Still no answer, the rich aren't hurting the poor by being rich and in fact help the poor by creating employment opportunities because of their spending
Never said that the rich are hurting the poor by being rich. I stated that the disparity between rich and poor and the income inequality has grown and that is a problem in any society. It is that kind of problem that causes political instability and even revolutions in the worst cases. The top 5% have relatively benefited more from the last 30 years of economic growth than the rest of the 95% of the population and especially the poor and middle class. Now there are many reasons for this, and frankly it deserves its own thread.
Any attempt by the Federal govt. to provide social programs for the local communities, SS, Medicare, all Health and Human Services activities.
Or the military, police and what not.. Listen I get you are a die hard conservative, but like it or not we base our whole society on "social programs" of some sort. And like it or not, the social programs you so hate, have meant that a society like the US and European countries have been dragged out of the dark ages into some what functioning democracies. While I complain over the income inequality and the gap between rich and poor now, it was much much much worse back before we had social programs, mandatory education systems and so on and so on. Before social security, growing old was a near death sentence unless you had a large family that could take care of you.
Ever been to Watts in LA or the 9th Ward in NO? I have and all the help in the world isn't going to get some off their asses to fend for themselves. All the handouts in the world aren't going to change their behavior. There are deadbeats in this country and blaming the rich doesn't address the issue. It takes tough love and liberals don't know how or don't want to do that.
I aint blaming the rich for the slackers. The slackers are a whole other issue, and must be addressed with incentives and so on.. not cutting them off cold turkey. We can discuss this in another thread, I would wager on the basics we would be in agreement.. maybe not the methods but that is always a discussion issue
You hear the negatives on both sides like spending in the name of compassion. How about getting some compassionate results by getting these people off the public dole. over 2 years of unemployment insurance doesn't create incentive to get a job now.
Are you seriously saying that the people on the public dole is the main problem of the US? That these "slackers" are the reason the US is in mega debt and have a huge deficit? Are senior citizens slackers? How about the military, they are after all public employees too?
Yep, the military is probably the only purpose of the Federal Govt. and if you did just that, paid VA Benefits, and interest on the debt the budget of the U.S. would be about a trillion dollars instead of 3.8 trillion. do that and take current revenue on taxes of about 2.6 trillion and you pay off 1.4 trillion in debt each year.
Ahh a true conservative, living in the past. Sorry but we have evolved past the society that did not give women the vote and accepted slavery. To run a true society, Government needs to be funded fully and do certain things, like Police, military, education for all.. anything that benefits the society as a whole. Now we might not agree to what extent the US federal system should extend, but it is more than "just" the military. Your whole society would collapse if you gave up the other things cold turkey, which is what I suspect you are advocating for. Not to mention many of the federal things would needed to be taken over by states, who then had to raise taxes... and it would create a country of have and have nots..
Tax cuts don't have to be financed, they aren't a govt. expense. It isn't the government's money.
boy you live in a dream world.... of course tax cuts have to be financed. Either you find alternative funding or cut spending.. you cant just cut your income without having to deal with the deficit that is created.. It is people like you and these bonehead Reagan right wing neo con theories that put you in the hole that you are in now. You cant just stop getting an income and live off credit cards for god sake.. at some point the credit will dry up and then you would be up a creek without a paddle.
Your opinion, hardly backed by anything other than how you feel
In Denmark we have high taxes, but we are also a nation of pessimists and were badly hurt during the 1970s oil crisis. That means we save a lot, and never trust the government or even think positive of the future. In the 1990s the Government (a liberal-conservative one... liberal as in the true meaning of the word), decided to cut taxes to create more growth. We had just come out of a mini recession, and people were still very pessimistic and had memories of the 1970s. They took the tax cut, and paid off debt or saved up. The tax cut had almost no impact on growth. It took another tax cut to get anything what so ever. A conservative-liberal government found out the hard way then, that cutting taxes was not the magic solution they had been told by their American counterparts.
And that is what I see in the US now days.. a bunch of people who are not exactly positive, who have received a kick to the groin like the Danes in the 1970s and are hurting financially at all levels. A tax cut wont make them suddenly think that all their problems are going away and make them go spending nuts... no they will most likely either save up or pay down debt. And since your taxes are already some of the lowest in the industrialized world and you have one of the biggest budgets, then any economics 101 class would tell you that this would not be a good idea.
Raising taxes doesn't increase govt. revenue because it changes human behavior. You can deny what happened in the 80's but you cannot ignore the facts. BEA.gov gives you those facts.
I am not ignoring any facts, since you have not provided any. But let me then.
Reagan and revenue - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
Explains it pretty well. Plus lets not forget Reagan also raised taxes..
Reagan's Tax Increases | Capital Gains and Games
Over all he cut taxes more than he raised, but not by as much as many think.
Listen I am normally against Tax increases, however in the situation the US is in at the moment with its budget.. then I cant see any alternative. The same goes for the UK, Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Tax raising and spending cuts are needed to get the state economy under control. Now I would personally wait till there is more private sector growth, but the speculators in the markets want to make a quick buck these days so as we saw in Greece's case, they can easily press countries into drastic spending cuts and tax increases that cause a new recession.