Hillary Favors Siezing The Assets of The Working Class - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

PatsFanInEaglesLand · 02-16-2006, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

You forget to mention things like food stamps and after school programs and housing assistance being slashed to pay for this tax cut. So that particular family ends up with a massive net loss.

What exactly is the cost of leaving say, a 9 year old alone at home while the parents work because the susidised after school program the kid used to attend is gone? Some might call that program priceless.

Bush's domestic tax/spending strategy is so purely political its not even funny. Just look at how much blue states pay in taxes vs what they get in services as opposed to how things work for the red states. Your nightmare scenerio of a liberal confiscating money from one group and giving it to another is happening right now. Its just not based on finances, its based on who falls in line with the neo-cons master plan vs who won't.

Personal f'n responsibility, it that a lost cause in this country now?

dryheat44 · 02-18-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInEaglesLand

Personal f'n responsibility, it that a lost cause in this country now?

That's not the argument. We were talking about if the tax cuts help the poor. "It's their own fault for being poor" doesn't qualify as a relevant statement.

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 02-18-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

Explain who got the 84% tax break if it's not people in the 10% income bracket (wages under $14K), and also please answer the question as to what share of the $60 billion do you think those people got? You seem to be avoiding this isssues.

There is not time enough in the sun's 4 billion year remaining Main Sequence lifetime to answer all the questions you need clues on. As to the 60M, here's a clue. The majority of $ goes to the folks who PAID the majority. You DO know that the top 5% or so of earners pay around 50% of taxes, or do you? * from memory, close but inexact

If you look at tax trend charts, the big drop came in Clinton's era. I'm basing that on figure 1 on this page:

http://www.npc.umich.edu/publication...briefs/brief5/

10 characters for the bbs gods

wistahpatsfan · 02-18-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

You forget to mention things like food stamps and after school programs and housing assistance being slashed to pay for this tax cut. So that particular family ends up with a massive net loss.

What exactly is the cost of leaving say, a 9 year old alone at home while the parents work because the susidised after school program the kid used to attend is gone? Some might call that program priceless.

Bush's domestic tax/spending strategy is so purely political its not even funny. Just look at how much blue states pay in taxes vs what they get in services as opposed to how things work for the red states. Your nightmare scenerio of a liberal confiscating money from one group and giving it to another is happening right now. Its just not based on finances, its based on who falls in line with the neo-cons master plan vs who won't.

That's very true, but it goes for both parties.
I've heard the arguement for tax high/spend high, tax low/spend high, and tax high/spend low, ...but what ever happenned to the idea of tax low/spend low? Are we so unaccustomed to it that we can't even let it enter the discussion?

Our present set of circumstances includes massive federal and state governments being fueled by huge revenues. I honestly have no problems helping poor families temporarily (say 6-8 yrs MAX) or disabled people as much as they need, but the government has to stop subsidizing massive or small corporate profits and foreign military machines as well as our own.

Turd Furguson · 02-18-2006, 02:35 PM

I'm for tax cuts up the wazoo.

What about the deficit you say?

Easy, reduce spending. Another key area where I disagree with the current admin.

Am I saying have absolutely NO safety net for the underpriveleged or disabled? Of course not. I'm not heartless but I do believe that a good percentage of those using our social services do so simply because they can. Much like a crutch. Remove it and see how quickly they learn the cardinal rule of economics; "No workey, No eatey"

BlueTalon · 02-18-2006, 08:39 PM

The very basic difference between cons and libs here is their understanding of how taxes effect the economy and government income. Libs think that to increase govt income, you must take a bigger piece of the pie. Cons think that if you take a smaller piece of the pie, the pie grows and you end up getting more.

None of that has anything to do with expenditures, which is a whole 'nother discussion.

***Patters*** · 02-18-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueTalon

The very basic difference between cons and libs here is their understanding of how taxes effect the economy and government income. Libs think that to increase govt income, you must take a bigger piece of the pie. Cons think that if you take a smaller piece of the pie, the pie grows and you end up getting more.

I don't think that's what it's about. The best description I've read describes conservatives as believing in the strong father -- the one who takes care of his family, has all the answers, makes the tough decisions, and expects everyone to follow his rules. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in the nuturing parent, who can be male or female, who helps her family discover themselves and realize their potential, who guides the family and is guided by them. I'm oversimplifying, of course, but I think the metaphors are pretty accurate.

BlueTalon · 02-18-2006, 10:55 PM

I won't quibble too much with your chosen metaphors, but I don't see what they have to do with taxes.

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 02-19-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

I don't think that's what it's about. The best description I've read describes conservatives as believing in the strong father -- the one who takes care of his family, has all the answers, makes the tough decisions, and expects everyone to follow his rules. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in the nuturing parent, who can be male or female, who helps her family discover themselves and realize their potential, who guides the family and is guided by them. I'm oversimplifying, of course, but I think the metaphors are pretty accurate.

I'd say that they're quite wrong, at least in many instances that I know of. Of course only Patters can cite his life experience and have it be valid.

***Patters*** · 02-19-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsWickedPissah

I'd say that they're quite wrong, at least in many instances that I know of. Of course only Patters can cite his life experience and have it be valid.

Actually, Pissah, it's based on a theory by George Lakoff, who I believe is a cognitive scientist, and the theory is useful because it explains the Republican political strategy and successes quite well. It says conservatives believe in the strong father, liberals believe in the nuturing parent, and moderates are somewhere in the middle. The Republicans have reached out to the moderates by framing their arguments in a nuturing way. For instance, partial birth abortion, which is a procedure that affects very few women, became a major issue for Republicans because it was used to portray Republican opposition to women's rights as compassionate. Terms like conservative compassion and tax relief (as opposed to cuts) were also used in a similar way. His ideas are highly regarded by a number of thinkers and political leaders.

So, your snippy little comment, backed up by nothing, not even an alternative, I'm afraid isn't very convincing or, for that matter, worthy of you. What do you think is the thread that links conservative (or liberal) views on abortion, taxes, foreign policy, gun control, and tort reform?