I'm starting to wonder why Democrats raise taxes

[BigRedBuster]

Sitting at home and not doing what is necessary to take care of yourself and demanding others pay for your laziness is just as bad as a rich person sitting in their house refusing to help people who need it.

 

Actually, both people are taking resources away or keeping resources from people who actually need it.

[zoogs]

Where did we get from talking about social welfare to demonizing those who need it as lazy people sitting at home leeching off the public?

 

Again, I feel like these are characterizations that have been honed and developed over the decades in hock to the party of dismantlement. I'm not saying everyone is an angel, and of course there's no way to require this no matter what the rules are, but I can't share in this depiction and especially think it has no place when it comes to informing policy.

[BigRedBuster]

Where did we get from talking about social welfare to demonizing those who need it as lazy people sitting at home leeching off the public?

 

 

Where did I say people who need it are lazy people sitting at home leeching off of the public?

 

 

Hint: the phrase "people who need it" is an important part of this conversation.

[zoogs]

Who are these people who need it? People who are already working jobs? They need the public assistance more than people who don't have jobs? That makes no sense to me.

 

To extend it further:

 

Why do people who are working poor, low-skill jobs need it more than struggling middle class people who bothered to get an education? Why subsidize people who couldn't be bothered to better themselves?

 

Why do middle class people in middle-class jobs need help compared to the entrepreneurs who are the driving force of the economy in this country?

 

Why do small-time entrepreneurs need help compared to the giant corporations that provide way more jobs and are way more central to the country's economy?

 

Or, alternatively, why can't assistance be doled out in proportion, from most to least as we keep going up this scale, without setting any two groups against one another?

[BigRedBuster]

Let me explain.

 

You have rich people who give to charities, pay taxes, support programs to help the needy...etc.

 

Then, you have rich people who fight like hell to keep all their money, say screw the poor people, cheat on their taxes..etc.

 

You also have poor people who truly need help because of certain situations they are in or they don't have the ability to help themselves.

 

Then, you have poor people who just refuse to do what it takes to take care of themselves and just live off of everyone else including the government.

 

These are 4 distinct groups. I personally know multiple people in all 4 groups. None of the 4 groups is insignificant in this country.

[BigRedBuster]

Who are these people who need it? People who are already working jobs? They need the public assistance more than people who don't have jobs? That makes no sense to me.

 

 

 

This line of questioning doesn't make sense with what I'm saying.

 

your "extend it further" doesn't help.

[zoogs]

Ah, I see. I can definitely agree that people of every income category fall across the spectrum, with plenty of "good" and "bad" in these senses. I don't think that should guide policy, though. These traits are endemic to human nature, and it would be futile to try to legislate them away.

 

I'd like to draw a parallel to your sig. Typically the worst of one group will be upheld to justify a particular policy proposal that comes at their expense. Such a tactic certainly is not exclusive to one side of the debate. It's one reason I was rather skeptical of Sanders and his arguments, much as I might empathize with his politics on a generic level.

 

Regarding my "extend it further", I thought that was an adequate summary of how politics goes. I attempted to represent the (heretofore successful) arguments of the most powerful already for why they should be the primary beneficiaries of government policy. This election in particular is poised to be a big win for them.

[BigRedBuster]

Ah, I see. I can definitely agree that people of every income category fall across the spectrum, with plenty of "good" and "bad" in these senses. I don't think that should guide policy, though. These traits are endemic to human nature, and it would be futile to try to legislate them away.

 

I'd like to draw a parallel to your sig. Typically the worst of one group will be upheld to justify a particular policy proposal that comes at their expense. Such a tactic certainly is not exclusive to one side of the debate. It's one reason I was rather skeptical of Sanders and his arguments, much as I might empathize with his politics on a generic level.

I can't disagree with that. But, that's why we need two forces working against each other on these issues.

 

In a wonderful utopian world, you would have programs that truly help needy people and once those people are able to get back on their feet, they get off of the program and move on. Nobody who doesn't need the program wastes the resources that are in that program and the people who can afford it, apply a portion of their resources to that program.

 

But, that's a utopian world that doesn't exist. It never will exist.

So, we are stuck in the middle between two forces. One side believes everything possible should be devoted to programs for the poor and rich people should shut up and fork out the money for these programs no matter what it costs.

The other side believes income that is earned by a person or group is owned by them and isn't just free to be taken by the government for whatever reason it deems necessary.

 

Both sides are correct and both sides are wrong. In reality, policy ebs and flows somewhere between the two extremes and sometimes it goes too far in either direction and needs adjusted.

[BigRedBuster]

This is why I very seldom make claims that programs need to be dismantled or done away with. I constantly preach that the government needs to constantly be working to be more efficient.

 

The more efficient and less wasteful the government can be, actually the more good it can do.

 

I want up to date infrastructure, I want social safety nets, I want healthcare that works, I want improved education....etc. But, the more our government is LESS efficient in doing these things, the less of these things we can actually do.

[zoogs]

I can't disagree with that. But, that's why we need two forces working against each other on these issues

Yes! On this we agree. I have my leanings, but above all this should be an ongoing debate.

 

In an ideal world the two sides share common incentives and merely differ in academic ways about how much of a role the public sector needs to play. That's another way in which this world isn't the ideal, I think.

 

I like the appeal to efficiency, too, but large bureaucracies rarely are. At least, a company like Wal-Mart or Amazon might be efficient on a macro level, but they'll be chock full of wasteful expenditures in different places that they're too smart to spend all their time focusing on. Because if they did, they'd fail at getting the big things right.

 

I think this is an analogy that can apply to government. I completely agree that more efficiency is better and that in many places it's absent, but there's an enormous cost I think to centering so much of the national discourse around that. In practice it seems to result in paralysis via 'letting perfection be the enemy of good'.

