Rockngolfer, it’s sarcasm. You could replace it with “umpteen.” It categorically, unquestionably does not work. Don’t know what planet Larhof lives on, but on this one, voodoo economics only increased the gap between rich and poor by making the superrich richer and the poor and middle-class poorer. It’s rather well documented. Under Reagan, even some of the well-off got poorer. Every time this has been implemented, we have gotten the same effect. This is why the wealth of this nation has been steadily concentrating into a smaller and smaller subset of Americans.
Doesn’t Republican dogma lead to a conclusion that if you cut tax rates down to 0%, you would get infinite revenue to fund the government?They always promise that lower tax rates will lead to increased revenues. So why don’t they go the Full Monty with their “Economics Plan that has No Clothes”?Talk about a laffer.
Since the big-money oligarchy is actually running the country, their skyrocketing wealth amounts to a tax on everyone else. If fact, that’s the REAL tax, dwarfing what the IRS gets.
Agree in part with towerrat— more than two kids, your taxes increase- especially to pay for schools, infrastructure, and social services. The “farm economy” that required more kids to work your fields is LONG GONE! It is time to put an end to overpopulation, and giving privileges to those most blatantly ignorant of their impacts, economically, and ecologically. Why don’t folks realize that in order to be “consumers” in the market, they consume the resources of the planet?
I heard Pawlenty say on Face the Nation this morning that offshore industries have over a $trillion just waiting to bring into the US as soon as we lower their tax rates. He didn’t say what they are going to do with it. Under the Bush tax credits for moving manufacturing overseas the last rate I heard was from 0% to 5% income tax on money brought from offshore.
So your baby’s hungry,So your baby’s sick,Don’t make babies,That’ll do the trick.Put another string of barbed wire in your little love nest,It’s better than a cardboard box, Mother Knows Best.Richard Thompson (the musician, not the cartoonist)
Thompson wrote that song about Thatcherism, but the refrain “Don’t have kids if you can’t afford to feed them” is timeless. It’s also thoughtless and heartless, insofar that it implies that reproduction (and, by extension, sex) is a prerogative reserved for the upper classes.
Whatever you may think of Mike Judge’s political leanings in Idiocracy, it’s true that in our society the wealthy and/or educated tend to have a lower birthrate than the poor and/or uneducated. So taxing extraneous children, whether you set the default at two or one or even zero, is (on the whole) going to put the biggest hardship on those who can least afford to bear it. If your goal is to lower the number (or even the percentage) of children growing up impoverished, it’ll’ prove counterproductive, I guarantee it.
I agree that unchecked population growth is a problem, and as much as I’m uncomfortable with China’s one-child policy, I fear that a similar policy is inevitably going to be in our own future. The only way that could conceivably (pun acknowledged, but incidental) be “fair” is to apply it across the board, at every economic level.
There are all sorts of preventative strategies for reducing the birthrate of the poor, including (but not limited to) MANDATORY Sex Education (no opt-outs) and easily-available contraception and abortion, but I don’t know of any punitive measures that would be conscienable. Once they’re here, the babies have to be taken care of (if only to reduce the social impact of when they grow up).
Of course, I’ve ALWAYS believed that any child after the first two is a grave mistake, and both my older siblings will back me up on that. :-)
But, mdavis4183, if you increase taxes and spend less both, it’s a win-win solution. So tax cuts might not “cost” but they sure don’t help the economy.
Motive – you say “gotten?” I won’t argue the politics with you, because you can’t accept, but “gotten the same effect?” How about “the results have been the same.” If you have really achieved the level of education that you frequently boast, show it. Speak English man!
Loco, c’mon, is that the best you can do? “Have gotten” is legitimate American usage. UK English usage is different, as it happens. And “have gotten” implies a cause-and-effect sequence repeating, which “the results have been the same” does not, which is why I used it.
grapfhics almost 13 years ago
An nothing’s Pawlenty for me
rockngolfer almost 13 years ago
MMDCCCLXXIIIIs that 2873. What does that mean?
Brockie almost 13 years ago
I have a moderate income, okay, well it is quite low, I would be willing to sacrifice and pay more if it were used wisely…ah, there is the rub.
Larhof52 almost 13 years ago
Regan tried it after Carter screwed things up. It worked. Don’t argue with me, argue with History. Too bad George Sr. and everyone else never got it.
