|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 25, 2014 16:28:37 GMT
Just a historical note. When Former President Bush took office the federal revenue projections were that the national debt would be reduced to about $3.5 trillion (a necesary debt level due to the surplus in Social Security Trust Fund) but because of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and increased federal spending the national debt stood at about $10 trillion when he left office. That's a $6.5 trillion debt difference which is about equal to the increase of the national debt under Obama which, to a large degress, was also caused by the Bush era tax cuts that were extended by Congress.
Ottoman Empire colonialism was fundamtentally turned into Western European colonialism at the end of WW I. I oppose colonialism as it is the explotation of the people by a foreign government so I would have historically opposed both the Ottoman Empire colonialism and the British colonialism in the Middle East related to Palestine which violated the principles of Article 22 of the League of Nations that established that the "Mandatory" of the former Ottoman Empire territories teach the existing population how to self-govern themselves and that the rights of the exising population were paramount in all of the actions of the "Mandatory" assigned. Britian violated the Rights of the "Palestinians" related to "self-determination" with it's Mandate for Palestine that was never approved and was opposed by the existing resident population of Palestine in 1922 and thereafter.
"Zionism" is a defined political ideology and if the use of the word is considered a slur today then it is exclusively because of the historical political agenda and actions of the Zionists. If a person doesn't want to be called a Zionist then they simply need to reject the Zionist political agenda and condemn the actions of the Zionists. Being called a "murderer" is also a slur but all a person has to do to avoid the slur is to not be a murderer.
I find it most instructive that you consider "Zionist" and "murderer" to be essentially comparable terms. Yes, shortly after WWI, the British (and others) had a rather condescending view of non-Caucasions: The term, "white man's burden," was popularized then. But that is no longer typical of the attitude of most Westerners. And whereas I agree that "increased federal spending" has led to large annual deficits, I disagree--strongly--that "tax cuts" have contributed to the deficit. You seem to assume that lower marginal tax rates automatically means less in total tax revenue. And I believe that is entirely fallacious, as lower tax rates generally lead to more robust economic activity--and therefore, to more taxable income.
I would suggest you read a little more history related to Zionism in Palestine. The Irgun, Haganah and Lehi (all Zionist organizations in Palestine under the British Mandate) actively engaged in acts of terrorism in Palestine often resuling in murder.
While the term "white man's burden" isn't typically being used we have extensive complaints today from Republicans about the burden that Hispanics and blacks place upon "white" Americans today in the United States. They refer to it as the "government welfare burden" where Hispanics and blacks are statistically poorer than whites and more dependent upon welfare assistance.The term isn't used but the rhetoric of "white man's burden" remains the same. One of the most propagated arguments against open immigration from the "right" is the cost of welfare for Hispanic immigrants even though the facts reflect that immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in government benefits.
The belief that lower taxation results in more government revenue is based upon the Laffer curve that is a theoretical (intellectual) analysis of the effects of taxation but many misunderstand it. For examply the "right" believes that lower taxation for the wealthy results in increased government revenue and that is false. The increased economic benefit is from consumption of goods and services but the wealthy are already spending all they want on goods and services. Reducing their tax obligation does not increase the economic activity because they merely invest the increased income and most forms of investments don't result in comsumption and even any increase is very small (e.g. capitalizing of corporations but that represents less than 1% of all investments). For exampe investing in stocks (except the rare IPO's) hedge funds, money markets, and commodity futures results in zero economic growth.
There are also two sides of the Laffer curve where one side reflects over-taxation and the other reflects under-taxation. We're on the "under-taxation" side of the Laffer curve when it comes to investors - that have the greatest income, don't improve the ecomony with more income and the lowest tax rates, and to increase government revenue we need to increase their tax rates based upon the Laffer curve.
You should have noticed that my federal tax proposal is actually based upon principles of the Laffer curve as it eliminates the income tax burden for the bottom 50% of income earners that spend virtually all of their income in consumption while basing all income taxes, with a progressive foundation, on the upper 50% of income earners that spend ever smaller percentages relative to their income on consumption.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 26, 2014 21:16:49 GMT
I find it most instructive that you consider "Zionist" and "murderer" to be essentially comparable terms. Yes, shortly after WWI, the British (and others) had a rather condescending view of non-Caucasions: The term, "white man's burden," was popularized then. But that is no longer typical of the attitude of most Westerners. And whereas I agree that "increased federal spending" has led to large annual deficits, I disagree--strongly--that "tax cuts" have contributed to the deficit. You seem to assume that lower marginal tax rates automatically means less in total tax revenue. And I believe that is entirely fallacious, as lower tax rates generally lead to more robust economic activity--and therefore, to more taxable income.
I would suggest you read a little more history related to Zionism in Palestine. The Irgun, Haganah and Lehi (all Zionist organizations in Palestine under the British Mandate) actively engaged in acts of terrorism in Palestine often resuling in murder.
