Why the right wing is wrong on taxes

jmc wrote: Our founding ancestors would have been shooting by now." Quote"

What proof,links or articles do you have to support that opinion? LOL

LOL? You're easily amused... aren't you junior?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

jmc wrote: Our founding ancestors would have been shooting by now." Quote"

What proof,links or articles do you have to support that opinion? LOL

LOL? You're easily amused... aren't you junior?

Yes I am, spud! I have always found stupidity and hypocrisy hilarious.
Why have you avoided the real point of my opinion, If you really want smaller government and not just lower taxes, tell me where I am off base?

jmc wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

jmc wrote: Our founding ancestors would have been shooting by now." Quote"

What proof,links or articles do you have to support that opinion? LOL

LOL? You're easily amused... aren't you junior?

Yes I am, spud! I have always found stupidity and hypocrisy hilarious.
Why have you avoided the real point of my opinion, If you really want smaller government and not just lower taxes, tell me where I am off base?

It's not a right/left issue... the whole nonpartisan Political Class and the Corporate World Criminals will get what they want... one way or another. If you think that you are making some difference supporting this party or that party, or this politician or that politician, you're deluded. The partisan worker bees are useful idiots for the Political Class. They keep you busy fighting you "side" of the issue while all the time you side (or the other side) makes no difference. Your thread title "Why the right wing is wrong on taxes" tell me you have already drunk the kool-aid, you think the right is the creators of all the problems. No... our Political Class are the problem and they are stealing this country blind and raping us dry for money and power. And you don't count. So... stay busy... you'll never be an independent thinker... just don't be surprised when they are done with you and you find yourself alone and discarded.

Spud.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

jmc wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

jmc wrote: Our founding ancestors would have been shooting by now." Quote"

What proof,links or articles do you have to support that opinion? LOL

LOL? You're easily amused... aren't you junior?

Yes I am, spud! I have always found stupidity and hypocrisy hilarious.
Why have you avoided the real point of my opinion, If you really want smaller government and not just lower taxes, tell me where I am off base?

It's not a right/left issue... the whole nonpartisan Political Class and the Corporate World Criminals will get what they want... one way or another. If you think that you are making some difference supporting this party or that party, or this politician or that politician, you're deluded. The partisan worker bees are useful idiots for the Political Class. They keep you busy fighting you "side" of the issue while all the time you side (or the other side) makes no difference. Your thread title "Why the right wing is wrong on taxes" tell me you have already drunk the kool-aid, you think the right is the creators of all the problems. No... our Political Class are the problem and they are stealing this country blind and raping us dry for money and power. And you don't count. So... stay busy... you'll never be an independent thinker... just don't be surprised when they are done with you and you find yourself alone and discarded.

Spud.

I was trying to point out the failed "starve the beast" strategy in reducing the size of government,something I support. I think people should pay for the government and services they want. You have avoided my premice and tuened the thread to it being about you. Something you do pretty regularly.
I think you grasp on to one idea and refuse to see any other possibilities. It is a left/right issue, the conservatives want smaller government, or did I miss something.
yours truly
Junior
Let some others comment on the idea, I think it has enough merit to have an intelligent discussion , rather than your tripe.

jmc wrote: The "starve the beast strategy" employed by conservatives has been a failure if the goal was a smaller federal government.All the tax cuts over the last 30+ years have not slowed the growth of government.
Bush lowered taxes and gov. got bigger, ditto Reagan and Obama.
If you believe that what is subsidized grows and what is taxed shrinks, it makes sense that if the goal is a smaller federal government having it subsidized with deficits is counter intuitive. Why not insist that the growth of government be paid for in full. Raise taxes by 30%.
If people pay the real cost of programs maybe they wont want to pay for entitlements and being the world police.Then maybe smaller government could be a reality but as long as all that happens is tax cuts, the gravy train continues. Raise taxes and peg increases to the growth of the fed. gov.
If people want the programs and military the way it is now they should pay for it.
Don't give me a balanced budget amendment as a solution,it is a gimmick that will not work.

So why is the solution to allow the general government unlimited access to the fruits of the labor of the citizens of the States in order that whatever they wish to spend money on they will have the necessary funds for that purpose? Why shouldn't the solution be limiting the percentage of GDP the general government is allowed to spend and then let the elected representatives of the States in the national Congress decide what priority should be given to the various programs?

It would seem to me that what you are advocating here jmc is to allow a grossly obese individual access to whatever amount of food they desired to have and insist that others pay for whatever amount of food that grossly obese individual decides they wish to eat. Why not insist that there be no deficit spending as opposed to insisting that the growth be paid for in full? Limit the revenues of the general government to something under 10% and levy a dedicated tax to pay for the excesses of previous generations. How Congress decides to spend its allowance at that point becomes irrelevant, provided they have no means to exceed their spending allowance.

I agree with you, by the way, that tax cuts without concurrent spending cuts is only half of what is needed to address the problem we have. We don't have a revenue problem at the federal level, we have a spending problem. You don't solve the spending problem by providing more revenue to spend. You solve the spending problem by limiting the amount of money that can be spent to the amount of revenue that is anticipated being received.

