It's been said that there are two sides to every story. But does that imply that there are always two correct answers? That is not likely. The United States is faced with a terrible division when it comes to politics. I consider myself a moderate Democrat, but I'm finding these days there is no middle ground when it comes to politics. The divide between the Republicans and Democrats has gotten so wide in recent years it seems impossible to build a bridge. So if it is unlikely that there are two correct answers, who is right and who is wrong? This question concerns me and I often contemplate if my beliefs are possibly the wrong ones. After all, I want to do the right thing for this country and when I cast my vote I make those choices. Am I making the correct ones? So far I believe I am and I'll try to explain why.
We do not live on this earth alone. There are nearly 7 billion people living on this planet. In the USA we have a population of nearly 312 million. We cannot live as if we are individuals - we must live as a society. Voting records will demonstrate that where there are large concentrations of population, there tends to be a more Democratic liberal leaning base. In rural areas will find a more Republican conservative base. Why? In my opinion, it is because when you have a group of people living together you realize that you must work together as a society in order to accomplish goals. In a large group of people you will see clearly that some people are stronger than others. Some people seem to have incredibly good luck while others can't seem to catch a break through no fault of their own. Some people will take advantage of the system and others will put in more effort than others. It is easy to see all these different types of people when we are grouped together. Conversely, when people live in isolation, they only see their own situation. They either make it or break it. A person that succeeds in isolation will assume everyone should. They do not understand the different personalities that make up the human race. At this point in my life I am fortunate to have lived half my life in relative isolation and half immersed in a large society. I now understand the different struggles we all have in our lives. I favor government policies that take all of us into consideration - especially those less fortunate than me.
There is another reason why I think the liberal political views are correct. That involves inclusion - which is another factor influenced by the number of people you come in contact with each day. Back where I grew up in South Dakota we were nearly all the same race and religion. I was raised christian as was almost everyone else near me. There was no question about Christmas, Easter or any other religious holiday and nearly every business was closed on Sunday. Everyone agreed. Well - actually since I grew up on a reservation I guess I had a head start on dealing with different cultures. Plus I was also gay back then but thought I was one of a few isolated cases. Anyway, it wasn't until I moved to S. Florida that I realized how many other races and cultures there are in this great nation. I now celebrate those differences and truly believe they are what make us special. I also learned that I am one of millions of other homosexuals that live in this country and around the world. My eyes were opened to the diversity that is the human condition. I now support government policies that are inclusive to all of us - not just a select few. We are a nation of immigrants and unless you are Native American like so many of my friends back on the reservation, you are a descendant of immigrants. Our government must work with all these cultures and races with policies that work for everyone.
On the economy the divide is huge and in fact, there is a fundamental difference between the two parties. Republicans believe supporting corporations is the key to a strong economy. They are guided by a "trickle down effect" where money from the top flows to those below. Democrats believe in smaller privately owned businesses - the "Mom and Pop" type shops. With this smaller business model we believe more people have a shot at making a decent living. Historically the economy was strong before fast food chains, giant Walmart stores and near monopolistic corporations (think the 50s). Meanwhile, I've worked for some of these larger corporations and nothing has ever "trickled down" to me - they have always paid as little as they could get by while a few at the top made out like bandits. Therefore I believe it is the right thing to support smaller middle class businesses.
Republicans believe there should be bigger government involvement in our personal lives with regard to abortion, homosexuality and other religious and ethical issues. At the same time they believe in smaller government oversight for food quality, the environment, and corporate ethics. Democrats believe quite the opposite - stay out of our private lives but protect the environment, enforce food safety and keep the corporations and banks from stealing our money. This one seems like a "no brainer" to me - yet the divide widens.
I am not here to imply that Democrats are always correct we make plenty of mistakes and there is always a few corrupt individuals on either side. However, the fact is that we do live in a society and we must support politics that work for the good of all. That's why I believe that in the great divide, Democrats are on the correct side. There is no "We" in "Me" unless something is upside down. I support the Democrats - the party of "We" and I think it is the correct thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Very good post Den. I think it's great that you are able to express your opinions so well. No one was threatened, "my way or the highway," and no one should have been insulted by your opinion.
Even though I don't have a party that represents my political views, I'll vote for a Democrat every time. Not a fake Dem, a real true Dem. One that thinks like Bernie Sanders; and for the common good. That, my friend, is patriotic.
Cheers,
Lisa in Indy
An interesting post. I appreciate your earnestness and sincerity, but I am curious to inquire how you ever came to the conclusion that the Democrats were the party of the small business owner?
