Obama Proved Last Night who benefits from Government spending

[Flyersfan314]

I think anyone who thinks the rich should pay a higher rate should pay that some overall rate themselves.

after all you won't die if you have to pay the same rate I do.

You are not being rational right now. I took your side on a key part of this argument. I disagree with you on one small point and you give me a childish response.

 

[TurtleDude]

View attachment 67114821

.............

so the dems aren't the party that "champions" the "rights" of the poor?

 

[TurtleDude]

You are not being rational right now. I took your side on a key part of this argument. I disagree with you on one small point and you give me a childish response.

everyone should pay the same rate. the current system has created massive problems because too many people believe its only the duty of the rich to pay the bills

 

[TurtleDude]

Once the rich pay their fair share, then the government can distribute the money equally and then the masses of poor people will be motivated to go out and make better lives for themselves because they will realize that the government cares and then a collective utopia will grace the land, there will never be anymore poor, we will all live happily ever after. It's not a spending problem, it's a lack of caring problem...

damn that is some wicked good sarcasm

hat tip

 

[Boo Radley]

Awesome and Tuttledude, share those drugs. You guys must have some really good stuff.

Look, humor aside, as long as you go off arguing strawman sterotypes, we're not going to get anywhere. We can all do stupid all day long. We might get a laugh here or there, but otherwise it is pointless.

Just saying . . . :coffeepap

 

[Flyersfan314]

The flat tax you are proposing Turtle is not practical. 25% of 100,000 leaves a person with 25,000. 1million leaves a person with 750,000. One is a lifestyle change the other is not.

 

[haymarket]

In a post here Turtle said

Social Security would have never passed even in the New Deal era if it was nothing more than another redistribution of income scheme

I had never heard that, so I asked this of Turtle

Do you have some evidence from the historical record - perhaps the debates at that time - which offers any actual evidence to support this boast?

His response

I really don't have time to go through the legislative history but if you doubt me you can do what I did back when I was in law school and read all of that stuff

Actually Turtle, that is an evasion and a non-answer. It tell us nothing beyond another personal claim that you are putting forth without anything to substantiate it for anyone here.

Do you have any actual evidence to provide for us? Perhaps you have some of this material that you studied in college? Perhaps you can link to historians who specialize in the New Deal such as Arthur Schlesinger or others?

I went to college also and studied Political Science and History and earned a Masters Degree. I never studied anything which supports your claim and I too have read a great deal on it. The subarea of FDR and the New Deal is one of my favorite areas. I know of nothing which supports this claim

Social Security would have never passed even in the New Deal era if it was nothing more than another redistribution of income scheme

But I am willing to read any historical evidence you would like to submit. I am willing to learn providing it is from the actual historical record and you can support your claims with evidence that can be verified.

 

[TurtleDude]

The flat tax you are proposing Turtle is not practical. 25% of 100,000 leaves a person with 25,000. 1million leaves a person with 750,000. One is a lifestyle change the other is not.

1) you believe in from each according to his abilities-I don't

2) if the poor cannot pay the same rate as the rich for the current amount of government maybe if they were so taxed they might demand less government

3) you do understand that the current system encourages politicians to cater to large number of voters by telling them they can have what they want and only a few will face tax hikes

 

[TurtleDude]

In a post here Turtle said






I had never heard that, so I asked this of Turtle



His response



Actually Turtle, that is an evasion and a non-answer. It tell us nothing beyond another personal claim that you are putting forth without anything to substantiate it for anyone here.

Do you have any actual evidence to provide for us? Perhaps you have some of this material that you studied in college? Perhaps you can link to historians who specialize in the New Deal such as Arthur Schlesinger or others?

I went to college also and studied Political Science and History and earned a Masters Degree. I never studied anything which supports your claim and I too have read a great deal on it. The subarea of FDR and the New Deal is one of my favorite areas. I know of nothing which supports this claim



But I am willing to read any historical evidence you would like to submit. I am willing to learn providing it is from the actual historical record and you can support your claims with evidence that can be verified.

was SS promoted as an income redistribution scheme or a force savings plan?

 

[haymarket]

was SS promoted as an income redistribution scheme or a force savings plan?

Why don't you show us with your historical research what you believe it was? You made an allegation of historical fact

Social Security would have never passed even in the New Deal era if it was nothing more than another redistribution of income scheme

So lets see the support for that allegation of historical fact.

 

[TurtleDude]

I told you I don't feel like it-you can do the research yourself

But my question to you stands-do you believe SS was set up as a income redistribution scheme or was it a forced retirement plan

 

[Flyersfan314]

I dont like the current tax system. Each according to his ability is from the Communist Manifesto. So people who don't have the ability should be left without any help? That is not a productive way to run a country. Government help or wealth distribution or whatever you want to call it can be productive in low dosages. We do need less government, in less spending. I just think a flat tax would have to be put so low that we would cut more than we need or have to, this could have adverse effects on the economy. The government subsides many industries which help lower the costs (energy, transportation, infrastructure, science, medicine, ect.).

