Provably how? Christ said that when we give to charity, we should do it in secret. I (and likely others) figure this goes for tithing as well, so I seldom write a check on Sunday, preferring to drop cash in the collection bag. That's because they keep track of checks donated so the giver can deduct from taxes (which I never do, and I don't believe charity should be tax-deductable. A tax dodge isn't charity). There's no way to count anonymous donations.
Provably by the same standard that all other political discussions are proved -- based upon available data. If you're going to try to argue that a significant portion of charitable deductions aren't recorded **and** that there is probably a significant correlation difference between conservatives and liberals giving anonymously, then there is no basis for a rational debate on any political topic.
Well, I prefer to see government as small as possible, but a gigantic country can't have too small a government. I don't think wanting the rich to pay more is charitable, only wise. We have a huge defecit and are in the middle of the worst recession since the Depression so collections from working people are way down, we have two long wars to pay for, and the rich are paying fewer taxes than any time I've been alive, and I'm 60.
Collecting 100% of the income from the rich, would not come close to eliminating the deficit. These figures dispute your assertion that the rich are paying fewer taxes than any time in the last 60 years: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners
Time and time again it's been proven that wealth doesn't trickle down. Taxes on the rich were slashed to help the economy, and it did exactly the opposite. The same thing happened when Reagan slashed the capital gains tax, there was an orgy of corporate takeovers and layoffs that ultimately led to the Bush Sr. recession.
The Reagan tax *rate* cuts (and loophole elimination) greatly increased federal tax revenues and are the reason we rebounded out of the Jimmy Carter recession with incredible sustained growth (12 years in a row of sustained economic growth, the longest in American history). So, I don't know what you are talking about here.
Then there's the fairness aspect. How is it fair that Romney only paid 14% when a roofet pays over twice that rate? The roofer is putting his life on the line so Romney can get richer! Is this fair?
Over two years (2010 and 2011), Romney's total income was $42.5 million. He paid $6.2 million in taxes in gave away $7 million to charity. Therefore, he's giving to society at a rate of 31% of his income. Also, don't forget that most of that income was capital gains, which are the funds that drive economic expansion. Sounds more than fair to me.
I can't disagree with that, but my point is that when you're paying less in taxes than any time in your life, and government is deeply in debt yet you're calling for even lower taxes, that goes directly against Mark 12:14-17.
Not that I'm calling for lower taxes, but I'm certainly not calling for higher taxes. Why do you think it's more moral to take money away from those that earned it rather than letting them keep it? Why is the size of government (federal spending as percent of GDP) at this moment in time the correct size, despite the fact that it's significantly higher than any time other than WWII?
Okay, I've got to throw away my moderation on this topic to respond to this crap.
U.S. conservatives (in general) are provably more charitable than liberals. Somehow, liberals have gotten a lot of traction out of their position that if you vote to tax rich people, then you are more compassionate than those who prefer to limit government and give of themselves.
It's also completely ridiculous to imply that conservatives, as a group, "love money" more than liberals. If that were so, then why would conservatives be willing to give away more of their money than liberals (even when income levels are the same)?
Finally, trying to call on the teachings of Jesus to support higher taxation is beyond ludicrous. Saying that someone has a moral obligation to be charitable and to help their fellow man is not the same as saying that you should use the force of government to take more and more money away from others.
Also, If you want to argue that Jesus has stated that citizens should pay their lawful taxes -- fine, no argument. But, engaging in debate and voting for candidates that support lowered taxes is not tax avoidance. So, please all of you liberals that think that Jesus' teachings are supporting your stance, think again before trotting out these ridiculous arguments, over and over.
I used to think that Net Neutrality was obviously the proper way to go. Reading the debates over the past year, I've realized that I don't know which side is correct. That indecision leads me to believe that before we let the camel's nose into the tent, we better be damned sure that we want the hump in there too; because, it's going to happen.
So, I guess I'd rather wait until it's shown that ISP abuses aren't being addressed by the marketplace, before I called for Net Neutrality regulations. It's not like the politicians will be any less willing to act, at that point.
