On a mission from God

[midcan5]

It is hard to even comprehend this stuff, republican hypocrisy requires a new superlative.

'GOP Congressman Stephen Fincher On A Mission From God-Starve The Poor While Personally Pocketing Millions In Farm Subsidies'


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/22/gop-congressman-stephen-fincher-on-a-mission-from-god-starve-the-poor-while-personally-pocketing-millions-in-farm-subsidies/


"Fincher’s $70,000 farm subsidy haul in 2012 dwarfs the average 2012 SNAP benefit in Tennessee of $1,586.40, and it is nearly double of Tennessee’s median household income. After voting to cut SNAP by more than $20 billion, Fincher joined his colleagues to support a proposal to expand crop insurance subsidies by $9 billion over the next 10 years.”

"Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God." Proverbs 14:31

[Chris]

What about the Democrats' keeping the poor poor?

"Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God." Proverbs 14:31



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4HZKDel9N0

[zelmo1234]

I thought of the exact same thing!

[zelmo1234]

OK Liberals, You have told us that Obama did not raise taxes on the rich, he just let the bush tax cuts expire! Right?

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-republican-lies-about-bush-tax-cuts

So how is it that the Republicans are cutting the SNAP program they are just letting the temporary increase to expire?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899

So which one is it? are you mistaken or such hypocrites that you can't even see you are partisan hacks?

[midcan5]

Some one needs to explain to me how they can excuse a wrong by mentioning an assumed other wrong? If democratic policies hurt the poor that needs to be proven, but it does not excuse the republican's actions. Weird how morality today has no wrongs, so long as the respondent can imagine another wrong. What a bizarre thought process.


Another enormous myth is that the rich are being abused by taxes. This sort of twisted Christianity now claims the rich are the abused souls. One has to wonder how that myth has come to make the poor the wrongdoers. Imagine the poor wanting to be poor so they can hurt the rich. Is it any wonder America has become a nation of idiots? I know lots of those rich people and I can assure you they aren't suffering. LOL But I'm sure they appreciate you wingnut's concern for their wellbeing. LOL


[b]"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm)


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton (http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html)

Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm)


"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong.The rich get rich because of their merit. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm)

[Peter1469]

Some one needs to explain to me how they can excuse a wrong by mentioning an assumed other wrong? If democratic policies hurt the poor that needs to be proven, but it does not excuse the republican's actions. Weird how morality today has no wrongs, so long as the respondent can imagine another wrong. What a bizarre thought process.


Another enormous myth is that the rich are being abused by taxes. This sort of twisted Christianity now claims the rich are the abused souls. One has to wonder how that myth has come to make the poor the wrongdoers. Imagine the poor wanting to be poor so they can hurt the rich. Is it any wonder America has become a nation of idiots? I know lots of those rich people and I can assure you they aren't suffering. LOL But I'm sure they appreciate you wingnut's concern for their wellbeing. LOL


[b]"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm)


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton (http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html)

Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm)


"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong.The rich get rich because of their merit. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm)

Every big tax cut created economic gains. JFK did it.

[Chris]

Some one needs to explain to me how they can excuse a wrong by mentioning an assumed other wrong? If democratic policies hurt the poor that needs to be proven, but it does not excuse the republican's actions. Weird how morality today has no wrongs, so long as the respondent can imagine another wrong. What a bizarre thought process.


Another enormous myth is that the rich are being abused by taxes. This sort of twisted Christianity now claims the rich are the abused souls. One has to wonder how that myth has come to make the poor the wrongdoers. Imagine the poor wanting to be poor so they can hurt the rich. Is it any wonder America has become a nation of idiots? I know lots of those rich people and I can assure you they aren't suffering. LOL But I'm sure they appreciate you wingnut's concern for their wellbeing. LOL


[b]"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm)


The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton (http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html)

Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm)


"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong.The rich get rich because of their merit. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm)




Some one needs to explain to me how they can excuse a wrong by mentioning an assumed other wrong?

Could I would I but I think they're both wrong.

[kilgram]

Every big tax cut created economic gains. JFK did it.
Really? Why were things better when USA had more taxes than ever?

A tax cut is an excuse by the right, but it does not affect to the economy. The economy is affected positively or negatively depending of how is expent on it.

[KC]

Really? Why were things better when USA had more taxes than ever?

A tax cut is an excuse by the right, but it does not affect to the economy. The economy is affected positively or negatively depending of how is expent on it.

Post-war prosperity was due partly to the fact that Europe had been devastated and the US had no major competitors for its manufactured goods. The US economy did relatively well despite high tax rates, not because of them.

[patrickt]

Midcan: "It is hard to even comprehend this stuff...."