Apart from the self serving campaign rhetoric of cynical politicians, what actual evidence in practice and policy can you produce in support of this position?
It seems to me that the great preponderance of the available evidence persuasively argues to the very opposite conclusion!
Just a few examples:
1. How do small business owners vote? All the evidence that I have seen seems to indicate that, all other things being equal, that small business owners are MORE LIKELY to vote Republican than Democrat. According to the Economist, ""managers and administrators" as well as "owners and proprietors", the groups that do most of the hiring, are significantly and increasingly more likely than average to vote Republican."
Link:http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/uncertainty-and-economic-recovery?fsrc=rss
2. Certainly some of the main reasons that small business owners would tend ally themselves with the Republicans is that it is exactly the small business owners who most directly suffer under the burden of high taxation and over-regulation, and they know that the Democrats are more likely to continue to increase those things, whereas the Republicans are more likely to decrease them.
3. Money magazine recently published it's ranking of the top ten Best and Worse States for Small Business. Take a look at the two lists and tell me if anything jumps out at you (here is a clue; think about the colors Blue and Red).
Link:http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fsb/0711/gallery.Top10BestStates.fsb/
The same point is illustrated more concisely in this short Cato Institute piece. Take a look at the chart, it compares seven of the largest states. Both in "General Business Climate" and "Small Business Survival" rankings (among others) the transitionally conservative, Republican leaning states blow away the traditionally Liberal, Democrat leaning states.
Link: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12920
I have always had the impression that the conventional wisdom was that the GOP was the party of the small business man and the entrepreneur (as opposed to the Democrats being the party of organized Labor). We are, as always dealing in generalizations of course, but even with that caveat, it seems to me that the evidence indicates that in this instance at least, the conventional wisdom is more correct than not. What evidence can you present to show that this is, in fact, not the case?
Coincidentally, the Republican Senator from my home state of MA had an editorial today in the Boston Herald about the need to support small business.
Money quote:
"We need businesses to have the confidence to put people back to work. Instead we’re terrifying them with tax proposals and new regulations. Wherever I go, small business owners tell me they don’t know what’s coming down the pike next."
Worth a read: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1351458
Andre - I intentionally used broad generalizations in this article because listing specific facts would make for a HUGE and boring article. There are many many more examples of the differences of the parties in this great divide - I simply couldn't get into them all. I also intentionally made it apparent that these are my opinions - how I alone came to the conclusion that if there is an implied right or wrong with this divide, why I believe the Dems are on the correct side.
All that aside - I'm not sure how you can honestly claim that Republicans support small business when giant chain stores force these small Mom and Pop shops out of business. Capital Hill type Republicans favor giant shopping malls and Walmart stores. You may be correct that many small business owners vote Republican, but the party itself does not support them. I honestly believe if the Republican party didn't have Jesus and guns on their side - they wouldn't have a base at all.
It is not the role of Government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace ( that approach has been attempted numerous times in recent history, always with disastrous and tragic results).
I would suspect, that high taxation and burdensome regulation ( and all of the required paperwork that follows) would be an even greater burden on small business, which have fewer resources to devote to dealing with them, than it would be to larger business's.
Chain stores, strictly speaking, do not "force" Mom & Pop shops out of business. What they do is provide a superior product or service at a lower price to the customer. If the Mom & Pop shop provided the superior product or service at a lower price, then Walmart would go out of business instead. That is how the marketplace works. When you stop at a cafe to buy a cup of coffee in the morning, you never would intentionally drive miles out of your way, to buy an exactly identical cup of coffee at a cafe that charges twice as much...that would be crazy.
"I also intentionally made it apparent that these are my opinions.."
I understand that, but my question was directed towards trying to understand WHY you came to hold those opinions.
"...listing specific facts would make for a HUGE and boring article."
Perhaps, but it might also have answered my question.
The "taxation and burdensome regulation" argument is another one of those huge divide topics. You can't have a government without taxes - and everyone should pay their FAIR share. You call them burdensome regulations, I call them necessary protections. Again, I feel the Dems are on the correct side for both these issues.
I believe it is an overused false Republican talking point to keep saying you can't run a business and still pay taxes and follow rules that protect consumers and the environment. Most businesses manage to do so just fine.
Den
"...You can't have a government without taxes"
Andre
That is a strawman...no one has ever denied that ( other than pure Anarchists)...not Thomas Jefferson, not James Madison, not Ronald Reagan.
