# Stingy liberals



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

This from the Minneapolis Red Star:

"What's this? Mississippi the most generous state in the nation? Minnesota ranked 45th?

That's the thesis of a ranking presented Wednesday that considers not just what people give but compares it with their personal income -- what they could give.

Top-ranked are poor states in the Bible Belt of the South and Southwest. Bottom rankings go to wealthier states in New England and the Upper Midwest."

Any coincidence that these stingy states vote democratic? That's why we call them limousine liberals, always willing to give away someone else's money but never thier own.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gunner this has to be the weakest evidence against the liberals that I've ever seen. I know you can do better than this.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I think there is a lot of truth there gunner. I have noticed the same in local church giving. The ones that give the least are the first to speak about spending.

Sorry Tiger


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It is good that you spend your time picking out who are the pinko libbies in the house of God.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

They stick out like a sore thumb. Sorry just the way it is. Save your response I'm gone till Sunday evening. It's tough duty but someone has to harvest the excees does here in ND. MT take some time off enjoy yourself.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

facts are facts


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Eliteist liberals are always happy to spend someone elses money confiscated thru excessive taxation on their pet projects, most of which don't help the intended benefactors. Hopefully a change in our tax system will clean that up.

Fairtax.org


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Eliteist liberals are always happy to spend someone elses money confiscated thru excessive taxation on their pet projects"

And the republicans are always happy to spend borrowed money, and then leave the deficit for a democrat to clean the mess up


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That has normally been the other way around, but then the terrorists came along. Another great difference is the liberals normally downgrade the military so they have more money to buy votes from the lazy with more social programs. It is vote for me and I will protect this nation, or vote for me and I will give you losers more money in welfare.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"It is good that you spend your time picking out who are the pinko libbies in the house of God"
--Dont pass judgement so quickly MT. If you attended "the house of God" more offen you would know how things worked there. What was that you said to me earlyer? "YOu have no grasp of the matters at hand" or something like that? :idiot: im sorry, its just taht you like to jump on my back for using religion in my posts, and then you try and use it to suit your arguments when you have little knoledge on the subject.

"And the republicans are always happy to spend borrowed money, and then leave the deficit for a democrat to clean the mess up"
--Again you speak from your vast 4 years (maybee) of olowing politics. If you had been around long enough to live under other Republican presidents you would realize that before 9/11 your statement would be the oposite.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Are you guys kidding me? I attend church regularly, and I can tell you that generosity is independent of political leanings. Some folks are willing to part with their money, others aren't.

Here is the statement that leads me to believe that many of you have not been around long, or you have decided to characterize liberals or conservatives based on stereotypes from talk radio pukes:



> "And the republicans are always happy to spend borrowed money, and then leave the deficit for a democrat to clean the mess up"
> --Again you speak from your vast 4 years (maybee) of olowing politics. If you had been around long enough to live under other Republican presidents you would realize that before 9/11 your statement would be the oposite.


The fact of the matter is that many liberals want quality public services, including such things as good roads, quality education, clean air, clean water, green space, and social programs. Many conservatives want those too. However, the biggest difference is that liberals are willing to pay for them through taxes.

Here is an example: If you recall from this past election campaign season, there were several state legislator ads in the Bismarck area (Kelsch, Stenehjem, and Freborg come to mind) in which candidates bragged that they were able to increase teacher salaries and education spending without raising taxes. Man, that sounds good to conservatives. However, I have to ask how we can increase education spending without raising taxes. Government income is derived from taxes. If we increase spending without raising taxes, one of two things happens: A) we have a deficit (i.e. spending exceeds income), or B) we take money from someplace else (we rob Peter to pay Paul).

Second example: The Shrub is constantly bragging how he wants to cut taxes. At the same time, he wants to increase military spending. How does he plan on paying for it? For the first year or two of the war in Iraq, he didn't even put the costs in his annual budget. Again, costs exceeded income. Guess what, we have a deficit. If you are going to spend government money, at least have the courage to tell people that we need to generate income to pay for it.

Please note that this same scenario of tax cuts followed shortly thereafter with a deficit happened with Reagan. He also lacked the courage to step up and tell the American public that the government didn't function on Monopoly money.

You call liberals stingy? I don't think so.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Please note that this same scenario of tax cuts followed shortly thereafter with a deficit happened with Reagan. He also lacked the courage to step up and tell the American public that the government didn't function on Monopoly money


.

