Why the GOP must be stopped

[mrplunkey]

Yeah, he was disgraced by his association with a policy that you GOP jock sniffers still support.

Don't be so angry!

Just hope we "GOP jock sniffers" stay at least partially invested in America long enough to pay off those social security and Medicare benefits you're about to enjoy -- because the libtards sure aren't going to fit the bill.

How does it feel to be on the cusp of cashing-in on a ponzi scheme where you get $3 of benefit for every $1 you paid in? Is there the slightest pang of guilt when you see that 25 year old struggling to get by knowing that he's paying for your benefits that he'll never receive? How does that reconcile with the liberal notion of "fairness" and "equity"?

 

[jnevin]

Anyone that thinks there's a difference in the parties other than marketing techniques in election times is retarded.

 

[TrueLiberal]

I think true liberal is a fraud.

Trickle down was an experiment that did not work. If you make the argument that it's because our market is not free, then I have to disagree because that has nothing to do with it.

History shows us that pandering to the rich is very effective at doing one thing: Making the rich richer. Taxes would have to be much much higher to squash innovation or capitalist drive. How do I know? Because Americas greatest years have been during times of much much higher tax rates than the current rates.

The market in fact is too free. So free that corporate ass kissing resulted only in corporate elite increasing their own salary's 10 fold and using the rest of their tax savings to invest in slave labor overseas. Republicans believe in trickle down to third world countries, and then propose an economic model that would make us third world as well.

Free market capitalism doesn't pander to the rich. It allows the economy to function in an orderly fashion which allows people to trade labor and goods freely. To 'pander' implies that there is some outside agent acting on the economy, therefore when the rich are 'pandered' to, you don't have a free market.

Trickle down economics has a history of working. When America and Britain had very close to free markets, the standard of living of most men grew by leaps and bounds. The average life expectancy increased, population increased, and opportunities for social mobility increased.

Your observation regarding high tax rates leading to progress are incorrect. Americas greatest economic booms follow deceases in tax rates. For instance Americas greatest economic boom happened in the late 40's and 50's when the tax rate was rolled back. America has one of the three highest corporate tax rates in the world. If your theory regarding tax rates resulting in productivity are true, why is America a net import country with high unemployment shedding jobs? Shouldn't the economy be booming and industry expanding? Ever her of The Industrial Revolution? There was an effective zero percent tax rate during this time. The government supported itself primarily on tariffs and fees. Are you going to assert that The Industrial Revolution wasn't one of the most economically productive eras in history?

You keep mentioning corporations, but corporations as you talk about them are not the product of free market capitalism. Corporations can't exist in free market capitalism because corporations are legal entities created and enforced by the government. Corporations are legal shells that shield the members from criminal and civil responsibility for their actions. That means the government is tampering with the economy to maintain corporation, hence no free market.

"Trickle down" isn't an "experiment". It is an emergent order that occurs when wealth is produced. In order to expand wealth, the entrepreneur must create more jobs and industries. This expansion benefits booth the entrepreneur, the employee, and the consumer.

The economy is over regulated. It's extremely difficult and expensive to start a business in America. This means only the very well financed (rich) can start a business. Your beloved regulations therefore in part cause the problems you are attributing to the free market. I witnessed my father close the doors of his business due to over regulation. He hit economic hard times and no longer wanted to deal with government regulations such as unemployment insurance, workers comp, OSHA fines, etc. Your beloved regulations were instrumental in my father shutting down his 41 year old business and the ensuing layoff of 75 full time employees.

 

[themondtster]

Free market capitalism doesn't pander to the rich. It allows the economy to function in an orderly fashion which allows people to trade labor and goods freely. To 'pander' implies that there is some outside agent acting on the economy, therefore when the rich are 'pandered' to, you don't have a free market.

Trickle down economics has a history of working. When America and Britain had very close to free markets, the standard of living of most men grew by leaps and bounds. The average life expectancy increased, population increased, and opportunities for social mobility increased.

Your observation regarding high tax rates leading to progress are incorrect. Americas greatest economic booms follow deceases in tax rates. For instance Americas greatest economic boom happened in the late 40's and 50's when the tax rate was rolled back. America has one of the three highest corporate tax rates in the world. If your theory regarding tax rates resulting in productivity are true, why is America a net import country with high unemployment shedding jobs? Shouldn't the economy be booming and industry expanding? Ever her of The Industrial Revolution? There was an effective zero percent tax rate during this time. The government supported itself primarily on tariffs and fees. Are you going to assert that The Industrial Revolution wasn't one of the most economically productive eras in history?

You keep mentioning corporations, but corporations as you talk about them are not the product of free market capitalism. Corporations can't exist in free market capitalism because corporations are legal entities created and enforced by the government. Corporations are legal shells that shield the members from criminal and civil responsibility for their actions. That means the government is tampering with the economy to maintain corporation, hence no free market.

"Trickle down" isn't an "experiment". It is an emergent order that occurs when wealth is produced. In order to expand wealth, the entrepreneur must create more jobs and industries. This expansion benefits booth the entrepreneur, the employee, and the consumer.

