Since It Is OK to Compare the Federal Budget to a Family Budget
33 comments:
juris imprudent
said...
You never miss an opportunity to show the intellectual poverty driving populist liberalism. There is a very simple math error right there - I spotted it in less than 2 seconds. I suppose I'm being generous calling it an error - it could equally be characterized as a lie.
RandLand could be a reality, dave. Just think of it...no more liberals to muck things up...small government...low taxes...low spending...very little regulation...time to make the dream come true!
Unless, of course, you want to admit that Democrats and their policies are needed and effective:)
Oh, I do...and I just can't see how you'd survive... Look at the electoral county map you always used to tout. It's a sea of red with dots of blue. Heck, in addition to next to no tax base, Liberalland couldn't even feed or protect itself! You should thank your lucky stars you have those evil rich around, else your utopia would look an aweful lot like Detroit or DC!
The Democrats, moderates and RINOS would do just fine, dave. Remember the latter wouldn't be allowed in RandLand. Folks like Richard Lugar would fail the purity test!
Say M, your chart says the rich aren't paying their fair share. What exactly is their fair share? No, the answer to that is not a rate, it is the percent of all taxes paid. If you want the higher rate of the Clinton days, you are asking the rich to pay a smaller share than they do now.
My bad...was thinking more of the 2004 map...the 2008 map is not quite so dramatic, but I'll stick with my point anyway, thanks. Without the top 10%, LiberalLands's "take from the rich, give to the poor" philophy simply doesn't have the revenue for their programs.
Fair (per Mark): 2 people walk into a store to buy a gallon of milk. Mark pays $2 while the other has his 1040 checked and then pays $8. Fair?
dave dave dave...tsk tsk...where did your mother and I go wrong? You assume that all rich people are Republican. Well, I think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and the liberal Hollywood elite (also known as the Western Communist Party) would have something to say about that assumption:)
Take from the rich and give to the poor, eh? How does this meme fit in with oil subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy, mmm?
What exactly is their fair share? No, the answer to that is not a rate, it is the percent of all taxes paid.
Of course it is because that's where you "win" the argument. As I have demonstrated repeatedly, to focus on that one aspect of revenue is short sighted. If one did, one would say, "Geez, they pay over half of all income taxes so that's more than their fair share. Maybe their fair share should be 40 percent."
But that's being dishonest because you have to look at the whole picture. Remember this?
I'd also add in how much more money the wealthy have been making in the last decade as well. Wouldn't you agree that all of these factors should be considered?
I'd say that giving 99 percent away to charity might be another factor to consider.
It is too bad that you aren't honest enough to admit that.
That's not true. This is why I put up that post with the "Yes/Nos." This post is illustrative of the income disparity in this country and why it's not good for our economy.
It's your blog and your post. If you'd read it first, you'd have seen the bottom comment stating the rich should leave (if they don't pay their share). Perfectly reasonable questions would be, 1) what is fair and 2) if the rich were not present (liberal OR conservative), how would you pay for your programs given that the top 10 or 20% contribute the lion's share of revenue?
If you can't defend your own post and would like to discuss corporate welfare, I'm game. We could start with Obama's subsidies for those private jets he likes to vilify. (I'm pretty sure you can scour your site and not find any endorsement of corporate welfare from me.)
(I'm pretty sure you can scour your site and not find any endorsement of corporate welfare from me.)
I'm glad to hear it. So howzabout knocking off the BS about rich people funding lazy poor people? Considering those same rich people get subsidies and tax breaks, your statement would ring true of everyone, no?
My purpose in putting up this post is to show that the income disparity is a very serious problem, wouldn't you agree?
This debate about "fair share" has been going on for some time. I'm not going to focus on the one aspect of revenue that juris wants me to focus on as that is a very narrow minded way of looking at this issue. Now, if you want to talk about ALL of the pieces of the puzzle, I'm game.
I'm not going to focus on the one aspect of revenue that juris wants me to focus on as that is a very narrow minded way of looking at this issue. Now, if you want to talk about ALL of the pieces of the puzzle, I'm game.
But you want to talk about all the other pieces of the puzzle except that aspect juris brings up. You've yet to devote a bit of serious attention to his perspective.
income disparity is a very serious problem, wouldn't you agree?
No. You haven't presented a coherent reason as to why it is a problem.
No, I wouldn't agree. Income disparity has always and will always exist. And 'fairness' is the crux of the problem...equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. And you're flat out wrong trying to govern that way.