No thats not what happened, heres a good article about what happened to the budget during Reagan, once again the wonderful congress screwed us by DRAMATICALLY increasing spending when the revenues when up from the tax cuts as they always do.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/e ... 40608.html


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> > The Shrub is constantly bragging how he wants to cut taxes. At the same time, he wants to increase military spending. How does he plan on paying for it? For the first year or two of the war in Iraq, he didn't even put the costs in his annual budget. Again, costs exceeded income. Guess what, we have a deficit. If you are going to spend government money, *at least have the courage to tell people that we need to generate income to pay for it.[/*quote]


Typical liberal spin now taxes "generate" income :eyeroll:

Tax anything and you create a disincentive not income. Lowering taxes raises revenue to the government everytime its done, the problem is our wonderful congress then spends it like drunken sailors and that our fault for not holding them all accountable (reps and dems) they all go nuts when they get to Washington uke:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> That has normally been the other way around, but then the terrorists came along. Another great difference is the liberals normally downgrade the military so they have more money to buy votes from the lazy with more social programs. It is vote for me and I will protect this nation, or vote for me and I will give you losers more money in welfare.


Plainsman, what specific social programs are you talking about?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob wrote:



> Typical liberal spin now taxes "generate" income


You missed my point. Taxes are the government's income. A balanced budget occurs when income (taxes) equals expenditures. A budget surplus occurs when income (taxes) are greater than expenditures. A budget deficit occurs when income (taxes) are less than expenditures.

I am all for making government efficient and eliminating unnecessary expenditures. However, we eventually reach a point where we cut expenditures so much that we eliminate government services. Economics 101 tells you that increased expenditures with lower income will result in a budget deficit. If we want to fight a war on terror(ism), we need to pay for it.

If folks are willing to vote for candidates advocating tax cuts, then they had better be ready to live with lower-quality government services. Many people associate the term "government services" to simply mean welfare for those can't find a job. This is narrow-minded and short-sided. If you really want those tax cuts, don't complain when you hit those potholes each spring. Don't complain when you have to pay to access a city or county park. Don't complain that we haven't found a cure for cancer or AIDS because much of that research is funded by the government. Don't complain when your kid sees double-digit tuition increases at their public university. Best yet, don't complain when a landowner asks for an access fee to hunt birds because he just lost his CRP payments and farm bill subsidies.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

BigDaddy, you bring up some valid points. However, the answer is not to raise taxes, its to eliminate or shrink existing government programs that aren't working. Is this an easy process? No. Once a government program is created, it is almost impossible to get rid of it. The programs should be reviewed periodically and expanded, retracted or eliminated based on its effectiveness. Measuring the effectivenes of a particular program can, and will be the hardest obstacle, obviously. The government can't be everything to everybody, though. Limited government is the answer in my humble opinion.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

my point was government revenues go up when taxes are lowered. The farmers are already asking for money to hunt the publicly owned game while they dig into all our pockets via the farm programs. And while many of the services you are talking about are ok there are far more that are total bogus pork and elimnation of them or privatizing them to increase efficiency would provide much more money for the worthwhile stuff


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org ... ?year=2004

Note where there Kerry states fall, those liberals love to make everyone esle "donate" :eyeroll: to their causes


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

BigDaddy said:


> However, I have to ask how we can increase education spending without raising taxes. Government income is derived from taxes. If we increase spending without raising taxes, one of two things happens: A) we have a deficit (i.e. spending exceeds income), or B) we take money from someplace else (we rob Peter to pay Paul).
> 
> Second example: The Shrub is constantly bragging how he wants to cut taxes. At the same time, he wants to increase military spending. How does he plan on paying for it? For the first year or two of the war in Iraq, he didn't even put the costs in his annual budget. Again, costs exceeded income. Guess what, we have a deficit. If you are going to spend government money, at least have the courage to tell people that we need to generate income to pay for it.
> 
> ...


BD, you fall into the erroneous thinking that plaues so many liberals--that cutting taxes decreases government revenues. You guys assume that the economy is a static entity, when in fact it is very dynamic. By cutting taxes, you put more money into the pocket of the tax payer which he then spends, invests, saves, or takes an entrepreneurial risk and expands or starts a buisness--all of which expands the tax base from which the government collects money. This is all basic econ-101.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"By cutting taxes, you put more money into the pocket of the tax payer which he then spends, invests, saves, or takes an entrepreneurial risk and expands or starts a buisness--all of which expands the tax base from which the government collects money. This is all basic econ-101."

Well if we went by that plan we wouldn't need taxes at all, unfortunately thats not how the world works because not all of the money is put back into American buisnesses, or invested.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Well if we went by that plan we wouldn't need taxes at all, unfortunately thats not how the world works because not all of the money is put back into American buisnesses, or invested


.

