Reason I am not a liberal, Too many hands in the cookie jar
Liberalism when out of control is a failure. The former Soviet Union is a prime example of this fact. A state can only afford what it can bring in so far as income after the sales of goods and services. No more... When budgets are larger than what the tax base can float the whole system can come to a painful grinding halt. Jobs will re-locate if taxes are raised on corporations. This will lead to intellectual capital flight to states with less punitive tax burdens. When the state loses jobs the state has a two fold problem that continues to compound. First there is less income tax realized and second the social entitlement benefits are then paid out to the unemployed. Not a good result of raising taxes on corporations I would argue however this is the meat and potatoes solution presented by liberals as a whole. The problem with liberalism is the fact that "Too many hands are in the cookie jar" Year after year people desire programs and benefits and get them into law. During boom times this can expand faster than is ever sustainable. The problem is when a state run with this trend and mindset faces times of less economic production. The rigid structure where by the $$$ of the budget is already spoken for creates a problem for the flexible nature of tax revenues. When tax revenues are less how are all the programs and benefits paid for? "Where can taxes be raised?" is the question that liberal minded politicians like to look at. Not "what can be cut?"
Remember raising taxes is a good way to further restrict the growth of a given economy (if not flat out run it into negative growth "in the red") just as raising interest rates produces the same result.
Just look at the situation in California:
That is sickening.
What a plan
Let me stress this is why I am not a liberal.
So let me see if I understand this. California is having hard times and raising taxes is going to help California to help itself for the long haul?
Is it just me or does it not seem like raising taxes will only add fuel to the fire of the economic downturn in California? Raising taxes in my humble opinion would lead to capital flight to other states with less punitive tax codes. Not only can business leave in a heartbeat so can individuals.
Quotes taken from
This MSNBC Link
What are your thoughts?
Fellows
Remember raising taxes is a good way to further restrict the growth of a given economy (if not flat out run it into negative growth "in the red") just as raising interest rates produces the same result.
Just look at the situation in California:
Quote:
This summer, it all came crashing down. The legislature cobbled together a budget that neither party liked; it reduced the budget shortfall from $38 billion to a deficit estimated at $8 billion to $12 billion for next year. How did they do it?
_ _ _ _?We borrowed a lot of money,? said Kim Rueben, a public finance economist with the Public Policy Institute of California. Specifically, the legislators took out billions of dollars in bonds; they postponed payments and salary raises; they froze cost-of-living increases; they took one-time federal allocations and spent them; and Davis triggered a tripling of the state car tax.
_ _ _ _?The state has a problem, and the problem is long-term and structural,? said John Ellwood, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.
This summer, it all came crashing down. The legislature cobbled together a budget that neither party liked; it reduced the budget shortfall from $38 billion to a deficit estimated at $8 billion to $12 billion for next year. How did they do it?
_ _ _ _?We borrowed a lot of money,? said Kim Rueben, a public finance economist with the Public Policy Institute of California. Specifically, the legislators took out billions of dollars in bonds; they postponed payments and salary raises; they froze cost-of-living increases; they took one-time federal allocations and spent them; and Davis triggered a tripling of the state car tax.
_ _ _ _?The state has a problem, and the problem is long-term and structural,? said John Ellwood, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.
That is sickening.
Quote:
_So what to tax? Cigarettes, Bustamante and several other candidates say. But economists say there is a limit to what that will bring in. They point to New York, where the high tax on nicotine has spurred a flourishing black market. Alcohol? Hard to do in a state famed for the vineyards of Napa and Sonoma.
Bustamante, Huffington and the Green Party?s Peter Camejo advocate raising income taxes for the wealthy ? and they have projected revenue of $3 billion or more.
_ _ _ _There is, economists say, money to be made off the rich. California has a progressive income tax structure ? the wealthiest 5 percent pay almost 70 percent of the income taxes; the bottom 40 percent of working families pay less than 1 percent.
_So what to tax? Cigarettes, Bustamante and several other candidates say. But economists say there is a limit to what that will bring in. They point to New York, where the high tax on nicotine has spurred a flourishing black market. Alcohol? Hard to do in a state famed for the vineyards of Napa and Sonoma.
Bustamante, Huffington and the Green Party?s Peter Camejo advocate raising income taxes for the wealthy ? and they have projected revenue of $3 billion or more.
_ _ _ _There is, economists say, money to be made off the rich. California has a progressive income tax structure ? the wealthiest 5 percent pay almost 70 percent of the income taxes; the bottom 40 percent of working families pay less than 1 percent.
