research at the DARPA (the Internet), the NIA (pharmaceuticals), and the National Science Foundation (the Digital Library Initiative).

Do you think the current tax levels these millionaires and billionaires pay is "confiscatory."

I'm pretty sure the corporations that built those fortunes pay corporate taxes, we have the highest rates in the world.
Their employees pay income and payroll taxes.
Their investors pay taxes on their capital gains and dividends.

You don't think the government deserves a bigger cut than that, do you?
How big?

 

[georgephillip]

Think Eisenhower big.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Think Eisenhower big.

Deporting 20 million illegals?
That's Eisenhower big!