You finally said something I agree with but just because it's hard for you doesn't mean you shouldn't even try.

[Peter1469]

Really? Why were things better when USA had more taxes than ever?

A tax cut is an excuse by the right, but it does not affect to the economy. The economy is affected positively or negatively depending of how is expent on it.

KC mentioned above that the US was pretty much in charge after WWII. But if you go to the CBO website, and look at the data, when tax cuts were enacted, tax revenues increased. A broader tax base can bring in more revenue than a narrow base.

[Blackrook]

Maybe we can all agree that farm subsidies are a bad idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-subsidies-protect-national-security/fdrs-disastrous-experiment (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-subsidies-protect-national-security/fdrs-disastrous-experiment)

[KC]

Maybe we can all agree that farm subsidies are a bad idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-subsidies-protect-national-security/fdrs-disastrous-experiment (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-subsidies-protect-national-security/fdrs-disastrous-experiment)

Yes, eliminate all farm subsidies, price floors and ceilings for all agricultural goods. Also get rid of the US trade embargo with Cuba, the federal ethanol standards and other policies that distort the price of food and watch prices drop and consumers become wealthier.

[KC]

KC mentioned above that the US was pretty much in charge after WWII. But if you go to the CBO website, and look at the data, when tax cuts were enacted, tax revenues increased. A broader tax base can bring in more revenue than a narrow base.

This chart illustrates your point pretty well. The best way to increase revenue is to improve the economy. Tax cuts help us achieve this (althought there's a lot more involved than just tax cuts).

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png

[kilgram]

KC mentioned above that the US was pretty much in charge after WWII. But if you go to the CBO website, and look at the data, when tax cuts were enacted, tax revenues increased. A broader tax base can bring in more revenue than a narrow base.
I repeat, tax cuts don't benefit economy. Let's see how Bush cuts didn't make any good.

It is true that if you reduce tax to the middle classes and poor classes can be positive. But reducing taxes to the rich, it does not mean anything. The question is where the tax cut goes.

As I've said, the tax cuts are not positive, or at least not always. But where it is proven that they are not positive is cutting taxes in people who already is extremely wealthy. If you cut taxes on them they won't produce more, even they won't hire more workers. It is the biggest lie.

[Peter1469]

I repeat, tax cuts don't benefit economy. Let's see how Bush cuts didn't make any good.

It is true that if you reduce tax to the middle classes and poor classes can be positive. But reducing taxes to the rich, it does not mean anything. The question is where the tax cut goes.

As I've said, the tax cuts are not positive, or at least not always. But where it is proven that they are not positive is cutting taxes in people who already is extremely wealthy. If you cut taxes on them they won't produce more, even they won't hire more workers. It is the biggest lie.

You are incorrect.

[jillian]

You are incorrect.


arguable… this is from september, 2012:


A new study (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf) from the Congressional Research Service - a non-partisan government group that provides analysis to Congress - will likely fuel the already bitter political fight.

The report concludes that tax cuts for the rich don't seem to be associated with economic growth and instead are linked to a different outcome: greater income inequality in the U.S.

Analysis of six decades of data found that the evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship betweentax policy (http://www.ibtimes.com/tax-cuts-rich-dont-lead-us-economic-growth-income-inequality-study-790024#) with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.

http://www.ibtimes.com/tax-cuts-rich-dont-lead-us-economic-growth-income-inequality-study-790024

[Peter1469]

arguable… this is from september, 2012:


[/FONT][/COLOR]
http://www.ibtimes.com/tax-cuts-rich-dont-lead-us-economic-growth-income-inequality-study-790024

They were not tax cuts for the rich; by income the lower classes got a much larger tax cut than the rich.

[Dr. Who]

KC mentioned above that the US was pretty much in charge after WWII. But if you go to the CBO website, and look at the data, when tax cuts were enacted, tax revenues increased. A broader tax base can bring in more revenue than a narrow base.

I would agree that small to medium business is probably overtaxed. Reducing those taxes would provide more employment because there is a direct relationship between profits and workforce. Big business on the other hand is generally publically traded. Profits go to shareholders with increasingly large return on investment demands, and executive management that disproportionately reward themselves first. If profits drop, does executive remuneration decline or does return on investment truly reflect the lack of performance. Often not. Instead employees are terminated to make up the difference. Of course you can only eliminate so many people until you don't have a functional workforce, so the next step is to move offshore or to some market where labor is cheaper. This is not just manufacturing, but many industries and business that can operate from anywhere. How long will it be before all of the major banks move offshore? Apart from arranging loans (for now), and the interim need for physical currency, how long will there be any need for many bank employees in America. Electronic banking is becoming more common than old style banking. There are already strictly electronic banking institutions out there. ING is one. Why wouldn't they all move to India, where there is huge availability of highly educated people who will work for far less than Americans.

