Obama's programs do not ensure health care for all and they do not ensure a college education for all. If he is going to do what he says he wants to do, then he is going to have to enlarge his programs.
This means that Obama is nothing more than a liar. Either he is going to increase taxes above what he claims to bring about the change he promises, or he isn't going to bring about the change.
Originally posted by EladarPerhaps he will just print more money?
Obama's programs do not ensure health care for all and they do not ensure a college education for all. If he is going to do what he says he wants to do, then he is going to have to enlarge his programs.
This means that Obama is nothing more than a liar. Either he is going to increase taxes above what he claims to bring about the change he promises, or he isn't going to bring about the change.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSince you're fond of definitions, here's one I thought you should know:
Selfish - arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others. http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/selfish
Yes, someone who has an income in the top few percent and refuses to accept a very modest increase in their tax burden (all the way to what RONALD REAGAN taxed them) in order to help the country in this time of crisis is, by definition, selfish.
Deal with it.
cov·et·ous
adj.
1. Excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another. See Synonyms at jealous.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/covetousness
BTW -- It's a sin to be covetous. In fact, there's a commandment from God that states: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's possessions. Just thought you should know.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterBeautiful. LOL. Of course, for #1 to believe he has sinned in this regard he'd first have to concede to himself that the aforementioned "possessions" actually belonged to anyone but the govt in the first place. I don't think his worldview, namely a people of, by, and for the government, will allow for this concept.
Since you're fond of definitions, here's one I thought you should know:
cov·et·ous
adj.
1. Excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another. See Synonyms at jealous.
Originally posted by EladarYes. You are being selfish.
[b]"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html
If you don't want to pay Obama's new taxes for a new more Socialistic America, then you are being selfish. Nice.[/b]
But that's not the point. You're being stupid too.
Even if you pay higher taxes than everyone else, it means you're helping society. And a good, healthy and strong society is one in which you are safe.
Originally posted by shavixmirHelping society? How is giving all our money to government helping society? For all the government entitlement programs, they take a big cut. In fact, government takes a far bigger cut than what we receive. In addition, taxes hurt the overall economy. As a result, there are less jobs to be had and less opportunity for the average Joe to better himself. Helping society my arse.
Yes. You are being selfish.
But that's not the point. You're being stupid too.
Even if you pay higher taxes than everyone else, it means you're helping society. And a good, healthy and strong society is one in which you are safe.
Originally posted by whodeyLarge corporations suffer from bureaucracy as well, and take a big cut out of what you pay. For example, they could easily ask five times less for your daily groceries and still make a profit.
Helping society? How is giving all our money to government helping society? For all the government entitlement programs, they take a big cut. In fact, government takes a far bigger cut than what we receive. In addition, taxes hurt the overall economy. As a result, there are less jobs to be had and less opportunity for the average Joe to better himself. Helping society my arse.
Your hypothesis on taxes and jobs fails when it is tested empirically as I already pointed out in a different thread; here unemployment is 3% and the highest income tax scale is 52%. Also, if taxes hurt the overall economy, why does the US fail to reach top ten on both the Human Development Index and the Human Poverty Index (note that on the latter, the top five is populated by countries with high taxes).
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat is some interesting data, however, I think comparing the US government with that of the Netherlands, for example, is like comparing apples to oranges. For example, in the Netherlands, does government help themselves to retirement savings that was payed in taxes by the populace? Does the government in the Netherlands take 91 cents on the dollar that is collected in taxes to help the poor in terms of welfare benefits?
Large corporations suffer from bureaucracy as well, and take a big cut out of what you pay. For example, they could easily ask five times less for your daily groceries and still make a profit.
Your hypothesis on taxes and jobs fails when it is tested empirically as I already pointed out in a different thread; here unemployment is 3% and the highest i ...[text shortened]... Poverty Index (note that on the latter, the top five is populated by countries with high taxes).
What the US government needs is reform, not more money, not higher taxes. In fact, if they did reform themselves I would probably not be such an ardent conservative. In addition, any economist worth his weight in salt would say that raising taxes dampens overall economic growth.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyRetirement saving in the Netherlands are funded through tax and managed by pension funds who invest their money on the long term. They don't take 91 cents on the euro, such a tax would cause massive fraud in any case (as I pointed out, the maximum income tariff is 52% ).
That is some interesting data, however, I think comparing the US government with that of the Netherlands, for example, is like comparing apples to oranges. For example, in the Netherlands, does government help themselves to retirement savings that was payed in taxes by the populace? Does the government in the Netherlands take 91 cents on the dollar that is ...[text shortened]... conomist worth his weight in salt would say that raising taxes dampens overall economic growth.
On your latter point: one of three first Nobel Prize winners in economics in 1969, Jan Tinbergen, was a strong advocate of high taxes and income redistribution. If low taxes are so good for economic growth, why is GDP per capita in Norway much higher than in the US? (they have oil reserves, but if that bothers you, compare to Ireland which has comparable GDP per capita)
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell at least there is one dissenting voice in your corner. 😉
On your latter point: one of three first Nobel Prize winners in economics in 1969, Jan Tinbergen, was a strong advocate of high taxes and income redistribution. If low taxes are so good for economic growth, why is GDP per capita in Norway much higher than in the US? (they have oil reserves, but if that bothers you, compare to Ireland which has comparable GDP per capita)[/b]