While the term "white man's burden" isn't typically being used we have extensive complaints today from Republicans about the burden that Hispanics and blacks place upon "white" Americans today in the United States. They refer to it as the "government welfare burden" where Hispanics and blacks are statistically poorer than whites and more dependent upon welfare assistance.The term isn't used but the rhetoric of "white man's burden" remains the same. One of the most propagated arguments against open immigration from the "right" is the cost of welfare for Hispanic immigrants even though the facts reflect that immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in government benefits.
The belief that lower taxation results in more government revenue is based upon the Laffer curve that is a theoretical (intellectual) analysis of the effects of taxation but many misunderstand it. For examply the "right" believes that lower taxation for the wealthy results in increased government revenue and that is false. The increased economic benefit is from consumption of goods and services but the wealthy are already spending all they want on goods and services. Reducing their tax obligation does not increase the economic activity because they merely invest the increased income and most forms of investments don't result in comsumption and even any increase is very small (e.g. capitalizing of corporations but that represents less than 1% of all investments). For exampe investing in stocks (except the rare IPO's) hedge funds, money markets, and commodity futures results in zero economic growth.
There are also two sides of the Laffer curve where one side reflects over-taxation and the other reflects under-taxation. We're on the "under-taxation" side of the Laffer curve when it comes to investors - that have the greatest income, don't improve the ecomony with more income and the lowest tax rates, and to increase government revenue we need to increase their tax rates based upon the Laffer curve.
You should have noticed that my federal tax proposal is actually based upon principles of the Laffer curve as it eliminates the income tax burden for the bottom 50% of income earners that spend virtually all of their income in consumption while basing all income taxes, with a progressive foundation, on the upper 50% of income earners that spend ever smaller percentages relative to their income on consumption.
I would agree--and I think that this is substantially your point--that there is a "sweet spot," as regarding taxation: Marginal rates above a certain percentage discourage economic activity, and therefore result in less federal revenue; but marginal rates beneath a certain percentage can also be counterproductive. If the latter were not the case, we could just set tax rates at one percent, and let the money roll in! Where I disagree, however, is in your assumption that tax rates are currently too low. Your breezy reference current Israelis, and their supporters, as mere "Zionists," is entirely untethered to any acts from almost a century ago. I have found that you frequently like to debate "Republicans" or "the right" in general, instead of specifically addressing what I said. And I find that most unfortunate... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 27, 2014 12:52:06 GMT
I would agree--and I think that this is substantially your point--that there is a "sweet spot," as regarding taxation: Marginal rates above a certain percentage discourage economic activity, and therefore result in less federal revenue; but marginal rates beneath a certain percentage can also be counterproductive. If the latter were not the case, we could just set tax rates at one percent, and let the money roll in! Where I disagree, however, is in your assumption that tax rates are currently too low. Your breezy reference current Israelis, and their supporters, as mere "Zionists," is entirely untethered to any acts from almost a century ago. I have found that you frequently like to debate "Republicans" or "the right" in general, instead of specifically addressing what I said. And I find that most unfortunate...
To start with the Zionists I'm going to cite a quotation from another forum by a known Zionist member.
The above is a Zionist "rationalization" laced with racism and lies to support the purge of Arabs from Palestine and is disturbingly similar to the Nazi propaganda against the Jews during the 1930's. These "Zionists" of today literally believe the Arabs should ultimately be forced of leave all of Palestine, by any form of coercion and violence necessary, believing that they have no right to live in the "Jewish" homeland. This is no different than the events of the late 1940's when the Zionist organizations were engaged in terrorism to force Arabs from the territory that became Israel.
"In 1948, 1.4 million Palestinians lived in 1,300 Palestinian towns and villages. More than 800,000 of the population were driven out of their homeland to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, neighboring Arab countries, and other countries of the world. Thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homes but stayed within the Israeli-controlled 1948 territory. According to documentary evidence, the Israelis controlled 774 towns and villages and destroyed 531 Palestinian towns and villages during the Nakba. The atrocities of Israeli forces also included more than 70 massacres in which 15,000 Palestinians were killed."
www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/512/default.aspx?tabID=512&lang=en&ItemID=1111&mid=317
The Zionist goal of ultimate control of all Palestine and the forced eviction of the Arabs has not diminished one iota since the beginning of the Zionist movement in the early 20th Century and they are more than willing to commit atrocities to achieve this ultimate goal. That's something you fail to understand. The 1967 6-Day War was just one small step in the overall Zionist plan to evict the Arabs from Palestine and all of the arguments that it was a justifiable "pre-emptive" attack have never been anything by propaganda. Israel never intended to give the land back to the Arabs but instead always intended to force the Arabs out by any means possible.
