Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If Republicans would stop with the supply-side bullshit about how the rich are going to give us jobs if we tax them less and just outright admitted that, "Hey, we think it's crap that the rich are paying more in taxes," I would feel less inclined to smack them in the face whenever they open their lying whore mouths.

I assume this has (at least in part) to do with Obama bending over and cum-farting all over the people that voted him in by going along with the Republicans and not keeping his campaign promise on tax-cuts?

Originally posted by Robtard
I assume this has (at least in part) to do with Obama bending over and cum-farting all over the people that voted him in by going along with the Republicans and not keeping his campaign promise on tax-cuts?

Wait wait...I did not hear or read about this.


*Googles*

Yup, it's true.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20101204/US.Tax.Cuts/




Damn, you're fast on the news. (I don't watch TV.)

Originally posted by Robtard
I assume this has (at least in part) to do with Obama bending over and cum-farting all over the people that voted him in by going along with the Republicans and not keeping his campaign promise on tax-cuts?
Not his fault, really. The Republicans have been more interested in shitting up America to make him look bad than they have been in finding solutions.

Ron Paul will never be President. And this makes me sad.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ron Paul will never be President. And this makes me sad.

I'd love for him to be President too.

If his ideas actually worked it would be better for all Americans. Or after he's elected he'd fall into step along with every other president and not deliver much of the promises he preached cos 'the machine' likes the things the way they are and all the Paulitians would finally shut the **** up about the 'Ron Paul was right' rhetoric.

Either way, it's a win.

What I've always wanted to know is exactly where the line would be drawn by the majority of his supporters. Dismantle the government, jobless rates skyrocket, roll back so much legislation that no one knows which end is up, allows the free market to dictate the economy, but also remove the measures that are in place that prop up the market to be controlled by the very companies that have reduced the concept of the free market to little more than a failed ideaology, like communism.

Where does it end with the people who support his position?

Who cares? It's better than the shit sandwich we're eating now.

How do you figure that?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Who cares? It's better than the shit sandwich we're eating now.
Not if we get the same shit-sandwich, but in a different wrapper, which I fear is what we'll ultimately get should Obama lose in 2012.

Right now, we have two parties of corporatists. The first part is blatantly corporatist, and the dumbass constituents think they're fighting for America. The second party is covertly corporatist, and the dumbass constituents think that they're fighting for the poor. Both parties are mainly interested in helping out special interests, and both parties are willing to do a little song and dance to earn votes.

Ron Paul? He stands where he stands, and he's not going to bend to special interests. Even if he is crazy.

Of course that's what's going to happen if he loses. If he wins, he's going to be a lame duck. If he loses--and he's looking more and more like Black Jimmy Carter--the Republicans are going to try and smooth-talk us into another Reagan. Oh, joy.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Right now, we have two parties of corporatists. The first part is blatantly corporatist, and the dumbass constituents think they're fighting for America. The second party is covertly corporatist, and the dumbass constituents think that they're fighting for the poor. Both parties are mainly interested in helping out special interests, and both parties are willing to do a little song and dance to earn votes.

I agree, almost whole-heartedly. Where I do disagree is that you are addressing the reality of the current situation in this statement, but in others you've called adherents of only one mentally disabled. It is this perspective that shows you to be whole-heartedly in favor of one of these corporatist, bullshit-peddling parties, while allowing yourself to be squarely counted amongst the members of the other.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ron Paul? He stands where he stands, and he's not going to bend to special interests. Even if he is crazy.

Then he needs to seperate himself from the party that casts him as crazy, just as much as the other party does. But, his excuse for not doing so is that the party are the ones who moved away from its position, not that he did. While that may be true, there still has to come a time when it's apparent that doing the same thing and expecting different results makes us crazy. Mr. Paul does this constantly. If he is most interested in doing what is right, then he'd recognize that folks like yourself will support his position and not his party. Or will you? Does he realize that he needs the party, just as much as might President Obama, to get his point across? Democrats maintain they're the party of Jefferson. Republicans maintain they are the party of Lincoln. When does the party of the people become the real platform, and not the rhetoric conjured by invoking those men from our past that allow us to pretend the patriotism inspired by their names is a substitute for the reality of the times in which we live, here and now? How is it that his party is not just another special interest to him? A means to an end that ultimately betrays the majority of the rhetoric he espouses?

