Another Question Liberals Can't Answer

[ActingNatural]

Here we go:

"Liberals always propose to solve problems they perceive in society by involving government, including the raising of taxes confiscated in order to fund the additional governmental growth they think necessary for a solution. As government has grown larger and larger over time, with higher and higher percentage rates of taxation to feed it, what do Liberals plan to do to solve society's problems after the inevitable 100% tax rate is reached?"

[USMC the Almighty]

I don't think they're that stupid to ever raise taxes to 100%. That would bring in no money because people wouldn't work, would move out of the country, and would have no money to invest.

They believe that the peak of the Laffer curve is around 60-80%. Look what happened when Carter tried it...

[Fonz]

Here we go:

"Liberals always propose to solve problems they perceive in society by involving government, including the raising of taxes confiscated in order to fund the additional governmental growth they think necessary for a solution. As government has grown larger and larger over time, with higher and higher percentage rates of taxation to feed it, what do Liberals plan to do to solve society's problems after the inevitable 100% tax rate is reached?"


Thats really interesting and shows that whomever you are quoting knows nothing about 'liberalism'.

[Rokerijdude11]

not to mention we are already taxed out the ass by Illegal taxation......we work till june every year to break even
so it seems the PUbs/Connies havent done so much better than the Liberals you seem to despise eh?


This is why we need to move away from the corrupted 2 party system and the failed Electoral Colleg

[TheWaffle]

Here we go:

"Liberals always propose to solve problems they perceive in society by involving government, including the raising of taxes confiscated in order to fund the additional governmental growth they think necessary for a solution. As government has grown larger and larger over time, with higher and higher percentage rates of taxation to feed it, what do Liberals plan to do to solve society's problems after the inevitable 100% tax rate is reached?"

The thing is that there is no right or wrong answer here. Many of the most economically prosperous nations in the world (especially in Europe) have tax rates in the 60%s and 70%s. Yet they function fine. Of course many nations work just as well having far less for taxation. It depends on many factors.

First of all it depends on how you measure success. Taxing is not implemented to ruin our lives. It is meant as a redistribution of wealth for our own good. If you started cutting taxes you would start seein more pot-holes in our roads, our kids would start coming home learning less and less, and all sorts of other government services would be reduced to the point where they would do more harm than good.

It is easy to say that you deserve to keep your money and you are completely right. But the reality is that then people start having to pay for schools and people have to start paving their own roads. And then you can end up with a society with an enormous disparity of wealth reminiscent of Pre-Revolutionary France, South Africa, or the UAE.

In my view the government's job is to ensure the highest opportunities and quality of life for all its people. But that means that people need to give the government money in order that it may do that. A tax-free society would be just as defunct as a 100% tax society. Money is the most efficient and easy way for the government to procure resources without taking people's time or property.

The reality is that liberals believe that the best good is done by collecting a great deal of funds and then creating equality of possibilities for all americans. Whereas conservatives believe that humans create their own possibilities. And you can argue all sorts of ways but in the end you end up with the worker who either says that they need more money to pay for food, but in cutting their taxes you take away their subsidized healthcare or insurance and then he gets sick...I personally take the liberal view because I believe it to be a more secure and balanced approach but opponents are certainly not wrong when they say the government is taking their money away.

But I do agree that tax increases are not the answer, they delay the problem. When you look at the operation and bureaucracy involved in government you find atrocious inefficiencies. All sorts of allocations of funds that hurt the system and damage both sides: an ineffective welfare system, the notorious 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska, NCLB...the list is endless. The problem is that politics takes priority over reason and logic 9 times out of 10. So all that any of us can do is vote for nonpartisan candidates.

[vyo476]

we need to move away from the corrupted 2 party system and the failed Electoral Colleg

I really couldn't agree more.

[vyo476]

100% taxation isn't taxation anymore. Money wouldn't even play into things as people wouldn't be working for any type of gain. It wouldn't make sense to maintain a monetary system where the money just goes from the employer to the government 100% without the worker who is "earning" it ever seeing it. That's like giving someone a ham sandwich to hand to someone else who is already standing two feet away - it's inefficient. In a 100% taxation economy someone would notice that inefficiency and then boom - no more money.

You don't even want to know what happens after that.

Suffice it to say that no one is that dumb, not even leftmost candidate on the Democratic ticket these days.