*************************************************************************
When we address taxation, as to whether it's too high or too low, we have to address it based upon "tax burden relative to income" and there is a simply fact that many miss. In the United States the cummulative tax burden (i.e. all forms of taxation from all levels of government) imposes the highest tax burden relative to income on the lowest income households and the lowest tax burden relative to income on the highest income households. Many "conservatives" like to state statistics about what percentage of federal income taxes the wealthy pay or how many dollars they pay in taxes but this is just a small percentage of all forms of taxation.
Did you know, for example, that the top 1% of the top 1% (one in one-thousand households) that earn over $10 million per year only pay an average of 17% in federal taxes of all kinds? That includes people like Bill Gates and the Walton families with over $1 billion/yr in income (that have a maximum income tax rate of 20%).
That's why my federal tax proposal was to treat every dollar of income the same, replace all tax deductions and tax credits with an exemption, and impose a single tax rate above that exemption. As I've mentioned based upon my proposal the bottom 1/2 of all households would pay no income taxes and for a balanced budget the maximum tax rate anyone would pay for a balanced budget in 2013 would have been 29%.
Don't tell me that someone with $10 million or more per year can't afford to pay 29% as opposed to 17% in federal income taxes. It's not their lifestyle would be diminished if they only had $7 million to spend because it's very doubtful that a person with "only" $10 million in income spends more that $2-3 million per year on living expenses. They invest the rest in almost all cases so that they have more income than they actually need. But remember that I'm not anti-rich because the rare CEO with a $10 million salary is in the 39.6% income tax bracket today because they're a "worker" and not an investor.
Bottom line the "worker" are generally over-taxed and the "investors" are under-taxed.
On a final note I find the Laffer curve to be a bad criteria. Taxation shouldn't be based upon how much "blood" the government can squeeze from the people but instead is should be limited to how much the government needs to fund necessary expenditures.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 1, 2014 19:01:00 GMT
I would agree--and I think that this is substantially your point--that there is a "sweet spot," as regarding taxation: Marginal rates above a certain percentage discourage economic activity, and therefore result in less federal revenue; but marginal rates beneath a certain percentage can also be counterproductive. If the latter were not the case, we could just set tax rates at one percent, and let the money roll in! Where I disagree, however, is in your assumption that tax rates are currently too low. Your breezy reference current Israelis, and their supporters, as mere "Zionists," is entirely untethered to any acts from almost a century ago. I have found that you frequently like to debate "Republicans" or "the right" in general, instead of specifically addressing what I said. And I find that most unfortunate...
To start with the Zionists I'm going to cite a quotation from another forum by a known Zionist member.
The above is a Zionist "rationalization" laced with racism and lies to support the purge of Arabs from Palestine and is disturbingly similar to the Nazi propaganda against the Jews during the 1930's. These "Zionists" of today literally believe the Arabs should ultimately be forced of leave all of Palestine, by any form of coercion and violence necessary, believing that they have no right to live in the "Jewish" homeland. This is no different than the events of the late 1940's when the Zionist organizations were engaged in terrorism to force Arabs from the territory that became Israel.
"In 1948, 1.4 million Palestinians lived in 1,300 Palestinian towns and villages. More than 800,000 of the population were driven out of their homeland to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, neighboring Arab countries, and other countries of the world. Thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homes but stayed within the Israeli-controlled 1948 territory. According to documentary evidence, the Israelis controlled 774 towns and villages and destroyed 531 Palestinian towns and villages during the Nakba. The atrocities of Israeli forces also included more than 70 massacres in which 15,000 Palestinians were killed."
www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/512/default.aspx?tabID=512&lang=en&ItemID=1111&mid=317
The Zionist goal of ultimate control of all Palestine and the forced eviction of the Arabs has not diminished one iota since the beginning of the Zionist movement in the early 20th Century and they are more than willing to commit atrocities to achieve this ultimate goal. That's something you fail to understand. The 1967 6-Day War was just one small step in the overall Zionist plan to evict the Arabs from Palestine and all of the arguments that it was a justifiable "pre-emptive" attack have never been anything by propaganda. Israel never intended to give the land back to the Arabs but instead always intended to force the Arabs out by any means possible.
*************************************************************************
When we address taxation, as to whether it's too high or too low, we have to address it based upon "tax burden relative to income" and there is a simply fact that many miss. In the United States the cummulative tax burden (i.e. all forms of taxation from all levels of government) imposes the highest tax burden relative to income on the lowest income households and the lowest tax burden relative to income on the highest income households. Many "conservatives" like to state statistics about what percentage of federal income taxes the wealthy pay or how many dollars they pay in taxes but this is just a small percentage of all forms of taxation.
Did you know, for example, that the top 1% of the top 1% (one in one-thousand households) that earn over $10 million per year only pay an average of 17% in federal taxes of all kinds? That includes people like Bill Gates and the Walton families with over $1 billion/yr in income (that have a maximum income tax rate of 20%).