What exactly is the logic behind raising taxes when the economy is doing badly again? The main reason to raise taxes is to moderate the economy by making people tighter with their money.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ron Paul? He stands where he stands, and he's not going to bend to special interests. Even if he is crazy.

So? Lots of people are principled. That's a stupid reason to respect them, especially when you know the principles that they so blindly support are moronic.

Wait, Government workers lie? WOW! thats shocking. And try living in Canada and you'll know what its really like to raped with paying taxes and other stuff.

Canadians seem pretty happy about their welfare state from what I can see.

Originally posted by 753
Canadians seem pretty happy about their welfare state from what I can see.

It's a totalitarian state, those who do not smile are executed.

There isn't much hope left in the realm of politics. We all have to believe in something, and I believe in Ron Paul. It's about all the political world has left to offer me.

What? No. The Democratic party is center-right. I generally have contempt for their welfare-state shenanigans and spineless nature, but it's liberals that I set my hatred against. There is a stark difference between the two.

Mayhaps. But then he'd have no political party at all, and that would weaken his already tenuous political standing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's a totalitarian state, those who do not smile are executed. It's true, though the executions are craftily covered up as "gang violence".

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What? No. The Democratic party is center-right. I generally have contempt for their welfare-state shenanigans and spineless nature, but it's liberals that I set my hatred against. There is a stark difference between the two.

Mayhaps. But then he'd have no political party at all, and that would weaken his already tenuous political standing.

And what would that stark difference be when you just pointed out they are the same party with two mantras meant to feed on the personality of the teo opposite types of people who support them?


Who needs a political party when you have principles? I don't think he has a weak political standing. I have been listening to people talk about him in the same vein as Teddy Roosevelt since the very first Republican debate of the '08 elections. He still ran for president that year, in several states. He kept all the money he raised in those campaignes. He sticks with a party that mocks him because he needs it makes it easier to get re-elected, not simply to get re-elected. People all over this country begged him to start a new party, and he refused. He refused when it would have been easiest. I think it was because he knew he was selling the false hope that his followers look down on others for having in the President, or some other politicians. You assert that he shouts about what's right for the sake of being correct. I assert that he shouts about what he thinks is correct because while it sounds good, what really gets him elected over and over again is the disdain he enjoys from members of his own party. He knows what it's about. He knows it gets him votes and followers. Followers like yourself.

Not for one second did anyone outside the Tea Party think they were anything but the very most batshit crazy members of the Republican party. Ron Paul kept mostly out of the debate between the tea party and the rest of the republican party. But the kind of crazy he sometimes sells with his seemingly common sense ideas didn't fall far from the tree when it comes to his kid.

Yeah, does anyone even know the logic behind that train of thought?

Taxing the rich less = more jobs?

Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah, does anyone even know the logic behind that train of thought?

Taxing the rich less = more jobs?

Less taxing means more money in people's hands. That means both spending and more resistance to personal economic troubles. More spending gets the economy going so it can start to recover. Taxing the rich less sends out even more money.

I don't think there are any economic models besides Marxism that advise raising taxes when the economy is doing badly.

Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah, does anyone even know the logic behind that train of thought?

Taxing the rich less = more jobs?

you or I don't have the money to start new businesses or employ other people. Even if we had 100% of our pay (0 tax), there is no way we are going to be the mechanism by which more jobs are created in the economy. Someone with the money to pay these people has to create the jobs.

Therefore, if we give more money to people in that position, they can reinvest it into the markey by creating more jobs.

it does work, if we assume that the rich act to maximize the economy with their wealth (which is where the idea of Regan-omics falls apart), and even in theories where we cut the taxes on the poor or middle class, we still expect the rich to take the profits they make from more middle and lower class spending to create jobs (only in this case, as a response to greater demand, rather than "just because", under trickle-down theories).

Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah, does anyone even know the logic behind that train of thought?

Taxing the rich less = more jobs?


What those two cats said above, but in laymen terms, Reaganomics (current trickle-down effect) works like this:

If we allow the rich and wealthy to keep more of their money, the rich in the kindness of their hearts will throw scraps down to the mid and lower classes in the form of starting new businesses where the lower scum can be employed which creates more production, which creates more demand and the economy as a whole is boosed and/or those rich will work harder at their jobs (cos they're being taxed less) and create more taxable income in the end which helps the economy too.

