Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Your method, though, is -- as always -- bankrupt, lying, and reprehensible.

Your obligatory uncalled for whining is noted. Next time just make an acronym of this and put it in your sig.

Originally Posted by smc

we subsidize the wealthiest Americans and their corporations, whether directly or indirectly.

This can be done largely with a flat tax. Then we can get rid of the IRS. There's a huge chunk of change saved.

Originally Posted by smc

I would cut every subsidy to the oil companies and other mega-corporations. I would eliminate the tax loopholes that make the United States have the most regressive taxation in the industrialized world and that make the United States have the largest income disparity in the developed or developing world, including China.

Deja vu. Again, flat tax.

Originally Posted by smc

I would cut the so-called "defense budget" by nearly everything,

This would be irresponsible.

Originally Posted by smc

- nearly $110 billion could be cut from the 2015 defense budget without taking as radical a step as I propose above; this would include savings through efficiency measures, reducing troop levels, eliminating unneeded weapons systems, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military. To this I would add an immediate, 100% withdrawal from Afghanistan.

That's better...

Originally Posted by smc

- eliminate 100% of tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas, which would increase revenue by more than $132 billion.

Absolutely. And let's stop paying to get Brazil set up to do offshore oil drilling. That's a subsidy not for American companies that employ others oversees, but foreign companies employing people overseas... WTF?!!!

Originally Posted by smc

Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem

recognizes the huge amount of waste already in our government.

Originally Posted by smc

- eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top two tax brackets and return to 2009 estate tax levels

Even Obama recognized how harmful that would be to our economy.

Originally Posted by smc

This is a start. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world,

For about 5 more years. Then it will be China.

Originally Posted by smc

but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx

...knows that American corporations and small businesses drive the economy. And if you raise taxes too much on these corporations they will move over seas and drive someone else's economy.

Originally Posted by GRH

I like that you put the word "entitlement" in quotation marks. This is such a politically charged word. Funny how things like basic income and health care for senior citizens is considered an "entitlement"-- despite the fact that these citizens have paid into the system for their benefits.

No, it is by definition:
* a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
* belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Originally Posted by GRH

However, things like corporate tax loopholes and tax cuts are not called "entitlements." Funny, anytime there's a mention of taking these things away, there is such moaning and gnashing of teeth that you'd think the recipients of these give-aways feel "entitled" to them.

Also by definition. Fine go ahead and call those entitlements.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That quote is morbidly heartening. I never thought such a thing would be written in an American newspaper.

It wasn't. It was from the Los Angeles Times

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Your obligatory uncalled for whining is noted. Next time just make an acronym of this and put it in your sig.

Just because you pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, or that everyone else doesn't know, doesn't make the fact disappear.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This can be done largely with a flat tax. Then we can get rid of the IRS. There's a huge chunk of change saved.

Deja vu. Again, flat tax.

The flat tax is regressive. That's why so many wealthy people and their think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation support it. A lowly service worker needs a greater percentage of her income to survive than does a wealthy "captain of industry" or me, or, I suspect, Tracy Coxx. Why shouldn't we pay a higher percentage? What good does it do our country to have a regressive tax?

Of course, if you are a person who hasn't a thread of social solidarity in her or his bones, it makes perfect sense to call for regressive taxation on income. Tracy Coxx, is that where you stand?
There is absolutely no reason why taxes should not be higher the more money you make.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This would be irresponsible.

That's better...

I'm for eliminating the entire "offense" budget, as I made clear. Why do you support keeping any of the "offense" budget, Tracy Coxx?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Absolutely. And let's stop paying to get Brazil set up to do offshore oil drilling. That's a subsidy not for American companies that employ others oversees, but foreign companies employing people overseas... WTF?!!!

I hope that you will state without equivocation -- that is, without raising an ancillary issue -- your support for a 100% elimination of the subsidies I mentioned to which your response above corresponds.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

recognizes the huge amount of waste already in our government.