Den
"I believe it is an overused false Republican talking point to keep saying you can't run a business and still pay taxes and follow rules..."
Andre
How can something that no Republican has ever said, be "overused"?
What Republicans have said is that UNNECESSARY and OVERREACHING taxes and regulations make it MORE DIFFICULT for small businessmen to thrive, and subsequently are a drag on the economy and on job creation.
Den
"Most businesses manage to do so just fine."
Andre
Read any newspaper from the last few years...or just take a close look at last weeks jobs report.
Not only are the Dems most demonstrably NOT on the correct side of these issues, they seem incapable of even formulating them accurately. That, is the true divide.
The richest 5% have accumulated more wealth in the last 30 years than all of the wealth created before 1980.
David Stockman, former budget director for Ronald Reagan, 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stall
Lisa in Indy
No Republican has used that phrase? Governor Scott's primary goal is to bring the corporate tax rate in Florida to ZERO. If he didn't say the phrase - it was sure implied.
What Democrats have never said is that we want businesses to pay UNNECESSARY or OVERREACHING taxes. That is a lie. We want them to pay their FAIR SHARE.
I also think you may be confused on why businesses are failing right now. Is it because of outrageous taxes? No - and you know it. It's because of shady Wallstreet deals and bankers stealing our money.
I am beginning to see the cause of the Great Divide. Lies. Politicians - and now Political Action Committees - misrepresent the truth or blatantly lie to get their agendas passed or get re-elected. As long as we have this culture of corruption the divide will grow.
No Republican has used that phrase? Governor Scott's primary goal is to bring the corporate tax rate in Florida to ZERO. If he didn't say the phrase - it was sure implied.
What Democrats have never said is that we want businesses to pay UNNECESSARY or OVERREACHING taxes. That is a lie. We want them to pay their FAIR SHARE.
I also think you may be confused on why businesses are failing right now. Is it because of outrageous taxes? No - and you know it. It's because of shady Wallstreet deals and bankers stealing our money.
I am beginning to see the cause of the Great Divide. Lies. Politicians - and now Political Action Committees - misrepresent the truth or blatantly lie to get their agendas passed or get re-elected. As long as we have this culture of corruption the divide will grow.
Even if Gov. Scott had said he wanted to reduce the Corp tax to zero, that does not in any way support your false and unnecessarily exaggerated rhetorical claim that Republicans are against all taxation. There are lots of individual taxes that Republicans would like to abolish (the Death Tax for example).
Maybe we can agree on this: as a general rule, Republicans are for lower taxation, and Democrats are for higher taxation.
"What Democrats have never said is that we want businesses to pay UNNECESSARY or OVERREACHING taxes."
No, of course not, that is never what they SAY, it is what they DO.
"I also think you may be confused on why businesses are failing right now. Is it because of outrageous taxes? No"
If you reread my posts above, you will see that I never claimed that was why businesses were FAILING...what I said was"... UNNECESSARY and OVERREACHING taxes and regulations make it MORE DIFFICULT for small businessmen to thrive, and subsequently are a drag on the economy and on job creation."
I provide evidence to back that up with the comparisons I linked that examined the relative small business health between high tax and regulation Liberal- policy states and the low tax and regulation Conservative-policy states.
You mention "lies". Where are they? So far in this thread the "factual inaccuracies" (making the effort to be nicer) seem to have been all on your side.
"The richest 5% have accumulated more wealth in the last 30 years than all of the wealth created before 1980."
Yes, so what?
Maybe that is because during the last 30 years the entire world has experienced the largest expansion of wealth and property in human history. Income and living standards have rocketed up (by historical standards) almost everywhere.
In an expanding global economic environment like that, of course those who were already rich (and the hordes of new rich) have gotten richer.
That is a GOOD thing. We should be celebrating that, not bemoaning it.
Typo: in the post above the word "property" was meant to be "prosperity". I suck at multi-tasking ( but you get the picture).
I know I'm probably drifting off topic here (again!), and I've posted this link here before, but in case you didn't watch it the first time, this helps illustrate my point above about the world wide wealth explosion of recent decades.
This animated time line is really cool (not to mention pretty mind- blowing).
Let us hope that the current global economic problems are, in the big picture, just a bump in the road in what is otherwise a very encouraging trend line towards the abolition of poverty worldwide.
Check it out:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/12/07/healthier-and-wealthier-in-200-hundred-years/
"The richest 5% have accumulated more wealth in the last 30 years than all of the wealth created before 1980."
