I get conservative guys point about public assistance

[JOTVid]

Pure bullshit. Income share hasn't shifted to the top 20% but rather to the top 1%. People in the 80-99% have merely held their ground in the shifting economy.

Table 5-

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/

Concentration of wealth & income at the tippy-top is the direct result of trickle down economics practiced over the last 35 years or so. But conservatives are entirely happy to white knight for the ultra rich whose incomes are so vast that doubling their taxes would have negligible effect on their lifestyles.

Just look at Kansas's failed tax experiment last 5 years thanks to Koch boy Sam Brownback.... REPUBLICANS in the state earlier this month said ENOUGH Kansas Republicans end the state’s failed tax reform experiment https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15753510/kansas-brownback-tax-reform . Bobby Jindal also tried it in Louisiana leaving a mess for the Democrat replacing him. From theamericanconservative.com How Bobby Jindal Wrecked Louisiana http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-bobby-jindal-wrecked-louisiana/

 

[Jhhnn]

Just look at Kansas's failed tax experiment last 5 years thanks to Koch boy Sam Brownback.... REPUBLICANS in the state earlier this month said ENOUGH Kansas Republicans end the state’s failed tax reform experiment https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15753510/kansas-brownback-tax-reform . Bobby Jindal also tried it in Louisiana leaving a mess for the Democrat replacing him. From theamericanconservative.com How Bobby Jindal Wrecked Louisiana http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-bobby-jindal-wrecked-louisiana/

Conservatives have a strange reverence for wealth & those who have it. They worship the priests who draw them to the altar of greed to meet their doom.

 

[Svnla]

Just look at Kansas's failed tax experiment last 5 years thanks to Koch boy Sam Brownback.... REPUBLICANS in the state earlier this month said ENOUGH Kansas Republicans end the state’s failed tax reform experiment https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15753510/kansas-brownback-tax-reform . Bobby Jindal also tried it in Louisiana leaving a mess for the Democrat replacing him. From theamericanconservative.com How Bobby Jindal Wrecked Louisiana http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-bobby-jindal-wrecked-louisiana/

Yes, look at how Bobby messed up the whole freaking state all by himself and those evil Republicans. The year BEFORE Katrina, the budget was about $16.5 Billion, then it went up to $28.6 billion in 2007-2008. All Bobby and Republicans there.

Let see, spend MORE (16.5 to 28.6) even the population/tax payers went down because of the hurrian, then cut tax, then set aside most of the budget items as "untouchables" = disasters. But of course, it was solely of Republicans.

t's hard to imagine, but Louisiana actually had more money than it knew what to do with during the last two years of Gov. Kathleen Blanco's administration. The state budgets -- at that point -- reached record heights.

In the 2007-2008 fiscal cycle, Louisiana had a spending plan of $28.6 billion. In the the year before Hurricane Katrina, total state spending was $16.5 billion, according to the Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office. The Legislature expected this year's total state budget to be $24.5 billion -- or $4 billion less than it was in 2007-2008.

The state's windfall lead Blanco and the Legislature to increase spending, including giving state employees pay raises. She also signed off on tax cuts, which Gov. Bobby Jindal pushed further when he came into office in 2008.

Blanco initiated a rollback of what's called the Stelly Plan -- a tax program approved statewide by voters in 2002. Jindal and lawmakers then fully trashed the initiative in 2008, during the governor's first year in office.

It was passed and supported by Republican Gov. Mike Foster, but it had become a target for conservative talk radio by 2007, when lawmakers and Blanco passed the first portion of the repeal. Lawmakers and Jindal followed up by fully rolling back the Stelly plan the next year.

Albrecht said if Louisiana still had Stelly in place, the state would have about $800 million more in the bank each year. That amount of money would go a long way to addressing Louisiana's current $940 million shortfall and the $2 billion problem that exists for the next fiscal cycle.

Part of the problem with the Louisiana budget is that a significant portion of the funding is locked away and can only be used for specific purposes.

Lawmakers, governors and the voters have constitutionally shielded large swaths of Louisiana spending. For example, in 2014, people voted to make it much more difficult to cut Medicaid funding, even when the state faces this type of budget crisis.

In total, Louisiana has $3.9 billion of what are called "statutory dedications" -- pools of money that have been set aside to support a specific program or function. Some of these set asides make sense. For example, money for primary and secondary education is in a statutory dedication.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/louisiana_is_in_a_budget_mess.html

What was the lowest level of spending for the state in the last 10 years? $22.6 billion in 2014-2015. And the latest number for this year (2016-2017) would be around $26.9 billion. Keep in mind that the budget for the state for the year before Katrina was only about $16.5 billion. Don't forget the whole population for the state before Katrina was about 4.5 million people and the latest number would be around 4.7 million or so.

