Ben Stein explains taxes are to low to dig out of debt hole with in time to avoid interest bomb.

http://gawker.com/5953010/ben-stein-tells-incredulous-fox--friends-hosts-taxes-are-too-damn-low

Former Republican speechwriter and game show host Ben Stein likely won't be invited back on Fox & Friends any time soon after the conservative economist dropped a megaton truth bomb in the studio earlier this morning.

Asked by Gretchen Carlson what needs to be done in order to fix the economy, Stein said unequivocally that taxes need to be increased for upper-echelon earners.

"I hate to say this on Fox, and I hope I'll be allowed to leave here alive, but I don't think there is anyway we can cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference," Stein said. "We going to have to raise taxes on very rich people, people with incomes of like say, 2, 3 million a year and up, and then slowly move it down."

Thinking he may have misheard the Ferris Bueller star, Steve Doocy asked Stein if he doesn't think "Washington just has a spending problem."

FORWARD! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thinking he may have misheard the Ferris Bueller
> star, Steve Doocy asked Stein if he doesn't think
> "Washington just has a spending problem."

Fox and Friends is no better than any of the network morning shows. The only difference is that they have a daily talking points agenda they have to keep their guests from straying too far from.

Ben Stein must have made Doocy's life flash before his eyes.

Whoever gets elected HAS to raise taxes. Its illogical to think that you can just slash government and lower taxes and get the job done. Something has to be done about both. Slash some government spending AND raise taxes.

Solar CoAsTeR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoever gets elected HAS to raise taxes. Its
> illogical to think that you can just slash
> government and lower taxes and get the job done.
> Something has to be done about both. Slash some
> government spending AND raise taxes.


It has to start with Defense. It is just ridiculous to believe that we would somehow be invaded and conquered if we were to reduce spending even a little.

We could easily cut all new programs for 5 years, just spend enough to maintain current systems, at current troop levels, and fight 3 wars if we had to while maintaining homeland defense.

The whole defense spending scheme right now is the biggest handout to special interests, and it has been a drain on our society for way too long. Ike warned us about this very thing, but for some reason the defense industry has been able to constantly rattle our cages enough to drown him out and continuously increase spending. It is the most blatant example of the redistribution of wealth from EVERYONE to a select few.

Taxes only cover about half of discretionary spending. They spend as much on national security alone as they collect in individual income tax receipts.

If Romney gets elected and raises taxes, he can kiss a second term goodbye.

The problem is republicans have always been in bed with defense contractors and big government contractors. Hell Chainey even owned shares in Blackwater(Halliburton) that got no bid contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan security. We got fleeced on that one big time.

I can't believe they even had the balls to name the company "Blackwater" or as we all know... OIL.

We need to pay down the debt and the only way to do that is keep or increase taxes and cut government and defense spending. We also need cut foreign aid. Why are we helping other countries when we're going bankrupt. Let Iraq rebuild their own country and temples.

FORWARD! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Stein explains taxes are to low to dig out of
> debt hole with in time to avoid interest bomb.
>
> http://gawker.com/5953010/ben-stein-tells-incredul
> ous-fox--friends-hosts-taxes-are-too-damn-low
>
> Former Republican speechwriter and game show host
> Ben Stein likely won't be invited back on Fox &
> Friends any time soon after the conservative
> economist dropped a megaton truth bomb in the
> studio earlier this morning.
>
> Asked by Gretchen Carlson what needs to be done in
> order to fix the economy, Stein said unequivocally
> that taxes need to be increased for upper-echelon
> earners.
>
> "I hate to say this on Fox, and I hope I'll be
> allowed to leave here alive, but I don't think
> there is anyway we can cut spending enough to make
> a meaningful difference," Stein said. "We going to
> have to raise taxes on very rich people, people
> with incomes of like say, 2, 3 million a year and
> up, and then slowly move it down."
>
> Thinking he may have misheard the Ferris Bueller
> star, Steve Doocy asked Stein if he doesn't think
> "Washington just has a spending problem."

