Why scaring grandma won't work

Joe wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Cap'n we need more dilithium crystals, the Left has the deflectors on maximum and we can'na keep this up.

Yep, I just added another looney toon to my ignore list. My list is now two looney toons and one severe crazy nut case and counting.

I'm taking up a collection of donations for Granny's dog food fund if anyone wants to pitch in.

Enjoy your echo chamber.

This post was made by a Looney Toon who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Joe wrote: Display this post.

Or don't.

I assure you that your desire to hear only opinions with which you agree affects me not at all.

What plan are you attacking? I have seen no serious proposal that does not have provisions for the poor.

AspenValley wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: People that spend more, pay more plain and simple.

Oh yeah, well THAT would be fair. Since the lower middle class and below has to spend 100% of their income just to survive, it's PERFECTLY fair that they pay high sales taxes on all those boxes of Ramen noodles and cheap Walmart shoes for their kids while the rich, who only spend maybe 5% of their income on necessities pay the same.

And gets to sock away the other 95% tax free so they can get even more rich.

PERFECTLY FAIR.

Did any of you actually graduate from sixth grade math?

Or are you just so seriously disrespectful of anyone earning less than you that you figure they wouldn't understand the swindle on 50% or more of Americans you're proposing?

neptunechimney wrote: What plan are you attacking? I have seen no serious proposal that does not have provisions for the poor.

AspenValley wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: People that spend more, pay more plain and simple.

Oh yeah, well THAT would be fair. Since the lower middle class and below has to spend 100% of their income just to survive, it's PERFECTLY fair that they pay high sales taxes on all those boxes of Ramen noodles and cheap Walmart shoes for their kids while the rich, who only spend maybe 5% of their income on necessities pay the same.

And gets to sock away the other 95% tax free so they can get even more rich.

PERFECTLY FAIR.

Did any of you actually graduate from sixth grade math?

Or are you just so seriously disrespectful of anyone earning less than you that you figure they wouldn't understand the swindle on 50% or more of Americans you're proposing?

All tax proposals based on spending as opposed to earning are seriously unfair to the at least 50% of Americans whose incomes barely keep them housed and fed. In other words, those whose incomes would be 100% taxable because it all must be spent to support their families.

Not sure what you mean by provisions for the "poor", are you suggesting that half of America is poor? If so, that deserves a thread of its own, I think.

AspenValley wrote: [All tax proposals based on spending as opposed to earning are seriously unfair to the at least 50% of Americans whose incomes barely keep them housed and fed. In other words, those whose incomes would be 100% taxable because it all must be spent to support their families.

Provide a link to a plan and we can talk about it. The plans I recall seeing have exemptions.

archer wrote: I have counseled enough people on how to get out of debt to know that just cutting expenditures is rarely enough.....you often need to increase revenue, at least in the short term......and that increase in revenue is used solely for debt payments, along with whatever cuts in spending can be made. I have never counseled a couple to starve their children, to throw grandma out on the street, to avoid doctor visits, or to sell everything they own and live in a homeless shelter. I have suggested they get a part time job along with their full time career to give them the extra income to pay down the debt faster than would otherwise be possible. Its not forever....it's for now, to balance the budget and keep the debt from spiraling out of control. Get your fiscal house in order, run the government on a balanced budget.....THEN think about tax cuts.

The reason the "righties" will never get it archer is that your quote makes no sense. The taxes necessary to stop the deficit spending at the level requested by the current executive would be a 50% increase in what is being paid right now. If you left the privilege to be employed/have employee taxes out of the mix the rest of the taxes would have to be increased 100% above their current levels - all before we could even discuss increasing revenue still further to pay down the existing $14 Trillion principle amount. We are not talking an additional part time job here, we are talking 2 full time jobs and then a part time one on top of it. We can't start paying down the debt until we stop accumulating more new debt that will need to be paid down in addition to the debt we currently have that we have yet to make any effort to pay down.

