Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

[Oddball]

For a little dweeb who demands that people stay on the subject, you sure went personal pretty quickly.

He was talking to Cecilie. She's the one who went personal, as she invariably does. He responded by going personal back. I respond by putting her on ignore.

Then again, it's nigh impossible to defend the claim that a gubmint taking in in excess of $2.5 trillion a year and still can't make ends meet doesn't have a profound spending problem

You know, that business about "it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem" says to me that the people saying it -- if they are saying it honestly -- never understood a basic principle of algebra, the addition property of equations: whatever is added to or subtracted from one side of the equation must be added to or subtracted from the other side as well.

So in order to have a balanced budget (which is basically an equation, while an unbalanced budget is an inequality), if you have an increase in spending you must also have an equal increase in revenue, and if you have a decrease in revenue you must also have a decrease in spending. There is no inherent validity of one side of the equation over the other. The idea that reductions in revenue don't produce deficits is just mathematical nonsense. Of course they do, and that's the main thing happening now: a reduction in revenue caused by the Great Recession.

Oh, go pound sand, Karl.

We've been playing that bullshit socialistic shell game since at least 1913, and a gubmint that used to consume a scant few percent of GDP is now devouring in excess of 1/5.....You don't get to that point because tax revenues are too low.

 

[Intense]

I certainly don't. I'd just like them to pay their fair share in taxes.

Including Yours and Everyone you know.

 

[Claudette]

Wrong. Today's revenue wouldn't balance any budget after 2004.

So? We were spending too much then.

Yup and until the Clowns in DC figure this out nothing will change.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Claudette]

Liberals don't detest the wealthy.

They just want to fleece them for every dime they can get.

How else are they gonna fund all the entitlements in this country and garner votes along the way??

 

[Billy000]

I'm pretty sure no one asked for a dissertation on "My Inane, Puerile Ideas About How the World Works by Zero", so I am at a loss to figure out why you included it, instead of just giving the simple answer you already provided: "fair share" means "whatever it takes to make those fuckers as poor as everyone else".

It's not like any amount of justification is ever going to make us believe that you're right or that you're not a dumbass, so why bother pretending? Or is it just that you want to pretend you're a decent human being instead of a lazy, thieving asswipe?

Oh, come on you're pathetic. You don't have an argument whatsoever, so what do you do? You call me a lazy asswipe. I think you just can't accept that I am right. Is the cognitive dissonance just too much for you?

It must be.

You're the one who said it, loser. Just because you're hoping it'll be buried under a mass of posts and no one will remember it doesn't mean that's what's going to happen. And don't blame me if you don't like hearing it stated more clearly.

Post #7 of this thread:

Of course the top 1% pay more in taxes, but given their income, they aren't paying enough. Their tax rates are at an all time low.

Translated: They pay most of the taxes, but they still have too much money left, so tax 'em until they don't.

I don't need any more argument than your own frigging words, little boy. And anyone who says, "Other people should carry all the burden for the rest of us" is a lazy asswipe, so if the shoe fits . . .

Well, see now I know you really don't know what you are talking about. I gave a thorough answer as to why the wealthy are not earning all of the money they make.

 

[Dragon]

We've been playing that bullshit socialistic shell game since at least 1913, and a gubmint that used to consume a scant few percent of GDP is now devouring in excess of 1/5.....You don't get to that point because tax revenues are too low.

Here's an observation: the richer a country becomes, the higher a percentage of its GDP is spent on public services. There may be a natural limit to this, but that's not clear yet if so. (Certainly it can never rise to 100%; otherwise I don't know if there's a limit to it.)

Why does that happen? You would seem to like to believe it's a conspiracy of "socialists" or some such. But try this: government services are perceived as good. Government services, which are fueled by taxes, mean safe, paved roads, safe bridges, good schools, good access to information, safety-net aid to the poor, the unemployed, and the elderly, affordable medical care and good public health, parks and other recreation facilities. People want these things. They're like luxuries on a societal level: we don't absolutely have to have them, but if we can afford them we want them.

When a country is poor, when incomes are generally low, the loss of disposable income necessary to fund major social programs is too harsh, too much pain, to be worth it. But when a country is rich, when incomes are higher, we can lose that disposable income and not feel it so much, so that it becomes a better deal to have the good things that public services provide.

And that's the reason why our taxes, as a percentage of total GDP, have risen steadily since 1913. We've gotten richer. We can afford more of what those taxes buy. Unless we suddenly decide to go back to living in the equivalent of a third-world country, cutting taxes back to 1913 levels is a no-go. So it really does come down to balancing the equation, with both sides -- spending and revenue -- being equally important.

 

[Cervantes22]

For a little dweeb who demands that people stay on the subject, you sure went personal pretty quickly.

He was talking to Cecilie. She's the one who went personal, as she invariably does. He responded by going personal back. I respond by putting her on ignore.

Then again, it's nigh impossible to defend the claim that a gubmint taking in in excess of $2.5 trillion a year and still can't make ends meet doesn't have a profound spending problem

You know, that business about "it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem" says to me that the people saying it -- if they are saying it honestly -- never understood a basic principle of algebra, the addition property of equations: whatever is added to or subtracted from one side of the equation must be added to or subtracted from the other side as well.

So in order to have a balanced budget (which is basically an equation, while an unbalanced budget is an inequality), if you have an increase in spending you must also have an equal increase in revenue, and if you have a decrease in revenue you must also have a decrease in spending. There is no inherent validity of one side of the equation over the other. The idea that reductions in revenue don't produce deficits is just mathematical nonsense. Of course they do, and that's the main thing happening now: a reduction in revenue caused by the Great Recession.

Yeah, ALGEBRA tells us that THREE TRILLION DOLLARS isn't enough revenue for the government, and we need to tax people more.

Total federal spending is in excess of 6 trillion dollars.
Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts Tables History

and then there's the debt we have to pay off.