COL Gene COL Gene

Exploding Two Conservative Myths

▼

Exploding Two Conservative Myths

from JoeUser Forums


When I listened to Ron Paul being interviewed on Meet the Press and while watching the Republican debates, two of the most fundamental conservative axioms we hear from Republicans were shown to be fabrications.

First is an individual make better spending choices then government.

Second is that government spending is ineffective and wasteful.

Spending Choices

Does anyone believe that if all or most spending choices were made by individuals that they would say I need to spend money to help replace that tank the 1st Armored Division needs? I will repair the section of I95 between, mile marker X and Y in George. Baby Carol Smith needs formula today and I will buy it for her. We need another border guard to stop illegals and possibly terrorists from crossing into the U.S.

The truth is none of those and many other choices that are essential for our country to survive and prosper would be made by individuals. The spending choices must be made by BOTH individuals to provide for individual needs but the needs of our society and to insure our security and to facilitate commerce, banking, law enforcement and many other items must be made collectively by government.

That is not to say that some spending choices by government, like to build the bridge in Alaska where about 50 people lived, are the best choices. However if the choice were to repair a bridge that enabled tens of thousands to get to work each day that spending choice would be sound and could be essential.

Government spending is Wasteful

In most cases when the government spends tax dollars that money returns to the economy and helps individuals and business. If the Federal Government buys that tank the 1st Armored Division needs, Americans are put to work and the companies that make the tank earn a profit. That helps the people who own the stock of the companies who make and assemble that tank. It also provides something we NEED to protect our freedom. If the Federal government adds that Border Guard, that person spends the salary they are paid from taxes and that helps the economy. An expenditure the government makes that does not help our people is the interest on the debt that is paid to foreign investors. That tax money does not return to our economy.

If an individual takes their tax cut and invests it in a business that employs people outside the U.S. that investment takes money from our economy. In that case the spending choice by an individual harms the economy. Thus these two GOP axioms above are not true and it is time the American Voters understand the true nature of Federal spending. We do need to pay for our spending and STOP deficit spending! The GOP is supporting political ideas that are NOT in agreement with the majority of Americans. As a Republican I can not understand HOW the GOP got so far from the mainstream of the American People. Most Republicans can not complete a sentence without using the word “Conservative”. The majority of Americans are NOT Conservatives.
politics
51,854 views 186 replies
Reply #151 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Friday, January 04, 2008
BS. You will have to layoff people if the economy goes into RECESSION and people can not BUY what you produce or sell!
No. I MAY have to lay people off IF the economy goes into recession. By contrast I WILL have to lay people off IF taxes go up.


If you profit margin is such that an increase of 4% in your Federal income tax rates cause you to lay off workers, you have much bigger problems than higher taxes! If you are in the top 10%, which is the only group I support we increase tax rates for, you will not have to lay off workers if we go back to the rates in effect in the 1990's. That is just not possible because to be in the top 10% your income would have to be above $250,000 per year! A 4% increase on a taxable income of $250,000 is $10,000. HOW MANY WORKERS WILL THAT CAUSE YOU TO LAY OFF?
Reply #152 from JoeUser Forums Top
A 4% increase on a taxable income of $250,000 is $10,000. HOW MANY WORKERS WILL THAT CAUSE YOU TO LAY OFF?
End of quote


at least one per company per every 250,000 dollar or portion of 250,000. ie if your taxable income is 300,000 that would be two.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #153 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Friday, January 04, 2008
A 4% increase on a taxable income of $250,000 is $10,000. HOW MANY WORKERS WILL THAT CAUSE YOU TO LAY OFF?
at least one per company per every 250,000 dollar or portion of 250,000. ie if your taxable income is 300,000 that would be two.