The economy is over regulated. It's extremely difficult and expensive to start a business in America. This means only the very well financed (rich) can start a business. Your beloved regulations therefore in part cause the problems you are attributing to the free market. I witnessed my father close the doors of his business due to over regulation. He hit economic hard times and no longer wanted to deal with government regulations such as unemployment insurance, workers comp, OSHA fines, etc. Your beloved regulations were instrumental in my father shutting down his 41 year old business and the ensuing layoff of 75 full time employees.

Exactly how I feel most of the time. The government and politicians have a hand in everything now. The branches and groups supposed to monitor said corporations and industries are headed by ex CEOs, relatives, or in some way have a personal relationship or benefit. So how can a fair judgement, punishment, or regulation be imposed. Just like the bail outs. To me a capitalist free market would let them fail, be bought out by someone else, and ran more efficiently and everyone would stil have their jobs. Instead we reward failure. Did your fathers business get a bailout....no because the politicians and the corporate leaders(who really run this country) didn't have any stake in it.

 

[mrplunkey]

Anyone that thinks there's a difference in the parties other than marketing techniques in election times is retarded.

This is 100% true.

/agree

 

[75th]

For instance Americas greatest economic boom happened in the late 40's and 50's when the tax rate was rolled back.

You seem like a smart bor, which is why it's surprising you included such a plunkey-esque display of ignorance of basic verifiable facts in your post.

Top income tax rate in 1930: 25%

"" 1940: 81%

"" 1945: 94%

"" 1950: 91%


Top corporate tax rate in 1930: 12%

"" 1940: 24%

"" 1945: 40%

"" 1950: 42%

 

[stevesmi]

the tax debate is a bullshit debate anyway. the rich in this country don't pay their fair share, not even close.. Romney is worth 250M and he pays 14% and that is only because he overpaid knowing he would have to disclose.. i bet if you look at his prior returns its in the single digits and even at 0. the poor don't pay federal taxes, but pay out of their ass in local taxes.. sales taxes, taxes on cig/alcohol, property taxes through their rent... the middle class pay out of their ass in federal taxes getting taken out of their paychecks. so the solution is cut local taxes by giving more money to local governments and tell them if they don't cut local taxes you will cut off federal money, cut federal taxes on the middle class (payroll taxes which the R's are against), and close loopholes so the rich can't cheat the system.. and if some rich fuck sends millions to the caymans charge their ass a fee to transfer that money, if they want to get a briefcase and not declare that money then confiscate it and then fine them and throw them in prison, just like they do in Asian countries when you try to smuggle metals and give the rat 15% as a reward. until they pay their fine they can stay in prison. and yes lets have an estate tax and make it easier to nail tax cheats. so sick of these rich 18 year olds spooning off of daddy's success and claiming they made the money on their own, even though they showed a loss the year before on their taxes. make it easier to prosecute tax attorney's and accountants too. way too much abuse going on

cliff notes: so basically we are cutting taxes across the board, cutting spending at the federal level and giving money back to local govt's, and closing loopholes and punishing cheats. can't both parties agree on that? but no we are too divided and have to fight on every little thing and can't compromise on common sense. so we continue to reward cheats and the honest man who pays taxes every week out of his paycheck gets screwed.

 

[stevesmi]

Anyone that thinks there's a difference in the parties other than marketing techniques in election times is retarded.

both are centrist parties but the republicans have moved way to the right in recent years thanks to super PAC's and the influence of the Koch brothers, Adelson and other billionaires helping to elect people who will fight for their interests .. you can't say both parties are the same anymore. no such thing as a liberal republican anymore, they've been wiped away. but there are still conservative democrats, just look at a state like Arkansas which still has a democratic state senate and legislature. same with Kentucky and WV too. those are very very very very conservative states but the state governors are democrats and were elected in landslides.

 

[TrueLiberal]

You seem like a smart bor, which is why it's surprising you included such a plunkey-esque display of ignorance of basic verifiable facts in your post.

Top income tax rate in 1930: 25%

"" 1940: 81%

"" 1945: 94%

"" 1950: 91%


Top corporate tax rate in 1930: 12%

"" 1940: 24%

"" 1945: 40%

"" 1950: 42%

You aren't factoring the tax loopholes. There were so many tax loopholes that the effective corporate tax rate was much lower than the percentages that you are citing. It's my mistake. I should have said "effective tax rate".

Are the rich really different? | The Economist

For instance many large American corporations such as General Electric effectively pay a negative tax rate. General Electric's deductions exceed General Electric's Corporate tax

NYT Is Superb On General Electric's Tax Avoidance : CJR

This jives with common sense. If corporations really paid 42% of their profits in taxes, why would they want to do business in America? What would be the motive if your profits after taxation were so meager?

 

[75th]

You aren't factoring the tax loopholes. There were so many tax loopholes that the effective corporate tax rate was much lower than the percentages that you are citing. It's my mistake. I should have said "effective tax rate".

Are the rich really different? | The Economist

For instance many large American corporations such as General Electric effectively pay a negative tax rate. General Electric's deductions exceed General Electric's Corporate tax

NYT Is Superb On General Electric's Tax Avoidance : CJR

This jives with common sense. If corporations really paid 42% of their profits in taxes, why would they want to do business in America? What would be the motive if your profits after taxation were so meager?

Hold on - are you suggesting that the effective corporate tax rate was lower back in the 40's and 50's than it is now?

Really? If so, you're wrong.