Pathetic Loser

[CID1990]

This is the test I use in thinking about it:

I ask myself what things would be like in terms of these programs if the Republicans had been in charge the whole time. No FDR. No LBJ. No years with Democratic majorities in either House of Congress. And to me the answer is pretty clear. We wouldn't have most of these programs. We might not have any of them.

They came from the Democrats. Once they became established political reality meant Republicans could not and would not try to eliminate them.

Then I ask myself what it would be like if the Democrats had always been in complete charge. And I'm confident that under such a scenario we'd have even more programs of this type.

Why do we have a national program to attempt to guarantee access to health insurance now? Because the Democrats gained enough power to get it through. The Republicans fought it. But 20 years from now you will not see Republicans trying to repeal it because it will be part of the background of entitlement that people have become accustomed to.

To me, it's fair if you believe in such programs to say we wouldn't have them if the Republicans had always had their way. Maybe that's why some people like Democrats better. But at the same time you have to concede that in the final analysis the Democrats are the reason they exist. The extent of such programs would not be nearly what it is if Republicans had had their way.

Also on the tax front it's pretty obvious that the Republicans do not believe in going as far with respect to the "tax the rich" approach we have whereby 60% of the population carries 14% of the tax load while the other 40% carries 86% of it (all federal taxes, not just income taxes, 2009 CBO estimates). They are not the ones primarily responsible for creating a situation whereby the majority of the people don't "feel" what it costs to do all this stuff because they're bearing so small a share in terms of paying for it if they're bearing any share at all.

Do you know how much WEALTH the top 1% of this country controls?

Yes, and every time you waste time posting stupid sh!t my stock portfolio goes down. So get off your fat a$$ and back to work you still owe me 52 sweaters before quitting time tonight you worker bee fvcking pogue

[kalm]

Do you know how much WEALTH the top 1% of this country controls?

Totally irrelevant in my opinion. First of all, I don't know where this thing came from where we say people should pay more just because they make more. It may be a practical necessity at some point. May have to do that to some extent with taxation. But I don't see why people appear to think there is some kind of moral imperative or "fairness" to that. Fairness would be each person paying the same amount in taxes. Each pays the same share. When we go to the movie they don't check our incomes and make one person pay twice as much as another because they have a higher income. We don't do that with ANYTHING in life that I can think of except for taxes. May not be possible to make everyone pay an equal share but, theoretically, that's fairness. Either that or let people who pay more have more say as we discussed.

But it is NOT fair to have 40% of the people who pay something like 4% of the taxes have the same say in how the money of the country is going to be spent as another 40% that pays 86% of the taxes or the 20% that pays 68% of the taxes. And I think there is also a problem in that, as I said, you have a majority of the people getting to support the establishment of programs they don't have to pay for.

I think at some point in the past I posted this before but if you look at what happened between 1979 and 2005 (latest year for which I could get all the necessary estimates), you see that government spending per capita went up significantly in inflation adjusted terms. Also, average household income went up for all five quintiles including the bottom 20%. Yet the average federal taxes per household went down for the bottom four quintiles. I'm talking about in absolute terms. For instance the average total Federal tax liability for the bottom 20%, in 2005 dollars, went from $1,250 to $684. Cut almost in half. Again, I'm talking about ALL Federal taxes and not just income taxes so that "everybody pays taxes" crap liberals like to throw up as though it significantly changes the picture is accounted for. Also went down in percentage terms.

So what you've got is most people getting more government services and benefits while actually paying LESS. The lowest 20%, in particular, saw its tax liability go down while it got more and more services. And it's real easy to support programs when you're not paying for them. With respect to the increase, it's getting something for nothing. In fact it's getting something while also paying less for what you were getting before.

Similarly the average annual total Federal tax liability for each of the next three quintiles up to the 80th percentile also went down.

Meanwhile the average annual total Federal tax liability for people in the top 20% went from $59,700 to $84,800 in 2005 dollars. Way up.

You can see what's been happening. Politicians have been promising and delivering stuff to "the poor" and "middle class" and avoiding making those groups actually pay for at least some of the increase in cost by going over and over again to the "tax the rich" well. That and borrowing. It's basically buying votes. And it creates a situation where fiscal problems can creep and creep because until the whole thing collapses most of the country is getting more goodies for nothing. Better than nothing because the cost for the total package of goodies has gone down as more goodies were provided.

Then the Democrats turn around a say the "wealthiest Americans" aren't paying their "fair share" and that they pay less than they used to when the truth is that they're paying considerably more.