Its on "opinion" not a truth.

The tax base need to be expanded by creating more jobs that allow people to earn income and pay taxes.

It isn't just Republicans. Democrats have their hands in it, too. Maybe not as much, but still.

Carlyle Group was started to invest in defense companies.

And speaking of no-bid contracts, why hasn't anyone made a big deal about Bechtel being the primary american partner in the silver line construction, with a spanish company as the other partner?

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its on "opinion" not a truth.
>
> The tax base need to be expanded by creating more
> jobs that allow people to earn income and pay
> taxes.

Go back to watching Fox News and parrot that shit someplace else.

Econ 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is republicans have always been in bed
> with defense contractors and big government
> contractors. Hell Chainey even owned shares in
> Blackwater(Halliburton) that got no bid contracts
> for Iraq and Afghanistan security. We got fleeced
> on that one big time.
>
> I can't believe they even had the balls to name
> the company "Blackwater" or as we all know...
> OIL.
>
> We need to pay down the debt and the only way to
> do that is keep or increase taxes and cut
> government and defense spending. We also need cut
> foreign aid. Why are we helping other countries
> when we're going bankrupt. Let Iraq rebuild their
> own country and temples.

And you need to educate yourself a bit more before parroting liberal sound bites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Asked by Gretchen Carlson what needs to be done
> in
> > order to fix the economy, Stein said
> unequivocally
> > that taxes need to be increased for
> upper-echelon
> > earners.
> >
> >
> > Thinking he may have misheard the Ferris
> Bueller
> > star, Steve Doocy asked Stein if he doesn't
> think
> > "Washington just has a spending problem."
>
> Its on "opinion" not a truth.

Truth has become subjective. You'd be more accurate to say it is an opinion, not fact. Facts are objective.


>
> The tax base need to be expanded by creating more
> jobs that allow people to earn income and pay
> taxes.


If you really believe that, you obviously don't have much, if any, grasp for economics. Firstly, that is circular logic. Secondly, you would need to create several hundred million jobs in order to pay off the debt with income taxes. More than we have people in this country.

Ultimately, it is just a talking point designed for the consumption of ideologues and nitwits.

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Econ 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The problem is republicans have always been in
> bed
> > with defense contractors and big government
> > contractors. Hell Chainey even owned shares in
> > Blackwater(Halliburton) that got no bid
> contracts
> > for Iraq and Afghanistan security. We got
> fleeced
> > on that one big time.
> >
> > I can't believe they even had the balls to name
> > the company "Blackwater" or as we all know...
> > OIL.
> >
> > We need to pay down the debt and the only way
> to
> > do that is keep or increase taxes and cut
> > government and defense spending. We also need
> cut
> > foreign aid. Why are we helping other
> countries
> > when we're going bankrupt. Let Iraq rebuild
> their
> > own country and temples.
>
> And you need to educate yourself a bit more before
> parroting liberal sound bites.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi

Blackwater was started by an ex-Navy Seal. They did some training in Northern VA by Quantico. They were hired by Cheney in a no bid contract to do "dirty deeds" in Iraq. The idea was to keep Bush isolated from any mis-haps. And guess what? That's exactly what happened when Blackwater screwed up and killed 13 Iraq civilians. Trust me Blackwater was a spin off of Halliburton and repaid favor from Cheney.

The ex-Navy seal worked knew Cheney from Halliburton. Cheney divided the contracts between Halliburton and Blackwater.

Entitlement spending (SS, Medicaid, & Medicare)accounts for >2/3 of tax revenues.

The elimination of every dime of non-defense discretionary spending would not balance the budget.

The elimination of every dime of non-defense discretionary spending AND 80% of defense spending would not balance the budget.

"I hate to say this on Fox, and I hope I'll be allowed to leave here alive, but I don't think there is anyway we can cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference," Stein said. "We going to have to raise taxes on very rich people, people with incomes of like say, 2, 3 million a year and up, and then slowly move it down." OP



HA Ha ha!