Of course, the state does not have a problem with spending but because of those evil Republicans, right? LOL.

http://house.louisiana.gov/housefiscal/DOCS_TENYEAR/10-Year Total Budget History.pdf

 

[bshole]

Yes, look at how Bobby messed up the whole freaking state all by himself and those evil Republicans. The year BEFORE Katrina, the budget was about $16.5 Billion, then it went up to $28.6 billion in 2007-2008. All Bobby and Republicans there.

Let see, spend MORE (16.5 to 28.6) even the population/tax payers went down because of the hurrian, then cut tax, then set aside most of the budget items as "untouchables" = disasters. But of course, it was solely of Republicans.



http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/louisiana_is_in_a_budget_mess.html

What was the lowest level of spending for the state in the last 10 years? $22.6 billion in 2014-2015. And the latest number for this year (2016-2017) would be around $26.9 billion. Keep in mind that the budget for the state for the year before Katrina was only about $16.5 billion. Don't forget the whole population for the state before Katrina was about 4.5 million people and the latest number would be around 4.7 million or so.

Of course, the state does not have a problem with spending but because of those evil Republicans, right? LOL.

http://house.louisiana.gov/housefiscal/DOCS_TENYEAR/10-Year Total Budget History.pdf

He is an unapologetic corporate owned politician who supports moving money from the poor to the ultra-wealthy. He offers nothing of any value for the middle and working classes, nothing at all.

 

[Svnla]

If you guys think them stinking rich will just lay down and take it by paying more taxes, you have another thing coming. Look at how them .01% rich around the world are having multiple passports/citizenship by "buying" the privileges - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/passports-for-sale/

And there are more than a few countries are fighting among themselves to get those cash from the stinking rich.

Money (a lot of money) does talk, indeed.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If you guys think them stinking rich will just lay down and take it by paying more taxes, you have another thing coming. Look at how them .01% rich around the world are having multiple passports/citizenship by "buying" the privileges - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/passports-for-sale/

And there are more than a few countries are fighting among themselves to get those cash from the stinking rich.

Money (a lot of money) does talk, indeed.

Yeah their money will be safe & tax free in Europe. I'll agree it's safer in the Carribian but it's also less safe for your head if people get tired of that game.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you guys think them stinking rich will just lay down and take it by paying more taxes, you have another thing coming. Look at how them .01% rich around the world are having multiple passports/citizenship by "buying" the privileges - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/passports-for-sale/

And there are more than a few countries are fighting among themselves to get those cash from the stinking rich.

Money (a lot of money) does talk, indeed.

So what? That just gets a convenient passport.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah their money will be safe & tax free in Europe. I'll agree it's safer in the Carribian but it's also less safe for your head if people get tired of that game.

America's wealthiest have been laundering money in Bermuda, Switzerland & the Caribbean since Meyer Lansky, maybe before. Ask Mitt.

 

[Jhhnn]

America's wealthiest have been laundering money in Bermuda, Switzerland & the Caribbean since Meyer Lansky, maybe before. Ask Mitt.

One of the Reasons that far right billionaires hated the Obama admin is because they cracked down on some huge money laundering & tax evasion scams, forced the Swiss & some Caribbean bankers to cooperate with the IRS.

Meanwhile their Repub lapdogs are preaching patriotism. Go figure.

 

[zinfamous]

What is your problem?

You are cancer.

 

[buckshot24]

You are cancer.

Another factually incorrect statement from zin.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Yeah, Zin, Buckshat over here only has one helix

 

[Sunburn74]

Yes, look at how Bobby messed up the whole freaking state all by himself and those evil Republicans. The year BEFORE Katrina, the budget was about $16.5 Billion, then it went up to $28.6 billion in 2007-2008. All Bobby and Republicans there.

Let see, spend MORE (16.5 to 28.6) even the population/tax payers went down because of the hurrian, then cut tax, then set aside most of the budget items as "untouchables" = disasters. But of course, it was solely of Republicans.



http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/louisiana_is_in_a_budget_mess.html

What was the lowest level of spending for the state in the last 10 years? $22.6 billion in 2014-2015. And the latest number for this year (2016-2017) would be around $26.9 billion. Keep in mind that the budget for the state for the year before Katrina was only about $16.5 billion. Don't forget the whole population for the state before Katrina was about 4.5 million people and the latest number would be around 4.7 million or so.

