Political Discussions
How Republicans Raise Your Taxes
Posted by Agit8r • 7/08/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: anti-republicans, corporate welfare, fuedalists, pinochetists, spinoff thread
The great political mythology of our time is that Republicans are for lower taxes.
"But..." you might say "Republican cut taxes and create jobs"
Here's where the two things are in direct opposition to each other. Like all socialists, Republican lawmakers beleive that it is their duty to "create jobs" for their constituents. but how do they do this? the same way that any socialist does! They use tax revenues.
This often includes the coercive purchase of private property through imminent domain. Then public or private developement of the land is required to make it a fit gift for a mercenary corporation that is looking for the richest bounty to facilitate their earning a profit.
"But" you may ask, "how does this raise taxes?"
Simple. Once tax dollars have funded improvement, and the token foreign investment takes place, and employees are brought in from elsewhere to fill many of the "created jobs" and therefore need somewhere to live and to shop from mercenary retailers who are also recieving your tax dollars to build facillities to sell to them...
SOMETHING MAGICAL HAPPENS--your property's appraised value (or the property value of your landlord) goes up, thereby raising the amount of property tax you/they/you (through increased rent) pay. This raises the amount of tax revenue so that the process can repeat until your children and grandchildren are reduced to a state of surfdom before fictitious fuedal lords (the corporate personhood)
Yes, when republicans gain power, just know that "the radicals have taken over, and your taxes are going to go SKY HIGH"
User Comments
-
The Republicans aren't the issue right now so stop complaining.-
The last line was a warning: "when republicans gain power..."
Also there are several states that are under just such regimes; Texas, Mississippi, S.Carolina, Louisiana... presidential-hopefull-frontrunner states
-
-
They run up enormous debts (i.e. Reagan, Bush), which just defers payment on government expenditures. It will be paid for eventually with taxes, with interest that goes to countries like China. It just flows out of the country with no benefit whatsoever to the U.S. except for temporary lower taxes.-
See? sati is bashing the right again.
Defend Obama's quadrupling of the national debt in 10 years, sati. How is that not his fault?
This oughta be good. -
What hypocrisy.
You guys are constantly bashing Obama and the left and when someone dishes it back you claim they're full of hate and cry victim.
Give me a break. -
"Give me a break."
Okay, which leg?
Tell me, what has Obama done since he has been in office that you think is a positive thing? Defend it without rhetoric and emotional argument. (This leaves you out sati, sorry.) -
Reversed restrictions on stem cell research
Restrictions that President Bush had placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research had handcuffed U.S. scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations. Scientists want to use stem cells to develop cures for conditions like Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries. Obama signed an executive order on March 9, 2009, reversing two of Bush's policies on stem cell research.
More promises kept that are positive for our country:
- Directed military leaders to end war in Iraq
- Invested in all types of alternative energy
- Provided grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes
- Established a credit card bill of rights
- Appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy
- Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
- Banned lobbyist gifts to executive employees
- Supported increased funding for the NEA
- Directed military leaders to end war in Iraq
-
Ruinous, for once you and I agree on a few things. And thank you for keeping the emotional arguments and rhetoric out of your reply.
* Directed military leaders to end war in Iraq Already in place by previous administration.
* Invested in all types of alternative energy I haven't heard about this. I know he wants to with the cap and trade monies, but can you show me a link to this?
* Provided grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes $154 million divided among 4 states, yet he signs the stimulus bill which is loaded with billions of crap.
* Established a credit card bill of rights I agree
* Appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy. Might be a good thing, unless it turns out to be like all his Czars, who get around the Constitution and don't have to get confirmed.
* Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions. I take it you are referring to his exec order about ethics and lobbyists? Then if you are, I also agree.
* Banned lobbyist gifts to executive employees Doesn't count, see above, lol. Same order.
* Supported increased funding for the NEA. I neither agree or disagree with this, for the purposes of our discussion, this may be a positive thing. But if it goes to some schlub to make his "art" by urinating on the United States Flag, then it is hardly positive. So for that fact, I say it can't be counted as positive. Not known yet how the money is being used.
-
-
Oh please Agit8r. That is a pretty weak argument. You are painting an entire party with a broad brush there based a few bad apples. Why do you hate the right so much all of a sudden? sati supplying you with his kool-aid?
-
You are painting an entire party with a broad brush there based a few bad apples.
A few bad apples? It's a truckload reeking stench from coast to coast! -
There are plenty of bad apples on both sides. Congress has had more to do in getting us to this financial state than Bush and Obama combined. Vote 'em out in '10 -
I'm not saying that the situation is unique to republicans (for instance Commerce Secy. Gary Locke gave out tons of corporate welfare as Governor from Boeing), but it rife in that camp, particularly among frontrunners for 2012
-
I should also note that one of the main reasons for a federal union was in order to create "commercial amity" between the states (and yes, lest there be any confusion, that carried over to the Confederate constitution as well). How then can we excuse the anti-federal attitude applied to the "bidding" by way of industrial bounties? (as in "We beat Oklahoma" -- TX Gov. Rick Perry)
-
-
*Standing ovation*
Agit brings up two very good points in the vein of "no such thing as a free lunch".
The money must come from somewhere, and it's not coming from private capital, thus it is coming from us through taxes. The taxes are either snuck in, as Agit points out, and thus not paid much attention too, or the tax increase comes around during the next term or over the period of the next several terms. Which almost always plants the blame for a tax increase on the other party or politician, even though the cause of the increase came from the original source several terms prior.
It is a very nifty way of having one's cake and eating it too.-
of course once taxes rise, it's time to cut services to the people
-
-
Another tactic is to push major problems down to the states, sometimes by ignoring them, sometimes with unfunded mandates.
