There's Always Money for War

[Dirt McGirt]

If libs want to raise more money, then why raise taxes?

When you raise taxes you generate LESS money

So perhaps you should care

Except for the fact that the gap between the rich and the middle class is growing. When the consumer has to adjust to inflation and curb recreational spending on things like I-Pods and Flat Screen TV's, what then? The market can't sustain this type of spending pattern forever.

 

[red states rule]

Except for the fact that the gap between the rich and the middle class is growing. When the consumer has to adjust to inflation and curb recreational spending on things like I-Pods and Flat Screen TV's, what then? The market can't sustain this type of spending pattern forever.

Libs have been trying to close the "gap" for 40 years and have spent $9 trillion to do it

How much more do you want to spend. BTW the money comes from the producers and remember a very small minority pay a huge majority of taxes

You will alwasys have "poor" people, and being poor in Amercia is not so bad

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Libs have been trying to close the "gap" for 40 years and have spent $9 trillion to do it

And I'm sure quite a few liberals can make an argument that many of their social programs were successful.

How much more do you want to spend. BTW the money comes from the producers and remember a very small minority pay a huge majority of taxes

It's not about how much more I want to spend. It's a matter of economic principle. When the consumer has no more money to spend on goods, the corporations sell less products. Selling less products means less corporate revenues, which means less corporate tax dollars to the government. Selling less products also means wage reduction and lay offs, which means even less worker income tax to the government. Lay offs and unemployment mean increased social programs, which means higher taxes. Therefore, it's best that we take these things in moderation and adjust accordingly. Your economic model won't sustain very long.

 

[red states rule]

And I'm sure quite a few liberals can make an argument that many of their social programs were successful.


It's not about how much more I want to spend. It's a matter of economic principle. When the consumer has no more money to spend on goods, the corporations sell less products. Selling less products means less corporate revenues, which means less corporate tax dollars to the government. Selling less products also means wage reduction and lay offs, which means even less worker income tax to the government. Lay offs and unemployment mean increased social programs, which means higher taxes. Therefore, it's best that we take these things in moderation and adjust accordingly. Your economic model won't sustain very long.

Of cousre libs will try to spin how their handouts have been successful - yet they keep telling us how rotten things are - and how they need to increase spending

The US economy is in fine shape. Most economic numbers are heading in the right direction

The Dems do not have a veto proof majority so while they will bellow for increased taxes they will not get them

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Of cousre libs will try to spin how their handouts have been successful - yet they keep telling us how rotten things are - and how they need to increase spending

The US economy is in fine shape. Most economic numbers are heading in the right direction

The Dems do not have a veto proof majority so while they will bellow for increased taxes they will not get them

I guess we've come full circle. Now you're just repeating what you said earlier. Later.

 

[red states rule]

I guess we've come full circle. Now you're just repeating what you said earlier. Later.

Facts do tend to drive people away from a debate

 

[red states rule]

And I'm sure quite a few liberals can make an argument that many of their social programs were successful.


It's not about how much more I want to spend. It's a matter of economic principle. When the consumer has no more money to spend on goods, the corporations sell less products. Selling less products means less corporate revenues, which means less corporate tax dollars to the government. Selling less products also means wage reduction and lay offs, which means even less worker income tax to the government. Lay offs and unemployment mean increased social programs, which means higher taxes. Therefore, it's best that we take these things in moderation and adjust accordingly. Your economic model won't sustain very long.

Being poor in America is not to difficult a life


Understanding Poverty in America
by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1713


Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.

What Is Poverty?
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the "Poverty Pulse" poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development in 2002 asked the general public the question: "How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?" The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.2

But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.3 While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Facts do tend to drive people away from a debate

That was no debate. I was just trying to persuade you to put down the talking points and acknowledge reality.

 

[red states rule]

That was no debate. I was just trying to persuade you to put down the talking points and acknowledge reality.

I do acknowledge reality. See the above article on the "poor" in Amercia

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I do acknowledge reality. See the above article on the "poor" in Amercia

How does an article to being poor in America prove that the current economic model will sustain over time?

If you're depending on corporations to fund our government then you're depending on consumers to buy goods. How many of the poor are going to buy certain goods when they need to buy food and pay utilities first? The gap between the rich and poor is growing. Your economic model won't be able to sustain over time. Inflation and interest rates will be the nail in the coffin.

 

[red states rule]

How does an article to being poor in America prove that the current economic model will sustain over time?

If you're depending on corporations to fund our government then you're depending on consumers to buy goods. How many of the poor are going to buy certain goods when they need to buy food and pay utilities first? The gap between the rich and poor is growing. Your economic model won't be able to sustain over time. Inflation and interest rates will be the nail in the coffin.