Ben Stein? Really?........... Okay!



He was first a poverty lawyer in New Haven, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. before becoming a trial lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission.[5]
Stein's first teaching stint was as an adjunct professor, teaching about the political and social content of mass culture at American University in Washington, D.C. He subsequently taught classes at University of California, Santa Cruz on political and civil rights under the United States Constitution. At Pepperdine University in Southern California, Stein taught libel law and United States securities law and its ethical aspects. He was a professor of law at Pepperdine University Law School, from about 1990 to 1997.[6]
Stein was the commencement speaker for the Liberty University 2009 graduation on Saturday, May 9, at Williams Stadium.[7] At this ceremony, the University awarded him an honorary degree. According to the school, Stein "delivered a message about creationism, patriotism, and value for humanity to graduates and their families."[8]

If you care to notice none of Ben's academic background qualifies him as an economist. Great guy for sure but no economist. This could be the reason he has no concept of his error in understanding dynamic economic scoring in relation to federal revenues.

His correlation between tax rates / economic growth for a thirty year period between WWII and the seventies in relation to our current economic dilemma is not only wrong it is pointless. It's the old "apples and oranges" thing. The extenuating economic circumstances of the period of time he speaks in no way compare to what has happened since. He makes the same mistake the president does when targeting "the super rich" and not identifying his definition of "the super rich" only saying he doesn't think 250K annual qualifies. 2,3,4,5 million or whatever. Just throw numbers around for the hell of throwing numbers around.

The fact is Ben Stein is no economist and demonstrates only a layman's understanding of economics at best. And the truth is no one would even give his economic musings the time of day if it weren't for the movie "Ferris Buhler's Day Off".

I could find you videos of Mr. Stein saying the exact opposite only a short while back so he has a habit of inconsistency and confusion.

In a nutshell Ben is fun to watch but no economist.

....................................................Thomas Sowell

The Republican Party is starting to lose me.

In part because, when sequestration starts looming larger and larger, they are freaking out...because of all the jobs that could/will be lost.

However, it is a republican mantra that "government doesn't create jobs, free enterprise does".

OK, then you shouldn't mind that the gov is going to pull the plug on $500 billion of defense spending, and $500 billion on other "programs".

The republican response is then, well, the defense spending trickles through the economy...all the defense workers buy cars, get haircuts, etc.

Well, no shit. And so too does the money from other programs...park rangers, teachers, whoever is employed because of those other programs also buys that kind of shit.

Then, a tool like Steve Doocey "corrects" Ben Stein by saying "Washington just has a spending problem". OK, then don't bitch when sequestration hits. That is stopping spending.

As it relates to cutting taxes so small businesses can grow and hire...small businesses can grow and hire whether taxes are "high" or "low". If everybody is paying the same taxes, nobody has a competitive advantage or didsadvantage due to taxes. They're all in the same boat.

And no, a company that grows doesn't necessarily hire...as a matter of fact, if they are able to pocket more money because taxes are lower, mission accomplished. Why grow? A buddy of mine owns a small company, and tells me he could pay 0% in taxes, and that wouldn't help him grow at all. He would just keep the money, and keep doing the same amount of business.

Hell, he says, I could even cut back a little, 'cause I'm bringing more money home via lower taxes. Screw hiring and growing.

People can confuse taxes on investments by "normal folks" via 401K's etc, and hedge fund types. As for the latter, they invest and rip companies apart, in many instances. Most common folks, though, simply own small amounts.

But either way, what the hell else are people going to invest in if they raise taxes on investment income? Just put their money under pillows?

Don't confuse a hedge fund guys investment in a company with a regular, everyday person's investment in company...the latter might actually help a company grow, while the former is an investment so large that it allows for decision making, changing the company's structure, and many times, arrogating all profits for themselves, with only a secondary concern for actually growing the company. If they can make money ripping the thing apart and driving some of the pieces in the ground, they'll do it.