[God]

]The thing is that there is no right or wrong answer here.[/B] Many of the most economically prosperous nations in the world (especially in Europe) have tax rates in the 60%s and 70%s. Yet they function fine. Of course many nations work just as well having far less for taxation. It depends on many factors.

First of all it depends on how you measure success. Taxing is not implemented to ruin our lives. It is meant as a redistribution of wealth for our own good. If you started cutting taxes you would start seein more pot-holes in our roads, our kids would start coming home learning less and less, and all sorts of other government services would be reduced to the point where they would do more harm than good.

It is easy to say that you deserve to keep your money and you are completely right. But the reality is that then people start having to pay for schools and people have to start paving their own roads. And then you can end up with a society with an enormous disparity of wealth reminiscent of Pre-Revolutionary France, South Africa, or the UAE.

In my view the government's job is to ensure the highest opportunities and quality of life for all its people. But that means that people need to give the government money in order that it may do that. A tax-free society would be just as defunct as a 100% tax society. Money is the most efficient and easy way for the government to procure resources without taking people's time or property.

The reality is that liberals believe that the best good is done by collecting a great deal of funds and then creating equality of possibilities for all americans. Whereas conservatives believe that humans create their own possibilities. And you can argue all sorts of ways but in the end you end up with the worker who either says that they need more money to pay for food, but in cutting their taxes you take away their subsidized healthcare or insurance and then he gets sick...I personally take the liberal view because I believe it to be a more secure and balanced approach but opponents are certainly not wrong when they say the government is taking their money away.

But I do agree that tax increases are not the answer, they delay the problem. When you look at the operation and bureaucracy involved in government you find atrocious inefficiencies. All sorts of allocations of funds that hurt the system and damage both sides: an ineffective welfare system, the notorious 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska, NCLB...the list is endless. The problem is that politics takes priority over reason and logic 9 times out of 10. So all that any of us can do is vote for nonpartisan candidates.

1. The only right is God, no question about that.

2. I've given you all the resources you need, you don't need to measure them.

3. No, don't keep your money, give it to your church-that's my personal bank.

4. The government's job is to ensure citizens worship me.

5. I am always right, never doubt that.

[9sublime]

100% taxation might cause some kind of hyper inflation or other econominc crisis dragging it back down? I don't really know, but I don't think a country could maintain it as they would have to buy the population everything they needed.

[AntiNeoCon]

Bleeding hearts, your heart normally is not located in your back pocket. All you worry about is taxes when we are going down the tubes? Thats like a bit on the greedy and selfish side isn't it? If you would put a muzzle on GWB and his overzealous spending, we could actually afford tax cuts for all of us.

[evelyna]

Tax rates are high because of frivilous lawsuits politicans are fighting over.
We also have so many government entities who feel they are entitled to waste our money.
In PA they are always building roads. Most of the construction is being done in developed areas. If you drive an hour out of city bounds plenty of pot holes and rough driving conditions. I suppose people who ride on tractors to visit their cows and chickens do not deserve decant highways.
Schools should just send us all a bill.

[vyo476]

1. The only right is God, no question about that.

2. I've given you all the resources you need, you don't need to measure them.

3. No, don't keep your money, give it to your church-that's my personal bank.

4. The government's job is to ensure citizens worship me.

5. I am always right, never doubt that.

If you're always right then how come Jimmy Carter happened?

[vyo476]

Bleeding hearts, your heart normally is not located in your back pocket. All you worry about is taxes when we are going down the tubes? Thats like a bit on the greedy and selfish side isn't it? If you would put a muzzle on GWB and his overzealous spending, we could actually afford tax cuts for all of us.

First and foremost, tax money is what allows your friend "GWB" to do the things he does, so worrying about taxes is a very, very good idea, whether you're liberal or conservative. When we're "going down the tubes" as you put it it's the people who are spending your tax money who are generally expected to fix whatever the problem is, so yeah...we worry about our taxes.

Secondly, Liberals tend to raise taxes. Conservatives (actual conservatives, not neocons - we don't like neocons) tend to cut taxes. Because of the progressive curve of our taxes those cuts naturally favor the rich. You can't cut taxes on a very hefty chunk of the US population because they already aren't paying any. Tax cuts for the middle class produce small amounts of economic stimulation as consumers have more money to spend, meaning that middle-class cuts are employed in areas with weakening commercial economies. Tax cuts for the rich are meant to give investment capital back to the people who will use it to create companies and therefore jobs, which has the benefit of strengthening the economy. The more money they have the more companies they can make and the more jobs they produce so that people in the lower and middle classes can earn livings and potentially gain enough money to create their own enterprise and rise up to become rich themselves.