That's why my federal tax proposal was to treat every dollar of income the same, replace all tax deductions and tax credits with an exemption, and impose a single tax rate above that exemption. As I've mentioned based upon my proposal the bottom 1/2 of all households would pay no income taxes and for a balanced budget the maximum tax rate anyone would pay for a balanced budget in 2013 would have been 29%.
Don't tell me that someone with $10 million or more per year can't afford to pay 29% as opposed to 17% in federal income taxes. It's not their lifestyle would be diminished if they only had $7 million to spend because it's very doubtful that a person with "only" $10 million in income spends more that $2-3 million per year on living expenses. They invest the rest in almost all cases so that they have more income than they actually need. But remember that I'm not anti-rich because the rare CEO with a $10 million salary is in the 39.6% income tax bracket today because they're a "worker" and not an investor.
Bottom line the "worker" are generally over-taxed and the "investors" are under-taxed.
On a final note I find the Laffer curve to be a bad criteria. Taxation shouldn't be based upon how much "blood" the government can squeeze from the people but instead is should be limited to how much the government needs to fund necessary expenditures.
Actually, I found the article by Naftali Bennett in The New York Times to be very well reasoned--although I must admit that I had not previously considered some of his proposals--and not "a Zionist 'rationalization' laced with racism," or an attempt at "the forced eviction of the Arabs." What, exactly, is your source for the assertion that "the top 1% of the top 1%" (which is actually the top one-ten thousandth--not the top one-thousandth) "only pay an average of 17% in federal taxes of all kinds"? That person with "$10 million" in annual income may actually be less financially stable than his typical $50,000-per-year counterpart. He may have chosen to live lavishly--with, say, $11 million in annual debts--and I would far prefer to have the $50,000 annual income with just $40,000 in annual debts. But some appear to think otherwise. Oh, and when you speak of "how much the government needs to fund necessary expenditures," you probably consider some things--including the ubiquitous income-transfer schemes--to be "necessary expenditures" of the government. I do not. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 2, 2014 14:05:10 GMT
Actually, I found the article by Naftali Bennett in The New York Times to be very well reasoned--although I must admit that I had not previously considered some of his proposals--and not "a Zionist 'rationalization' laced with racism," or an attempt at "the forced eviction of the Arabs."
One point at a time.
The post WW I Zionist agenda has always been to make all of Palestine the Jewish homeland. It has not waivered one iota from that goal in almost 100 years. We can look back at history and see how this goal has been incrementally implemented.
In 1947-1949 there were only 620,000 Jews in Palestine while there about 1.2 million Arabs (if memory serves me correctly). It is estimated that 80% of the Arabs lived in the same "territory" that the Jews wanted to secure for "Israel" so the Jews were literally outnumbered by the Arabs. The Zionists had to literally force Arabs out of the territory that was to become Israel or they would have been out-voted by the Arab that would also become citizens of a newly formed nation. They did so using terrorism and murder that resulted in an estimated 700,000 Arabs fleeing in fear for their lives as refugees from what became Israel. Only about 200,000 Arabs were allowed to remain in "Israel" after the Zionist campaign of terrorism and murder.
But the goal of all of Palenstine becoming the "Jewish nation" had still not been fulfilled. In 1967, based upon propaganda of a pre-emptive strike, Israel militarily occupied all of Palestine. In accordance with it's goal of all of Palestine becoming Israel it immediately began to occupy the Palestinian territories in E Jerusalem and the West Bank with Israeli citizens in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. Israel had no intention of ever withdrawing from the occupied territories because that would be against the ultimate goal of Israel being all of Palestine.
Israel doesn't want peace with the Palestinian Arabs. It wants the Palestinian Arabs out of Palestine and the only way it can accomplish this is by perpetuating the conflict. If there is peace then there's no way that the Israeli Zionists can ever hope to fulfill their goal of all of Palestine being a Jewish state. They can't allow the Arab Palestinians to remain in Palestine because they would be out-voted in a Democratic election. They have to use the same tactics of terrorism and murder to force the Arabs out of the Palestinian territory that they used in 1947-49 to force the Arabs out of Israel.
Why are so many blind to the Zionist agenda that has not changed in almost 100 years and of the strategy and tactics of terrorism and murder that must be employed for them to achieve their goal?