According to a 2006 report by economists Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider, that if you adjust for traffic accidents, suicides, and homicides, then the U.S. life expectancy rises to #1. Which argues that the health system is not the issue for low life expectancy. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Apparently, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tried to counter that argument in 2008 with a GDP-adjusted analysis that places the U.S. at 17th. Personally, I don't see that GDP is relevant to the discussion.
Some critics assert that the official U.S. poverty definition is inconsistent with how it is defined by its own citizens and the rest of the world, because the U.S. government considers many citizens statistically impoverished despite their ability to sufficiently meet their basic needs.
and
Moreover, Swedish libertarian think tank Timbro points out that lower-income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger houses than many middle-income Western Europeans.
Percentage of Poor U.S. Households (in 2005) that had a refrigerator 99.6%, Television 97.7%, Stove and oven 97.7%, more than one television 65.1%, and cable or satellite television 63.7%. [source U.S. Dept. of Energy, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2005]
I doubt that it can be shown anymore than you can show that increased taxes will result in increased revenue (the system is too chaotic). At least I have some anecdotal evidence to support my position.
Plenty of good arguments for not increasing the tax rate. That it won't increase revenue isn't one of them.
Nice, but I didn't claim that it wouldn't. It might or might not. Tax cuts might or might not increase revenue, also. My argument was with the original implications that balancing the budget can't involve cutting taxes. It clearly can.
I'm not using the Laffer Curve as the basis for my argument, I'm using the historical record. Between 2003 and 2007 (after the tax cut), Federal tax revenues rose from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion, a 44% increase [Forbes.com].
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
I don't understand this demagoguery by the Left. Are you saying that using the current tax rates (or higher) is the only way to get to a balanced budget? This seems to ignore two things: government revenues are not a linear function of tax rates (sometimes they are inversely related!) and lower spending can offset lower revenue.
And Biden followed it up (when he came on stage) by referring to Obama as "Barack America". I'm sure that SNL and The Daily Show will pay no more attention to Romney's gaffe than they did when Obama did the same thing.
Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current.analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." Source: http://theclevelandcurrent.com/
Austerity is a death spiral that creates needless suffering at a time when govt should be fulfilling the Constitutional mandate to "provide for the general welfare."
Which might be an issue if "austerity" meant "spending less than the Democrats want". Luckily, that's not the case.
It took me a couple of seconds to parse this and I almost skipped over a good point. So, for the benefit over others, the poster meant "coma" and not "comma".
... and other things (... the military...) that government is better at. We should use the best tool for the job in each case.
It sounds like you don't think that Republicans would tend to agree with that part of your statement. Since that was considered a legitimate function of the Federal government at its founding, I doubt that many Republicans would disagree with you on that part.
I appreciate your tone. However, again there is some mis-characterization. Republicans don't seem to be opposed to "chipping" into a very large pool that is controlled by someone else. Obviously, they do it all of the time (e.g., Roman Catholic Church or the United Way). Perhaps, there is something to your argument about evolutionary adaptation; however, I tend to think that it is a justifiable belief that locality of control should be as small as practical. It is one of the founding principles of the United States.
I don't see much difference between the Democrats and Republicans in their personal desire to pay "high" taxes. I do, however, see quite a bit of difference in the eagerness to force others to pay higher taxes.
But they aren't just charitable to "small groups". Again, Republicans are demonstrably more charitable toward other nations that have experienced disasters (such as Haiti). Face it, the original remark was simply mean-spirited and baseless.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really? This study [ http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf ] indicates that Rasmussen was the most accurate of pollsters in the last U.S. Presidential election.
In the future, letters and numbers could be obsolete, so how is a QR code any different?
Track record.
Closing tags do not take attributes /wooooooosh
I think they do in SCML (Slashdot Comment Markup Language).
At the rate people are buying Chevy Suburban and Cadillac Escalade, I think we're well on our way! Good job Americans!
/sarc
U.S. Sales of the most popular version of the Cadillac Escalade have declined each year since 2006. [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Escalade#U.S._sales ]
Sales of the Chevy Suburban have had more ups-and-downs, but 2011 sales are about one-third of their peak in 2001.