Yes, many rich get subsidies...and so do the poor. I coulf probably list 10 or 20 'subsidies' for the 'poor' in 2 mi utes of Googling. The hypocrisy is gauling...if BP gets a subsidy, it's bad, if Solyandra gets one, its ok. Buffet is ok but the Kochs are bad...determined by political affiliation alone.
dave, there is no equality of opportunity because of the very large income disparity. For whatever reason, you refuse to see this and label people like me Marxists in a silly dance that avoids the problem. Perhaps it's your programming. I don't know...
As I have said many times, I have no problem with income disparity. This is the nature of capitalism and the free market which I embrace. But when the disparity is so great that it becomes a plutocracy (as we have now) in an economy that is fueled by the middle class, the result is a sluggish economy and very serious problems.
Do you at least accept the fact that 70 percent of our economy is consumer spending?
Regarding fair share, perhaps a solution would be to reform the tax code in such a way that the rich pay a higher effective rate but contribute less to the overall pie.
Regarding fair share, perhaps a solution would be to reform the tax code in such a way that the rich pay a higher effective rate but contribute less to the overall pie.
You do realize that would shift more of the tax burden onto the middle (and working) class.
See the problem you have. "Fair share" means the rich actually pay less? I really don't think the left means that - and you must just be horribly confused. [Or you really do understand this and just don't want to be honest about it all.]
I'm just floating out ideas and trying to find some common ground, juris. We have to look at all sides of this and see what can bring in more revenue. End all subsidies and raise the effective rate so there are no more breaks in cap gains?
So as long as rates at the top are higher, you don't care what the actual tax burden turns out to be by income level.
I think that is the most unusual definition of "fair share" I've ever heard. I am quite certain it is not what every other leftie means, including the erroneous source of this post.
No, I do care, juris. Rather than having them get tax breaks and hide in cap gains, I want them to pay the rate they are supposed to pay. That way they don't end up paying less of a percentage than a bus driver (copyright Ronald Reagan) or a teacher:)
As I have said many times, if you get rid of subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy and return their rate to Clinton era levels (essentially eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the top earners) while keeping the cuts in place for everyone else, that levels out the playing field.
Levels out the playing field how? You laid out a plan of taxing the rich more so the middle and lower brackets stay paying the same. How does taking more of their income level the playing field for the poor or middle class?
Really? I should know that because you said ...that the rich pay a higher effective rate but contribute less to the overall pie.
You care but you don't? You don't care, but you do? Do you have any idea what you really think?
I want them to pay the rate they are supposed to pay.
And your daughter wants a pony. I want to retire now. Do you really believe that what you want means jack-shit to anyone? Is that supposed to convince me let alone someone who makes more money than both of us combined?
...that levels out the playing field.
No it doesn't. LeBron James, CEOs, investors and Dolly Parton will still make millions of dollars a year and neither you nor I will. That is the income inequality that makes your dick hard. And a few tweaks, nor even a wholesale reform of the tax code is going to change that.
By the way, if I won millions of dollars in the lottery, I'd invest in tax-free muni's - and I would be able to pay less tax than a fucking bus driver. Are you arguing for abolishing tax-free municipal bonds?
...and what if said investment tanks? The reason for the lower rate is to offset risk & encourage investment, not just a perk.
Case Study: a guy in a shiny new BMW convertible speeds by you on the highway. Do you, a) drive merrily along, b) think you wouldn't mind owning a like-minded car at some point, or c) think to yourself, who'd he cheat to get that?
If you want to talk about commandments, dave, we should really talk about #9 which you wrote the number for but didn't list. Your question is a fine example of it and this is what you guys do all the time. You create a fictitious version of what liberals are and then attack that creation (AKA, a straw man argument). Fortunately, liberals don't have to do this with the right as conservatives' words and deeds truly do reflect who they are but that's the problem, isn't it? Our history is filled with examples of Democratic success after success and that just absolutely sucks for a group of people who will never admit fault, let alone that their arch enemy's have ever been right. You don't really have much to point to that can support the less government ideology. We've had "Big Government" for decades and yet somehow we have still managed to accumulate 65 trillion dollars of private wealth in this country. Our system of welfare capitalism has been integral to that and it simply doesn't jibe with what you say we need to do.
In your scenario above, you view all liberals as believing that someone who is wealthy is a cheat or envious of money. Nothing could be further from the truth...especially since there are many wealthy liberals:) For me, the answer would be none of the above. I don't give a crap about cars (or many things material, for that matter) and would more likely be thinking about my wife's ass, how great my kids are, or my amazing friends that I am fortunate enough to have in my life.Sadly, you don't get why Democrats espouse the policies they do. It's very simple.
