jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (20 posts)

Why is it called "reform" when it is a ripoff for the 99%?

  1. ptosis profile image86
    ptosisposted 2 months ago

    The truth about Trump's tax cuts; Republican tax cuts go largely to the rich. There is indeed no case whatsoever for reducing the personal income tax rates on high-income Americans. The richest Americans are already enjoying an era of unprecedented wealth and prosperity.

    The truth is that the United States needs a bipartisan budget deal, involving higher not lower overall tax revenues as a share of GDP, to cut the budget deficit, finance needed social services and expand infrastructure investments. Part of the overall budget package could include a modest cut in the US corporate tax rate with the lost corporate revenues more than made up for by tax increases elsewhere. - http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/opinions/ … index.html


    What do you think? Why is it called 'reform' as if it would make things better when in reality it will make things worse??

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, tax increases have never done anything (long term) to aid the financial position of the country.  It is spent on pork barrel, entitlement give-aways or other nonsense, whereupon we need to increase taxes again.

      Fact is, our tax burden is already too high for a nation of individualists living their own life.  An increase will only make it worse.

      1. ptosis profile image86
        ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Ol Bone Spur's plan: trumped-up Reagon's voodoo economics.  So you want tax cuts for the top 1% by removing the govt moral imperative to secure life & liberty for everyone else?  (Don't answer that.. I'm being facetious)

        Ok. I'm with you.  You want less taxes. Go figure. Everybody does. You focused on gov't waste.

        Now the next part.  Where is the most money is wasted?  How about no bid military contracts?  Are you all for non military contracts? I think not, unless you are the CEO of Polaris or Boeing.

        But I'm absolutely expecting you to say food stamps because people should feed themselves. Never mind MAJORITY are KIDS.

        It would be unsurprising if you posted in retaliation "Get those kids working at a Charles Dickerson's workhouse!."


        Such a kind man.   〽

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          "Where is the most money is wasted?"

          How about entitlements for those that don't need it?  Ever consider that food stamps are intended to cover the cost of meals...including those lunches at school that the taxpayer pays for again?  Just a side thought about unneeded entitlements, a thought I'm positive you will attack as the more money we give people the more able they will be to support their families.

          1. ptosis profile image86
            ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Hey wilderness, I'm trying.  Some days I made huge mistakes with you in the past.  Trying to understand you but some days I just **** on you. (sorry) - it's going to happen again. I ask for preemptive forgiveness.

            This morning while walking up the canyon I had my audio on.  It a TTC lecture series by Jeremy Shearmur and was listening to the Libertarianism lecture.  I think I'm finally starting to 'get' you. All this time I thought you were a super hard-on conservative and now I think your ideas are coming straight from Libertarian view points.

            Correct me if am am wrong about you.

            libertarian (lĭbˌər-târˈē-ən)►

                n.
                One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

            versus

            conservative (kən-sûrˈvə-tĭv)►

                adj.
                Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

            A libertarian would say that there is no need for ANY gov't which would include no military or food stamps.

            A conservative believes that institutions that have weathered the test of time should remain in place and that there is no need to change the status quo of the military and needed assistance such as, hurricane relief, or food stamps etc.

            A jerk-off troll would say take the 33 cents  spent on the food lunch for that little undeserving brat and instead give $10 billion in subsidies and no-bid sweetheart contracts to the military-industrial complex that oppresses us all.

            I expect you to continue with the "not all recipients are deserving", and yeah - we can agree there that there is wasteful spending. What is the percentage of that wasteful and what are the total  amounts of money that go into those waste buckets? - We both have preconceived notions. 

            You probably still believe in the fictitious "Welfare Mom" invented by Ronald Reagan as the typical welfare recipient even though that person never existed and the majority on SSI do not own a car and are white - not some uppity black woman who keeps squeezing out kids for the sole purpose of getting more money from the gov't.

            What RR did to win votes in the South with racism was disgusting, and people complain about JOTUS and the 'both sides' statement.

            This is what I think of the so-called 'Libertarians' call the Koch brothers:



            https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13688360_f1024.jpg

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              You're right - I'm probably closer to libertarians than conservatives.  But that doesn't mean no government, in spite of the silly claim to the contrary; only a fool advocates anarchy.

              I'd agree with you on the "welfare mom"...except that I know a few of them.  They most certainly do exist, and their ranks are growing as they teach their kids how to survive on government charity.

              You will have to be a wee bit more specific than "subsidies and no-bid sweetheart contracts to the military-industrial complex" if you want me to accept anything you're whining about there.  And it'll have to be more than leaving a little more of their earnings for the owners like me: that is not a subsidy OR "sweetheart contract".

              1. ptosis profile image86
                ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                I'm not ****** whining you ******.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Are you sure?  You have twice now referenced sweetheart contracts (presumably the same as "no bid" contracts) and subsidies...but without ever defining or giving examples or proof.  If you want me to accept them as evil I'm going to have to know what your refer to and them I'm going to have to agree with you as to the evil embodied in them.

                  1. ptosis profile image86
                    ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Playing ignorant of the facts is your game, then when give link, will reject, and at the end you will say "I don't believe it." 

                    We have been through this previously before on a a different topic and I'm not going to waste my time trying to give you anything that you will ultimately reject anyway. It's a fool's errand to convince you with anything. I think we have had a back and forth for almost a year now. And I'm just going move on to different things. It appears that your opinion about the reality of no-bids military-industrial contract is that none don't exist whatsoever. A real human would never - ever say that!

                    Well -  ******* that!

    2. Live to Learn profile image79
      Live to Learnposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Ptosis, I know you mean well. I don't think you've noticed but during our lifetime both Democrats and Republicans have ruled in Washington. Neither economic approach is helping the common American. Things are continually getting darker and darker for the middle and lower classes. We have a problem in Washington which neither party is going to address until we join forces to make them.

    3. RJ Schwartz profile image95
      RJ Schwartzposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I guess someone should assign a "fair share" to all Americans - I bet the rich people wouldn't have a problem with high taxes if they weren't being squandered on illegals and pork projects and instead used to advance American dominance globally

  2. Will Apse profile image93
    Will Apseposted 2 months ago

    Tax cuts have never been shown to boost an economy. The whole trickle down, supply side economic nonsense is just a cover for the rich to take more and more.

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13687674.png

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin … conomy.pdf

    You are just going to be shafted, one more time, lol. Why should I care? Most of you deserve it.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "Tax cuts have never been shown to boost an economy."

      But tax increases boost it?  Cutting take home wages improves the economy and we can all buy more junk because we have less to spend?

    2. ptosis profile image86
      ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      ****** it Will, if don't care, why are you here?

      Besides you didn't go far back enough with you graph:



      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13688364.jpg


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13688366.png


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13688367.jpg


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13688368.png


      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13688369.jpg

    3. RJ Schwartz profile image95
      RJ Schwartzposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Take More??  It's their money in the first place.  Maybe KEEP more of their earnings instead of handing it over to a bunch of D.C. dimwits who can't seem to balance their checkbooks

      1. ptosis profile image86
        ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Muddying the waters:
        Distract and derail with SQUIRREL!

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image83
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    I never understood why people were surprised when the deficit exploded after Bush II's tax cuts.  Those cuts took away this country's revenue stream to keep the lights on.  It takes $$ to run our country.  It has to come from somewhere.  How would you pay your bills if your salary just got cut severely?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Good question.  How would you pay your bills if you were taxed 80% of your income?  Or even more?

      Yet that seems to be what is being demanded of some of us, and when it drops to something even a little more reasonable and fair we cry that we want more money, not less.

 
working