Oh, and you know what else the richest 5% also do? They also pay over 50% of all federal income tax (around 57% to be exact).
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
I suspect though, that there are many on the far Left who won't be satisfied until they pay 100%.
Anything less just wouldn't be "fair", right?
BTW, you only have to earn $159,000 a year to be part of that greedy 5%. That might seem like a lot of money in some parts of the country, but in much of CA that's subsistence level (needless to say, I live far below CA subsistence level!).
I would guess that the vast majority of that 5% are middle class working families and the overwhelming bulk of the "accumulated" wealth is the last 20 or so years of appreciation of the house they live in (now rapidly falling in many areas).
Andre: Oh, and you know what else the richest 5% also do? They also pay over 50% of all federal income tax (around 57% to be exact).
Yes, SO WHAT.
ha...so there.
Lisa in Indy. :-)
O.K.(?)...I don't have the faintest idea what point you were attempting to make....but O.K....
Andre - by saying you think Democrats won't be happy until the rich pay 100% tax is exactly my point. That is a wild exaggeration that you know isn't true. Why do that? It only helps perpetuate the divide. The "lies" I referred to in the prior post wasn't necessarily aimed at you - but yet here you are stepping in front of my pointing finger.
On the 5% figure, I find it shocking that less than 5% of the US population makes over 160,000 a year (if your statistic is true). We have a lot of multi-billionaires in this country - I guess that proves that nothing trickles down.
Why do I constantly have to ask you to reread what I wrote?
I never said I "think Democrats won't be happy until the rich pay 100% tax".
I was intentionally careful NOT to make such a sweeping generalization. That's why I carefully limited the charge to "many on the far left" (not even everyone on the far Left!).
Go ask Bernie Sanders how much he thinks the top 5% should be taxed. He may not say 100%, but it will be pretty damned near!
But here is a sweeping statement about the Democrats that we can make with 100% certainty that it is factual (because they have continually told us): the majority of Democrat politicians think that 57% in not enough to take from the top 5%! (I would guess that includes you, and if not you, then certainly Lisa!)
"We have a lot of multi-billionaires in this country - I guess that proves that nothing trickles down."
According to Answers.com, there are 449 billionaires in the US (and depending on how you define "multi-billionaires" there is a lot fewer of those). Does that really sound like "a lot" to you? It doesn't to me. Not out of a population of, what is it now, over 300 million? Frankly, I'm surprised that there are so few...I wish there were many, many more!
Even if we taxed 100% of their entire net worth, not just their annual income, but confiscated every single penny they had, and put it towards the National Debt, it would barely be a drop in the bucket.
I'd have to say you made yet another knowingly false statement. We aren't saying 57% isn't enough. However way less than that (think Exxon and GE again) is unfair. And many more corporations and very rich individuals are paying way less than their fair share through loopholes in our system. We want those closed. Is that so extreme?!
A lesson to be learned - never give a Republican a temporary tax break for any reason. Because when they temporary period is over they say it is a tax increase. Word play.
As for the billionaires, how many struggling families making less than $45k (like me) would benefit if some of that trickled down to them? I'd say a lot.
There are 400 multi-millionaires in this country that have more money put together than 150 million of the rest of the residents. I'd wish they'd pay their FAIR SHARE.
Lisa in Indy
"I'd have to say you made yet another knowingly false statement.We aren't saying 57% isn't enough."
Excuse me,is it or is it not the case that in the debt ceiling limit negotiations that are going on this very day, it is one of the key demands of the Democrats that taxes be raised?
If the top 5% are paying around 57% right now, and the President and the Democrats are calling for increased taxes on the "wealthy", then how can you say with a straight face that you aren't saying that 57% isn't enough? You sure as hell aren't saying that it IS enough!
What is all this talk of yours about getting the wealthy to pay "their fair share" mean, if you believe that 57% is enough.
You can't square that circle.
"... how many struggling families making less than $45k (like me) would benefit if some of that trickled down to them? I'd say a lot."
You have offered no evidence to support the claim that none of that money has "trickled down" to you. You are merely presenting it as an unsupported premise of your argument. Just claiming that something is the case, does not make it so.
Lisa
"I'd wish they'd pay their FAIR SHARE."
Andre
Come on, Lisa, don't be coy. Give us a number. The top 5% ear about 33% of the income, but pay about 57% of the Federal Income tax...that sounds to me like they pay MORE than their fair share.
How much would you have them pay?
