So if we accept that there is no power in the constitution for the govt to run either a medical insurance program, retirement insurance, nutrition assistance, education loans, or own a auto company, then once you strip the functions of govt down to what is actually in the constitution, the federal cost is significantly lower. If you then further accept that every citizen who is able to pay for these services should at the very least contribute the same share of what they are able to (flat tax), that number is probably 10% or less.
You are correct; you need to step away from the propaganda. The idea that you don't consider the tax increase a viable option because it does not solve 100% of the problem is a very weak argument from your friends at Fox; as is the idea this is something to do with class. You can increase taxes on the highest earners because that move will have the least impact on the economy as only a small part of their income works its way into the demand curve.
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
From CNBC today
What Buffett Is Missing in His Tax Plan - Yahoo! Finance
Intriguing what the media has not said in the past about effective tax rates. We all heard the middle class was getting soaked while the rich were dancing with the lowest rates - oops.
"What difference" "does it make?"
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
First, government is not taking from others, and handing it to the rich therefore enabling them to be "lazy", on the large scale (for military and government funded stuff, it may be the case).The poor on the other hand are actually being handed money that government took from someone else.
So no, they are not equal, it's not a matter of government taking from the poor/middle class and handing to the rich (which it does not), vs. taking form the rich and handing to the poor/middle class (which it does)And the really poor are not the question, it's largely the middle-class that is getting the ride. There is some percentage of the poor who should receive help, and while government may not be the ideal vehicle for that, it may suffice.
Second, government largely should do neither. I should be the that chooses if I spend my short awareness of life, working or enjoying liesure (you call lazy).
You realize that someone who works 2x as much and saves, living below their means, and then early retires, is not the same "laziness" as someone who intetionally chooses not to work, but asks for handouts and lives basically on the efforts of someone else?
You've warped the argument so much it's scary.
Last edited by Mach; 11-26-12 at 11:41 AM.