Israel can have peace with the Palestinians tomorrow based upon the conditions of UNSC Resolution 242. Even Hamas has stated it will abide by a referendum of the Palestinian people and stop it's terrorist campaign against Israel if that's what the Palestinian people want and that is what the Palestinian people want. Palestinians want self-rule in Palestine based upon the 1967 borders in complaince with UNSC Resolution 242 and they want a neutral military force (e.g. NATO) between them and Israel to prevent Israel from ever invading them again.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 2, 2014 14:26:38 GMT
What, exactly, is your source for the assertion that "the top 1% of the top 1%" (which is actually the top one-ten thousandth--not the top one-thousandth) "only pay an average of 17% in federal taxes of all kinds"? That person with "$10 million" in annual income may actually be less financially stable than his typical $50,000-per-year counterpart. He may have chosen to live lavishly--with, say, $11 million in annual debts--and I would far prefer to have the $50,000 annual income with just $40,000 in annual debts. But some appear to think otherwise. Oh, and when you speak of "how much the government needs to fund necessary expenditures," you probably consider some things--including the ubiquitous income-transfer schemes--to be "necessary expenditures" of the government. I do not.
You are correct. I've read numerous articles on the taxation of high income households and the top 1% of the top 1% is 1/10,000.
I couldn't find my specific source for the 17% tax rate but found a similar article that I had bookmarked. The numbers are slightly different but the point is the same.
blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/
Yes, in very rare cases those with very high incomes have more expenditures than income but those cases are very rare and those individuals become bankrupt in short order.
We don't determine what the "necessary expenditures" of government are. We've delegated that role and responsibility to our representatives in Congress. The budget authorizations of Congress define the necessary expenditures. What you or I personally consider to be "necessary" is irrelevant to the discussion. We don't get to make that decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 3, 2014 19:24:20 GMT
Actually, I found the article by Naftali Bennett in The New York Times to be very well reasoned--although I must admit that I had not previously considered some of his proposals--and not "a Zionist 'rationalization' laced with racism," or an attempt at "the forced eviction of the Arabs."
One point at a time.
The post WW I Zionist agenda has always been to make all of Palestine the Jewish homeland. It has not waivered one iota from that goal in almost 100 years. We can look back at history and see how this goal has been incrementally implemented.
In 1947-1949 there were only 620,000 Jews in Palestine while there about 1.2 million Arabs (if memory serves me correctly). It is estimated that 80% of the Arabs lived in the same "territory" that the Jews wanted to secure for "Israel" so the Jews were literally outnumbered by the Arabs. The Zionists had to literally force Arabs out of the territory that was to become Israel or they would have been out-voted by the Arab that would also become citizens of a newly formed nation. They did so using terrorism and murder that resulted in an estimated 700,000 Arabs fleeing in fear for their lives as refugees from what became Israel. Only about 200,000 Arabs were allowed to remain in "Israel" after the Zionist campaign of terrorism and murder.
But the goal of all of Palenstine becoming the "Jewish nation" had still not been fulfilled. In 1967, based upon propaganda of a pre-emptive strike, Israel militarily occupied all of Palestine. In accordance with it's goal of all of Palestine becoming Israel it immediately began to occupy the Palestinian territories in E Jerusalem and the West Bank with Israeli citizens in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. Israel had no intention of ever withdrawing from the occupied territories because that would be against the ultimate goal of Israel being all of Palestine.
Israel doesn't want peace with the Palestinian Arabs. It wants the Palestinian Arabs out of Palestine and the only way it can accomplish this is by perpetuating the conflict. If there is peace then there's no way that the Israeli Zionists can ever hope to fulfill their goal of all of Palestine being a Jewish state. They can't allow the Arab Palestinians to remain in Palestine because they would be out-voted in a Democratic election. They have to use the same tactics of terrorism and murder to force the Arabs out of the Palestinian territory that they used in 1947-49 to force the Arabs out of Israel.
Why are so many blind to the Zionist agenda that has not changed in almost 100 years and of the strategy and tactics of terrorism and murder that must be employed for them to achieve their goal?
Israel can have peace with the Palestinians tomorrow based upon the conditions of UNSC Resolution 242. Even Hamas has stated it will abide by a referendum of the Palestinian people and stop it's terrorist campaign against Israel if that's what the Palestinian people want and that is what the Palestinian people want. Palestinians want self-rule in Palestine based upon the 1967 borders in complaince with UNSC Resolution 242 and they want a neutral military force (e.g. NATO) between them and Israel to prevent Israel from ever invading them again.
According to an article I recently read, 74 percent-- almost three-quarters--of all Middle Easterners and North Africans are "harboring anti-Semitic views": www.jta.org/2014/05/13/news-opinion/world/survey-more-than-a-quarter-of-the-world-hates-jews (This flies directly in the face of your assertion that most Palestinians want "peace.") We are rapidly nearing 2015. Yet you wish to base your preferences upon what happened in the late 1940s... |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 3, 2014 19:34:51 GMT
What, exactly, is your source for the assertion that "the top 1% of the top 1%" (which is actually the top one-ten thousandth--not the top one-thousandth) "only pay an average of 17% in federal taxes of all kinds"? That person with "$10 million" in annual income may actually be less financially stable than his typical $50,000-per-year counterpart. He may have chosen to live lavishly--with, say, $11 million in annual debts--and I would far prefer to have the $50,000 annual income with just $40,000 in annual debts. But some appear to think otherwise. Oh, and when you speak of "how much the government needs to fund necessary expenditures," you probably consider some things--including the ubiquitous income-transfer schemes--to be "necessary expenditures" of the government. I do not.