Dennis claims that the Democrats aren't asking for them to pay more than 57%, but they are asking them to payy "their fair share", which implies that they are saying they should pay more...so I don't really have any idea what he is saying....but what do you think?
Lisa:
"There are 400 multi-millionaires in this country that have more money put together than 150 million of the rest of the residents."
Andre:
Huh? Your math doesn't add up (not even close!)-
1. There are more than 150,000,400 residents in the US.
and
2. According to Forbes the total net worth of all of America's billionaires is 1.27 trillion. If annual GDP is 14.2 Trillion, then for all of America's billionaires to own over half the nation's wealth, they would have to own over 7.1 trillion dollars, or in other words, almost 6 Trillion dollars more than they do!
Are you just making these numbers up?
And, here's your link.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
Lisa in Indy
And here's a link to a pretty picture of similar numbers.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37566903@N02/5500300007/
And another table of the numbers:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Andre - it's time for you to re-read my post. Ending previous temporary tax breaks is not raising taxes. It is returning taxes to the fair rate they were before. We are not suggesting that the tax rate be raised for all the rich. No matter how much the GOP says it - it still isn't true. This article may help you understand.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/168501-clyburn-closing-special-tax-breaks-not-the-same-as-raising-taxes
This is ridiculous!
Just look at the verbal contortions Dems have to go through when talking about taxes! Republicans are able to just say what they believe: Tax rates should be lowered. Trying to get a Dem to be honest about what they believe is like pulling teeth sometimes!
Look, this is really simple. Do you want the top 5%, who currently pay around 57% of their income in federal income tax to pay more than that, less than that, or the same?
Just answer that simple question straightforward and honestly and spare me all these silly word games about whether or not reinstating a temporary tax break is a "new tax" or not, or whether closing "loophole" is a tax increase or not. That is pure sophistry, and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Do you think the top 5% should pay more than they currently do (more than 57%)?
Yes or No?
It's as simple as that.
Micheal Moore? No wonder your math doesn't add up!
Actually, looking at the Moore piece I see that the confusion here is that you, Lisa. misstated the claim that had been made.
The claim was NOT that the top 400 have more than the "rest of the residents", as you phrased it.
The claim was that the richest 400 posses more wealth than the poorest 150,000.
That may very well be true, but again I would say,so what? That is just playing with numbers. Anyone can play that silly game.
For example, since Den has already stated here that his annual income is around 45K, I could just figure out how many homeless people in this country have almost zero income and then lambast him for his "greed" because he alone, one single person! has more wealth than thousands and thousands of other Americans combined!
It would be true, but it wouldn't mean very much (or add much to our discussion/debate).
As I am constantly having to point out to Den, it is important to make the effort to state the arguments correctly, otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time with meaningless straw-men arguments.
I read the Hill piece that you linked. It is a great example of the dishonesty and political cowardice of many Democrat politicians. Senator Clyburn openly admits that he wants the Federal government to confiscate more money from the private sector, but he doesn't want anyone to call that "taxation" because that would be politically unpopular!
He says "..stop giving billions of dollars in breaks to millionaires and billionaires.” Notice the mind-set: taking less of their money, of the wealth that they created, is giving them a "break".
Ironically, I do agree with what Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying in that article: "“You cannot achieve what you set out to do if you say it's just about cutting. It has to be about increasing the revenue stream as well,” Pelosi said.."
Where Nancy and I would disagree is in how the "increasing the revenue stream" part is to be accomplished. To paraphrase the ever more impressive Florida Senator Rubio, the Dems wants to increase revenue by creating more taxes, and the Republicans want to increase revenue by creating more taxpayers.
Higher taxes=less job creation=fewer taxpayers=lower tax revenue.
Lower taxes=more job creation=more taxpayers=higher tax revenue.
It would be interesting to figure out how much additional state tax revenue will be generated in Florida by the recent 2% drop in the unemployment rate...it will be even more interesting to see what the unemployment rate is in Florida at the end of Scott's Governorship (and to compare it to what it is in California at the end of Jerry Brown's term(s)).
PS:
"I read the Hill piece that you linked. It is a great example of the dishonesty and political cowardice of many Democrat politicians."
I didn't mean to imply that similar dishonesty and political cowardice is not to be found among many Republican politicians also. Alas, that is too often the case....
PPS:
"...it is important to make the effort to state the arguments correctly..."
Needless to say, I must constantly strive to follow that advice also...
Andre - if you can't understand the concept that closing a tax loophole, or ending a temporary tax cut is not a new tax then we are done with this discussion. It's a fun trick the Republicans like to use but it is just that - a trick.
