Jump to content

2018 Midterm Elections


Brass Cannon

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FKIM01 said:

“We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.” - Milton Friedman

“Indeed, in a free government almost all other rights would become worthless if the government possessed power over the private fortune of every citizen.” - John Marshall

...and my personal favorite...

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”  - William Boetcker

Government growth since the 1950's has far outpaced GDP growth and increased taxation is like pouring gasoline on the spending fire that is our government.  At some point, we have to ask what we are getting for our tax dollars.  A 1993 article I read not long ago stated that what the government spent on various forms of government welfare aid from 1978 to 1993 could have purchased all the assets of the S&P 500 and every acre of farmland in the United States.  The article fairly asked what we had to show for all of that spending and you can call me a skeptic when it comes to whether or not the government is the most efficient mechanism for spending.  Atlas Shrugged paints a dire picture of what happens when politicians keep "soaking the rich" to fund the government's never-ending thirst for spending.  Is it plausible?  Only time will tell but watching the movie when it came out a few years back, I had several uncomfortable moments when I thought "this really could be us."

Yep which is why things were so horrible in the 50s. That damn high taxation on the rich. It created the greatest middle class in history. The horror. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 415
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I want to tell you guys something, regardless of any insults Brass Cannon might shoot out of his ass, I am a conservative.  I make no bones about it.  But, I do cross party lines.  I have already expressed several of my viewpoints.  Accepted by some, refuted by others.  But that is a what a discussion is supposed to be about.  I am 51 and come from a military family that also happens to be farmers.  I got guns, drink beer, smoke, and watch sports.  Was Trump the best answer to this country's woes?  I dunno.  But I am damn willing to give him a shot.  He his barely into it and the left is trying to shoot him down.  Hell, they did that from day 1.  Pitiful.  And fwiw, Trump's tariffs are costing my family a lot of money at this point.  So Brass Cannon.....fire away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Yep which is why things were so horrible in the 50s. That damn high taxation on the rich. It created the greatest middle class in history. The horror. 

Economically, the government was much smaller in the 1950's. I'm curious where all that extra tax revenue went?  Look up overall tax receipts in high and low tax environments. I think the results will surprise you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Economically, the government was much smaller in the 1950's. I'm curious where all that extra tax revenue went?  Look up overall tax receipts in high and low tax environments. I think the results will surprise you.

It was only smaller because the economy was smaller as a percentage of GDP the size is very similar. We have just changed who we taxed. We have increased taxes on the working class to give tax cuts to corporations and the Uber wealthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, rico said:

I want to tell you guys something, regardless of any insults Brass Cannon might shoot out of his ass, I am a conservative.  I make no bones about it.  But, I do cross party lines.  I have already expressed several of my viewpoints.  Accepted by some, refuted by others.  But that is a what a discussion is supposed to be about.  I am 51 and come from a military family that also happens to be farmers.  I got guns, drink beer, smoke, and watch sports.  Was Trump the best answer to this country's woes?  I dunno.  But I am damn willing to give him a shot.  He his barely into it and the left is trying to shoot him down.  Hell, they did that from day 1.  Pitiful.  And fwiw, Trump's tariffs are costing my family a lot of money at this point.  So Brass Cannon.....fire away.

You cross party lines but McCain is a cancer for doing it. Man you are silly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

It was only smaller because the economy was smaller as a percentage of GDP the size is very similar. We have just changed who we taxed. We have increased taxes on the working class to give tax cuts to corporations and the Uber wealthy. 

Not true. It was much smaller on a GDP basis in the 1950's.  Also, the last time I looked, the top 1% pays like 88% of the income taxes. It doesn't sound like they are getting much of a break to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Not true. It was much smaller on a GDP basis in the 1950's.  Also, the last time I looked, the top 1% pays like 88% of the income taxes. It doesn't sound like they are getting much of a break to me.

This is likely due to the fact that they have so much more of the money.  Also, when income is lower for the working class and a small number have a vast majority of the wealth, then Social Security does not have the annual intake needed.  Remember, we only pay on the first $125k or so.  The more people that make well below this have less they pay in, while the uber rich pay essentially 0% in S.S. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Not true. It was much smaller on a GDP basis in the 1950's.  Also, the last time I looked, the top 1% pays like 88% of the income taxes. It doesn't sound like they are getting much of a break to me.

No it wasn’t. About 22% in 1950 and about 24% in 2012

Since then the tax rate on the highest income bracket has gone from 90% down to about 30. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

No it wasn’t. About 22% in 1950 and about 24% in 2012

Since then the tax rate on the highest income bracket has gone from 90% down to about 30. 

Try 37.8% in 2016. It will likely come down a little because GDP is growing but government is way bigger than it was in the 50's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Try 37.8% in 2016. It will likely come down a little because GDP is growing but government is way bigger than it was in the 50's.