You are correct. I've read numerous articles on the taxation of high income households and the top 1% of the top 1% is 1/10,000.
I couldn't find my specific source for the 17% tax rate but found a similar article that I had bookmarked. The numbers are slightly different but the point is the same.
blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/
Yes, in very rare cases those with very high incomes have more expenditures than income but those cases are very rare and those individuals become bankrupt in short order.
We don't determine what the "necessary expenditures" of government are. We've delegated that role and responsibility to our representatives in Congress. The budget authorizations of Congress define the necessary expenditures. What you or I personally consider to be "necessary" is irrelevant to the discussion. We don't get to make that decision.
I am hoping that "our representatives in Congress" will take a significanly different approach in 2015, when the Senate is controlled by the GOP, and the GOP actually increases its hold on the House. (I would not wish for Great Society-style thinking to continue to carry the day, ad infinitum.) Although I am not quite sure that I understand correctly the author that you cited, if he is asserting that "the middle class and the upper middle class" should be soaked, for taxes--and then "the top tenth of 1 percent"--I thoroughly disagree. That sounds like unapologetic class warfare. In other words, it sounds purely Marxist. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 4, 2014 13:17:54 GMT
You are aware, I assume, that the Anti-Defamation League is a Jewish organization that supports Zionism and that they classify anyone that opposes Zionism as being anti-Semitic. Is it any real surprise that 93% of those Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza that have suffered the worst tyranny of Zionism hate the Jews? They hate the Zionist Jews that oppress them. If the US was under the hostile occupation of Mexico for the last 1/2 century would we not hate the Mexicans? Is it any real surprise that other Muslims also hate the Jews because of the hostile occupation of Palestine and the tyranny of the Zionist Jews in oppressing and violating the Rights of the Muslims in Palestine?
People hate the Jews because of the actions of the Zionist Jews in Israel. Is that any surprise to anyone? Even my wife, that is Jewish, "hates" the Zionists but, like me, she doesn't link Zionism strictly to the Jews. There are far more non-Jewish Zionists in the world than all of the Jewish people combined. In the United States alone we have more Christians supporting Zionism than the entire world population of Jewish people.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 4, 2014 13:32:52 GMT
I am hoping that "our representatives in Congress" will take a significanly different approach in 2015, when the Senate is controlled by the GOP, and the GOP actually increases its hold on the House. (I would not wish for Great Society-style thinking to continue to carry the day, ad infinitum.) Although I am not quite sure that I understand correctly the author that you cited, if he is asserting that "the middle class and the upper middle class" should be soaked, for taxes--and then "the top tenth of 1 percent"--I thoroughly disagree. That sounds like unapologetic class warfare. In other words, it sounds purely Marxist.
Are you aware of the fact that the Great Society was based upon education, job training, and elimination of invidious discrimination in employment? Aren't you the one that advocates that a poor person on low income get a better education and better job training so that they can earn more income and don't you oppose invidious discrimination in employment? Have you now assumed the position that you oppose education, job training and ending invidious discrimination so that the poor can advance economically in our society?
The author is actually stating that the vast majority of the middle and upper middle class are currently being soaked for taxes while the 1/1000 are taxed far less and the top 400 income earners with well over $200 million in annual income pay less than someone earning less than $90,000/yr. He's advocating for "fair taxation" and not for class warfare based upon income. Once agian go back the the federal income tax proposal I've made, and that you agree with in principle, as it doesn't play favorites but would have dramatically reduced the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 29% in 2013 with a balanced budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 4, 2014 21:33:45 GMT
You are aware, I assume, that the Anti-Defamation League is a Jewish organization that supports Zionism and that they classify anyone that opposes Zionism as being anti-Semitic. Is it any real surprise that 93% of those Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza that have suffered the worst tyranny of Zionism hate the Jews? They hate the Zionist Jews that oppress them. If the US was under the hostile occupation of Mexico for the last 1/2 century would we not hate the Mexicans? Is it any real surprise that other Muslims also hate the Jews because of the hostile occupation of Palestine and the tyranny of the Zionist Jews in oppressing and violating the Rights of the Muslims in Palestine?
People hate the Jews because of the actions of the Zionist Jews in Israel. Is that any surprise to anyone? Even my wife, that is Jewish, "hates" the Zionists but, like me, she doesn't link Zionism strictly to the Jews. There are far more non-Jewish Zionists in the world than all of the Jewish people combined. In the United States alone we have more Christians supporting Zionism than the entire world population of Jewish people.