IF YOU HAVE AN INCOME OF $250,000 OR MORE AND SAY YOU WOULD BE FORCED TO LAY OFF A WORKER BECAUSE YOU HAD TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL $10,000 IN INCOME TAX YOU ARE A BS ARTIST!
Reply #154 from JoeUser Forums Top
IF YOU HAVE AN INCOME OF $250,000 OR MORE AND SAY YOU WOULD BE FORCED TO LAY OFF A WORKER BECAUSE YOU HAD TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL $10,000 IN INCOME TAX YOU ARE A BS ARTIST!
End of quote



no you are an idiot, companies must maintain a certain profit margin to stay open. if you had really run a business a real business not an imagined one. you would know this.


and most companies, not all of them, but most run at the bare minimum.
Reply #155 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Friday, January 04, 2008
IF YOU HAVE AN INCOME OF $250,000 OR MORE AND SAY YOU WOULD BE FORCED TO LAY OFF A WORKER BECAUSE YOU HAD TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL $10,000 IN INCOME TAX YOU ARE A BS ARTIST!
no you are an idiot, companies must maintain a certain profit margin to stay open. if you had really run a business a real business not an imagined one. you would know this.and most companies, not all of them, but most run at the bare minimum.


IF YOU have a taxable income after business expenses of $250,000 or more, you can afford an added $10,000 in Income tax!
Reply #156 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene doing what he does best.  Telling other people how they spend their money and how much they should be taxed.  
Reply #157 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Friday, January 04, 2008Gene doing what he does best. Telling other people how they spend their money and how much they should be taxed.


What I am saying is that because of the deficit we need more tax revenue and the rich are the only group that can afford to pay more with out causing them any harm! Simple as that!
Reply #158 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I am saying is that because of the deficit we need more tax revenue and the rich are the only group that can afford to pay more with out causing them any harm! Simple as that!
End of quote




lets make it simple gene. no more taxes until there is no more pork.
Reply #159 from JoeUser Forums Top

If you profit margin is such that an increase of 4% in your Federal income tax rates cause you to lay off workers, you have much bigger problems than higher taxes! If you are in the top 10%, which is the only group I support we increase tax rates for, you will not have to lay off workers if we go back to the rates in effect in the 1990's. That is just not possible because to be in the top 10% your income would have to be above $250,000 per year! A 4% increase on a taxable income of $250,000 is $10,000. HOW MANY WORKERS WILL THAT CAUSE YOU TO LAY OFF?
End of quote

Last year our taxable income was around $2.5M + which ended up paying federal of around $1M.

An increase of 4% would increase this by around $100,000.  So that's about two jobs.

Reply #160 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I am saying is that because of the deficit we need more tax revenue and the rich are the only group that can afford to pay more with out causing them any harm! Simple as that!
End of quote


It's not as simple as that. 

Increasing taxes on a certain class is not going to do anything to do the deficit.  Especially when people like you advocate more government programs such as health care. 

The only thing you do is make excuses on why one class of people should pay for the laziness of another.
Reply #161 from JoeUser Forums Top
And even if raising taxes were to increase receipts, the government would simply spend more and you'd still have deficit spending.
Reply #162 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Saturday, January 05, 2008
What I am saying is that because of the deficit we need more tax revenue and the rich are the only group that can afford to pay more with out causing them any harm! Simple as that!
It's not as simple as that. Increasing taxes on a certain class is not going to do anything to do the deficit. Especially when people like you advocate more government programs such as health care.


Adding about $200 billion to the income from higher taxes from the top 10% will help pay for what we spend!
Reply #163 from JoeUser Forums Top
Adding about $200 billion to the income from higher taxes from the top 10% will help pay for what we spend!
End of quote




you still don't get it. let me put it so you can understand it. THE MORE MONEY YOU GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE MORE THEY SPEND. so if you want to cut the deficit then you first have to get them to stop spending all of the extra stuff that we don't need. by the way the pork this year was just over 200 billion.
Reply #164 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply | Edit | DeleteReply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, January 06, 2008
Adding about $200 billion to the income from higher taxes from the top 10% will help pay for what we spend!
you still don't get it. let me put it so you can understand it. THE MORE MONEY YOU GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE MORE THEY SPEND. so if you want to cut the deficit then you first have to get them to stop spending all of the extra stuff that we don't need. by the way the pork this year was just over 200 billion.


YOU DO NOT GET IT-- WE MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #165 from JoeUser Forums Top
YOU DO NOT GET IT-- WE MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End of quote



i got that part. but you are not going to do it by simple giving the government more money to spend. you will note that i have not stated anything about party here. they are both just as guilty with spending to much money.
Reply #166 from JoeUser Forums Top
Adding about $200 billion to the income from higher taxes from the top 10% will help pay for what we spend!
End of quote


YOU DO NOT GET IT-- WE MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End of quote


You seriously make no sense gene.  All you do is complalin about the deficit, then support people that want to massively increase social spending that will cost far more than any tax increase will provide.
Reply #167 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Monday, January 07, 2008
YOU DO NOT GET IT-- WE MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i got that part. but you are not going to do it by simple giving the government more money to spend. you will note that i have not stated anything about party here. they are both just as guilty with spending to much money.