Now I'm going to make a hideously liberal statement. If America wants to keep big business in America, it will have to deincentivize moving offshore. Lowering taxes will not do that, because goodness only knows there are a million tax loopholes available for business, but it doesn't decrease labor costs. . The only thing that will do that is to impose a cost of doing business in America from afar, that is so punitive that they will have to decide whether they want access to the American market or not. If not, it is a major growth opportunity for the smaller players and therefore chance for domestic employment.

[midcan5]

Every big tax cut created economic gains. JFK did it.

That is completely false and even a cursory view of modern America demonstrates it is a myth. But Carter too did it, as Reagan did, did you miss that history? Clinton raised them, he had help but the economy was OK in spite of all the gnashing of teeth. Then Bush lowered them, you still here, do you remember 07 and 08? The rich do gain as they gain the most from our nation, but America and most Americans do not gain, the reality of inequality today is a bold reality that can only be ignored by blind partisans.

A few links for those who live in the real world.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/revenue-blues-the-case-for-higher-taxes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/on-middle-class-tax-rates-too-much-wishful-thinking.html
Tax cuts spur economic growth (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm)
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton (http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html)
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm)
The rich get rich because of their merit. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm)


"The irony isn’t only that the poor are condemned for being dependent on the state while the rich are not. It’s also that the rich get so much more out of their dependence on the state than the poor. Without the support of the state, poor people’s quality of life would certainly drop, but only by degrees: their lives would go from bad to worse. Take the state’s assistance away from the rich, however, and their lives would take a serious plunge in comfort. No wonder rich people are on the whole conservative: the most ferocious defenders of the status quo are usually those who are most dependent on the system." Amia Srinivasan http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/dependents-of-the-state/

[nic34]

Chart of the day:

4463

[Chris]

That is completely false and even a cursory view of modern America demonstrates it is a myth. But Carter too did it, as Reagan did, did you miss that history? Clinton raised them, he had help but the economy was OK in spite of all the gnashing of teeth. Then Bush lowered them, you still here, do you remember 07 and 08? The rich do gain as they gain the most from our nation, but America and most Americans do not gain, the reality of inequality today is a bold reality that can only be ignored by blind partisans.

A few links for those who live in the real world.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/revenue-blues-the-case-for-higher-taxes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/on-middle-class-tax-rates-too-much-wishful-thinking.html
Tax cuts spur economic growth (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm)
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton (http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html)
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm)
The rich get rich because of their merit. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm)


"The irony isn’t only that the poor are condemned for being dependent on the state while the rich are not. It’s also that the rich get so much more out of their dependence on the state than the poor. Without the support of the state, poor people’s quality of life would certainly drop, but only by degrees: their lives would go from bad to worse. Take the state’s assistance away from the rich, however, and their lives would take a serious plunge in comfort. No wonder rich people are on the whole conservative: the most ferocious defenders of the status quo are usually those who are most dependent on the system." Amia Srinivasan http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/dependents-of-the-state/



On tax cuts generating gains I would agree, it all depends on where in the Laffer curve we are.


As for:


"(A) The irony isn’t only that the poor are condemned for being dependent on the state while the rich are not. (B) It’s also that the rich get so much more out of their dependence on the state than the poor. Without the support of the state, poor people’s quality of life would certainly drop, but only by degrees: their lives would go from bad to worse. Take the state’s assistance away from the rich, however, and their lives would take a serious plunge in comfort. No wonder rich people are on the whole conservative: the most ferocious defenders of the status quo are usually those who are most dependent on the system." Amia Srinivasan http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-of-the-state/


(A) and (B) contradict each other. How can (A) the rich not be dependent at the same time (B) they are dependent?


And, generally, you have to ask what lousy kind of government would sell out to the rich. ...oh, ours.

[Peter1469]

That is completely false and even a cursory view of modern America demonstrates it is a myth. But Carter too did it, as Reagan did, did you miss that history? Clinton raised them, he had help but the economy was OK in spite of all the gnashing of teeth. Then Bush lowered them, you still here, do you remember 07 and 08? The rich do gain as they gain the most from our nation, but America and most Americans do not gain, the reality of inequality today is a bold reality that can only be ignored by blind partisans.