Huh, here Mark resorts to the dreadful "flipping". Ah well, he's always been one for supplying liberal amounts of sauce for the goose, and none for the gander. It does seem the Mark-o-Daffic Eliza script gets updated about every 6 months or so when a new set of buzzwords and phrases get entered into its library, but it can't quite get the usage or meaning correct and ultimately fails the Turing test. It is a commendable effort, though, and it will be interesting to see where it leads.
Huh? Where do you get that? just-dave asked Mark a question and he answered it. He defended himself and illustrated how the stereotype of liberals isn't accurate at all. Obviously, no matter what he says, you will make up whatever you want and say that it is so. You aren't fooling anyone and your comments' purpose are clear: muddy the waters and chase off any dissenters in the hopes of "winning." Truly pathetic as there is no winning. It's the comments section of a blog!
I agree with Mark, Juris. The situation is far more nuanced than you make it out to be. I don't know if you are purposefully focusing on one aspect simply to be obnoxious or because you think the other information is irrelevant.
The situation is far more nuanced than you make it out to be.
M seems to be much more confused than nuanced, but suit yourself. You don't seem to be any better able to explain a liberal position than he does - not one bit better.
I understand how idiots rally to slogans - happens all the time on both the right and the left.
33 comments:
You never miss an opportunity to show the intellectual poverty driving populist liberalism. There is a very simple math error right there - I spotted it in less than 2 seconds. I suppose I'm being generous calling it an error - it could equally be characterized as a lie.
...love that last line. If the rich DID find a new place to live, where would you get the revenue for all those marvellous programs?
RandLand could be a reality, dave. Just think of it...no more liberals to muck things up...small government...low taxes...low spending...very little regulation...time to make the dream come true!
Unless, of course, you want to admit that Democrats and their policies are needed and effective:)
Oh, I do...and I just can't see how you'd survive... Look at the electoral county map you always used to tout. It's a sea of red with dots of blue. Heck, in addition to next to no tax base, Liberalland couldn't even feed or protect itself! You should thank your lucky stars you have those evil rich around, else your utopia would look an aweful lot like Detroit or DC!
The Democrats, moderates and RINOS would do just fine, dave. Remember the latter wouldn't be allowed in RandLand. Folks like Richard Lugar would fail the purity test!
Dots of blue? Hmmm...really?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/US_Electoral_College_Map_2008.svg/800px-US_Electoral_College_Map_2008.svg.png
There's that reality warping again:)
Quiz time...when was the last time a GOP presidential candidate got above 300? For the Democrats, it's 2008, 1996, 1992:)
Say M, your chart says the rich aren't paying their fair share. What exactly is their fair share? No, the answer to that is not a rate, it is the percent of all taxes paid. If you want the higher rate of the Clinton days, you are asking the rich to pay a smaller share than they do now.
2004:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
2008:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/results.htm
My bad...was thinking more of the 2004 map...the 2008 map is not quite so dramatic, but I'll stick with my point anyway, thanks. Without the top 10%, LiberalLands's "take from the rich, give to the poor" philophy simply doesn't have the revenue for their programs.
Fair (per Mark): 2 people walk into a store to buy a gallon of milk. Mark pays $2 while the other has his 1040 checked and then pays $8. Fair?
dave dave dave...tsk tsk...where did your mother and I go wrong? You assume that all rich people are Republican. Well, I think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and the liberal Hollywood elite (also known as the Western Communist Party) would have something to say about that assumption:)
Take from the rich and give to the poor, eh? How does this meme fit in with oil subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy, mmm?
What exactly is their fair share? No, the answer to that is not a rate, it is the percent of all taxes paid.
Of course it is because that's where you "win" the argument. As I have demonstrated repeatedly, to focus on that one aspect of revenue is short sighted. If one did, one would say, "Geez, they pay over half of all income taxes so that's more than their fair share. Maybe their fair share should be 40 percent."
But that's being dishonest because you have to look at the whole picture. Remember this?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/11/temporarily-inconvenienced-millionaires.html
I'd also add in how much more money the wealthy have been making in the last decade as well. Wouldn't you agree that all of these factors should be considered?
Buffet just talks that way in public to keep the pitchforks from the ows crowd and the media away from him.
But that's being dishonest because you have to look at the whole picture.
It's a simple concept. I actually believe you know exactly what it is for - and it really has nothing to do with how much taxes the rich do pay.