Working class hero's have spent themselves into trouble trying to keep up with the Jones's so some of the blame lies there for sure. But back in 1979 it was still possible to pay your way through college with a part time job. Health insurance was often provided by an employer or at least didn't cost a quarter of the U.S. annual median income. The things that should be affordable for everyone have shot up in price just like cars and the color television. Government has subsidized that inflation through things like student loans and medicare. And you know what John, believe it or not, there are tax paying, producing, wealthy people who have benefited from this process all along (see Rand Paul or for-profit universities which, btw, HEAVILY backed the Romeny campaign).

I would also like to see the exact breakdown of governement services received per capita and by income class rather than have you lump things like military spending into the mix. I'm sure the working poor in this country have it pretty damn good and get a ton of bang for their buck (especially the ones who pay no taxes) but so do the working wealthy many of whom would have never gotten there if not for government services rendered (See Paul Ryan).

It's pretty tough to unravel who benefits the most from the spending. But go ahead if you'd like. You may actually be right somewhere in here.

[Grizalltheway]

Do you know how much WEALTH the top 1% of this country controls?

Yes, and every time you waste time posting stupid sh!t my stock portfolio goes down. So get off your fat a$$ and back to work you still owe me 52 sweaters before quitting time tonight you worker bee fvcking pogue

Get back to licking Hillary's cooter, Remus.

[Chizzang]

Yes, and every time you waste time posting stupid sh!t my stock portfolio goes down. So get off your fat a$$ and back to work you still owe me 52 sweaters before quitting time tonight you worker bee fvcking pogue

Get back to licking Hillary's cooter, Remus.

[CID1990]

Yes, and every time you waste time posting stupid sh!t my stock portfolio goes down. So get off your fat a$$ and back to work you still owe me 52 sweaters before quitting time tonight you worker bee fvcking pogue

Get back to licking Hillary's cooter, Remus.

That's better. Short post, can be made during your one coffee break.

[Grizalltheway]

Get back to licking Hillary's cooter, Remus.

That's better. Short post, can be made during your one coffee break.

Your entire "career" has been one big coffee break, Barney Fife.

[Chizzang]

That's better. Short post, can be made during your one coffee break.

Your entire "career" has been one big coffee break, Barney Fife.

Dude you are back...
For a while there you were on again off again

[AZGrizFan]

That's better. Short post, can be made during your one coffee break.

Your entire "career" has been one big coffee break, Barney Fife.

Says the guy who KNOWS he couldn't hold CID's jockstrap.

[JohnStOnge]

I would also like to see the exact breakdown of governement services received per capita and by income class rather than have you lump things like military spending into the mix.

First let me say that I do not consider a tax deduction or tax credit to be government giving something to somebody unless it's a tax credit whereby the government actually gives YOU money if the credit exceeds what you would otherwise pay (like the earned income tax credit). Government is not giving anybody anything by virtue of "letting" them keep their own money; especially when you're talking about people who pay as much in taxes as "the rich" typically do.

Having said that, look at the pie chart I'm posting below and think about the fact that the bottom 20% of taxpayers accounts for 0.3% of all Federal taxes paid (not just income taxes) and the bottom 40% accounts for 4.1%. That's 2009 estimates but I think we can agree it's still something close to that. The pie chart indicates that 8% of Federal expenditures were on the Medicaid Childrens Health Insurance Program. That's direct spending to take care of lower income people. I think you'd agree that most is going to people in the lower 40% and maybe most are in the lower 20%. And 8% of spending is going to be more than 8% of taxes collected because spending exceeds revenues. So just with that one program you can see that government is spending well more on the lower 20% and/or 40% of the population in terms of income than it's getting from them in taxes. Another 10% of Federal spending goes to "Safety Net Programs." Who do you think goes to? Again, it's going to be primarily if not entirely to the bottom 20% or 40%.

Now try to find some category or set of categories where it looks like government might be spending more on the top 20% than it's collecting from them in taxes. They're not getting much if any more than proportionally than their share of the population in Medicare and Social Security spending. And even if they were those two programs "only" accounted for 33% of spending. And where else do you see any categories where some substantial proportion of the Federal budget would represent giving money to the top 20%? It's not there. Meanwhile that top 20% is accounting for somewhere around 67.9% of tax revenues. Even given that we spend more than we take in so the percent they contribute with respect to how much is spent is less, it's clear that they are putting much more into the system in terms of taxes than they are taking out of it in terms of what government spends on them.