They don't give a dam about the company, or America. They want to put money in their pocket, which is OK, but they want you to believe they are for the good ol' USA.

Believe 'em if you want, suckers.

Not me.

A coupla myths Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Republican Party is starting to lose me.
>
> In part because, when sequestration starts looming
> larger and larger, they are freaking out...because
> of all the jobs that could/will be lost.
>
> However, it is a republican mantra that
> "government doesn't create jobs, free enterprise
> does".
>
> OK, then you shouldn't mind that the gov is going
> to pull the plug on $500 billion of defense
> spending, and $500 billion on other "programs".
>
> The republican response is then, well, the defense
> spending trickles through the economy...all the
> defense workers buy cars, get haircuts, etc.
>
> Well, no shit. And so too does the money from
> other programs...park rangers, teachers, whoever
> is employed because of those other programs also
> buys that kind of shit.
>
> Then, a tool like Steve Doocey "corrects" Ben
> Stein by saying "Washington just has a spending
> problem". OK, then don't bitch when sequestration
> hits. That is stopping spending.
>
> As it relates to cutting taxes so small businesses
> can grow and hire...small businesses can grow and
> hire whether taxes are "high" or "low". If
> everybody is paying the same taxes, nobody has a
> competitive advantage or didsadvantage due to
> taxes. They're all in the same boat.
>
> And no, a company that grows doesn't necessarily
> hire...as a matter of fact, if they are able to
> pocket more money because taxes are lower, mission
> accomplished. Why grow? A buddy of mine owns a
> small company, and tells me he could pay 0% in
> taxes, and that wouldn't help him grow at all. He
> would just keep the money, and keep doing the same
> amount of business.
>
> Hell, he says, I could even cut back a little,
> 'cause I'm bringing more money home via lower
> taxes. Screw hiring and growing.
>
> People can confuse taxes on investments by "normal
> folks" via 401K's etc, and hedge fund types. As
> for the latter, they invest and rip companies
> apart, in many instances. Most common folks,
> though, simply own small amounts.
>
> But either way, what the hell else are people
> going to invest in if they raise taxes on
> investment income? Just put their money under
> pillows?
>
> Don't confuse a hedge fund guys investment in a
> company with a regular, everyday person's
> investment in company...the latter might actually
> help a company grow, while the former is an
> investment so large that it allows for decision
> making, changing the company's structure, and many
> times, arrogating all profits for themselves, with
> only a secondary concern for actually growing the
> company. If they can make money ripping the thing
> apart and driving some of the pieces in the
> ground, they'll do it.
>
> They don't give a dam about the company, or
> America. They want to put money in their pocket,
> which is OK, but they want you to believe they are
> for the good ol' USA.
>
> Believe 'em if you want, suckers.
>
> Not me.


You're not fooling anybody Occutard. lol

Job Creator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Asked by Gretchen Carlson what needs to be
> done
> > in
> > > order to fix the economy, Stein said
> > unequivocally
> > > that taxes need to be increased for
> > upper-echelon
> > > earners.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thinking he may have misheard the Ferris
> > Bueller
> > > star, Steve Doocy asked Stein if he doesn't
> > think
> > > "Washington just has a spending problem."
> >
> > Its on "opinion" not a truth.
>
> Truth has become subjective. You'd be more
> accurate to say it is an opinion, not fact. Facts
> are objective.
>
>
> >
> > The tax base need to be expanded by creating
> more
> > jobs that allow people to earn income and pay
> > taxes.
>
>
> If you really believe that, you obviously don't
> have much, if any, grasp for economics. Firstly,
> that is circular logic. Secondly, you would need
> to create several hundred million jobs in order to
> pay off the debt with income taxes. More than we
> have people in this country.

Right...what was i thinking, only Obama can create jobs. Yes there is absolutely no way to tax ourselvs out the debt, therefore we really need to cut spending.
>
> Ultimately, it is just a talking point designed
> for the consumption of ideologues and nitwits.