What a plan
Let me stress this is why I am not a liberal.So let me see if I understand this. California is having hard times and raising taxes is going to help California to help itself for the long haul?
Is it just me or does it not seem like raising taxes will only add fuel to the fire of the economic downturn in California? Raising taxes in my humble opinion would lead to capital flight to other states with less punitive tax codes. Not only can business leave in a heartbeat so can individuals.
Quote:
?There is nothing as mobile as rich people and their money,? said James L. Brulte, the leading Republican in the state Senate. ?You can get an increase in revenues but for how long? Take Tiger Woods. He grew up in California. He gets a $40 million contract from Nike and what does he do? He moves to Florida? ? like Nevada, a state without income taxes.
?There is nothing as mobile as rich people and their money,? said James L. Brulte, the leading Republican in the state Senate. ?You can get an increase in revenues but for how long? Take Tiger Woods. He grew up in California. He gets a $40 million contract from Nike and what does he do? He moves to Florida? ? like Nevada, a state without income taxes.
Quotes taken from
This MSNBC Link
What are your thoughts?
Fellows
Comments
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority
The Soviet Union was not a liberal state.
The President asked for $85 Billion last night to fund the war effort in Iraq, a war that was declared over in May. Where does he think Congress is going to find $85 Billion? Social Security? Money has already been moved from other programs to fund this war, including money that was supposed to go to NYC after 9/11 (2 years later and the city has received little to none).
Federal spending is at near record highs with conservatives controlling the White House and the Congress. With all of these expenses, how is there even a chance of a tax cut? There's already no money.
I know people are going to claim that most of these programs that need funding were started under the previous liberal administration. But remember that there was a federal surplus when President Bush took office, a surplus which was used to fund the tax cut. Now, there's just no money, and it would be naive to think that the Congress won't raise certain taxes (commercial, etc.) to get the additional $85 Billion needed for the war effort.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Liberalism when out of control is a failure. The former Soviet Union is a prime example of this fact.
Liberalism and Soviet Union? That is about as close as being a respectable Christian giving away your second shirt and buying a new car every year just to show it off. Oh wait - Soviet Union was liberal. You could do what you wanted to - when it was on a listed right of liberties you could have. Never mind.
Originally posted by Fran441
Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this. Look at President Bush, for example. Under his administration, we have had a greater increase in the size of government in his 2.5 years in office then in Clinton's 8, and we have an unprecedented amount of government spending.
The President asked for $85 Billion last night to fund the war effort in Iraq, a war that was declared over in May. Where does he think Congress is going to find $85 Billion? Social Security? Money has already been moved from other programs to fund this war, including money that was supposed to go to NYC after 9/11 (2 years later and the city has received little to none).
Federal spending is at near record highs with conservatives controlling the White House and the Congress. With all of these expenses, how is there even a chance of a tax cut? There's already no money.
I know people are going to claim that most of these programs that need funding were started under the previous liberal administration. But remember that there was a federal surplus when President Bush took office, a surplus which was used to fund the tax cut. Now, there's just no money, and it would be naive to think that the Congress won't raise certain taxes (commercial, etc.) to get the additional $85 Billion needed for the war effort.
I agree both parties are guilty far more often than not. Thanks for the reply Fran441
Fellows
Democrats may have the history of creating responsible government programs... and paying for them.
The biggest deficits this country has ever had have been under... Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.
In the latest budget spending in Republican districts went UP from $3.9 Billion to $5.8 Billion in the average district if you have a republican congressman... expect to get $612 million more than the average democrats district. In the 1994 budget the average democrat's district only recieved $35 million more than a republican's district. Democrats move the money around a bit when in power... the republican's move MORE around AND spend more.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I agree both parties are guilty far more often than not. Thanks for the reply Fran441
Fellows
nice capitulation....
California might be an example of democrats gone amuck, but the current Federal government is an example of republicans mucking with things for thirty years or more. I'd say going back to the post Vietnam economy bust, the republicans have done more damage than democrats and more damage than good for our long term Federal economy.
Originally posted by bunge
How about while we dissect what liberals do wrong, we counter point with how the conservatives in goverment get it right? I only ask this because both parties seem happy to lose control on spending and government waste. Neiter party seems to have any better claim to self-control.
California might be an example of democrats gone amuck, but the current Federal government is an example of republicans mucking with things for thirty years or more. I'd say going back to the post Vietnam economy bust, the republicans have done more damage than democrats and more damage than good for our long term Federal economy.