The left plays bread-and-circuses just as well as the right. It is too bad that you aren't honest enough to admit that.
last, then why does he live in the same house he has always lived in?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505383_162-57373393/person-to-person-warren-buffett/
I'd say that giving 99 percent away to charity might be another factor to consider.
It is too bad that you aren't honest enough to admit that.
That's not true. This is why I put up that post with the "Yes/Nos." This post is illustrative of the income disparity in this country and why it's not good for our economy.
(Ouch...got me with the tsks...)
It's your blog and your post. If you'd read it first, you'd have seen the bottom comment stating the rich should leave (if they don't pay their share). Perfectly reasonable questions would be, 1) what is fair and 2) if the rich were not present (liberal OR conservative), how would you pay for your programs given that the top 10 or 20% contribute the lion's share of revenue?
If you can't defend your own post and would like to discuss corporate welfare, I'm game. We could start with Obama's subsidies for those private jets he likes to vilify. (I'm pretty sure you can scour your site and not find any endorsement of corporate welfare from me.)
Dad is 50% of household income potential, mom is the other half.
Annual Family Income: $84,266
Dad's Income: $73,521
Mom's Income: $10,745
Dad's contribution $10,036
Mom's contribution: $278
Dad's contr rate: 13.65%
Mom's contr rate: 2.59%
And, I'll even provide sources, something you didn't do.
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/
(I'm pretty sure you can scour your site and not find any endorsement of corporate welfare from me.)
I'm glad to hear it. So howzabout knocking off the BS about rich people funding lazy poor people? Considering those same rich people get subsidies and tax breaks, your statement would ring true of everyone, no?
My purpose in putting up this post is to show that the income disparity is a very serious problem, wouldn't you agree?
This debate about "fair share" has been going on for some time. I'm not going to focus on the one aspect of revenue that juris wants me to focus on as that is a very narrow minded way of looking at this issue. Now, if you want to talk about ALL of the pieces of the puzzle, I'm game.
I'm not going to focus on the one aspect of revenue that juris wants me to focus on as that is a very narrow minded way of looking at this issue. Now, if you want to talk about ALL of the pieces of the puzzle, I'm game.
But you want to talk about all the other pieces of the puzzle except that aspect juris brings up. You've yet to devote a bit of serious attention to his perspective.
income disparity is a very serious problem, wouldn't you agree?
No. You haven't presented a coherent reason as to why it is a problem.
I've presented the clearest one that there is... What is 70 percent of our economy? Consumer spending. Remember the Nick Hanuer piece?
No, I wouldn't agree. Income disparity has always and will always exist. And 'fairness' is the crux of the problem...equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. And you're flat out wrong trying to govern that way.
Yes, many rich get subsidies...and so do the poor. I coulf probably list 10 or 20 'subsidies' for the 'poor' in 2 mi utes of Googling. The hypocrisy is gauling...if BP gets a subsidy, it's bad, if Solyandra gets one, its ok. Buffet is ok but the Kochs are bad...determined by political affiliation alone.
Now, if you want to talk about ALL of the pieces of the puzzle, I'm game.
In short, it is just a liberal dog whistle.
dave, there is no equality of opportunity because of the very large income disparity. For whatever reason, you refuse to see this and label people like me Marxists in a silly dance that avoids the problem. Perhaps it's your programming. I don't know...
As I have said many times, I have no problem with income disparity. This is the nature of capitalism and the free market which I embrace. But when the disparity is so great that it becomes a plutocracy (as we have now) in an economy that is fueled by the middle class, the result is a sluggish economy and very serious problems.
Do you at least accept the fact that 70 percent of our economy is consumer spending?
Regarding fair share, perhaps a solution would be to reform the tax code in such a way that the rich pay a higher effective rate but contribute less to the overall pie.
Regarding fair share, perhaps a solution would be to reform the tax code in such a way that the rich pay a higher effective rate but contribute less to the overall pie.
You do realize that would shift more of the tax burden onto the middle (and working) class.
See the problem you have. "Fair share" means the rich actually pay less? I really don't think the left means that - and you must just be horribly confused. [Or you really do understand this and just don't want to be honest about it all.]
I'm just floating out ideas and trying to find some common ground, juris. We have to look at all sides of this and see what can bring in more revenue. End all subsidies and raise the effective rate so there are no more breaks in cap gains?
So as long as rates at the top are higher, you don't care what the actual tax burden turns out to be by income level.