It's work in theory, but it's reliant on the wealthy doing what they're supposed to do (ie create jobs or work harder/more) and not just take the money and running.

to extend, it is in this theory that we see opposition to minimum wage laws. Because the rich are profit motivated, and will create jobs to make profit, they will continue to invest in places where they can, essentially, pay their workers nothing.

rather than reforming the laws that allow corporations to take advantage of weak foreign governments and exploit workers, we decide that we need to make our own workforce as affordabe as these foreign nations, because then, the rich will invest money here.

ignoring, of course, that it is middle and lower class spending that drives the economy

IIRC, that was one of Obama's campaign pledges, reward corporations in the form of tax-breaks that invest here and not draw their workforce from places like India.

All in all, Trickle-Down fizzles because it doesn't factor in one ever present element where money-matters are concerned, greed. IMO.

Originally posted by Robtard
All in all, Trickle-Down fizzles because it doesn't factor in one ever present element where money-matters are concerned, greed. IMO.

This is why trickle down economics feels more like the rich are pissing on everyone below them. Reaganomics, much like the idea of the self-regulating and free-market economy, look great on paper. Sadly, they are just as reliable as communism after the idiocy and greed of the people inside the system begin to operate.

Originally posted by Robtard


If we allow the rich and wealthy to keep more of their money, the rich in the kindness of their hearts will throw scraps down to the mid and lower classes in the form of starting new businesses where the lower scum can be employed which creates more production, which creates more demand and the economy as a whole is boosed and/or those rich will work harder at their jobs (cos they're being taxed less) and create more taxable income in the end which helps the economy too.


Hahaha, so I'm assuming America is sort of like this today? I do know the rich get tax breaks. Have they ever tried doing the opposite?

Tax the rich more and the poor less?

Originally posted by Liberator
Hahaha, so I'm assuming America is sort of like this today? I do know the rich get tax breaks. Have they ever tried doing the opposite?

Tax the rich more and the poor less?

That would be 'Progressive Income Tax', ie when you reach a certain bracket of income, any excess is taxed at a higher and higher rate.

The very rich don't like this one. "The more I make, the more I'm going to get ****ed up the ass." This is also very against what the 'Founding Fathers' wanted for the US. But times change.

Wouldn't that make more sense then the system in place now though?

Creates a bit more equality class wise and wouldn't that create less poverty?

Originally posted by Liberator
Wouldn't that make more sense then the system in place now though?

Creates a bit more equality class wise and wouldn't that create less poverty?

Equality is a dirty word in American political thought.

But, when you look at some of our biggest economic booms, the tax rates enforced by those administrations were much higher than those proposed by this administration. Reagan's first term was 50%, Nixon was 70% and Eisenhower's was 91%. So even though times do change, history does seem to bare out some merrit for taxing the rich. Even all of this talk of the President being a socialist is around readjusting the tax rates to Clinton-era levels. I don't think anyone argues that the rich pay the majority of the taxes in this country.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Equality is a dirty word in American political thought.

Do you think that's a result of the politics or the politics reflecting the American mindset? Or is there any difference?

Originally posted by Liberator
Wouldn't that make more sense then the system in place now though?

Creates a bit more equality class wise and wouldn't that create less poverty?

Yes and no, as you're essentially punishing people for being successful (though success does come from the pain of others many a time).

Progressive Income Tax is what the system is like now overall, so the US Treasury claims. Top 1% of earners in the US pay around 30% of the total income tax. I believe the middle-class pays the most taxes as a whole. It's something around 31% - 66% - 3% in total income taxes paid per group. Upper, Middle, Lower.

I could be wrong, I'd have to look it up as it's been sometime. Taxes in the US are mind-boggling, and there's much conflicting information. It's progressive, but there's also massive tax-cuts for the rich. F if I know.

Your second sentence sounds Marxist, watch it!

Well it wouldn't really be punishing anyone for being successful just like saying you make a good amount of money you have some to spare so why not help out the community instead of sitting on all that money and doing nothing with it but hoarding it or buying trivial useless goods.

Originally posted by skekUng
Do you think that's a result of the politics or the politics reflecting the American mindset? Or is there any difference?