The wannabe national government is spending $3.8 Trillion a year on $2.1 Trillion of annual revenue right now and the current executive thinks its a good idea to plan on spending $5.6 Trillion a year 10 short years from now. Hello McFly!!! No one, well almost no one, in the wannabe national government is talking about cutting the federal budget from $3.8 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion such that we can start paying down the debt with the increased taxes the executive is being so petulant about, they are talking about reducing the amount of deficit spending in added to the current amount. Instead of adding $10 - $15 Trillion onto the existing $14 Trillion over the next 10 years, the executive is now talking about adding only an additional $6 - $11 Trillion to the existing $14 in that period of time. Where might I ask is the debt reduction, all I see is a debt addition.

We'll forget for the moment, well, no we actually won't, that the executive's fantasy is based on the economy growing at a 5% annual clip when the 100 year average is less than 3.5%, the 20 year average is somewhere around 2.4% and the last decade averaged 1.7%.

The reason the righties don't get what you are talking about is that it has no basis in reality, which is where the righties prefer to anchor themselves. We don't have a revenue problem that needs solving, we have a spending problem that needs solving. The way you solve a spending problem isn't to spend more money than you are currently spending every year regardless of how much money you actually have to spend. Getting a part time job to increase your revenue 10% a year isn't going to help you get out of debt when your spending routinely exceeds your income by 50% and you not only refuse to lessen that amount, you insist on forecasting your future earnings and spending using figures that could only have come from the other side of the rabbit hole. What that means instead is that you are simply digging yourself deeper into debt at a 36% annual clip instead of a 50% clip. That isn't going to help get you out of debt archer, you simply can't dig your way out of a hole. Continued digging only makes the hole deeper, making it unlikely that you will be able to emerge from the hole you have dug before it collapses and buries you alive.

No one from the illiberal left seems to want to address this point, but I will repeat it once more in case you simply overlooked it while focusing on the posts that you can shake a finger at while saying tisk tisk. FDR, at the height of the New Deal, was spending 10% of the national production, 11% when the nation was starting to ramp up defense spending after war broke out in Europe. This included all of the federal "full employment" Depression era programs such as the CCC. Obama is asking for 227% of that amount, 25% of the national production, and he hasn't even gotten to FDR styled federal "full employment" programs yet.

The problem we currently have is not the result of tax rate reductions, it is the result of gross overspending by the wannabe national government. The solution to that problem won't be found in raising taxes 50% to 100% so that the gross overspending can continue unabated. If Obama and the illiberals wanted to levy a dedicated excise tax on every item, including food, when it is purchased to pay down the principle amount of the debt, would you support it? The evil rich people spend more than poor people after all. They buy more expensive clothes, more expensive food, more expensive automobiles, more expensive homes. They consume more electricity to power up their McMansions (think of AlGore's tax bill!!!) $350 dollar bottles of wine, $5000 a plate dinners for political party fundraisers. Heck, let's levy a 25% tax on every dollar of campaign funds, no make it 50% instead. That would raise $500 million from Obama's 2012 campaign alone. And all those evil rich people and corporations, along with the unions (oops, there goes the illiberal support), would be the ones paying the taxes, which ought to make the class warfare folks happy as well. Tax their attempts to purchase the ear of the wannabe federal government elected officials and you might just raise more money than if you taxed their income and increased the number of years needed to write off their purchase of corporate jets. Let's tax the PAC money as well - maybe a 50% tax on the contributions and another 25% tax in addition to the cost for the commercials they air on television and radio. The reduction in spending on that would make all of us happy, wouldn't it? We could even tax the campaign internet sites. Maybe 25 cents a hit. Obama has hundreds of thousands of dollars he doesn't need, he said so himself not too long ago.

Amazing... Repeating it over and over again still doesn't make it true... But I have to admire the perseverance...

LadyJazzer wrote: Amazing... Repeating it over and over again still doesn't make it true... But I have to admire the perseverance...

And repeating your same overused lines never adds much to the debate. Sometimes I just like to read the back and forth arguments, until they get interupted with moronic mini commercials.

Good post P.S. It contains real numbers, it will take awhile for some to research their blogs and talking points to come up with a canned response. Be patient. They are still looking for the "Trillion button" on their calculators. And the definition of GDP

I suspect it will be either "class warfare' or "tax the rich". Those seem to be popular responses.