Note to all readers: the quote above is the Tracy Coxx "ending" to the following statement of mine: "Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem ..." It is not a substantive response to the point I made, and answers nothing.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Even Obama recognized how harmful that would be to our economy.

You know that's bullshit, and yet you post it anyway. It was a horrible compromise made by a president who is largely spineless. But he made clear he did not think it was a good idea. We understand you don't like him; you've called him names. And now we see again that you cannot conduct a debate based in honesty.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

...knows that American corporations and small businesses drive the economy. And if you raise taxes too much on these corporations they will move over seas and drive someone else's economy.

Note that the above quote is Tracy Coxx's ending to the following that I wrote: "The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx ..."

Where are these engines of the economy right now, Tracy Coxx? Corporations reap profits and hoard their moneys. The financial institutions take bailout money and make little credit available. "Drive the economy"? You are correct. They are driving it into the ground, because the profit motive -- which has nothing to do with job creation per se -- trumps any interest in what's good for society. And that means it trumps any interest in what's good for you.

Notably, you said nothing about my main point about sustainability, equitability, and social unrest.

As for the "entitlement" discussion, I have no doubt that GRH is more than capable of responding. I will simply note that your argument "by definition" is about a definition given the word for political purposes. It is a charged word meant to connote a negative. You are smart enough to know this, so why do you adopt the posture of a Sophist to make your argument. Surely you are capable of arguing the point on the merits, rather than using a trick to avoid that argument.

How I wish, every time I read your posts, that you were available for my rhetoric class. I wouldn't have to give my students printouts for reading. I could just have you verbalize that which you write on this forum, and save some trees from having to give their lives to become paper.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The flat tax is regressive. That's why so many wealthy people and their think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation support it. A lowly service worker needs a greater percentage of her income to survive than does a wealthy "captain of industry" or me, or, I suspect, Tracy Coxx. Why shouldn't we pay a higher percentage? What good does it do our country to have a regressive tax?

Flat tax is flat tax, and regressive tax is regressive tax. Our present tax code is social engineering run amok. The government should not get into the business of deciding who should have a bigger burden. Flat tax removes that and taxes everyone an equal percentage.

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, if you are a person who hasn't a thread of social solidarity in her or his bones, it makes perfect sense to call for regressive taxation on income. Tracy Coxx, is that where you stand?

No. I support flat tax remember?

Originally Posted by smc

There is absolutely no reason why taxes should not be higher the more money you make.

It should not be the burden of 10% of the country to fund 68% of the government.

Originally Posted by smc

I'm for eliminating the entire "offense" budget, as I made clear. Why do you support keeping any of the "offense" budget, Tracy Coxx?

In case the need to defend ourselves arises.

Originally Posted by smc

I hope that you will state without equivocation -- that is, without raising an ancillary issue -- your support for a 100% elimination of the subsidies I mentioned to which your response above corresponds.

I will stop raising ancillary issues when responding to you if you will do the same with me. But yes, I support the elimination of 100% of subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas - with one exception: If US laws prohibit a company from doing work within our own borders, and that company's products are of value to the US, then it's only fair for that company to be subsidized to cover the additional expense of doing business elsewhere.

Originally Posted by smc

It was a horrible compromise made by a president who is largely spineless. But he made clear he did not think it was a good idea.

With a democrat controlled House and Senate, why did a democrat president compromise and do something he didn't think was a good idea?

Originally Posted by smc

The financial institutions take bailout money and make little credit available.

Well they can do that when they also run the treasury.

Originally Posted by smc

Notably, you said nothing about my main point about sustainability, equitability, and social unrest.

If you want the wealthiest 10% of the country to pay for the operation of the country, don't be surprised when they want to call the shots. And it's not sustainable. It will last until over 50% of the country realizes they can vote themselves a share of the treasury.

Originally Posted by smc

As for the "entitlement" discussion, I have no doubt that GRH is more than capable of responding.