A few links for those who live in the real world.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/revenue-blues-the-case-for-higher-taxes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/on-middle-class-tax-rates-too-much-wishful-thinking.html
Tax cuts spur economic growth (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm)
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton (http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html)
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm)
The rich get rich because of their merit. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm)


"The irony isn’t only that the poor are condemned for being dependent on the state while the rich are not. It’s also that the rich get so much more out of their dependence on the state than the poor. Without the support of the state, poor people’s quality of life would certainly drop, but only by degrees: their lives would go from bad to worse. Take the state’s assistance away from the rich, however, and their lives would take a serious plunge in comfort. No wonder rich people are on the whole conservative: the most ferocious defenders of the status quo are usually those who are most dependent on the system." Amia Srinivasan http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/dependents-of-the-state/

Go to the CBO website and you will find similar GDP spikes after the major tax cuts in the last 50 years. Yes Reagan did allow Congress to raise taxes after he got them to dramatically cut them. Whether he was just horse trading, or whether he thought that he cut taxes too low (the Laffer Curve), I don't know.

[Dr. Who]

That is completely false and even a cursory view of modern America demonstrates it is a myth. But Carter too did it, as Reagan did, did you miss that history? Clinton raised them, he had help but the economy was OK in spite of all the gnashing of teeth. Then Bush lowered them, you still here, do you remember 07 and 08? The rich do gain as they gain the most from our nation, but America and most Americans do not gain, the reality of inequality today is a bold reality that can only be ignored by blind partisans.

A few links for those who live in the real world.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/revenue-blues-the-case-for-higher-taxes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/on-middle-class-tax-rates-too-much-wishful-thinking.html
Tax cuts spur economic growth (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm)
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton (http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html)
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm)
The rich get rich because of their merit. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm)


"The irony isn’t only that the poor are condemned for being dependent on the state while the rich are not. It’s also that the rich get so much more out of their dependence on the state than the poor. Without the support of the state, poor people’s quality of life would certainly drop, but only by degrees: their lives would go from bad to worse. Take the state’s assistance away from the rich, however, and their lives would take a serious plunge in comfort. No wonder rich people are on the whole conservative: the most ferocious defenders of the status quo are usually those who are most dependent on the system." Amia Srinivasan http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/dependents-of-the-state/

I've always been amazed at the number of tax loopholes available to the wealthy, and the sheer amount of abuse that takes place. Many wealthy people with businesses contrive to have their vacations made tax deductible, by arranging some notional business activity which might take an hour out of their day, or it is disguised as a marketing trip and then they write off the entire vacation as a "business expense". Every time they go to lunch or dinner, some non-existent client is added to the paperwork, so it also becomes a business expense. Family members end up on the payroll, but never come to work. All of their personal vehicles are actually owned by the business, so again tax deductible. Have a house party, no problem, invite a couple of clients or even potential clients and the whole thing becomes a marketing expense. These are just minor examples of the abuse. With a good tax accountant, a wealthy person lives almost for free. Talk about welfare.

[Codename Section]

I've always been amazed at the number of tax loopholes available to the wealthy, and the sheer amount of abuse that takes place. Many wealthy people with businesses contrive to have their vacations made tax deductible, by arranging some notional business activity which might take an hour out of their day, or it is disguised as a marketing trip and then they write off the entire vacation as a "business expense". Every time they go to lunch or dinner, some non-existent client is added to the paperwork, so it also becomes a business expense. Family members end up on the payroll, but never come to work. All of their personal vehicles are actually owned by the business, so again tax deductible. Have a house party, no problem, invite a couple of clients or even potential clients and the whole thing becomes a marketing expense. These are just minor examples of the abuse. With a good tax accountant, a wealthy person lives almost for free. Talk about welfare.

So can a small business owner or free lance business person with the right accountant. I'd say ask Mr. Freeze but he was in an accident and I'm not sure he'll be on for awhile.

[Chris]

I've always been amazed at the number of tax loopholes available to the wealthy, and the sheer amount of abuse that takes place. Many wealthy people with businesses contrive to have their vacations made tax deductible, by arranging some notional business activity which might take an hour out of their day, or it is disguised as a marketing trip and then they write off the entire vacation as a "business expense". Every time they go to lunch or dinner, some non-existent client is added to the paperwork, so it also becomes a business expense. Family members end up on the payroll, but never come to work. All of their personal vehicles are actually owned by the business, so again tax deductible. Have a house party, no problem, invite a couple of clients or even potential clients and the whole thing becomes a marketing expense. These are just minor examples of the abuse. With a good tax accountant, a wealthy person lives almost for free. Talk about welfare.


Yes, isn't our government wonderful!

[Dr. Who]

So can a small business owner or free lance business person with the right accountant. I'd say ask @Mr. Freeze (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=892) but he was in an accident and I'm not sure he'll be on for awhile.What happened to him? Is he OK?