I say again - never give a Republican a temporary tax break.
I notice that you didn't answer my question.
I wonder why?
Could it be that because to answer my question would be to admit that you haven't been telling the truth?
It was a simple Yes or No, but apparently it was more than you could handle.
If you are really that much of a coward, then yes, we truly are done.
Because your question is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about closing tax loopholes and ending temporary tax cuts - not raising tax rates.
Apparently you need an example. Let's say you and I agree (for whatever reason) that I will give you $1 every week. I fall on hard times and you tell me I can pay $.50 for one year instead. When the year is over you ask me to resume payments of $1. I am shocked that you are raising my rate!
Understand?
Sorry, I ran out of duct tape and have been too busy to get to the hardware store to buy more.
Den
I fall on hard times and you tell me I can pay $.50 for one year instead. When the year is over you ask me to resume payments of $1. I am shocked that you are raising my rate!
Andre
Well, if it happened to be a year when Obama was President, I likely would be rather upset, because one year later I would be in much worse economic shape than I was before....but at least you have finally admitted, through this whimsical analogy, that the President wants more of our money this year than he got last year...which, if you reread this thread, was all that I was claiming.
Thank you for FINALLY conceding the point.
Den
"The discussion is about closing tax loopholes and ending temporary tax cuts - not raising tax rates."
Andre
Uhm...ya...maybe in your little fantasy world. Apparently many Democrat leaders are living in a completely different world:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49c57a12-b3b5-11e0-855b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1Szx8SkP5
Key quote:
"White House budget director, Ms Mikulski said her colleagues were feeling “volcanic” about the prospect of a $3,000bn deal to cut deficits and raise the debt ceiling that did not include any higher taxes..."
I can only assume that by "volcanic" Ms Mikulski does not mean to imply that she is "erupting" with enthusiasm at the thought of not raising our taxes!
Thanks you Andre - your reply to my very simple analogy proves my point without a shadow of a doubt. A closed loophole is not a new tax. And, in your reply, one year later I would need the money you owe me even more than before because of the bad economy. The unfortunate part of this simple analogy is that it wasn't some poor person borrowing money from a friend - it was rich people borrowing money from poor people. Now that the poor people are even more poor and the rich people are even more rich - they still don't want to resume their payments as previously agreed.
" A closed loophole is not a new tax."
That doesn't make any sense.
A "loophole" is merely a euphemism for a tax law. Changing a tax law can logically only have one of three effects:
1. Lowering tax revenue.
2. Increasing tax revenue.
3. Making no net change on the level of incoming tax revenue (that means the actual amount of tax revenue being collected, irrespective of whether the "rates" change or not).
Since the expressed purpose of changing the laws in question in the first place is to increase tax revenues, and since all parties involved agree that would be the actual net result of these proposals, it simply makes no sense to claim it is not a tax hike (again, no one is claiming that it is a "rate" hike, it is a hike in the actual amount of wealth expropriated by the Federal Government from the people who actually created and own it).
To claim anything else is to literally speak "non-sense".
And the fact that you had to "spin" the most simple of analogies to try to defend this doublespeak by your party is the reason we have "The Great Divide". The example couldn't have been more simple and precise. Your answer is wrong.
My "answer is wrong?"
OK then, let me ask you this. I listed above three conceivable effects on tax revenue that would result from changing current tax laws.
The proponents of "closing loopholes" claim that the result would be #2: "Increasing Revenues". That is also their professed purpose in proposing these changes in the first place.
Apparently, you disagree.
OK, then answer these two questions: 1. What is the purpose, in your mind, off attempting to "close loopholes"?
2. Would closing these loopholes likely result in increased tax revenue to the Federal Government.
Those are two simple, honest questions.
Are you capable of providing two simple, honest answers?
Actually, on second thought, never mind...this discussion has gotten way too idiotic.
But seriously...that just begs the question.
How do you define what is moderate and what is extreme?
I read somewhere today that we are borrowing (at the Federal level alone)around $40,000 per second.
$40,000 PER SECOND!
That means that in the time it has taken you to read this post just to the end of this sentence, we will have added another $240,000 to $480,000 to the National Debt (or more, depending on how slow a reader you are)!
Is that a moderate rate of borrowing or an extreme rate of borrowing?
There are many people in this country who believe that this is an absurd and insane amount of borrowing. You call those people "extremists".
I call them the only responsible and sane people left in this country.
Post a Comment