The problem causing the deficit at the federal level is the federal excursion into the individual welfare of the citizens of the States - which is a State concern, not a federal one. Whether or not an individual in New York, or Texas, has all of their individual needs taken care of is no more a concern of mine, as a citizen of Colorado, than whether or not a citizen in Tanzania, or Germany, or Somalia has all of their individual needs addressed. We should not be paying for the individual needs of a citizen of New York anymore than we should be paying for the individual needs of a citizen of Germany. That is the concern of the government and citizens of New York, or Germany, not the government or the citizens of Colorado. Should one of my siblings and their family fall on hard times is it not more my responsibility to help them than it is yours? Should I not be willing to put them up under my own roof, even if doing so is intrusive and burdensome for me, before asking for some of your money to keep them under a roof of their own? Do I not owe it to you to take care of my family myself instead of asking the state to intrude into your life for that purpose?

We can, and should, take that even one step further and say that the individual welfare of my parents should not be a concern of yours unless they and their children collectively are unable to provide for them. There is no call, no reason, for you to give up the fruits of your labor so that I don't have to provide a room in my home for my parents that is not rooted in selfishness on the part of myself and my parents. My parents are primarily the responsibility of myself and my siblings, not my fellow citizens, and certainly not primarily the responsibility of citizens of a state other than the one in which they, or I and my siblings, are ourselves citizens. If we are unwilling to fulfill our filial duty, then we should be treated no differently than a father or mother is with respect to child support. If/when all of those options are exhausted and there is still insufficient ability to provide for them, only then should the fruits of the labor of others be asked for to ensure that they are provided for.

jmc wrote: It is a left/right issue, the conservatives want smaller government, or did I miss something.
Yours truly Junior

Yes you missed something. It's not a left/right issue at all. Right, left, it's all the same. Both sides want money, power and prestige... that's it, and they will get it any way they can. They blow smoke in your eyes, they make believe the "other" side is the bad guy, and they walk away smelling like roses. Conservatives are not going to get a smaller goverment, progressives are not going to get a bigger government, the Political Class will get what they NEED. That's it.

Yours Truly Spud.

jmc wrote: The "starve the beast strategy" employed by conservatives has been a failure if the goal was a smaller federal government.All the tax cuts over the last 30+ years have not slowed the growth of government.
Bush lowered taxes and gov. got bigger, ditto Reagan and Obama....

JMC I think you are basically correct, looking backward. However, the budgeting process is changing starting in 2011. I think you saw it in March with the Budget fight, in August with the Debt ceiling and AAA downgrade, and lately with the payroll BS. Spending passed for 2012 is pretty much flat except for entitlements.

I also agree taxing the citizens approx 2x now to balance the budget would create a lot more "small government" fans. Cheers!

Goverment has expanded to 25% of the economy and the social net has also expanded to record levels, only makes sense that the rich get their payoff too right?

If over 50% of people did pay income taxes, there would be more desire to reduce goverment spending, but by using debt to pay for it and reducing the taxpayers to a small minority, the current model will continue, until new sources of money start charging too much.

(Looks to the interest rates Italy and Greece are having to pay.)

Your logic might be right if our government were taxed. If what is taxed shrinks, then we need to start taxing the government, not subsidize it. Right now the government continues to grow because it continues to create more of itself at the expense of taxpayers. Perhaps the expenses our government makes ought to be taxed and that money put into funds earmarked for existing programs that have been bilked for so many other purposes. How about taxing the government expenses and putting those tax revenues toward SS, and medicare just for starters? Then our government would actually be more accountable. Of course that is never going to happen. And increased taxation on the 1% is pure BS and never going to accomplish anything in terms of balancing a budget, shrinking government or for that matter creating a better life for the other classes, but it might make some liberals happy for a while. I expect when our government tries to draw blood from a stone (the People), the people will go to Washington and clean house (aka French revolution) and do away with the privaleged, and most of those reside in Washington.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Your logic might be right if our government were taxed. If what is taxed shrinks, then we need to start taxing the government, not subsidize it. Right now the government continues to grow because it continues to create more of itself at the expense of taxpayers. Perhaps the expenses our government makes ought to be taxed and that money put into funds earmarked for existing programs that have been bilked for so many other purposes. How about taxing the government expenses and putting those tax revenues toward SS, and medicare just for starters? Then our government would actually be more accountable. Of course that is never going to happen. And increased taxation on the 1% is pure BS and never going to accomplish anything in terms of balancing a budget, shrinking government or for that matter creating a better life for the other classes, but it might make some liberals happy for a while. I expect when our government tries to draw blood from a stone (the People), the people will go to Washington and clean house (aka French revolution) and do away with the privaleged, and most of those reside in Washington.

The bottom line problem is... revolutions don't solve anything, at least not for anything more than a short period of time. The wealthy can ride out most revolutions, they have the money, the patience and the where-with-all to slide into the fog, wait and then regroup when the time is right, and then the cycle starts all over again. In the meantime, the common folk shed all the blood, sweat and effort, calm things down, and before you know it, the wealthy pop right back up, still wealthy, still powerful and still determined to take what they want. All you did for them was to clean a little house and get rid of a lot of their opposition.