What is ideological about supporting economic liberty and the Constitution written to preserve it?

Derp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A coupla myths Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Republican Party is starting to lose me.
> >
> > In part because, when sequestration starts
> looming
> > larger and larger, they are freaking
> out...because
> > of all the jobs that could/will be lost.
> >
> > However, it is a republican mantra that
> > "government doesn't create jobs, free
> enterprise
> > does".
> >
> > OK, then you shouldn't mind that the gov is
> going
> > to pull the plug on $500 billion of defense
> > spending, and $500 billion on other "programs".
> >
> > The republican response is then, well, the
> defense
> > spending trickles through the economy...all the
> > defense workers buy cars, get haircuts, etc.
> >
> > Well, no shit. And so too does the money from
> > other programs...park rangers, teachers,
> whoever
> > is employed because of those other programs
> also
> > buys that kind of shit.
> >
> > Then, a tool like Steve Doocey "corrects" Ben
> > Stein by saying "Washington just has a spending
> > problem". OK, then don't bitch when
> sequestration
> > hits. That is stopping spending.
> >
> > As it relates to cutting taxes so small
> businesses
> > can grow and hire...small businesses can grow
> and
> > hire whether taxes are "high" or "low". If
> > everybody is paying the same taxes, nobody has
> a
> > competitive advantage or didsadvantage due to
> > taxes. They're all in the same boat.
> >
> > And no, a company that grows doesn't
> necessarily
> > hire...as a matter of fact, if they are able to
> > pocket more money because taxes are lower,
> mission
> > accomplished. Why grow? A buddy of mine owns a
> > small company, and tells me he could pay 0% in
> > taxes, and that wouldn't help him grow at all.
> He
> > would just keep the money, and keep doing the
> same
> > amount of business.
> >
> > Hell, he says, I could even cut back a little,
> > 'cause I'm bringing more money home via lower
> > taxes. Screw hiring and growing.
> >
> > People can confuse taxes on investments by
> "normal
> > folks" via 401K's etc, and hedge fund types. As
> > for the latter, they invest and rip companies
> > apart, in many instances. Most common folks,
> > though, simply own small amounts.
> >
> > But either way, what the hell else are people
> > going to invest in if they raise taxes on
> > investment income? Just put their money under
> > pillows?
> >
> > Don't confuse a hedge fund guys investment in a
> > company with a regular, everyday person's
> > investment in company...the latter might
> actually
> > help a company grow, while the former is an
> > investment so large that it allows for decision
> > making, changing the company's structure, and
> many
> > times, arrogating all profits for themselves,
> with
> > only a secondary concern for actually growing
> the
> > company. If they can make money ripping the
> thing
> > apart and driving some of the pieces in the
> > ground, they'll do it.
> >
> > They don't give a dam about the company, or
> > America. They want to put money in their
> pocket,
> > which is OK, but they want you to believe they
> are
> > for the good ol' USA.
> >
> > Believe 'em if you want, suckers.
> >
> > Not me.
>
>
> You're not fooling anybody Occutard. lol


I guess not, as I stepped out of my garage with my 2012 Mercedes and 2009 BMW comfortably parked there, and I turn on the lights to my $1.2M house.

LOL.

oh really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I guess not, as I stepped out of my garage with my
> 2012 Mercedes and 2009 BMW comfortably parked
> there, and I turn on the lights to my $1.2M
> house.
>
> LOL.

To "occutard" guy, and "herp"...

Ah...the old lawyer's trick.

When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

When the facts are not on your side and you don't know what the hell you are talking about, attack the presenter.

It also occurs to me that you've fallen in the same trap as the occupiers...don't know what the hell you are talking about, and try to make every argument a bumper sticker or a cute little picture.

Wake the f up, and think for yourselves.

You're gonna get fooled if you don't.