Of course, the state does not have a problem with spending but because of those evil Republicans, right? LOL.

http://house.louisiana.gov/housefiscal/DOCS_TENYEAR/10-Year Total Budget History.pdf

The US overall is growing in population. One would expect no state to have a flat line in terms of spending between a 4 year period. And don't forget about inflation as well. Compared to Massachusetts, the percentage growth of LAs budget is similar during that time period. However, mass budget is about 14 billion more per year and is certainly by far the nicer state to live in, get an education, fall sick and get healthcare, etc. (for reference mass. population is about 6.7 million people vs 4.6 million living in LA)

 

[agent00f]

I can't argue about off the books spending, but I also think it happens and it's wrong. Part of what allows things like that is an overly large and needlessly complex federal government. We agree that we spend too much on defense, but we don't agree on the social spending.

I don't think the majority of the money from bloated military contracts goes into bank accounts. Don't have any evidence to support it, but I would guess most of it goes into facilities, production, salary, materials, etc. That would be recycled into the economy. I'm not defending government spending (I think it's too much on everything), but I don't see a huge difference between that and what you proposed with social programs. I don't think the CEO of Boeing will take his millions from a military contract and put it in a bank account. I think he'll invest it in the stock market and give capital to other business to expand. Yes, he/she might put some in an offshore account, but he still was taxed on the bonus as income.




The thing about inheritance taxes is that they are just jealousy taxes. That money that people are leaving to their heirs has already been taxed. Why should it get taxed a second time for being inherited and then a third time when the kids spend it? That's just excessive. I wish my parents would leave me billions, but that is not the government's money. The government doesn't HAVE money; it just takes ours and spends it (poorly in many cases). I know, I know, conservative talking points, but it's true.

As for the jealousy, that is something that everyone has to work out on their own. I do think that we need to get businesses out of the federal government, but the only reason businesses try to influence the federal government is because it (gov) has so much power to influence our lives. Why would corporations spend money lobbying a weak government? They wouldn't.



Wasn't trying to obfuscate. I used the most recent passed numbers (2016) which says: "For FY 2017, President Obama proposed the base budget of $523.9 billion, which includes an increase of $2.2 billion over the FY 2016 enacted budget of $521.7 billion." Also, with that $637B in 2015 it states :"spending for 2014-15 is estimated", so that might explain why 2014-2015 are inflated compared to 2016-2017. Yeah, it' a wiki, so not the best source, but don't be so quick to decry deception.

That's interesting about veterans benefits; I didn't know that. As above, I agree that we need to eliminate spending tucked away here and there and that we are spending too much on our military, too.

No, inheritance taxes are simply a more just source of revenue than taxing the poor. Predictably you'll pretend to be far too dumb to understand this same as peers like Svnla, in perpetuity. It's the conservative way.

 

[agent00f]

Why is it pretty much anyone with anything to do with guns or hunting in their username always turns out to be a selfish borderline-sociopath with the governmental and financial understanding of, say, the average sea slug? And the morals too.

It's how humans were before they figured out the value of moral virtues and educated the populace accordingly as commonplace these days in liberal western society.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Pure bullshit. Income share hasn't shifted to the top 20% but rather to the top 1%. People in the 80-99% have merely held their ground in the shifting economy.

Table 5-

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/

Concentration of wealth & income at the tippy-top is the direct result of trickle down economics practiced over the last 35 years or so. But conservatives are entirely happy to white knight for the ultra rich whose incomes are so vast that doubling their taxes would have negligible effect on their lifestyles.

Try actually reading the article Jhhnn, instead of knee-jerking in your usual manner using a myopic viewpoint with a narrowly focused rebuttal. The point is about how the top 20% has made large strides over the past 3 or 4 decades, and they have. Despite the anemic looking Mother Jones graphs the 20% own well over 50% of the wealth in the US compared to @ 37% for the top 1%, and their percentage has been increasing as well.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It's also well known that heavily taxing the 1% won't do much to address our fiscal situation, regardless of how much the left wants to make them out as the bad guys responsible for all economic ills. If we really want to fix the system the top 20% is going have to take a big hit as well. And that means people like me and probably people like you. Those who only want to focus on one particular percentage of income earners as the problem are not looking for facts, they are looking for scapegoats and bad guys to focus their rage upon so they can feel better about themselves.

 

[Svnla]

No, inheritance taxes are simply a more just source of revenue than taxing the poor. Predictably you'll pretend to be far too dumb to understand this same as peers like Svnla, in perpetuity. It's the conservative way.

Let the readers read this link and decide who was the dumb ass that spoke about things he had no freaking clue. Who could that be? Oh, it was you. Too dumb forever indeed. LOL.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/high-chance-of-china-taiwan-war.2499383/#post-38743019

You - empty insults and accusations. Oh, still nothing about multiple accusations toward other posters such as SNC, glrider, etc.? Of course.

Me - have facts on my side.

Troll harder bitch.

 

[agent00f]

Let the readers read this link and decide who was the dumb ass that spoke about things he had no freaking clue. Who could that be? Oh, it was you. Too dumb forever indeed. LOL.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/high-chance-of-china-taiwan-war.2499383/#post-38743019

You - empty insults and accusations. Oh, still nothing about multiple accusations toward other posters such as SNC, glrider, etc.? Of course.