Motivemagus almost 13 years ago
Rockngolfer, it’s sarcasm. You could replace it with “umpteen.” It categorically, unquestionably does not work. Don’t know what planet Larhof lives on, but on this one, voodoo economics only increased the gap between rich and poor by making the superrich richer and the poor and middle-class poorer. It’s rather well documented. Under Reagan, even some of the well-off got poorer. Every time this has been implemented, we have gotten the same effect. This is why the wealth of this nation has been steadily concentrating into a smaller and smaller subset of Americans.
Dirty Dragon almost 13 years ago
Doesn’t Republican dogma lead to a conclusion that if you cut tax rates down to 0%, you would get infinite revenue to fund the government?They always promise that lower tax rates will lead to increased revenues. So why don’t they go the Full Monty with their “Economics Plan that has No Clothes”?Talk about a laffer.
RunninOnEmpty almost 13 years ago
Since the big-money oligarchy is actually running the country, their skyrocketing wealth amounts to a tax on everyone else. If fact, that’s the REAL tax, dwarfing what the IRS gets.
Dtroutma almost 13 years ago
Agree in part with towerrat— more than two kids, your taxes increase- especially to pay for schools, infrastructure, and social services. The “farm economy” that required more kids to work your fields is LONG GONE! It is time to put an end to overpopulation, and giving privileges to those most blatantly ignorant of their impacts, economically, and ecologically. Why don’t folks realize that in order to be “consumers” in the market, they consume the resources of the planet?
Justice22 almost 13 years ago
I heard Pawlenty say on Face the Nation this morning that offshore industries have over a $trillion just waiting to bring into the US as soon as we lower their tax rates. He didn’t say what they are going to do with it. Under the Bush tax credits for moving manufacturing overseas the last rate I heard was from 0% to 5% income tax on money brought from offshore.
rockngolfer almost 13 years ago
I got Pawlenty of nothin’ and nothin’s Pawlenty for me.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 13 years ago
So your baby’s hungry,So your baby’s sick,Don’t make babies,That’ll do the trick.Put another string of barbed wire in your little love nest,It’s better than a cardboard box, Mother Knows Best. Richard Thompson (the musician, not the cartoonist)
Thompson wrote that song about Thatcherism, but the refrain “Don’t have kids if you can’t afford to feed them” is timeless. It’s also thoughtless and heartless, insofar that it implies that reproduction (and, by extension, sex) is a prerogative reserved for the upper classes.
Whatever you may think of Mike Judge’s political leanings in Idiocracy, it’s true that in our society the wealthy and/or educated tend to have a lower birthrate than the poor and/or uneducated. So taxing extraneous children, whether you set the default at two or one or even zero, is (on the whole) going to put the biggest hardship on those who can least afford to bear it. If your goal is to lower the number (or even the percentage) of children growing up impoverished, it’ll’ prove counterproductive, I guarantee it.
I agree that unchecked population growth is a problem, and as much as I’m uncomfortable with China’s one-child policy, I fear that a similar policy is inevitably going to be in our own future. The only way that could conceivably (pun acknowledged, but incidental) be “fair” is to apply it across the board, at every economic level.
There are all sorts of preventative strategies for reducing the birthrate of the poor, including (but not limited to) MANDATORY Sex Education (no opt-outs) and easily-available contraception and abortion, but I don’t know of any punitive measures that would be conscienable. Once they’re here, the babies have to be taken care of (if only to reduce the social impact of when they grow up).
Of course, I’ve ALWAYS believed that any child after the first two is a grave mistake, and both my older siblings will back me up on that. :-)
Mythreesons almost 13 years ago
But, mdavis4183, if you increase taxes and spend less both, it’s a win-win solution. So tax cuts might not “cost” but they sure don’t help the economy.
oneoldhat almost 13 years ago
T P gets it correct for once even lib jfk understood this
Loco80 almost 13 years ago
Motive – you say “gotten?” I won’t argue the politics with you, because you can’t accept, but “gotten the same effect?” How about “the results have been the same.” If you have really achieved the level of education that you frequently boast, show it. Speak English man!
Bilword almost 13 years ago
We get the politicians we deserve here
Motivemagus almost 13 years ago
Loco, c’mon, is that the best you can do? “Have gotten” is legitimate American usage. UK English usage is different, as it happens. And “have gotten” implies a cause-and-effect sequence repeating, which “the results have been the same” does not, which is why I used it.
pirate227 almost 13 years ago
Now, that is desperate.