Lets see... dems said the Reagan tax cuts would be bad for the economy and they only gave us more then ten years of economic growth and revenues to the government doubled in eight years

Dems said the Bush tax cuts would cripple the budget and drain "vital" funding for government programs

Why do some people insist on preaching doom and gloom and they ignore the good economy and how strong it is?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Lets see... dems said the Reagan tax cuts would be bad for the economy and they only gave us more then ten years of economic growth and revenues to the government doubled in eight years

Dems said the Bush tax cuts would cripple the budget and drain "vital" funding for government programs

Why do some people insist on preaching doom and gloom and they ignore the good economy and how strong it is?

So why did GHW Bush want to raise taxes then?

It's not a matter of preaching doom and gloom, it's economics 101.

 

[red states rule]

So why did GHW Bush raise taxes then?

It's not a matter of preaching doom and gloom, it's economics 101.

He was wrong and he paid the price

Tell me, how much more in taxes do you want the producers to pay. The top 1% pay 34% is that not enough for you?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

He was wrong and he paid the price

GHW Bush was wrong for attempting to be fiscally responsible?

Tell me, how much more in taxes do you want the producers to pay. The top 1% pay 34% is that not enough for you?

I'd like everyone to pay their fair share. I believe we can have tax cuts and be fiscally responsible. But right now, I'd be in favor of raising taxes by a small percentage with the tax increase exclusively going to pay down the deficit. Take a look around. The US Dollar is down and China and India are buying up our ports, roads, and airports.

 

[red states rule]

GHW Bush was wrong for attempting to be fiscally responsible?


I'd like everyone to pay their fair share. I believe we can have tax cuts and be fiscally responsible. But right now, I'd be in favor of raising taxes by a small percentage with the tax increase exclusively going to pay down the deficit. Take a look around. The US Dollar is down and China and India are buying up our ports, roads, and airports.

So how much more do you want the producers to pay

The top 1% pay 34%

The top 5% pay 54%

The top 10% pay 65%

Remember this is just the Federal Income tax. Then there is SS taxes, state and local taxes

I would say the producers are paying more then their fair share

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I would say the producers are paying more then their fair share

That depends on how you look at "fair share."

 

[red states rule]

That depends on how you look at "fair share."

Why is it so hard for those who want tax increases to say who much more they should pay?


So when you add in state and local taxes people who are paying more then half their income in taxes is still not enough for some people


Democrats Won't Talk Taxes on CNBC; They Just Plan to Raise Them
Posted by Dan Gainor on March 16, 2007 - 15:17.
UPDATE (16:10 EDT): Video added.

At least one reporter understands economics. CNBC’s Melissa Francis told “On the Money” viewers March 15 that their taxes were going to get hiked “if the Democrats get their way.” The fun twist? Francis and her colleagues couldn’t find any Democratic politician, strategist or even a think tank cohort to come on the show and tell the American people why raising their taxes would be a good idea.

“I don’t understand. How does raising taxes and stifling economic growth keep America great?” Francis asked her guests, Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth and Jack Burkman, a Republican strategist. The rest of the segment was shooting fish in a barrel, pointing to the economy’s strong growth following the 2003 tax rate cuts.

And Francis proved she has more of an economic understanding than a majority of reporters: “If there were a Democrat that was willing to come on this show tonight, they might say something like, you know, they’re trying to pay for the budget, or they’re trying to, you know, slim down the deficit,” Francis said. “But I was always taught when I studied economics that when you raise taxes, you might end up with less revenue.”
http://newsbusters.org/

 

[Dirt McGirt]

So when you add in state and local taxes people who are paying more then half their income in taxes is still not enough for some people

When taking into consideration that corporations are also being targeted by religious extremists, nope it's not enough. The day a CEO picks up a gun and goes to war to defend his livelihood is the day I'll listen to him complain about taxes.

 

[red states rule]

When taking into consideration that corporations are also being targeted by religious extremists, nope it's not enough. The day a CEO picks up a gun and goes to war to defend his livelihood is the day I'll listen to him complain about taxes.

First, corporations never pay taxes - the customers of the company pay them

When libs rant about rasing corporate taxes they are really going to soak the customers of the company

CEO's already pay about 50% of their income in taxes - how much more do you want them to pay?

Easy question - try answering it

 

[Dirt McGirt]

First, corporations never pay taxes - the customers of the company pay them

Wrong. Corporations pay taxes on certain utilities regulated by the government. Shareholder earnings are also taxed which also comes from corporate revenue. There are many instances where corporations are taxed by the government. Corporations are supposed to pay taxes because corporations are recognized as separate entities.

CEO's already pay about 50% of their income in taxes - how much more do you want them to pay?

Easy question - try answering it

A CEO in the 50% bracket can pay three times more than everyone else.