Basically, that stuff about "corporate welfare" and "welfare to the rich" is just more "progressive" or "liberal" nonsense. Sure, they can find some individual examples of government giving money to someone who has a lot or to a corporation. But most of the time they're talking about tax deductions and that's not government giving anything to anybody. As I said, in general, it's just "letting" them keep what they have in order to influence their behavior. It's not the same thing nor is it a similar thing, at all, to government giving money to low income people through programs things like Medicaid and Safety Net programs. And it's not nearly as much. The "rich," as a group, put way more into the system than they take out. The "poor," as a group, take way more out than they put in.

But I guess that's what redistribution is all about.

[Grizalltheway]

Your entire "career" has been one big coffee break, Barney Fife.

Says the guy who KNOWS he couldn't hold CID's jockstrap.

Yeah, I guess you'll just have to hold it yourself while you're sniffing it.

[kalm]

I would also like to see the exact breakdown of governement services received per capita and by income class rather than have you lump things like military spending into the mix.

First let me say that I do not consider a tax deduction or tax credit to be government giving something to somebody unless it's a tax credit whereby the government actually gives YOU money if the credit exceeds what you would otherwise pay (like the earned income tax credit). Government is not giving anybody anything by virtue of "letting" them keep their own money; especially when you're talking about people who pay as much in taxes as "the rich" typically do.

Having said that, look at the pie chart I'm posting below and think about the fact that the bottom 20% of taxpayers accounts for 0.3% of all Federal taxes paid (not just income taxes) and the bottom 40% accounts for 4.1%. That's 2009 estimates but I think we can agree it's still something close to that. The pie chart indicates that 8% of Federal expenditures were on the Medicaid Childrens Health Insurance Program. That's direct spending to take care of lower income people. I think you'd agree that most is going to people in the lower 40% and maybe most are in the lower 20%. And 8% of spending is going to be more than 8% of taxes collected because spending exceeds revenues. So just with that one program you can see that government is spending well more on the lower 20% and/or 40% of the population in terms of income than it's getting from them in taxes. Another 10% of Federal spending goes to "Safety Net Programs." Who do you think goes to? Again, it's going to be primarily if not entirely to the bottom 20% or 40%.

Now try to find some category or set of categories where it looks like government might be spending more on the top 20% than it's collecting from them in taxes. They're not getting much if any more than proportionally than their share of the population in Medicare and Social Security spending. And even if they were those two programs "only" accounted for 33% of spending. And where else do you see any categories where some substantial proportion of the Federal budget would represent giving money to the top 20%? It's not there. Meanwhile that top 20% is accounting for somewhere around 67.9% of tax revenues. Even given that we spend more than we take in so the percent they contribute with respect to how much is spent is less, it's clear that they are putting much more into the system in terms of taxes than they are taking out of it in terms of what government spends on them.

Basically, that stuff about "corporate welfare" and "welfare to the rich" is just more "progressive" or "liberal" nonsense. Sure, they can find some individual examples of government giving money to someone who has a lot or to a corporation. But most of the time they're talking about tax deductions and that's not government giving anything to anybody. As I said, in general, it's just "letting" them keep what they have in order to influence their behavior. It's not the same thing nor is it a similar thing, at all, to government giving money to low income people through programs things like Medicaid and Safety Net programs. And it's not nearly as much. The "rich," as a group, put way more into the system than they take out. The "poor," as a group, take way more out than they put in.

But I guess that's what redistribution is all about.

XE founder Eric Prince has a net worth of $2.4 billion. He's certainly benefitted from government spending.

[JohnStOnge]

XE founder Eric Prince has a net worth of $2.4 billion. He's certainly benefitted from government spending.

I didn't know who that was until you posted it and looked it up. The government paid him for a service. Anytime government buys any good or service someone benefits. That's not the same as government just spending money to take care of people because it's judged that they can't take care of themselves.

Besides, when you look at the forest it's clear that as groups what they call "the rich" more than carry their weight. Way more than their weight. You can talk about them getting tax deductions and credits but the bottom line is that after those deductions and credits are applied the top 20 percent still accounts for about 2/3 of the tax revenue the Federal government gets.

They more than carry their weight. And that's not the case with the bottom 20% or 40% as groups. As groups they are receiving way more in direct government benefits than they are putting into the system in taxes. Way more. They are a net drain. A pretty big net drain. And we've got a political paradigm now whereby they're in position to vote to keep it that way. And they're going to continue to vote overwhelming majority Democrat because that's what's going to maximize the extent to which they get to keep getting what they're getting and probably get even more. While all the time what they're paying is declining.

[kalm]

XE founder Eric Prince has a net worth of $2.4 billion. He's certainly benefitted from government spending.