[HuskerNation1]

This is why I very seldom make claims that programs need to be dismantled or done away with. I constantly preach that the government needs to constantly be working to be more efficient.

 

The more efficient and less wasteful the government can be, actually the more good it can do.

 

I want up to date infrastructure, I want social safety nets, I want healthcare that works, I want improved education....etc. But, the more our government is LESS efficient in doing these things, the less of these things we can actually do.

 

I agree with you on this. I know you have a hard time saying positive things about Trump, but can you at least appreciate that he is focused on making the government more efficient, and will be having his team examine every contrage/agreement with the government to make sure the American people are not getting ripped off. The Boeing example is just one of many that Trump will deliver as POTUS. He is setting a tone to all government contractors that the days of making a killing off the government are over.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/21/boeing-ceo-vows-to-build-new-air-force-one-for-less-after-trump-complaints.html

[HuskerNation1]

Taxes and the deficit is a very complicated subject.

 

Republicans should hold the responsibility for what the tax cuts has done to the deficit. My comment doesn't mean they didn't play a major part in this.

 

 

However, I the tax cuts wouldn't be nearly as big of issue if spending didn't go through the roof at the same time. When 9/11 hit and the Bush administration knew they were going to spend a huge amount on wars and the economy, they shouldn't have gone through with the tax cuts. Then the bank bail outs that both Bush and Obama are responsible for. The spending increases have slowed during the Obama administration but the true costs of ACA really are just now starting to hit.

 

So, tax cuts by themselves are not the problem. But, you have to control spending at the same time.

 

If you can control spending, then great...give tax cuts.

 

Also....I'm not in favor of huge tax increases for anyone unless the expenses side is also looked at.

 

My personal opinion is that the tax rates for the wealthy individuals are just fine. But, simplify the tax code. Allow companies to repatriate their income without a HUGE hit. Bring that money back to the US for our own economy, reduce corporate tax rates but tax the people who benefit from those corporations.

 

Good topic Moraine, and I agree with BRB that controlling spending should come first. One of my majors in college was Econ, and even my more liberal professors articulated that tax cuts would do more to generate revenue through GDP growth than increasing spending. These are the 2 levers the government has through fiscal policy. When you look at the US economy from a macro perspective, the best way to help the federal government have more money to either pay down the debt or use for key programs is to increase your tax base and the incoming tax revenue, and looking through the lens of what is best for Americans, we would want to do what we can to encourage more foreign businesses to invest in the US Economy. When that happens, it means we are not always faced with picking winners and losers in the US, and more people overall can be winners in the economy.

 

Outside of making adjustments to marginal tax rates or the capital gains rates, the other big things that Trump can focus on is the streamlining of the tax code which has been referenced, AND reducing and eliminating many regulations. My parents are small business owners, and they considered expanding their business a few years ago and chose not to as it would have forced them to have over 50 employees and therefore comply with all the Obamacare regulations. Regulations established by government have a direct effect on decisions by businesses to grow and hire, and if businesses are not hiring to their potential, it means a lower tax base to work from, and then more people dependent on government assistance to get by.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

This is why I very seldom make claims that programs need to be dismantled or done away with. I constantly preach that the government needs to constantly be working to be more efficient.

 

The more efficient and less wasteful the government can be, actually the more good it can do.

 

I want up to date infrastructure, I want social safety nets, I want healthcare that works, I want improved education....etc. But, the more our government is LESS efficient in doing these things, the less of these things we can actually do.

I agree with you on this. I know you have a hard time saying positive things about Trump, but can you at least appreciate that he is focused on making the government more efficient, and will be having his team examine every contrage/agreement with the government to make sure the American people are not getting ripped off. The Boeing example is just one of many that Trump will deliver as POTUS. He is setting a tone to all government contractors that the days of making a killing off the government are over.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/21/boeing-ceo-vows-to-build-new-air-force-one-for-less-after-trump-complaints.html

I have always said that I like some of the things trump talks about. However, he is the wrong person saying them because he is a disgusting person that can't be trusted.....and I don't trust the family either.

 

I also do not agree with many of his business ideas he thinks he can bring to the government.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

This is why I very seldom make claims that programs need to be dismantled or done away with. I constantly preach that the government needs to constantly be working to be more efficient.

 

The more efficient and less wasteful the government can be, actually the more good it can do.

 

I want up to date infrastructure, I want social safety nets, I want healthcare that works, I want improved education....etc. But, the more our government is LESS efficient in doing these things, the less of these things we can actually do.

I agree with you on this. I know you have a hard time saying positive things about Trump, but can you at least appreciate that he is focused on making the government more efficient, and will be having his team examine every contrage/agreement with the government to make sure the American people are not getting ripped off. The Boeing example is just one of many that Trump will deliver as POTUS. He is setting a tone to all government contractors that the days of making a killing off the government are over.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/21/boeing-ceo-vows-to-build-new-air-force-one-for-less-after-trump-complaints.html

I have always said that I like some of the things trump talks about. However, he is the wrong person saying them because he is a disgusting person that can't be trusted.....and I don't trust the family either.

 

I also do not agree with many of his business ideas he thinks he can bring to the government.

 

 

Well we have had morally disgusting Presidents do good things...just look at Bill Clinton. I think you need to give him a chance and see what results he can deliver. It doesn't mean you have to like the guy personally, but Trump may be the anti-Obama. Obama was good at getting people to like him personally but had no idea how to lead or deliver.

[BigRedBuster]

When he starts not acting like a total clueless jackass and respecting others, I will return that respect.

 

I have no choice but to give him a chance because he will be our new president.....unfortunately.

 

 

And....I have seen nothing from his family that makes me believe they should be trusted with anything.