Not to be rude, but how can Republicans have done more damage with the federal government for 30 years when they have only been in control of all three branches for 3 years? They have been in control of Congress for 9 years.
Likewise you perpetuate this myth (or in Shawnese.. lie) that Democratic presidents presided over surpluses and Republican presidents over deficits.
Meanwhile the executive branch can veto spending, but it does not generate the spending bills. Congress does that. Republicans have had control for 9 years and balanced the budget for 4. Democrats had it for all the prior years and the last balanced budget before that was 1969, for one year.
Take a look at this link (PDF) budget deficits before you keep claiming a falsehood.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Not to be rude, but how can Republicans have done more damage with the federal government for 30 years when they have only been in control of all three branches for 3 years? They have been in control of Congress for 9 years.
I think in reality parties have power than just when they control of the three branches. Even with 'control' now, they don't really have control. Moderates in power sway back and forth.
Has Congress, Republican or Democrat, ever had to pass a budget with an override of a Presidential Veto? The Democrats have power in California right now, but have they always had this much power?
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise you perpetuate this myth (or in Shawnese.. lie) that Democratic presidents presided over surpluses and Republican presidents over deficits.
Meanwhile the executive branch can veto spending, but it does not generate the spending bills. Congress does that. Republicans have had control for 9 years and balanced the budget for 4. Democrats had it for all the prior years and the last balanced budget before that was 1969, for one year.
Take a look at this link (PDF) budget deficits before you keep claiming a falsehood.
Yeah, Republicans are wonderful with the budget.
Presidents do generate the spending bills. They drive the congressional agenda. Reagan, the Bushes, and Clinton proposed budgets that can be evaluated.
Reagan raised spending, cut taxes, and then when the deficit started skyrocketing, he raised taxes back up again the next year. Reagan proposed higher spending than Congress (which was split between Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the House for the majority of his term, BTW). Remember: voodoo economics, laugher (Laffer) curves, we can just increase spending and cut taxes and magically everything will be OK.
Clinton decreased discretionary spending and raised taxes, and then Clinton and the Newties in Congress had stalemate after stalemate, and all the while Clinton's budget plan was in effect and the economy was doing well, and so the budget situation improved while they argued. When they finally got together and agreed on something, they worsened the budget situation relative to what it would have been if they had just left everything default to Clinton's 1993 plan.
Bush is doing the exact same thing Reagan did, but moreso: he proposed and passed tax cuts and spending increases, but unlike Reagan, he's not raising taxes again later to cover his spending increases. Ergo: massive worsening of the budget situation. This isn't rocket science. The voodoo doesn't work.
Bush (and Reagan) proposed and passed huge discretionary spending increases, while Clinton decreased discretionary spending during the comparable period.
Your pdf graph proves the point you're trying to argue against. Republican presidents' voodoo economics causes deficits, and Democrats clean it up afterwards. It maps on to the presidencies perfectly. Would you like to bet what will happen to the budget situation after a Democrat comes back to office next time?
edit: oh yeah and the Soviet Union is a liberal's dream state. Why oh why can't we have totalitarian communism here in the US? It's really secretly what all liberals want.
Originally posted by trumptman
Not to be rude, but how can Republicans have done more damage with the federal government for 30 years when they have only been in control of all three branches for 3 years? They have been in control of Congress for 9 years.
Likewise you perpetuate this myth (or in Shawnese.. lie) that Democratic presidents presided over surpluses and Republican presidents over deficits.
Meanwhile the executive branch can veto spending, but it does not generate the spending bills. Congress does that. Republicans have had control for 9 years and balanced the budget for 4. Democrats had it for all the prior years and the last balanced budget before that was 1969, for one year.
Take a look at this link (PDF) budget deficits before you keep claiming a falsehood.
Nick
Uh, Trumpetman most of those years were republican. The surplus years could be interpreted to fall at the end of a democratic administration. It takes awhile to clean up the mess left behind by the previous president. That's why it took most of the 90's to reach a budget surplus. And look here we are again. Wallowing in debt and Bush wants us to send more money to Iraq? See a pattern here anyone?
I hate to use my age again but I lived through a good deal of those years as an adult. When your working and paying the bills you do tend to remember how things were. The economy has always been crappy or lead to crap under republican rule.
Originally posted by kraig911
eh liberalism is all but dead dude, the only ace they have to play is clinton's wife... too bad but true. there is no drive, no goal, except to badmouth bush.
I can see you haven't been paying attention.