Yeah, she's pretty good about that.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Flat tax is flat tax, and regressive tax is regressive tax. Our present tax code is social engineering run amok. The government should not get into the business of deciding who should have a bigger burden. Flat tax removes that and taxes everyone an equal percentage.

No. I support flat tax remember? ...

In case the need to defend ourselves arises. ...

With a democrat controlled House and Senate, why did a democrat president compromise and do something he didn't think was a good idea? ...

1. The flat tax is regressive. You can pretend it is not, but any tax that treats a billionaire and someone who is paid minimum wage the same is "tending to return or revert" us to social barbarism. I don't care that economists call it something else. There's a reason it's supported by the billionaires and their mouthpieces.

2. You dodged the question about the defense budget by ignoring its main point.

3. Oh, and a Republican president never did anything he didn't fully agree with? Give me a fuckin' break.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

1. The flat tax is regressive. You can pretend it is not, but any tax that treats a billionaire and someone who is paid minimum wage the same is "tending to return or revert" us to social barbarism. I don't care that economists call it something else. There's a reason it's supported by the billionaires and their mouthpieces.

I see a pattern with you. You take offense when someone uses a word as it's defined because they should know what is really meant. As an engineer, I find it's less confusing if everyone says what they mean with words that mean what they say.

Originally Posted by smc

2. You dodged the question about the defense budget by ignoring its main point.

No, I answered your question. You asked about MY reason to support, and as usual, criticized it because it's not what you want to hear.

Originally Posted by smc

3. Oh, and a Republican president never did anything he didn't fully agree with? Give me a fuckin' break.

Sure they have. When they had to compromise with Congress. That wasn't the case with Obama. A republican president has also done things they didn't agree with, despite the ability to do what they really wanted to do, because they knew what was really best for the country. Obama made a rare mature selfless decision when he continued the Bush tax cuts for the good of the country.

If you're claiming that my statement that Obama realized that raising taxes is bad for the economy is a lie then I think people here can see how hollow your accusations are, no matter how often you repeat them.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I see a pattern with you. You take offense when someone uses a word as it's defined because they should know what is really meant. As an engineer, I find it's less confusing if everyone says what they mean with words that mean what they say.

What bullshit. I didn't take offense. I challenge you to show how the flat tax does anything for people at the lower end of the income spectrum to create greater fairness and equality across the spectrum, not just a benefit for the wealthiest. If you can do so, I'll retract my statement that it is regressive.

Regressive is an adjective with a general meaning and a specific meaning it has been given by economists with respect to taxation. In that latter meaning, it is a technical term. As an engineer, you should know that the ways in which technical adjectives are used are not necessarily commensurate with the dictionary definitions for their general use.

[GRH]

I don't have time for a long thoughtful reply...But Tracy seems concerned with the "progressive" nature of our taxation system. As if there is a problem that the top 10% shoulder a larger share of funding the government. Well hello...It's because the top 10% own 80% of the nation's wealth. The wealthy were allowed to benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure that America provides (legal, education, structural, etc.), so it should be expected that they pay a higher share of the tax burden. How so? Well the link below goes into a bit more detail, but it gives the example of Bill Gates from Microsoft. How did he disproportionately benefit from America's infrastructure? For one, he was able to sell stock on regulated financial exchanges. He was able to patent his product and pursue litigation in cases of infringement. He was able to hire college educated students (who went to public universities, had student loans/grants, etc.). Do you think Bill Gates would have been able to innovate and come up with Microsoft if he had lived in some third world country without America's infrastructure?

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/in...eater_tax_debt

And even the most ardent supporters of a "flat tax" have admitted the need for some sort of subsidy/credit for the low income earningers-- because this IS a regressive tax. So in the end, it's not even a flat tax. But just out of curiosity Tracy, I've always heard that the tax should be levied on essentially all purchases. Would you support levying the "flat tax" on purchases of stock and securities? Because if we're going to be fair, we've got to apply the tax to EVERYTHING that is purchased (including the trading vehicles of the wealthy).