Presumably, your reference to "Christians" supporting "Zionism" is intended as a slap in the face of those chiliasts who believe that the Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem, and the Jews returned there en masse, before Christ returns to Earth. (Although that is not my own belief, I certainly do not harbor the rancor for these folks that you seem to feel toward them.) And your imputing "tyranny"and "oppress[ion]" of the Arabs "living in the West Bank and Gaza" to the Jews is simply astounding! The fact is that there is no other Middle Eastern country that allows Arabs (or anyone else, for that matter) as much freedom and as high of a standard of living as Israel does. (If you can think of an exception to this, please state it now.) |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 4, 2014 21:41:00 GMT
I am hoping that "our representatives in Congress" will take a significanly different approach in 2015, when the Senate is controlled by the GOP, and the GOP actually increases its hold on the House. (I would not wish for Great Society-style thinking to continue to carry the day, ad infinitum.) Although I am not quite sure that I understand correctly the author that you cited, if he is asserting that "the middle class and the upper middle class" should be soaked, for taxes--and then "the top tenth of 1 percent"--I thoroughly disagree. That sounds like unapologetic class warfare. In other words, it sounds purely Marxist.
Are you aware of the fact that the Great Society was based upon education, job training, and elimination of invidious discrimination in employment? Aren't you the one that advocates that a poor person on low income get a better education and better job training so that they can earn more income and don't you oppose invidious discrimination in employment? Have you now assumed the position that you oppose education, job training and ending invidious discrimination so that the poor can advance economically in our society?
The author is actually stating that the vast majority of the middle and upper middle class are currently being soaked for taxes while the 1/1000 are taxed far less and the top 400 income earners with well over $200 million in annual income pay less than someone earning less than $90,000/yr. He's advocating for "fair taxation" and not for class warfare based upon income. Once agian go back the the federal income tax proposal I've made, and that you agree with in principle, as it doesn't play favorites but would have dramatically reduced the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 29% in 2013 with a balanced budget.
Actually, LBJ's Great Society was essentially an extension of FDR's New Deal: all sorts of progressive nostrums, sold to the American people as some sort of enlightened panacea. Just how it (supposedly) enhanced "education" and "job training," and "eliminat[ed]...invidious discrimination in employment," I am unsure. Anyone who advocates redistributing the current federal tax burden--with some Americans paying more than in the past, while others pay less, based upon their income--is, essentially, advocating class warfare. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 6, 2014 9:13:44 GMT
Are you aware of the fact that the Great Society was based upon education, job training, and elimination of invidious discrimination in employment? Aren't you the one that advocates that a poor person on low income get a better education and better job training so that they can earn more income and don't you oppose invidious discrimination in employment? Have you now assumed the position that you oppose education, job training and ending invidious discrimination so that the poor can advance economically in our society?
The author is actually stating that the vast majority of the middle and upper middle class are currently being soaked for taxes while the 1/1000 are taxed far less and the top 400 income earners with well over $200 million in annual income pay less than someone earning less than $90,000/yr. He's advocating for "fair taxation" and not for class warfare based upon income. Once agian go back the the federal income tax proposal I've made, and that you agree with in principle, as it doesn't play favorites but would have dramatically reduced the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 29% in 2013 with a balanced budget.
Actually, LBJ's Great Society was essentially an extension of FDR's New Deal: all sorts of progressive nostrums, sold to the American people as some sort of enlightened panacea. Just how it (supposedly) enhanced "education" and "job training," and "eliminat[ed]...invidious discrimination in employment," I am unsure. Anyone who advocates redistributing the current federal tax burden--with some Americans paying more than in the past, while others pay less, based upon their income--is, essentially, advocating class warfare.
The centerpiece legislation of LBJ's Great Society was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. While it certainly had "growing pains" it's goals and programs were admirable and many remained even as the Act itself was fundamentally ended under the Reagan Administration. Sadly many of it's very successful programs that were retained often under different names have always been underfunded. Many of those successful programs are on the chopping block today by Republicans in Congress.
worldpf.com/post/7314/quote/274?page=20
Attempting to equalize the tax burden relative to income is not class warfare. As the article I posted established that when top 400 income earners (with incomes over $200 million/yr) in American pay a lower federal tax rate that someone earning less than $90,000 a year there's something inherently wrong with the tax system. It is not class warfare to correct that type of inequity in out tax codes. The poor should not have a higher tax burden relative to income than the wealthy but that is what we have today.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 6, 2014 9:36:40 GMT
You are aware, I assume, that the Anti-Defamation League is a Jewish organization that supports Zionism and that they classify anyone that opposes Zionism as being anti-Semitic. Is it any real surprise that 93% of those Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza that have suffered the worst tyranny of Zionism hate the Jews? They hate the Zionist Jews that oppress them. If the US was under the hostile occupation of Mexico for the last 1/2 century would we not hate the Mexicans? Is it any real surprise that other Muslims also hate the Jews because of the hostile occupation of Palestine and the tyranny of the Zionist Jews in oppressing and violating the Rights of the Muslims in Palestine?