[PLC1]

Here we go:

"Liberals always propose to solve problems they perceive in society by involving government, including the raising of taxes confiscated in order to fund the additional governmental growth they think necessary for a solution. As government has grown larger and larger over time, with higher and higher percentage rates of taxation to feed it, what do Liberals plan to do to solve society's problems after the inevitable 100% tax rate is reached?"

Does that mean that the big spenders currently in the White House, and formerly (before the last election) dominating Congress are liberals?

I agree.

Now, just where are the conservatives? Have they all gone the way of the dodo bird?

[vyo476]

Does that mean that the big spenders currently in the White House, and formerly (before the last election) dominating Congress are liberals?


Not liberals. Neocons. At least a decent liberal is honest about his/her spending habits (not to say that all are, not by a long shot).

[endtyranny]

Taxes are so high because of all the new and hidden taxes being set on the shoulders of those of us in the middle and lower income brackets and all the tax cuts, subsidies, and earmarks going to the wealthy and huge corporations. And by the way, Republicans were responsible for the biggest government expansion in U.S. history.

[USMC the Almighty]

If you would put a muzzle on GWB and his overzealous spending, we could actually afford tax cuts for all of us.

...or you could cut all of the socialist bull**** that GWB has to spend the tax money on. You are so one-dimensional, so close-minded.

I am certainly not apologizing for the President's profligate spending. That is one of the many issues that we diverge on, but you've got to see it both ways. Raising taxes is never the answer.

[USMC the Almighty]

Taxes are so high because of all the new and hidden taxes being set on the shoulders of those of us in the middle and lower income brackets and all the tax cuts, subsidies, and earmarks going to the wealthy and huge corporations.

Taxes, by definition, fall most heavily on the rich, especially when they are taxed a higher percentage of their income. Check out the "rich pay most federal taxes" thread.

And by the way, Republicans were responsible for the biggest government expansion in U.S. history.

I'm not arguing that the last six years have seen a large expansion of gov't, but exactly how are you measuring this against other presidencies that come to mind like say, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ...

[endtyranny]

Many of those presidents succeeded in areas like national unity, vital social programs, civil rights, worker's rights, etc. They achieved important things. Surely you can't compare the Department of Homeland Security to the SEC or Medicaid.

[endtyranny]

I heavily doubt that the wealthy pay higher taxes, as for a dollar amount, sure, that's probably because the richest Americans account for 90% of the country's wealth, but what gives you the idea that they pay a larger percentage?

[USMC the Almighty]

Many of those presidents succeeded in areas like national unity, vital social programs, civil rights, worker's rights, etc. They achieved important things. Surely you can't compare the Department of Homeland Security to the SEC or Medicaid.

The success of these programs have nothing to do with the topic (although we could debate that if interested). You made the claim that this has been the largest federal expansion in history. I challenge you to back it up, and I'm prepared to argue that some presidents such as Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ have all increased the size of gov't more than the current president.

[USMC the Almighty]

I heavily doubt that the wealthy pay higher taxes, as for a dollar amount, sure, that's probably because the richest Americans account for 90% of the country's wealth, but what gives you the idea that they pay a larger percentage?

Do you have an income? Do you pay taxes?

It's known as "progressive tax" where people with more "disposable income" pay a higher percentage of that income in tax than do those with less income. It's not proportional to wealth, which, is what I would argue would be the fairest.

[vyo476]

The success of these programs have nothing to do with the topic (although we could debate that if interested). You made the claim that this has been the largest federal expansion in history. I challenge you to back it up, and I'm prepared to argue that some presidents such as Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ have all increased the size of gov't more than the current president.

FDR especially. We went from the minimalist government of the 20s to near-Socialism in the 30s. To use metaphorical language, our government went from about the size of a pea to the size of a whale during FDR's 100 Days Congress.

And of course, in the end it didn't do a whole lot of good and we just managed to scrape by until World War II bailed us out. In a perverse way we have the Nazis to thank for the end of the Great Depression.

[USMC the Almighty]

FDR especially. We went from the minimalist government of the 20s to near-Socialism in the 30s.

I could make the case for the all of them. Jackson w/ vetoes, displacement of Indians, etc. (though he did veto the 2nd Nat'l bank).