And by the way, the conditions I described are not all that fantastic for this area, and they are very real.

Look around yourself...many people in FFX have the same, or much, much more.

But no, not an occutard.

NO NEW TAXES Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Romney gets elected and raises taxes, he can
> kiss a second term goodbye.


Odd, Reagan was able to do it without being fired by republicans. You know nothing you infant neo-con

Stein definitely has held some views that are "out there", but he does actually have an economics background. He is the son of well known conservative economist Herbert Stein, and he was an economics major at Columbia before going into law. He has frequently written on or been a commentator on economics in conservative as well as liberal media sources. As for that Ferris Bueller presentation, IIRC it wasn't the result of some Hollywood scriptwriter or plagerized from some journal; it was Stein's own work.

to both of ya's Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To "occutard" guy, and "herp"...
>
> Ah...the old lawyer's trick.
>
> When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
>
> When the facts are not on your side and you don't
> know what the hell you are talking about, attack
> the presenter.
>
> It also occurs to me that you've fallen in the
> same trap as the occupiers...don't know what the
> hell you are talking about, and try to make every
> argument a bumper sticker or a cute little
> picture.
>
> Wake the f up, and think for yourselves.
>
> You're gonna get fooled if you don't.


Sorry, the "fact" is that there's no point in arguing with someone who's obviously drank the Kool Aid and is working from the basis of dumb memes and anecdotes.

Note that in this and all of the similar contemporary Progressive arguments to pay more taxes that such drones post there's never any mention nor even thought given to the other side of the equation -- spending. Versus what to any rational person would be required in order to have a realistic discussion of Federal finances, they really have no interest in that. The reason for that is because it's purely an artificial argument. The actual intent is punitive not fiscal and they're simply parroting the same old tired "1%er" meme.

So, might as well just post dumb pics in response. Just as thoughtful as replaying Matt Taibbai columns.

More Kool Aid?

Don't know what your point is.

There is a clear conflict between the typical republican mantras of "government doesn't create jobs, private enterprise does" and "we need to cut government spending, not raise taxes" with all their uproar over sequestration, which, of course, they say will cut jobs (that government spending created). And of course, sequestration is cutting government spending.

But, they don't want sequestration.

So, what do they (we) want?

still missing the point Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't know what your point is.
>
> There is a clear conflict between the typical
> republican mantras of "government doesn't create
> jobs, private enterprise does" and "we need to cut
> government spending, not raise taxes" with all
> their uproar over sequestration, which, of course,
> they say will cut jobs (that government spending
> created). And of course, sequestration is cutting
> government spending.
>
> But, they don't want sequestration.
>
> So, what do they (we) want?


Nobody really wants sequestration. Well, nobody in government does anyway. It's fine by me. That's the only way that it seems we'll ever cut spending for anything. But it's not going to happen. They'll simply extend the status quo and delay the hard decisions as they always do.

It's not just Republicans who object to defense cuts by the way, where there obviously is a lot of fat. It's Dems as well who have a defense presence in their districts/states.

And nobody, nobody serious anyway, believes that Federal spending doesn't create jobs of one kind or another. It's a dumb strawman argument on both sides. The more substantive argument is around economic efficiency and effectiveness, but that's much too deep for ideologues. Likewise, the Progressive argument for increasing taxes with respect to creating jobs is disingenuous. As above, the objective isn't an economic one; rather, social and punitive and a matter of redirecting (or redistributing if you'd like) tax money from one group to another.

I wouldn't be so opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy if the money actually went to a good cause.

Like erecting a massive White Nationalist military juggernaut to cleanse the whole world of mud people.

Or to build epic futuristic cities like Dubai.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN8tQNT3_5E

Instead, my White Gold gets wasted on fighting AIDS in Africa or to give brown people all kinds of free shit.

Fuck that.