People hate the Jews because of the actions of the Zionist Jews in Israel. Is that any surprise to anyone? Even my wife, that is Jewish, "hates" the Zionists but, like me, she doesn't link Zionism strictly to the Jews. There are far more non-Jewish Zionists in the world than all of the Jewish people combined. In the United States alone we have more Christians supporting Zionism than the entire world population of Jewish people.
Presumably, your reference to "Christians" supporting "Zionism" is intended as a slap in the face of those chiliasts who believe that the Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem, and the Jews returned there en masse, before Christ returns to Earth. (Although that is not my own belief, I certainly do not harbor the rancor for these folks that you seem to feel toward them.) And your imputing "tyranny"and "oppress[ion]" of the Arabs "living in the West Bank and Gaza" to the Jews is simply astounding! The fact is that there is no other Middle Eastern country that allows Arabs (or anyone else, for that matter) as much freedom and as high of a standard of living as Israel does. (If you can think of an exception to this, please state it now.)
No, I'm referring to American Christians that believe European Jews had a right to violate the sovereignty of "Palestinians" that lived in "Palestine" at the end of WW I based upon a BS claim of "hereditary rights" from 2000 years ago. Not a single Eurpoean Jew can trace their family lineage to ancient Palestine and we know today that few European Jews have any middle Eastern roots at all. The European Jews had no right to Palestine, ever. They didn't come from Palestine and they didn't belong in Palestine. It was not their homeland and had never been their homeland.
You really sum it up when you state the Zionist Jews of Israel "allow" the Palestinians to have anything. What friggin' right do the Zionists have to "allow" and "disallow" anything to the Arabs in the occupied territories? We should note that there's a lot of "disallowing" by the Zionists in a territory that doesn't belong to them at all. The Zionist bulldozers work non-stop in the occupied territories at "disallowing" by destroying Arab homes forcing them into the streets to allow more illegal immigration from Israel. The Arabs live in poverty throughout the occupied territories and we can see how benevolent the Zionists of Israel are. They gave "Gaza" to the Arabs but it is a desert with virtually no water and the Israel's don't allow enough water into Gaza to meet the basic needs of those living there. The residents in Gaza are living in desperate state of humanitarian crisis because that's all the Zionist Israelis "allow" them.
Today the hard core Zionists are basically telling the Arabs to GTFO of Palestine completely and go to one of the other 21 Arab countries to live and they're using every tool at their disposal to make this happen from economic oppression, denial of natural resourses, evictions and even to murder and intimidation.
There is no prospect of peace between the Israeli Zionists (that control the Israeli government) and the Palestinians because the Zionist don't want peace. They want the "Damn Arab Muslims" out of Palestine. That has always been the goal of the Zionists that hasn't waivered once since the end of WW I.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 8, 2014 18:08:34 GMT
Actually, LBJ's Great Society was essentially an extension of FDR's New Deal: all sorts of progressive nostrums, sold to the American people as some sort of enlightened panacea. Just how it (supposedly) enhanced "education" and "job training," and "eliminat[ed]...invidious discrimination in employment," I am unsure. Anyone who advocates redistributing the current federal tax burden--with some Americans paying more than in the past, while others pay less, based upon their income--is, essentially, advocating class warfare.
The centerpiece legislation of LBJ's Great Society was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. While it certainly had "growing pains" it's goals and programs were admirable and many remained even as the Act itself was fundamentally ended under the Reagan Administration. Sadly many of it's very successful programs that were retained often under different names have always been underfunded. Many of those successful programs are on the chopping block today by Republicans in Congress.
worldpf.com/post/7314/quote/274?page=20
Attempting to equalize the tax burden relative to income is not class warfare. As the article I posted established that when top 400 income earners (with incomes over $200 million/yr) in American pay a lower federal tax rate that someone earning less than $90,000 a year there's something inherently wrong with the tax system. It is not class warfare to correct that type of inequity in out tax codes. The poor should not have a higher tax burden relative to income than the wealthy but that is what we have today.
Oh, I would, indeed, classify what you are proposing as class warfare. (If you wish to equalize tax burdens "relative to income" by lowering the taxes on the middle class--not really "[t]he poor," as they typically pay no federal income tax, and may even receive an Earned Income Tax Credit--that is fine. But if you wish to achieve this end by increasing taxes on some Americans, that is not so fine, in my opinion.) And your enthusiasm for the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is, essentially, just an embrace of LBJ's utopian (and failed) "War on Poverty." |
|