I think that is the most unusual definition of "fair share" I've ever heard. I am quite certain it is not what every other leftie means, including the erroneous source of this post.
No, I do care, juris. Rather than having them get tax breaks and hide in cap gains, I want them to pay the rate they are supposed to pay. That way they don't end up paying less of a percentage than a bus driver (copyright Ronald Reagan) or a teacher:)
As I have said many times, if you get rid of subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy and return their rate to Clinton era levels (essentially eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the top earners) while keeping the cuts in place for everyone else, that levels out the playing field.
Levels out the playing field how? You laid out a plan of taxing the rich more so the middle and lower brackets stay paying the same. How does taking more of their income level the playing field for the poor or middle class?
No, I do care, juris
Really? I should know that because you said ...that the rich pay a higher effective rate but contribute less to the overall pie.
You care but you don't? You don't care, but you do? Do you have any idea what you really think?
I want them to pay the rate they are supposed to pay.
And your daughter wants a pony. I want to retire now. Do you really believe that what you want means jack-shit to anyone? Is that supposed to convince me let alone someone who makes more money than both of us combined?
...that levels out the playing field.
No it doesn't. LeBron James, CEOs, investors and Dolly Parton will still make millions of dollars a year and neither you nor I will. That is the income inequality that makes your dick hard. And a few tweaks, nor even a wholesale reform of the tax code is going to change that.
By the way, if I won millions of dollars in the lottery, I'd invest in tax-free muni's - and I would be able to pay less tax than a fucking bus driver. Are you arguing for abolishing tax-free municipal bonds?
...and what if said investment tanks? The reason for the lower rate is to offset risk & encourage investment, not just a perk.
Case Study: a guy in a shiny new BMW convertible speeds by you on the highway. Do you, a) drive merrily along, b) think you wouldn't mind owning a like-minded car at some point, or c) think to yourself, who'd he cheat to get that?
9...
10. Thou shall not covet
If you want to talk about commandments, dave, we should really talk about #9 which you wrote the number for but didn't list. Your question is a fine example of it and this is what you guys do all the time. You create a fictitious version of what liberals are and then attack that creation (AKA, a straw man argument). Fortunately, liberals don't have to do this with the right as conservatives' words and deeds truly do reflect who they are but that's the problem, isn't it? Our history is filled with examples of Democratic success after success and that just absolutely sucks for a group of people who will never admit fault, let alone that their arch enemy's have ever been right. You don't really have much to point to that can support the less government ideology. We've had "Big Government" for decades and yet somehow we have still managed to accumulate 65 trillion dollars of private wealth in this country. Our system of welfare capitalism has been integral to that and it simply doesn't jibe with what you say we need to do.
In your scenario above, you view all liberals as believing that someone who is wealthy is a cheat or envious of money. Nothing could be further from the truth...especially since there are many wealthy liberals:) For me, the answer would be none of the above. I don't give a crap about cars (or many things material, for that matter) and would more likely be thinking about my wife's ass, how great my kids are, or my amazing friends that I am fortunate enough to have in my life.Sadly, you don't get why Democrats espouse the policies they do. It's very simple.
Because they work.
Huh, here Mark resorts to the dreadful "flipping". Ah well, he's always been one for supplying liberal amounts of sauce for the goose, and none for the gander. It does seem the Mark-o-Daffic Eliza script gets updated about every 6 months or so when a new set of buzzwords and phrases get entered into its library, but it can't quite get the usage or meaning correct and ultimately fails the Turing test. It is a commendable effort, though, and it will be interesting to see where it leads.
Huh? Where do you get that? just-dave asked Mark a question and he answered it. He defended himself and illustrated how the stereotype of liberals isn't accurate at all. Obviously, no matter what he says, you will make up whatever you want and say that it is so. You aren't fooling anyone and your comments' purpose are clear: muddy the waters and chase off any dissenters in the hopes of "winning." Truly pathetic as there is no winning. It's the comments section of a blog!
Hi Eric, maybe you have some idea what fair share means; it certainly seems that M doesn't. That is a reasonable topic to discuss isn't it?
I agree with Mark, Juris. The situation is far more nuanced than you make it out to be. I don't know if you are purposefully focusing on one aspect simply to be obnoxious or because you think the other information is irrelevant.
The situation is far more nuanced than you make it out to be.
M seems to be much more confused than nuanced, but suit yourself. You don't seem to be any better able to explain a liberal position than he does - not one bit better.
I understand how idiots rally to slogans - happens all the time on both the right and the left.
Post a Comment