Federal Spending of 4.1 Trillion and a GDP of 18.57 trillion is not 37.8%. 

It is 22% after a bit of rounding up. Hmm what year also had that oh yeah 1950

I think you are getting a figure that includes state figures. 

We have seen state spending go up since 1950. Not really sure why but we’re talking federal atm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUDan93 said:

This is likely due to the fact that they have so much more of the money.  Also, when income is lower for the working class and a small number have a vast majority of the wealth, then Social Security does not have the annual intake needed.  Remember, we only pay on the first $125k or so.  The more people that make well below this have less they pay in, while the uber rich pay essentially 0% in S.S. 

The uber rich also take very little out of social security and they get taxed again on what they pull out.  I'm fine with taking my fair share out of social security but I don't feel entitled to David Letterman's portion.  The real reason social security is underfunded is (A) The government used outdated mortality assumptions and (B) invested the entire fund in low-interest treasury notes (AKA government IOU's).  A partial answer for social security is to divert funds for younger workers into the stock market, but no one has the political courage to do what is right because they are too worried about being re-elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brass Cannon said:

Not wanting him to post on social media is hardly not supporting him. 

Thanks for this.  Perhaps my 3 posts saying I support our president we're not clear enough. 

I support our president.  No matter who it is or what party they are from. Once more, I do not blindly do so.  I offered 1 criticism showing where I do not support him on his decision to speak or what he says.  I am glad he does, shows me that Trump is what he is.  No, I am not saying that it's ok because he is who he is.  We could have a president with more moral integrity and treated everyone well.  What do I need to do?  Do you believe I blindly support Trump and everything he says?  I really do not know your beliefs on my position given your response.

I offered 0 criticism on Obama, yet, you are not mentioning anything on that.  So, it appears that offering a minor criticism of Trump means I am blindly supporting him while offering 0 on Obama must mean I am not supportive of him.

Trying to get a grasp on this.

Not meant to be inflammatory, just really exploring reason and rationale and I am coming up empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PoHoosier said:

Thanks for this.  Perhaps my 3 posts saying I support our president we're not clear enough. 

I support our president.  No matter who it is or what party they are from. Once more, I do not blindly do so.  I offered 1 criticism showing where I do not support him on his decision to speak or what he says.  I am glad he does, shows me that Trump is what he is.  No, I am not saying that it's ok because he is who he is.  We could have a president with more moral integrity and treated everyone well.  What do I need to do?  Do you believe I blindly support Trump and everything he says?  I really do not know your beliefs on my position given your response.

I offered 0 criticism on Obama, yet, you are not mentioning anything on that.  So, it appears that offering a minor criticism of Trump means I am blindly supporting him while offering 0 on Obama must mean I am not supportive of him.

Trying to get a grasp on this.

Not meant to be inflammatory, just really exploring reason and rationale and I am coming up empty.

You said you didn’t support him then listed that. I assumed that was meaning to be an example of a way you didn’t support him. Which is I think most people would agree is not much of a criticism. Since even his own staff tries to stop him. 

If there other areas you don’t support him in then I’d be curious but saying you dislike his tweeting is nothing  

For example I liked GW I was opposed to the Iraq war from day 1. I was also opposed to his Attempt to regulate gay marriage. 

I disliked Obama. I did like his attempts to incentive clean energy and to empower the EPA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Look up federal spending it’s 4.1 trillion. Look up GDP it’s 18.57 do the math. 22 percent. 

The number you have includes state expenditures. 

Goverment and federal are not the same exact thing. 

OK...here is all government spending from 1900 forward (federal in red):

912206691_Governmentspending.png.d4e31cc9f84fb84fb594e56c775dcf7b.png

Aside from massive spending in the two world wars and massive prosperity in the '90's, the trend has been more spending and bigger government.  Frankly all government pending has to be funded from somewhere and it's clear to me from this chart that government at all levels has gotten progressively bigger since the '50's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

The uber rich also take very little out of social security and they get taxed again on what they pull out.  I'm fine with taking my fair share out of social security but I don't feel entitled to David Letterman's portion.  The real reason social security is underfunded is (A) The government used outdated mortality assumptions and (B) invested the entire fund in low-interest treasury notes (AKA government IOU's).  A partial answer for social security is to divert funds for younger workers into the stock market, but no one has the political courage to do what is right because they are too worried about being re-elected.

I would love to be able to opt out and be responsible for managing the money i pay into ss myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mrflynn03 said:

I would love to be able to opt out and be responsible for managing the money i pay into ss myself. 