Me - have facts on my side.

Troll harder bitch.

Svnla represents conservatism about as well as chucky, buckshot, tasteslikechicken, and kinev. Quite an insulting accusation, I know, but factually unassailable.

Despite the anemic looking Mother Jones graphs the 20% own well over 50% of the wealth in the US compared to @ 37% for the top 1%, and their percentage has been increasing as well.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It's also well known that heavily taxing the 1% won't do much to address our fiscal situation.

As a demonstration, let's do a little math from your own figures. From Table 1 in your own link, we'll allow that 1% to keep the same 2.3mil as the top 20%, which gives us 16500k to play with. With that money, lets just give it to the bottom 40%. That'll make it 413k per, which is a bit much, so instead let's make the bottom 40% as wealthy as the 40-60percentile, or 80k apiece *40, which rather substantially improves their fiscal situation and leaves us with 13340k. With that, let's make the 40-60percentile as rich as the 60-80, 68k to 236k, again a vast improvement, leaving ~10000k or 10million on the table. Let's just give that to the 60-80percentile, which is about 500k apiece, no chump change. Just look at how much every else's situation improves by heavily taxing the 1% with zero change to the 20%.

But then again, this is simple math, which you'll predictable become too dumb to understand all of a sudden. It also goes without saying that Svnla isn't even pretending to be far too dumb to understand any of that post, but will no doubt keep mouthing off about it regardless.

 

[Jhhnn]

Try actually reading the article Jhhnn, instead of knee-jerking in your usual manner using a myopic viewpoint with a narrowly focused rebuttal. The point is about how the top 20% has made large strides over the past 3 or 4 decades, and they have. Despite the anemic looking Mother Jones graphs the 20% own well over 50% of the wealth in the US compared to @ 37% for the top 1%, and their percentage has been increasing as well.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It's also well known that heavily taxing the 1% won't do much to address our fiscal situation, regardless of how much the left wants to make them out as the bad guys responsible for all economic ills. If we really want to fix the system the top 20% is going have to take a big hit as well. And that means people like me and probably people like you. Those who only want to focus on one particular percentage of income earners as the problem are not looking for facts, they are looking for scapegoats and bad guys to focus their rage upon so they can feel better about themselves.

And here you are, putting a guilt & fear trip on people who've done decently well, white knighting for the ultra wealthy.

It's also unremarkable that you didn't even read your own link well enough to realize that it confirms what I offered about wealth & income shifting to the tippy top. It's bad enough that what seems like an exaggeration from Bernie Sanders turns out to be the truth-

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/

 

[kinev]

No, inheritance taxes are simply a more just source of revenue than taxing the poor. Predictably you'll pretend to be far too dumb to understand this same as peers like Svnla, in perpetuity. It's the conservative way.

Ok, then enlighten me on how they are "more just".

 

[agent00f]

Ok, then enlighten me on how they are "more just".

If $10 is necessary to build/repair a road, it's more just to get it from a billionaire than some homeless guy. Real simple I know but at the same time impossible for any conservative to ever admit to understanding.

 

[Svnla]

Svnla represents conservatism about as well as chucky, buckshot, tasteslikechicken, and kinev. Quite an insulting accusation, I know, but factually unassailable.

But then again, this is simple math, which you'll predictable become too dumb to understand all of a sudden. It also goes without saying that Svnla isn't even pretending to be far too dumb to understand any of that post, but will no doubt keep mouthing off about it regardless.

DIfferent day, same old agent fail troll. More empty insults without anything to backup. Since I am too dumb per you yet I was able to shame and humiliate you in public with facts multiple times and not just once, what does that say about you and your intellect capacity? Dumber than too dumb? Less than zero? LOL.

 

[agent00f]

DIfferent day, same old agent fail troll. More empty insults without anything to backup. Since I am too dumb per you yet I was able to shame and humiliate you in public with facts multiple times and not just once, what does that say about you and your intellect capacity? Dumber than too dumb? Less than zero? LOL.

Acting like typical degenerate trash only makes your less trashy peers look really bad, not that someone like you would care.

 

[kinev]

If $10 is necessary to build/repair a road, it's more just to get it from a billionaire than some homeless guy. Real simple I know but at the same time impossible for any conservative to ever admit to understanding.

Ok, I see where you're coming from. When you say "just" how do you measure or define what is just and what isn't?

 

[agent00f]

Ok, I see where you're coming from. When you say "just" how do you measure or define what is just and what isn't?

By general standards of western liberalism eg. categorical imperative, as implemented more or less by every first world western society (though some obviously worse than others).