Lincoln with suspension of habeas corpus, Clement Vallandigham and the jailing of dissenters/protestors in Canada, silencing of anti-war press...

Wilson with Federal Reserve, WW1, income tax...

FDR with his deficit spending, alphabet agencies (especially the TVA -- closest thing to Socialism this country has ever approached), and the creation of a welfare state.

LBJ and his "Great Society" which was largely just an extension of New Deal -- essentially solidified the welfare state and created a permanent dependency on government.

I could go into further detail, but you get the point. Above are examples of expansion of gov't. Creating the Dept. of Homeland Security is not akin to any of this.

And of course, in the end it didn't do a whole lot of good and we just managed to scrape by until World War II bailed us out. In a perverse way we have the Nazis to thank for the end of the Great Depression.

Very true. I would argue, however, that it was more the mobilization for WW2 then the actual war that brought us out.

[PLC1]

Taxes, by definition, fall most heavily on the rich, especially when they are taxed a higher percentage of their income. Check out the "rich pay most federal taxes" thread.



I'm not arguing that the last six years have seen a large expansion of gov't, but exactly how are you measuring this against other presidencies that come to mind like say, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ...

There was a huge expansion of government under FDR, but there was also the little matter of WWII and the great depression to take care of. We did get something in return for the government expansion at that time: We won the war, helped to rebuild Europe and Japan, ended the depression, and built the interstate highway system. The current administration more closely resembles that of LBJ, in which the government expanded exponentially, but with little real accomplishment.

Well, to give LBJ credit where credit is due, civil rights did take a quantum leap forward, but that could have been accomplished without much government spending.

To give GWB credit.... let me think.... the accomplishments of his administration have been...have been... C'mon, someone help me out here, I'm drawing a blank.:confused:

[USMC the Almighty]

use metaphorical language, our government went from about the size of a pea to the size of a whale during FDR's 100 Days Congress.

That's a good point when you look at the size of gov't in the 20s to that of the 30s. The 1920s was the birthplace of economic conservatism with Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Andrew Mellon...

[USMC the Almighty]

There was a huge expansion of government under FDR, but there was also the little matter of WWII and the great depression to take care of. We did get something in return for the government expansion at that time: We won the war, helped to rebuild Europe and Japan, ended the depression, and built the interstate highway system. The current administration more closely resembles that of LBJ, in which the government expanded exponentially, but with little real accomplishment.

Except 5 years of gov't expansion led to nothing, as most of it was erased with the 1937 "Roosevelt Recession". We did win the war, help to rebuild Europe and Japan, and as a result came out the Depression.

The interstate highway system was built under Eisenhower, not FDR.



Well, to give LBJ credit where credit is due, civil rights did take a quantum leap forward, but that could have been accomplished without much government spending.



True, but the civil rights movement didn't arise out of the government. It's not like the government was on the forefront, pushing for civil rights. It was reactionary -- a response to the call for civil rights.

But all of this is missing the point -- we can debate each presidency and assess their success in another thread. Here we're talking about which presidnet expanded gov't the most, not who had the most success as a result of the increased government.

[TruthAboveAll]

The thing is that there is no right or wrong answer here. Many of the most economically prosperous nations in the world (especially in Europe) have tax rates in the 60%s and 70%s. Yet they function fine. Of course many nations work just as well having far less for taxation. It depends on many factors.

Actually, there is a right answer. This is the U.S., where we have a system like no other on earth. We get into all kinds of problems by trying to make ourselves like other countries that are supposedly so successful, yet filled with want and/or lack of freedom. If so many of them were functioning so well, why is it that so many, from so many countries still want to come here? The other countries that have had the greatest success are those who have adopted the American model to some degree. They may not get it perfect, heck WE don't get it perfect! But it's a vast improvement over anywhere.

First of all it depends on how you measure success. Taxing is not implemented to ruin our lives. It is meant as a redistribution of wealth for our own good. If you started cutting taxes you would start seein more pot-holes in our roads, our kids would start coming home learning less and less, and all sorts of other government services would be reduced to the point where they would do more harm than good.

No, taxing is not implemented to ruin our lives. That's just the unintended result. Taxation = lack of freedom, lack of personal responsibility. I'm smart. The highways are a Constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government. They should keep us pothole free! And I'd guess you're not from Michigan - we've got enough potholes to share with the whole country. In case you haven't noticed, our kids ARE coming home learning less and less. (Generally speaking.) The government schools are an abysmal failure. (Generally speaking, again.) I'll not even go into the other government services. That's just WAY too big a subject.

