Obama '08?

You'd be incorrect. I both donate money every year to retire our debt, and have more money - much more - taken out of my paycheck every month than is strictly necessary for my level of taxes. This acts as an interest-free loan for the gov't between the time I pay my taxes each month, and the time I get my refund.



Once again, you're simply incorrect. Please see RG's thread entitled "Why should the Rich pay a greater percentage of their wealth in taxes?" for an extensive discussion about how wrong you are on this issue:

http://able2know.org/topic/175499-1

Cycloptichorn

This is where your argument falls flat, in my opinion.

How does eing wealthy equate to more benefits.
Bill Gates drives on the same roads, uses the same public water supply, the same power company, the same sewer system, as anyone else where he lives.
How does his money get him more services?
Did the water company run a special water line, solely for him and his house?

Same as Okie - see discussion here:

http://able2know.org/topic/175499-1

The short answer is that the more you own, the greater benefit you receive from actions that protect everything. If you own a truck shipping company, keeping the roads in good repair doesn't just allow you to drive to work, it allows your COMPANY to profit to a greater degree. There's a multiplicative effect that wealth grants, upon the level of services one receives from the government.

Cycloptichorn

But you pay more in taxes to maintain those roads also.
A trucking company pays approx $1500 per year, per truck, to run on those roads.
So, the benefit they derive from good roads is offset by the amount of taxes they pay to maintain those roads.

No, it isn't. The benefit they derive is far greater than the taxes they pay to maintain those roads. It's multiplicative.

And what about things like national defense? The more you own, the more you're having defended. It's a simple formula.

Cycloptichorn

There is no logical reason to raise taxes.

The logical thing to do is cut spending and reduce overhead.

I own a house, 2 cars, and 1 motorcycle.
How am I more defended then someone that rents an apt, and doesnt own a vehicle?

What have you been drinking?

Maybe it's the fumes from the money you're printing at home.

How do you like your downgrade president now?

I don't think that anyone here is arguing against progressive income tax rates as a matter of principal. The issue appears to be a conflict between the current complete immunity of a very large segment of the population from any income taxes at all (indeed we, in effect, have a nergative income tax with the EITC), coupled with high rates for the remaining segment. The question for those who wish to see higher levels of overall taxation is, should it be done exclusively on the backs of business enterprises and those at the highest brackets, or should we also distribute some of the increases more broadly?

It is axiomatic that ANY level of taxation is more easily borne by those with the most assets. That however isn't a sufficient argument to resolve the distribution question. I think you would agree that dividing the country into permanent, separate classes of many beneficiaries and relatively few taxpayers is a prescription for creeping irresponsibility, decay and revolution. The issue here is not either/or, but rather one of judgement with respect to the right balance. It is easy for the nearly half of "taxpayers" who pay virtually no income tax to demand that "the rich" pay more, but doing so may not be good for us all. Aesop's story about the goose that laid the golden eggs is appropos.

Our current situation perversely combines stagnant economic growth with fast-growing deficits at all levels of government - both issues must be addressed in any policy debate, and neither can be deferred without bad consequences. We face serious foreign economic competition in areas that we easily dominated just a few decades ago. To survive and regain our previous position we must find ways to become more competitive. Adding public debt to immunize our population from the economic consequences of economic competition is not a good way to stimulate the needed reaction. Sadly our President offers no leadership in this vital area.

Talk about cats on hot tin roofs. None of you know the cause of the financial crisis and it's in all the best books. There is a folk aphorism here in England, up north at least, which sums it up neatly. Folk aphorisms are not to be trifled with.

It's cerainly laconic and memorable, vital ingredients of real aphorisms, but I suspect it isn't particularly original.

In fact there is another which is more abstract. Not that it's a big deal getting more abstract than the first one.

Please enlighten us all.

They are not PC George and one should respect the manners of one's hosts I feel. Nancy Pelosi would faint clean away if they got back to her.

Believe me, Nancy would likely be neither surprised nor scandalized - she's a tough Baltimore girl, one of the D'Allesandro clan that ran that city into bankrupcy over a decade ago. Her current Pacific Heights status is entirely a superficial addition to a Mafia-like past.

They are the general subtext of most of my posts so it shouldn't be that difficult to figure them out. It's too late now anyway. Their truth has been overcome by them being passe.

Bill Gates may not get more water service but he does get more government services.

The government protects sales of over $50 billion a year for Microsoft when it enforces the copyright laws. Gates would be a pauper if the government didn't protect his software from piracy. How much does the government provide you per year in copyright protection?

The recent churlishness displayed by the Republicans in Congress has caused approval ratings for their party to plummet.





We're not quite at the point where Republicans are as unpopular as in '06 or '08, but hey - we have a whole year of the GOP being torn between their tea-party base and what the majority of the country wants. Plenty of time for more divisions to be highlighted.

Cycloptichorn

In the news Axelrod says he will fire anyone who calls Romney "weird"....this is not comforting on two levels, both the zero tolorance lack of proportion as well as the lack of torance for truth telling. The American people took a good look at Romney last time and rejected him because he is weird.

Ha! I was just going to post that poll...trying to think of where to put it lol. I miss rjb's old thread on polls.

PPP agrees - 7 point lead for the Dems on the Congressional generic ballot. Independents supporting the Dems more than the GOP, greater levels of Dem unity than Republican unity.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/08/boehner-as-unpopular-as-pelosi.html

Cycloptichorn