Provably how? Christ said that when we give to charity, we should do it in secret. I (and likely others) figure this goes for tithing as well, so I seldom write a check on Sunday, preferring to drop cash in the collection bag. That's because they keep track of checks donated so the giver can deduct from taxes (which I never do, and I don't believe charity should be tax-deductable. A tax dodge isn't charity). There's no way to count anonymous donations.
Provably by the same standard that all other political discussions are proved -- based upon available data. If you're going to try to argue that a significant portion of charitable deductions aren't recorded **and** that there is probably a significant correlation difference between conservatives and liberals giving anonymously, then there is no basis for a rational debate on any political topic.
Well, I prefer to see government as small as possible, but a gigantic country can't have too small a government. I don't think wanting the rich to pay more is charitable, only wise. We have a huge defecit and are in the middle of the worst recession since the Depression so collections from working people are way down, we have two long wars to pay for, and the rich are paying fewer taxes than any time I've been alive, and I'm 60.
Collecting 100% of the income from the rich, would not come close to eliminating the deficit. These figures dispute your assertion that the rich are paying fewer taxes than any time in the last 60 years: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners
Time and time again it's been proven that wealth doesn't trickle down. Taxes on the rich were slashed to help the economy, and it did exactly the opposite. The same thing happened when Reagan slashed the capital gains tax, there was an orgy of corporate takeovers and layoffs that ultimately led to the Bush Sr. recession.
The Reagan tax *rate* cuts (and loophole elimination) greatly increased federal tax revenues and are the reason we rebounded out of the Jimmy Carter recession with incredible sustained growth (12 years in a row of sustained economic growth, the longest in American history). So, I don't know what you are talking about here.
Then there's the fairness aspect. How is it fair that Romney only paid 14% when a roofet pays over twice that rate? The roofer is putting his life on the line so Romney can get richer! Is this fair?
Over two years (2010 and 2011), Romney's total income was $42.5 million. He paid $6.2 million in taxes in gave away $7 million to charity. Therefore, he's giving to society at a rate of 31% of his income. Also, don't forget that most of that income was capital gains, which are the funds that drive economic expansion. Sounds more than fair to me.
I can't disagree with that, but my point is that when you're paying less in taxes than any time in your life, and government is deeply in debt yet you're calling for even lower taxes, that goes directly against Mark 12:14-17.
Not that I'm calling for lower taxes, but I'm certainly not calling for higher taxes. Why do you think it's more moral to take money away from those that earned it rather than letting them keep it? Why is the size of government (federal spending as percent of GDP) at this moment in time the correct size, despite the fact that it's significantly higher than any time other than WWII?
Okay, I've got to throw away my moderation on this topic to respond to this crap.
U.S. conservatives (in general) are provably more charitable than liberals. Somehow, liberals have gotten a lot of traction out of their position that if you vote to tax rich people, then you are more compassionate than those who prefer to limit government and give of themselves.
It's also completely ridiculous to imply that conservatives, as a group, "love money" more than liberals. If that were so, then why would conservatives be willing to give away more of their money than liberals (even when income levels are the same)?
Finally, trying to call on the teachings of Jesus to support higher taxation is beyond ludicrous. Saying that someone has a moral obligation to be charitable and to help their fellow man is not the same as saying that you should use the force of government to take more and more money away from others.
Also, If you want to argue that Jesus has stated that citizens should pay their lawful taxes -- fine, no argument. But, engaging in debate and voting for candidates that support lowered taxes is not tax avoidance. So, please all of you liberals that think that Jesus' teachings are supporting your stance, think again before trotting out these ridiculous arguments, over and over.
This seems to argue that as soon as there is one net neutrality abuse, then it's too late to do anything about it. That seems a bit backwards, to me.
I used to think that Net Neutrality was obviously the proper way to go. Reading the debates over the past year, I've realized that I don't know which side is correct. That indecision leads me to believe that before we let the camel's nose into the tent, we better be damned sure that we want the hump in there too; because, it's going to happen.