Me too.  I guarantee if I had control of an extra 15% of my salary to save for retirement, I'd live a lot better than I will on social security.  It's almost enough to make me want to go Amish (yes, they are exempt from crappy social security).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

OK...here is all government spending from 1900 forward (federal in red):

912206691_Governmentspending.png.d4e31cc9f84fb84fb594e56c775dcf7b.png

Aside from massive spending in the two world wars and massive prosperity in the '90's, the trend has been more spending and bigger government.  Frankly all government pending has to be funded from somewhere and it's clear to me from this chart that government at all levels has gotten progressively bigger since the '50's.

So you think 22 % in 1950 and 22% in 2016 is indicative of a steady increase?  Federal has not gotten bigger. And what original point was a reference to the federal tax rate. 

Lol that chart appears to be wrong it has the wrong federal rate. Basically neither of the ones we provided. Probably excludes SS judging by the margin it’s off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brass Cannon said:

So you think 22 % in 1950 and 22% in 2016 is indicative of a steady increase?  Federal has not gotten bigger. And what original point was a reference to the federal tax rate. 

Your cherry-picking your numbers.  If you can't see that the chart is trending significantly bigger, I don't know what to say.

The point vs. tax rates is, the more we feed the beast of government spending, the faster it grows.  I don't trust the government to spend responsibly and effectively.  History is littered with plenty of examples where government spent very inefficiently, so why do we want to give them more?  It just encourages more waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

You said you didn’t support him then listed that. I assumed that was meaning to be an example of a way you didn’t support him. Which is I think most people would agree is not much of a criticism. Since even his own staff tries to stop him. 

If there other areas you don’t support him in then I’d be curious but saying you dislike his tweeting is nothing  

For example I liked GW I was opposed to the Iraq war from day 1. I was also opposed to his Attempt to regulate gay marriage. 

I disliked Obama. I did like his attempts to incentive clean energy and to empower the EPA. 

Fair and logical.

It's not just the tweeting, that was the front for more.  It's the substance or lack there of.  His tweets come across, at best, insensitive or lacking fact.  At worst, they are inflammatory racist and more.  If he is like that on Twitter.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FKIM01 said:

Your cherry-picking your numbers.  If you can't see that the chart is trending significantly bigger, I don't know what to say.

The point vs. tax rates is, the more we feed the beast of government spending, the faster it grows.  I don't trust the government to spend responsibly and effectively.  History is littered with plenty of examples where government spent very inefficiently, so why do we want to give them more?  It just encourages more waste.

I’m not cherry picking anything. The conversation was about the federal tax rate and the size of the federal goverment. State and local goverment spending balllooning is a separate issue. 

The federal goverment was 22 percent in 1950 and 22 percent in 2016. In what universe is that an increase?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brass Cannon said:

I’m not cherry picking anything. The conversation was about the federal tax rate and the size of the federal goverment. State and local goverment spending balllooning is a separate issue. 

The federal goverment was 22 percent in 1950 and 22 percent in 2016. In what universe is that an increase?

The graph is good information.  Something I needed to see.  I was curious as to where money is going.  This graph shows me the problem isn't as much the government as it is GREED in the capitalistic system.

This conclusion is based on several findings.  Corporate tax rate.  A study of this tax since it's 1909 inception has shown it has only decreased since the 1950s from over 50% then, to it's current 35%.  The Economic Policy Institute in 2013 published that corporate profitability is at an all time high.  If corporate taxes are lower, the now even larger disparity of money is going somewhere.  If it's not the government, and we certainly know it's not going to the employees.  A study on wages adjusted for inflation shows the working class became just that through wage stagnation.  They are no longer the middle class. That leaves only one place for the money to go. 

The rich get richer.  This policy is reinforced by both parties through different means as it keeps them elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brass Cannon said:

I’m not cherry picking anything. The conversation was about the federal tax rate and the size of the federal goverment. State and local goverment spending balllooning is a separate issue. 

The federal goverment was 22 percent in 1950 and 22 percent in 2016. In what universe is that an increase?

Yes you are.  You are absolutely ignoring the trend and that includes the federal trend.  You picked two dates out of 118 that support your ridiculous thesis while you ignore the overall trend that is obvious in that graph.  I've spent the last hour and a half talking a college-aged daughter down from an anxiety attack making me realize that there are more important things than having a stupid political argument with someone determined to be obtuse.  I'm done here.  There is absolutely no redeeming value in continuing this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FKIM01 said:

Yes you are.  You are absolutely ignoring the trend and that includes the federal trend.  You picked two dates out of 118 that support your ridiculous thesis while you ignore the overall trend that is obvious in that graph.  I've spent the last hour and a half talking a college-aged daughter down from an anxiety attack making me realize that there are more important things than having a stupid political argument with someone determined to be obtuse.  I'm done here.  There is absolutely no redeeming value in continuing this discussion.

So she’s stressing out about Trayce not committing yet too? 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...