It is easy to say that you deserve to keep your money and you are completely right. But the reality is that then people start having to pay for schools and people have to start paving their own roads. And then you can end up with a society with an enormous disparity of wealth reminiscent of Pre-Revolutionary France, South Africa, or the UAE.

As citizens of this country, we all have a responsibility to pay a reasonable portion of our income to the community coffers for the common good. Only the most radical would think otherwise. But the question becomes who controls what? Disparity of wealth isn't a bad thing, of and by itself, in a free system. But, thank you, I don't want the government telling me "Okay, you only make $xxx, and we're going to take the hard-earned money from Joe Blow over here and give you $yyy of it. Now you and Joe both will have $zzz. I simply want the opportunity to earn it for myself, not the government, aka Big Brother to give me it. And WHEN I do make what Joe does, I don't want them to take it from me, either. Wealth redistribution is one of the great evils alive in liberal fallacies.

In my view the government's job is to ensure the highest opportunities and quality of life for all its people. But that means that people need to give the government money in order that it may do that. A tax-free society would be just as defunct as a 100% tax society. Money is the most efficient and easy way for the government to procure resources without taking people's time or property.

Actually, the governments job is to provide a save and secure environment for ALL it's people to have the opportunity to prosper. That's way brief, but it's a lengthy subject otherwise.

But I do agree that tax increases are not the answer, they delay the problem. When you look at the operation and bureaucracy involved in government you find atrocious inefficiencies. All sorts of allocations of funds that hurt the system and damage both sides: an ineffective welfare system, the notorious 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska, NCLB...the list is endless. The problem is that politics takes priority over reason and logic 9 times out of 10. So all that any of us can do is vote for nonpartisan candidates.


Several issues here, but just to say - so true, tax increases are not the answer. And the inefficiencies are indeed outrageous.

The reality is that liberals believe that the best good is done by collecting a great deal of funds and then creating equality of possibilities for all americans. Whereas conservatives believe that humans create their own possibilities. And you can argue all sorts of ways but in the end you end up with the worker who either says that they need more money to pay for food, but in cutting their taxes you take away their subsidized healthcare or insurance and then he gets sick...I personally take the liberal view because I believe it to be a more secure and balanced approach but opponents are certainly not wrong when they say the government is taking their money away.

I'm just going to have to come back to this one later, or in another thread. I'm up too late now, and the "liberals believe that the best good is done by collecting a great deal of funds" etc is NOT what creates opportunity, equal or otherwise. It creates Socialism, with the state deciding who does what, what you eat, what you wear, what you listen to, where you go, how you go... I don't need to get myself going on that this late. It will cause nightmares.:eek:

[vyo476]

Very true. I would argue, however, that it was more the mobilization for WW2 then the actual war that brought us out.

I think that's a little semantic since we wouldn't have mobilized for the war if it hadn't been happening. Still, there is a level of truth to it - war is blowing **** up whereas the mobilizing the armed forces for total war provides economic stimulation.

[vyo476]

That's a good point when you look at the size of gov't in the 20s to that of the 30s. The 1920s was the birthplace of economic conservatism with Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Andrew Mellon...

I always balk at putting Mellon and Harding in the same sentence. Mellon had a clue. Harding didn't.

[PLC1]

But all of this is missing the point -- we can debate each presidency and assess their success in another thread. Here we're talking about which presidnet expanded gov't the most, not who had the most success as a result of the increased government.

OK, I tried a search to see just when the government expanded the most, and came up with some close and related information, but nothing definitive. The conclusion I drew from all of that is that the government has been expanding exponentially for the past 70 years at least, and shows no signs of stopping, let alone shrinking.

The so called "conservatives" who are currently in power have done nothing to slow this expansion. Quite the contrary, especially if you consider the rise in government spending and the resultant deficit. Whoever you want to blame, the federal government has become too big, too intrusive, and too powerful, and no one is even discussing cutting it back.

[Castle]

Whoever you want to blame, the federal government has become too big, too intrusive, and too powerful, and no one is even discussing cutting it back.
Add fat and lazy to that list.
Congress should pride itself on appearing very busy while actually accomplishing next to nothing. If I could master this trick my job would be a breeze! :rolleyes:

-Castle

[DemocratLupis]

instead of being liberals Democrats should be Intervals