Turtle I agree with you more than you think. Just because I lean slightly liberal does not mean I am a communist nut job. If you really want to reform government you will need people like me to help you. The Tea Party can't do it alone.

 

[TurtleDude]

I dont like the current tax system. Each according to his ability is from the Communist Manifesto. So people who don't have the ability should be left without any help? That is not a productive way to run a country. Government help or wealth distribution or whatever you want to call it can be productive in low dosages. We do need less government, in less spending. I just think a flat tax would have to be put so low that we would cut more than we need or have to, this could have adverse effects on the economy. The government subsides many industries which help lower the costs (energy, transportation, infrastructure, science, medicine, ect.).

Turtle I agree with you more than you think. Just because I lean slightly liberal does not mean I am a communist nut job. If you really want to reform government you will need people like me to help you. The Tea Party can't do it alone.

no taxes should be raised until the government can prove it will cut massive amounts of spending

and the taxes first should be raised on those who need to have some skin in the game

Later

 

[Boo Radley]

I told you I don't feel like it-you can do the research yourself

But my question to you stands-do you believe SS was set up as a income redistribution scheme or was it a forced retirement plan

I do wish you would do some. However, your either / or fallacy is not something any should take seriously. I'll give you an overview of the history to start you on your research:

Creation: The Social Security Act
President Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act, at approximately 3:30 pm EST on August 14, 1935.[11] Standing with Roosevelt are Rep. Robert Doughton (D-NC); unknown person in shadow; Sen. Robert Wagner (D-NY); Rep. John Dingell (D-MI); unknown man in bowtie; the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins; Sen. Pat Harrison (D-MS); and Rep. David Lewis (D-MD).The Social Security Act was drafted during Roosevelt's first term by the President's Committee on Economic Security, under Frances Perkins, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.[12]

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[haymarket]

I told you I don't feel like it-you can do the research yourself

But my question to you stands-do you believe SS was set up as a income redistribution scheme or was it a forced retirement plan

Turtle - I cannot do the research to support a statement of yours that I believe to be made up by you and without foundation. You are asking me to prove that there are not indeed three inch monkeys made of flame who play professional basketball underneath Uranus. Sorry, but I cannot prove that either way.

If you want to offer an allegation of historical fact, it is up to you to prove it..... and you know it.

But let us all indulge you for a moment to see where you want to go with this allegation of historical fact............ lt us say that you can prove this .... you can go into the historical record and find examples of speeches which reflect your opinion and not one person can find anything else to show where there was any other intent of Social Security when it was first passed into law.

So what?

Why is that important and what does it have to do with the year 2011 and the United States of America that we live in today?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Adam Smith's book is not the law of the land

and what we need to change is the attitude if you fail someone else is at fault and has a duty to bail you out

None of this answers my post, in any of its points. However, I will nevertheless reply:

1) Adam Smith's book is not the law of the land. Neither are the Ten Commandments, the Olivet Discourse, or J.S. Mill's Theory of Utility. However, our laws are based, to large extent, on the reasonings, sentiments, and systems of those and other such writings. Smith is, in effect, the grand sage of the system of economics employed by the United States and favored by the founding fathers. However, rather than listen to his wise counsel about how to have a wealthy nation, we have been heading down a road that is a ridiculous caricature of his theory, and now we are reaping the consequences of our impetuousness.

2) I agree that the attitude which thinks "if you fail, someone else is at fault and it is their duty to bail you out" is no good. But so is the attitude "if you fail, no one else has any responsibility towards you whatsoever." The reason people form societies and economies to begin with is precisely for the purpose of establishing controls against the ravages of an unforgiving environment. And factors inherent in that economy and society sometimes contribute to failures that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

The correct attitude, it seems to me, is two-fold: first, that we have an obligation to our fellows provided they are willing to help themselves (in a reasonable manner--asking someone to work three jobs for minimum wage to pay back a small amount of money at huge interest is ridiculous, and morally wrong). People's failings are not always their own fault. Second, damn those who won't help themselves, and it ought to be quite easy to figure out who's who.

 

[TurtleDude]

many liberals think the only proper way to help others is to vote for more and more welfare socialism. This is consistent with the common attitude among the left of outsourcing most individual responsibilities-be it self defense, saving for one's own retirement, or helping those who need it, to the government. Of course, liberal elites bank on this sort of attitude to gain power and wealth while seducing others with claims that more socialism will help people.