We need to increase tax revenue by increasing tax rates on the wealthy, increase enforcement so we collect all the taxes due and cut the pork. That is the ONLY way we can produce the amount of money needed. We also must control new spending!
Reply #168 from JoeUser Forums Top
We also must control new spending!
End of quote


no we must control all spending new/old/whatever.
Reply #169 from JoeUser Forums Top
We need to increase tax revenue by increasing tax rates on the wealthy, increase enforcement so we collect all the taxes due and cut the pork. That is the ONLY way we can produce the amount of money needed. We also must control new spending!
End of quote


Tax revenue is already fine, and has exceeded expectations.  The answer is not controlling  new spending or raising taxes, it's cutting spending as it is.

You have serious problems if you think national healthcare is a way to "control" spending.
Reply #170 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Monday, January 07, 2008
We also must control new spending!
no we must control all spending new/old/whatever.


I agree but that does not mean it will drop. In fact most of the departments of the Fed are heavily made up of salaries which will increase each year as inflation gores up. In addition the things the Government buys will also increase in price. Add to those things like the Military expansion, Military Equipment replacement, VA, Interest on the debt and border protection which will increase because they are getting larger and the problem of controlling overall spending is not easy. Add Social Security and Medicare and the picture is clear we will need more tax revenue from better enforcement and higher rates on the top income earners.

Reply By: Island DogPosted: Monday, January 07, 2008
We need to increase tax revenue by increasing tax rates on the wealthy, increase enforcement so we collect all the taxes due and cut the pork. That is the ONLY way we can produce the amount of money needed. We also must control new spending!
Tax revenue is already fine, and has exceeded expectations. The answer is not controlling new spending or raising taxes, it's cutting spending as it is.


The areas that will need to increase are so large overall spending will continue to increase.
Reply #171 from JoeUser Forums Top
The areas that will need to increase are so large overall spending will continue to increase.
End of quote


Only if you let it.  You should go look at the charts that were posted that shows the massive amount of social spending that will cut out a huge part of the budget. 

All you do is keep making excuses for why taxes should be increased without dealing with the actual problem. 


Reply #172 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Monday, January 07, 2008
The areas that will need to increase are so large overall spending will continue to increase.
Only if you let it. You should go look at the charts that were posted that shows the massive amount of social spending that will cut out a huge part of the budget. All you do is keep making excuses for why taxes should be increased without dealing with the actual problem.


You live in a dream world. The areas you talk about are not going to be cut and the areas I have sighted WILL increase in part because of Bush i.e. VA, Interest, Military Equipment.
Reply #173 from JoeUser Forums Top
You live in a dream world. The areas you talk about are not going to be cut
End of quote




then we will keep a deficit budget.
Reply #174 from JoeUser Forums Top
[quote]You live in a dream world. The areas you talk about are not going to be cut and the areas I have sighted WILL increase in part because of Bush i.e. VA, Interest, Military Equipment.[quote]

It's "cite" gene.....

They should be cut, increasing taxes to cover out of control spending is just plain stupid. 
Reply #175 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Monday, January 07, 2008You live in a dream world. The areas you talk about are not going to be cut and the areas I have sighted WILL increase in part because of Bush i.e. VA, Interest, Military Equipment.It's "cite" gene.....They should be cut, increasing taxes to cover out of control spending is just plain stupid.


Many of the Big Ticket spending items can not be cut. How will you cut the increasing interest on the debt? How will you cut the VA expenses? How will you cut the military spending given the increasing size of the Army and Marines and the need to replace most of the equipment for the Army, National Guard, Army Reserve and the Marines? How will you cut spending for the increased number of border guards and equipment needed to secure the border and protect our ports? All the pork and earmarks do not come close to the added cost of any of the above much less the total of all of them. You blow smoke when you talk about reducing the almost $3 trillion dollar budget.