I think its a result of the Cold War, lingering perceptions about communism/socialism and poor logic. We once had an enemy that preached about equality thus anyone who tries to produce equality is an enemy.

but wasnt the antagonism towards communism primarily motivated by a rejection of its ideas on equality in the first place?

Originally posted by Liberator Well it wouldn't really be punishing anyone for being successful just like saying you make a good amount of money you have some to spare so why not help out the community instead of sitting on all that money and doing nothing with it but hoarding it or buying trivial useless goods.

You're messin' with the American way when you mess with our trivial useless goods. Trivial useless goods and irresponsible use of our wealth is part and parcel of living the American dream.

Even people who preach against trivial useless goods own more than their fair share of them. So, it really is an actual part of the American Dream; likely the only one that the vast majority of Americans will ever get to experience.

Originally posted by 753
Canadians seem pretty happy about their welfare state from what I can see. That seems to be the case wioth all of those countries.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
That seems to be the case wioth all of those countries. yes, and generally speaking people want more of it everywhere else in the world except for the usa.

Originally posted by 753
yes, and generally speaking people want more of it everywhere else in the world except for the usa. And germany, cause our "awesome" politics are using fear to prevent it from happening. Actually we're moving now into the same shitty society the USA already is.

most are

for some reason "Conservatism", as a political identity, has decided it needs to follow American Republicanism in terms of policy. Which is retarded. We had awesome conservatives in Canada in the past...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Less taxing means more money in people's hands. That means both spending and more resistance to personal economic troubles. More spending gets the economy going so it can start to recover. Taxing the rich less sends out even more money.

I don't think there are any economic models besides Marxism that advise raising taxes when the economy is doing badly.
But the mega wealthy only spend a small fraction of their capital; most of it sits making interest. Its not like they're going to spend more when you lower their taxes, in all likelihood they'll just absorb more of the country's finances into themselves.

But very often it's the interest they spend, not the "mega-wealth".

That's my point. Their actual wealth is not economically distributed in the form of consumer spending; the only way to get the money out there is through taxation.

But, I think the mega wealth is not just sitting around. A lot of it might be in tax shelters or crawling through code loop holes, but the mega wealthy are so, because their money is calculated by non-fluid assets, which would be their companies and the means through which they became mega wealthy.

OK, but at this point you are basically drifting away from my point; their capital is NOT trickling out in consumer spending.

I'm not sure the mega rich are the consumers in trickle down economics, though.

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not sure the mega rich are the consumers in trickle down economics, though.

the mega-rich are never consumers in any real way in economic models...

though, that is like Bizzaro world communism....

The very problem with trickle down theories is that the rich don't spend all their cash, and when they do, they buy things that don't really support the general economy.

They buy property, that does help the average man, but solid gold toilets and a 3rd yacht, the money made from those things doesn't even see the same economy that you or i participate in.

It was tounge in cheek rhetorical.

ah, my bad, I'm trying to keep up

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not sure the mega rich are the consumers in trickle down economics, though.
It is implicit in the idea that no category of the rich should ever have their taxes raised in a down economy, which was SC's thesis. IMO, taxing the highest category of wealth is exactly what you should do in a down economy; it's an alternative way to circulate capital in the absence of consumer spending.

I can understand that.

Originally posted by inimalist
The very problem with trickle down theories is that the rich don't spend all their cash, and when they do, they buy things that don't really support the general economy.

As if a rich man would suddenly eat the 10 time amount of food or go 5 times in a row into the theater.

Taken taxes off of them only increases the gap between poor and rich more. If you would tax them more and shove that money as somekind of govermental extra money into underpaid jobs it would work better imo.

We had high tax rates on the rich under Clinton and the economy was strong. Businesses don't need tax cuts, they need customers. High unemployment and consumers being tight fisted with their money are what's holding the economy back, not taxes. With our national debt raising taxes on the rich should be a no brainer.

Once we got our yachts and crowns/
God planned some food to trickle down

If the concern is with the jobs the rich would create with their money as a reason not to tax them, wouldn't it make more sense to tax the shit out of them and loan the money at low interests to low and middle class people with small and medium business plans that actually employ most people and generate most wealth? Although I am assuming small and medium business represent most of the economy, because it is like that in my country, I don't really know about the USA. But even so, if the point is making the money circulate and warming up the economy, shouldn't this work a lot better?