 

[ashurbanipal]

many liberals think the only proper way to help others is to vote for more and more welfare socialism. This is consistent with the common attitude among the left of outsourcing most individual responsibilities-be it self defense, saving for one's own retirement, or helping those who need it, to the government. Of course, liberal elites bank on this sort of attitude to gain power and wealth while seducing others with claims that more socialism will help people.

Well, I think a vocal minority of liberals take those sorts of extreme views; fewer liberals these days would agree with such a position. I consider myself a liberal, but I don't think we should establish rules that lead to a culture of abdication of personal responsibility. I take responsibility for myself and my actions, I work for a living, and I think others should do the same unless they are truly unable. However, when I see

*people who work hard living in poverty because they can't earn a decent wage due to lack of jobs

*farmers struggling to produce food in a climate gone haywire, and many of them losing their farms

*people who work hard living with debilitating illnesses or injuries because they can't get medical care

*victims of natural disasters hung out to dry by the society to which they belong

*the Donald Trumps and Lloyd Blankfeins of the world flying overhead in gold-encrusted private jets and sailing hundred-million-dollar yachts around the French Riviera, especially when I know they didn't really earn the money that supports their lifestyle

I think something has seriously gone wrong. And that's what I see, and so something seriously has gone wrong. We need to fix it, and the way you would have us go is just going to lead (quite obviously) to more of the same.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, I think a vocal minority of liberals take those sorts of extreme views; fewer liberals these days would agree with such a position. I consider myself a liberal, but I don't think we should establish rules that lead to a culture of abdication of personal responsibility. I take responsibility for myself and my actions, I work for a living, and I think others should do the same unless they are truly unable. However, when I see

*people who work hard living in poverty because they can't earn a decent wage due to lack of jobs

*farmers struggling to produce food in a climate gone haywire, and many of them losing their farms

*people who work hard living with debilitating illnesses or injuries because they can't get medical care

*victims of natural disasters hung out to dry by the society to which they belong

*the Donald Trumps and Lloyd Blankfeins of the world flying overhead in gold-encrusted private jets and sailing hundred-million-dollar yachts around the French Riviera, especially when I know they didn't really earn the money that supports their lifestyle

I think something has seriously gone wrong. And that's what I see, and so something seriously has gone wrong. We need to fix it, and the way you would have us go is just going to lead (quite obviously) to more of the same.

you were doing ok until you started with the envy of Trump nonsense

tell us what your proposed solution is

 

[Baltim]

Unless the US tax system is massively different from the UK system then all that's going to happen is that the rich will earn a little less profit from their wealth.

It's not like they're going to lose money already accrued, just that they'll be earn slightly less interest and profit from the money they're able to invest.

Sheesh! I wish I was able to worry about crap like that but most of the time I'm working my arse off to make sure I can pay my bills every month.

ETA: obviously this only refers to wealth already banked, it may be that they earn less from eir labours too but seeing as most people seem to earn nothing in comparison to those in the richest ehelons of society this is fair.

As long as everyone is paying the same percentage of their earnings in tax I think it's fair.

 

[Boo Radley]

many liberals think the only proper way to help others is to vote for more and more welfare socialism. This is consistent with the common attitude among the left of outsourcing most individual responsibilities-be it self defense, saving for one's own retirement, or helping those who need it, to the government. Of course, liberal elites bank on this sort of attitude to gain power and wealth while seducing others with claims that more socialism will help people.

Can't speak for many liberals, whoever they are, so how about you address someone specific in stead of going down the hyperbolic strawman stereotype path?

 

[TurtleDude]

Unless the US tax system is massively different from the UK system then all that's going to happen is that the rich will earn a little less profit from their wealth.

It's not like they're going to lose money already accrued, just that they'll be earn slightly less interest and profit from the money they're able to invest.

Sheesh! I wish I was able to worry about crap like that but most of the time I'm working my arse off to make sure I can pay my bills every month.

ETA: obviously this only refers to wealth already banked, it may be that they earn less from eir labours too but seeing as most people seem to earn nothing in comparison to those in the richest ehelons of society this is fair.

As long as everyone is paying the same percentage of their earnings in tax I think it's fair.

they aren't. the bottom 20% are often paying taxes with money that was given to them, taken form others

 

[TurtleDude]

Can't speak for many liberals, whoever they are, so how about you address someone specific in stead of going down the hyperbolic strawman stereotype path?

using the tax system to try to remedy all the perceived inequalities in society is a piss poor idea

 

[Boo Radley]

they aren't. the bottom 20% are often paying taxes with money that was given to them, taken form others

You're free to trade places with them. Go for it.

 

[Boo Radley]

using the tax system to try to remedy all the perceived inequalities in society is a piss poor idea

No one has suggested doing that. So, once again, you're off on the hyperbolic strawman stereotype path.