I didn't know who that was until you posted it and looked it up. The government paid him for a service. Anytime government buys any good or service someone benefits. That's not the same as government just spending money to take care of people because it's judged that they can't take care of themselves.

Besides, when you look at the forest it's clear that as groups what they call "the rich" more than carry their weight. Way more than their weight. You can talk about them getting tax deductions and credits but the bottom line is that after those deductions and credits are applied the top 20 percent still accounts for about 2/3 of the tax revenue the Federal government gets.

They more than carry their weight. And that's not the case with the bottom 20% or 40% as groups. As groups they are receiving way more in direct government benefits than they are putting into the system in taxes. Way more. They are a net drain. A pretty big net drain. And we've got a political paradigm now whereby they're in position to vote to keep it that way. And they're going to continue to vote overwhelming majority Democrat because that's what's going to maximize the extent to which they get to keep getting what they're getting and probably get even more. While all the time what they're paying is declining.

Well thank you Alexander Tytler

You're acting like this is something new to democracy or that conks don't vote THEIR pocketbook.

I actually agree that the bottom 20% are a drain...hence the saying, the world needs ditch diggers too. That's simply an unmistakeable reality. But it's not as if dropping hundreds of billions worth of bombs isn't a drag either. And you know who votes to support that? Eric Prince...because it's in HIS best interest.

People vote for tax cuts for themselves and/or the corporations they run, they vote against unions which help prevent wage stagnation, they vote for free trade which hurts our manufacturing base, they vote against subsidized education, etc, etc, etc. This is nothing knew. But many of the items I just listed still result in 1) deficit spending and/or 2) less middle class incomes which are NOT a drain on society.

It's not as if the Republican party has cornered the market on voting out of some sense of altruistic duty to the greater good of the country.

But I get it...BOOT STRAPS!

(man, did I appropriately name this thread or what? )

[YoUDeeMan]

Well thank you Alexander Tytler

I actually agree that the bottom 20% are a drain...hence the saying, the world needs ditch diggers too. That's simply an unmistakeable reality.

Well, if the government was paying people to dig ditches, or clean highways, or somethign productive, that would not be bad. However, the government pays a lot of people to do nothing...other than reproducing more do-nothings.

[kalm]

Well thank you Alexander Tytler

I actually agree that the bottom 20% are a drain...hence the saying, the world needs ditch diggers too. That's simply an unmistakeable reality.

Well, if the government was paying people to dig ditches, or clean highways, or somethign productive, that would not be bad. However, the government pays a lot of people to do nothing...other than reproducing more do-nothings.

On this, we agree. Although I would like to see the actual numbers on real do-nothings. I'm talking about able bodied people without pre-school kids who receive a government check. I'm guessing it's much smaller than some people think.

[YoUDeeMan]

Well, if the government was paying people to dig ditches, or clean highways, or somethign productive, that would not be bad. However, the government pays a lot of people to do nothing...other than reproducing more do-nothings.

On this, we agree. Although I would like to see the actual numbers on real do-nothings. I'm talking about able bodied people without pre-school kids who receive a government check. I'm guessing it's much smaller than some people think.

Why exclude people with pre-school kids? If someone elects to have a child and stay home, then they should not receive assistance. Why should someone receive government assistance if they aren't willing to help produce something?

[JohnStOnge]

Here's the thing:

We have a system whereby the unproductive are in position to vote for people who will take resources from the productive and give them things. I suppose that's an unavoidable potential flaw in representative government. But that's what we have. And the Democratic Party has exploited it to the extreme.

Romney is correct in his basic premise.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, look at the pie chart I posted. Look at all that entitlement stuff. All that...ALL that...is spending based on the premise that government should be in the business of trying to ensure the well being of each individual.

We absolutely took the wrong turn when we took that one.

[kalm]

BTW, look at the pie chart I posted. Look at all that entitlement stuff. All that...ALL that...is spending based on the premise that government should be in the business of trying to ensure the well being of each individual.

We absolutely took the wrong turn when we took that one.

Define "unproductive".

[Ibanez]

Well thank you Alexander Tytler

I actually agree that the bottom 20% are a drain...hence the saying, the world needs ditch diggers too. That's simply an unmistakeable reality.

Well, if the government was paying people to dig ditches, or clean highways, or somethign productive, that would not be bad. However, the government pays a lot of people to do nothing...other than reproducing more do-nothings.

I told my wife this over the weekend. How about a New New Deal? We resurrect the CCC and instead of welfare, pay these people to get trained on something and have them work fixing roads, clearing parks, etc...