What I don't get is why people accepted it when Republicans turned the debate about taxes into something divorced from policy issues. Since when are taxes good or bad per se? They're unavoidable. The issue is how we spend them.
And there is a long list of things that waste money. Farm bills that don't help small farmers. Defense bills that give the military stuff it doesn't want, because the defense industry has spread itself around so many jurisdictions that it can twist the arms of enough legislators to hock its goodies to the tax payers. Extremely wealthy people who benefit disproportionately from the countries social stability and human and physical infrastructure, yet don't want to pay their fair share in maintaining that. . .
It's as if our conservatives have ignored key sections of their beloved John Locke.-
What's needed is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Maybe. Some people would rather have their bridges collapse than pay higher taxes.
-
That would just hamstring the government even worse. No, I could never support such an amendment. I think we just need to get our priorities straight and bring those and our revenues into alignment.
Of course, we still need to deal with extraordinary circumstances when they arise. One would hope, however, that the Bush y'all-go-shopping-while-I-send-the-soldiers-to-war school of thought never shapes policy again. -
One would hope, however, that the Bush y'all-go-shopping-while-I-send-the-soldiers-to-war school of thought never shapes policy again.
If we get someone like Palin in office, it could very well happen again. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson after Vietnam, but we made the same mistake of not having an exit strategy when we went into Iraq. Some people are unable to learn from history. -
"conservatives have ignored key sections of their beloved John Locke"
Glenn Beck also loves Thomas Paine. lol
"You'd think we'd have learned our lesson after Vietnam, but we made the same mistake of not having an exit strategy when we went into Iraq. Some people are unable to learn from history."
Especially since Donald Rumsfeld voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as a young congressman
-
Some people would rather have their bridges collapse than pay higher taxes.
Some states have actually had their bridges collapse in lieu of taxes.
The mindset that civil servant jobs and things like road building, school teaching, and bridge fixing should come at cost or very low prices while on the other hand they are screaming that companies can charge what they want for quality products and pay what they want for quality employees bogles my mind.
Do we not want to have quality men and women doing quality work on the things we need and use everyday? Like bridges and subways and buses and schools? Why do the theories of free market capitlaism with regards to wages/prices not apply to people who get paid with (in part) taxes?
We are all bosses in our own way, we all pitch in and pay the employees who work for us - I guess it's honestly true that when it comes to employment, we want the best work for the cheapest price - and are willing to skimp on paying employees and overhead costs to keep our own pockets lined.
And then we wonder how these tragedies could have happened to us... oh, the levy broke! Oh, the bridge collapsed! Oh, the schools are violent and increased in drop out rates, oh! How di dthis ever happen to us?!
It's like my landlord - she took all o fthe money out of the place for herself, and then she couldn't figure out how her mortgage got so high, and since the place is falling apart, she oculdn't figure out why she can't rent it for higher rent prices. How did this happen to me?! she cries.
Well, dumb ass.... -
There are a few (very few) privately owned bridges. People pay tolls to cross. Don't like the toll. Don't want to pay. Drive around.
It would be interesting study to see if the privately own bridges are actually in better/worse/same condition as the publicly funded bridges. -
I don't know of any private bridges, actually - and we don't have any tolls here so I guess it's taxes or nothing at all. (Or were you suggesting to enact bridge tolls? I could see that as being nightmarish here)
-
-
In California, Republicans passed a law that prevented your property taxes from going up. The Californians are now complaining about it.
"conservatives have ignored key sections of their beloved John Locke"
Wisdom and thought did not come to an end with John Locke, and neither did they start with him.-
"Wisdom and thought did not come to an end with John Locke"
that's right, Rousseau and others furthered his theories didn't they
-
-
The reason I mention Locke in this context: www.constitution.org/. Take a look at their books and documents online. It's a useful historical site, although I believe it is also a libertarian organization, at the very least a group that promotes strict constructionism. I find it useful for understanding what texts are honored on the right, for the same ones are often referenced in other conservative contexts. For those books, click "Basic Principles." (They're smart about the web too. They show up regularly quite well in Google searches, and they make themselves look quite respectable.)
Anyway, long story short, when I mention Locke or Burke or Smith in a context like this, I am taking a dig at the one-sided manner in which conservatives are remembering and interpreting our intellectual past.-
Looks like a site made in the 90s. They may be smart about SEO, but their style is way behind the times.
-
@MS
yes, it is interesting that the framers frequently reference Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" as the inspiration for the structure of government. Yet it seems that they favored a middle way between the communism of Montesquieu's liking and the Laissez Faire of the Physiocrats. A blend of nominal equality of means, with individual liberty and the greatest possible equality of law. -
I know that statement may be hard to take, but this is strict constructionism here! Cross reference with what Madison said should be the role of political parties in a democracy:
"The great object should be to combat the evil:
1. By establishing a political equality among all.
2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches.
3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.
4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another.
5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."
-- James Madison; 'Parties' National Gazette (January 23, 1792)
Maybe I should post that in the AIG thread -
@sati...LOL, it does. Like from 1995 or 96. Only thing they need is the changing color background...
-
@MS: It is quite common to dismiss the thoughts of intellecutals that you consider to be failures, especially in speeches to the general public.
-
I should probably add to my comment above that I find the texts I mention enormously important. My problem is with the one-sided manner in which they are often interpreted on the far right.
And those of you who talk about the 90s look and feel, well, yeah, that's when they first started showing up in my search results when I was looking for specific historical texts online. Their pages are all static HTML too, which makes the site harder to maintain and expand, I suspect. -
being an e-tard myself, I find no complaint with constitution.org
-
I took another look at constitution.org and they actually have some good resources. But the problem with strict adherence to the Constitution is many of the laws are ambiguous, so how is it possible to strictly adhere to it?
-
one has to take precedent into account of course
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