The Anti-Krugman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> still missing the point Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Don't know what your point is.
> >
> > There is a clear conflict between the typical
> > republican mantras of "government doesn't
> create
> > jobs, private enterprise does" and "we need to
> cut
> > government spending, not raise taxes" with all
> > their uproar over sequestration, which, of
> course,
> > they say will cut jobs (that government
> spending
> > created). And of course, sequestration is
> cutting
> > government spending.
> >
> > But, they don't want sequestration.
> >
> > So, what do they (we) want?
>
>
> Nobody really wants sequestration. Well, nobody
> in government does anyway. It's fine by me.
> That's the only way that it seems we'll ever cut
> spending for anything. But it's not going to
> happen. They'll simply extend the status quo and
> delay the hard decisions as they always do.
>
> It's not just Republicans who object to defense
> cuts by the way, where there obviously is a lot of
> fat. It's Dems as well who have a defense
> presence in their districts/states.
>
> And nobody, nobody serious anyway, believes that
> Federal spending doesn't create jobs of one kind
> or another. It's a dumb strawman argument on both
> sides. The more substantive argument is around
> economic efficiency and effectiveness, but that's
> much too deep for ideologues. Likewise, the
> Progressive argument for increasing taxes with
> respect to creating jobs is disingenuous. As
> above, the objective isn't an economic one;
> rather, social and punitive and a matter of
> redirecting (or redistributing if you'd like) tax
> money from one group to another.


So, let me get this straight...in saying taxes are a "matter of redirecting tax money from one group to another" are examples of that outlined in the paragraph below?

As in, redirecting money to a highway administration to build and oversee highways...redirecting money to the department of defense for distribution to our army, navy and air force...redirecting money to the NIH for medical studies...redirecting to a myriad of social programs...redirecting to the national park service for their oversight of our national parks...etc, etc.

Well, no shit, then. And how is that punitive? We don't need those things? We are merely being punished by being taxed to pay for those things?

So what is your point?

Have "private enterprise" provide for these things?

If it were left to private enterprise to provide these things, it wouldn't happen. If it were to happen,it wouldn't happen with any efficiency. If it were left to states alone to provide for these things (as opposed to federal government) it would happen, and it wouldn't happen with any degree of efficiency.

So, if you are suggesting that taxes are merely punitive, you are wrong.

If you are suggesting taxes are a redistribution to other things, you are right, but then again, what is your point? Don't have 'em?

Stein is correct. It's simple math. You don't cut revenue when you company is has to pay off debt. Romney is an idiot to do so. He obviously doesn't care about paying off the debt.

"If it were left to private enterprise to provide these things, it wouldn't happen. If it were to happen,it wouldn't happen with any efficiency."

Says who? Says you? You are an idiot in need of an education in logic.

So hopelessly wrong on all levels there is simply no use in responding.

But alas just today!

" Pay gap between government, private sector widens to 34 percent"
http://www.federalnewsradio.com//189/3085581/Pay-gap-between-government-private-sector-widens-to-34-percent

If the Government is more efficient than the private sector why are we $17 trillion in debt. And why do you still "get a number" at the Social Security or in your case the Welfare office now that we have been in the 21st century for over a decade now?

Next idiot;
" You don't cut revenue when you company is has to pay off debt."

What a completely useless statement. Without a doubt the absolute dumbest I've ever heard demonstrating a complete and total lack of understanding even the most simple elements of economics.

There is no comparison between private sector revenue off sales of goods and services and federal revenue mandatory confiscation.

How would the widget company reduce revenue. Stop mfg widgets and/or refuse to sell over a certain amount?

Would they raise the price high enough to reduce demand thus reducing revenue?

Then if I was the owner of Widget Inc after I made those bone headed moves maybe I might just come over to your company and add to my lack of revenues by taking yours.

Really man you are like trying to teach a 5 year old and I'm not so damn sure that I'm not insulting 5 yr olds.

No. When your government is deep in debt and running big deficits, you don't cut tax receipts or raise spending. You eventually reach the Keynesian endpoint, that's referred to as the Bang Point, where interest rates and deficits explode.