Liberals and their Taxes | Buy Reprint Rights | License Candorville | Get Candorville In Your Paper | Buy Candorville BOOKS
December 6th, 2012
Liberals and their Taxes
Discussion (25)¬
…or via Paypal
COLLECT CANDORVILLE BOOKS
COLLECT POLITICAL CARTOON BOOKS by DARRIN BELL
COLLECT RUDY PARK BOOKS by DARRIN BELL
The government isn't looking for a new job, they're asking for a raise in pay while saying they can't do quite as much work. Most bosses would squeeze a "you're fired!" in between all of the ROTFLMAO when presented with that.
The economy is bad. We have to do more with less. Why is it the government needs more in order to do less? Until they can show the same fiscal responsibility and sanity as my pre-teen niece, no thanks. I see no evidence that they would not take additional revenues and irresponsibly misuse them the same way they're misusing their current funds.
The government sparing the rich from paying taxes and therefore doing less will result in more economic contraction.
The government needs more because the tax cuts of the past decade have decimated its ability to do the work your'e talking about. The "more" it's asking for is less than it was collecting prior to the Bush tax cuts.
And what exactly did they pass in 2011 and 2012 that requires additional tax revenue to pay for today but didn't in 2010 when everyone agreed to extend 100% of the Bush Tax Cuts? Last I checked the only serious things that squeaked through were a debt ceiling increase and sequestration. Oh, and we got out of Iraq.
Unless of course they passed something in 2008-2010 that they couldn't pay for. Which is irresponsible. And then extended the tax cuts knowing they needed the money. Which is irresponsible. Just as irresponsible as, oh, say, passing a Medicare expansion without paying for it. Which is why we can't trust Washington with more money.
Why are you focusing on what they passed in 2011 and 2012? We're talking about maintaining what already exists without deficit spending; something we haven't been doing ever since the Bush tax cuts passed more than a decade ago.
So both parties have been fiscally irresponsible for over a decade, and you want to send them MORE money?
A huge component of that "fiscal irresonsibility" has been slashing taxes to the point where our social safety net is endangered. So yes, the obvious solution to that would be to repeal those tax cuts. Starving the system even more because you're unhappy with what they've done would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The other huge component is continuing to spend like drunken sailors despite slashing taxes and not either generating new revenue or making cuts somewhere else. In other words, they can't be trusted with your money. And your solution is to trust them with more of your money.
Two proverbs come to mind. One regarding a head and a brick wall, the other regarding a fool and his money. Looks like both apply. Hope you like bailouts and wars. That's where your money is going.
Calm down. People aren't "fools" for disagreeing with you. The bailouts prevented a second Great Depression, and whether we have more wars or not (which we will, America always does) is not reliant on whether we choose to pay for the wars we've already fought. Not paying the bills we've already run up will not prevent us from going to war or from deficit spending when the economy needs stimulus. So we might as well pay our bills.
To correct the verbiage in one of my posts: " the princple is that reducing tax rates results in more tax revenue. "
Except that it doesn't. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Republican Congresses and a Republican President just spent the better part of the last decade proving that that principle is not axiomatic.
Too often, wage slaves don't understand supply side economics. Are you salaried? Or are you an entrepreneur?
"Balancing a budget" and "supply side economics" are two different things. Supply side economics' principle is that reducing taxes results in more tax revenue. These are different things.
The point of raising tax revenue is to pay for our expenditures. In other words, balancing the budget. That's the entire reason for taxation.
Living below one's means is the sure path to prosperity. Read the outstanding book, "The Millionaire Next Door" to learn this fundamentally obvious principle.
Since this cartoon doesn't argue AGAINST your point, you just wasted three posts. What this cartoon is saying is that cutting spending is not the ONLY way to balance the budget. It's only one side of the equation. Increasing your income however you can, helps.
"Living beneath your means" does not lead to prosperity when your means are so meager that they only cover your basic survival needs. At that point, you have to increase your income if you want to thrive.
All of this ignores that macroeconomics are not the same as a household budget.
You would help yourself immensely if you read the following article: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334922/hig…
No, what the federal government does is steal more from taxpayers. This cartoon shows how economicaly ignorant liberals really are
Yes, but since companies are laying off, this might not be possible. Cutting back non essentialsis the first step.
True. But there's only so much cutting back you can do before your family's eating ice cubes for lunch, watching a blank TV screen, wearing Hefty bags and living under the overpass. At some point you have to say "maybe I need to earn more money."
For millions of Americans, if they can't find a higher paying job, that means taking a second, or third, or fourth job. But the principle's the same: if supply-siders are going to compare the national economy to an individual household, they can't escape the fact that households usually can't *cut* themselves out of poverty; and they definitely can't cut themselves into prosperity.
That, of course, assumes that they are wealthy enough to be able to afford "non-essentials" in the first place.
An African-American cleaning woman who lived a hard life, dropped out of school long before high school and never made more than $9,000 in a year was able to give Ol Miss $150,000. http://www.usm.edu/news/archives/older/oola1.htm
So what is your point?
BTW … some details: nothing in this article suggests that Ms McCarty only made $9K /yr … the article points out that she inherited money & property from a variety of sources … apparently has no children … & had about $100K left over after donating to The University of Southern Mississippi….