So, I guess I'd rather wait until it's shown that ISP abuses aren't being addressed by the marketplace, before I called for Net Neutrality regulations. It's not like the politicians will be any less willing to act, at that point.
According to a 2006 report by economists Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider, that if you adjust for traffic accidents, suicides, and homicides, then the U.S. life expectancy rises to #1. Which argues that the health system is not the issue for low life expectancy. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Apparently, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tried to counter that argument in 2008 with a GDP-adjusted analysis that places the U.S. at 17th. Personally, I don't see that GDP is relevant to the discussion.
Some critics assert that the official U.S. poverty definition is inconsistent with how it is defined by its own citizens and the rest of the world, because the U.S. government considers many citizens statistically impoverished despite their ability to sufficiently meet their basic needs.
and
Moreover, Swedish libertarian think tank Timbro points out that lower-income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger houses than many middle-income Western Europeans.
Percentage of Poor U.S. Households (in 2005) that had a refrigerator 99.6%, Television 97.7%, Stove and oven 97.7%, more than one television 65.1%, and cable or satellite television 63.7%. [source U.S. Dept. of Energy, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2005]
...So if Canada has 10% or more of the U.S' debt and our debt has been steadily rising by an exponential factor of around 5% - 10%...
Canada's debt has been exponentially rising by around 5% - 10% per year
Exponential.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why not? Wouldn't you model his statement as Debt[t] = Debt[0] * (1 + 0.05) ** t ?
No, they really aren't. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/20/three-years-and-no-senate-budget/?page=all
Sorry. Here it is: http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/
I doubt that it can be shown anymore than you can show that increased taxes will result in increased revenue (the system is too chaotic). At least I have some anecdotal evidence to support my position.
Plenty of good arguments for not increasing the tax rate. That it won't increase revenue isn't one of them.
Nice, but I didn't claim that it wouldn't. It might or might not. Tax cuts might or might not increase revenue, also. My argument was with the original implications that balancing the budget can't involve cutting taxes. It clearly can.
I'm not using the Laffer Curve as the basis for my argument, I'm using the historical record. Between 2003 and 2007 (after the tax cut), Federal tax revenues rose from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion, a 44% increase [Forbes.com] .
Ah, citation, please.
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
I don't understand this demagoguery by the Left. Are you saying that using the current tax rates (or higher) is the only way to get to a balanced budget? This seems to ignore two things: government revenues are not a linear function of tax rates (sometimes they are inversely related!) and lower spending can offset lower revenue.
And Biden followed it up (when he came on stage) by referring to Obama as "Barack America". I'm sure that SNL and The Daily Show will pay no more attention to Romney's gaffe than they did when Obama did the same thing.
Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current.analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." Source: http://theclevelandcurrent.com/
Austerity is a death spiral that creates needless suffering at a time when govt should be fulfilling the Constitutional mandate to "provide for the general welfare."
Which might be an issue if "austerity" meant "spending less than the Democrats want". Luckily, that's not the case.
It took me a couple of seconds to parse this and I almost skipped over a good point. So, for the benefit over others, the poster meant "coma" and not "comma".
... and other things ( ... the military ...) that government is better at. We should use the best tool for the job in each case.
It sounds like you don't think that Republicans would tend to agree with that part of your statement. Since that was considered a legitimate function of the Federal government at its founding, I doubt that many Republicans would disagree with you on that part.
I appreciate your tone. However, again there is some mis-characterization. Republicans don't seem to be opposed to "chipping" into a very large pool that is controlled by someone else. Obviously, they do it all of the time (e.g., Roman Catholic Church or the United Way). Perhaps, there is something to your argument about evolutionary adaptation; however, I tend to think that it is a justifiable belief that locality of control should be as small as practical. It is one of the founding principles of the United States.
I don't see much difference between the Democrats and Republicans in their personal desire to pay "high" taxes. I do, however, see quite a bit of difference in the eagerness to force others to pay higher taxes.
But they aren't just charitable to "small groups". Again, Republicans are demonstrably more charitable toward other nations that have experienced disasters (such as Haiti). Face it, the original remark was simply mean-spirited and baseless.