It is how it works and yes they do in one form or another.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Well if we went by that plan we wouldn't need taxes at all, unfortunately thats not how the world works because not all of the money is put back into American buisnesses, or invested.


MT, where do you think the money goes if not into one of the categories I listed? I was sure it was an all inclusive list--I guess I could've missed those among us who pocket it away inside our mattresses, but I was pretty sure that went out with the Great Depression.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

If the money is not spent on American products, or invested into the American market then said money is lost.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Big Dad,
You truly are the most bleeding heart liberal on this site.

MT,
You amaze me. You cann't be 16, if so you must never go to school as you post more than anyone and at odd hours too. I think you are an unemployed ferris wheel operator with a computor. 
 I just can'nt keep up.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

We are getting a bunch of funky days off due to different religon's holidays, and I've got no problems with that. Either that or I am a fat old bald ferris wheel operator, your choice really.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

If a rich person recieves a tax break and all they do is put it in a bank to recieve a whopping 3-4% return, that money is then used by the bank to finance car, home, and personal purchases by us "poor" folk, it is also used to finance start up mom and pop business's that are the real catalyst for this countries economic engine. If they chose to spend that tax break money instead, it is paying for the jobs that us "poor" folk have. If they chose to use that tax break to invest into a business, that employs us "poor" folk. If they invest it into stocks, those corporations use the increased valuation to finance the building of new factories or business's or retooling of old factories and business's, helping us "poor" folk. If they put that tax break money into bonds, the increase in the amount of money in the bond market drives down the interest rates and helps us "poor" folk when we do borrow money. Tax breaks are good on every level. We do still need some taxes to pay for the government to operate. It's just that some of us believe that social programs start at the local level of charities and are alot more efficient and effective than a government behemoth.
"The nine scariest words in the English language, 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help you'" --Ronald Reagan

IaHunter


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

IAHunter said:


> If a rich person recieves a tax break and all they do is put it in a bank to recieve a whopping 3-4% return, that money is then used by the bank to finance car, home, and personal purchases by us "poor" folk, it is also used to finance start up mom and pop business's that are the real catalyst for this countries economic engine. If they chose to spend that tax break money instead, it is paying for the jobs that us "poor" folk have. If they chose to use that tax break to invest into a business, that employs us "poor" folk. If they invest it into stocks, those corporations use the increased valuation to finance the building of new factories or business's or retooling of old factories and business's, helping us "poor" folk. If they put that tax break money into bonds, the increase in the amount of money in the bond market drives down the interest rates and helps us "poor" folk when we do borrow money. Tax breaks are good on every level. We do still need some taxes to pay for the government to operate. It's just that some of us believe that social programs start at the local level of charities and are alot more efficient and effective than a government behemoth.
> "The nine scariest words in the English language, 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help you'" --Ronald Reagan
> 
> IaHunter


Again you fail to realize that this is all good and fine unless its a foreign company that the sales are going to.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Of course, some of the money will go to foreign companies the likes of Toyota, Mercedes Benz, ect. All with manufacturing facilities (factory workers, supervisors, management, ect) within the US and with dealerships (salesman, mechanics, clerks). Also, many foreign companies are subsidaries of American corporations. If said products came from overseas you have import taxes added on the purchase price putting more money in the governments pocket. All generating Income for us "poor" folk. I'm sorry, I wasn't going to post to you anymore because you spout before thinking.

IaHunter


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"All with manufacturing facilities (factory workers, supervisors, management, ect) within the US and with dealerships (salesman, mechanics, clerks). "

If I remember correctly (and I do) the US took a serious hit in the manufacturing industry during these last four years.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Is there any Democrat out there that I can have an intelligent (not saying I am) discussion with, using facts and not rhetoric, whose real life experience goes beyond acne? Anyone?

IaHunter


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So based on my acne and my lack of facts (sic) I am not worthy of arguing with the likes of you. Thanks, at least now I know my place.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Just a few questions and responses to this thread.

First:



> BD, you fall into the erroneous thinking that plaues so many liberals--that cutting taxes decreases government revenues. You guys assume that the economy is a static entity, when in fact it is very dynamic. By cutting taxes, you put more money into the pocket of the tax payer which he then spends, invests, saves, or takes an entrepreneurial risk and expands or starts a buisness--all of which expands the tax base from which the government collects money. This is all basic econ-101.


OK, somebody help me out with the math here. Say we all get a 15% income tax break across the board. The government has just taken a 15% revenue cut. Now we all go off happy and keep 15% more money, and maybe we really do invest or take an entrepreneurial risk. We might even hire a few people. However, the government is still operating on a 15% revenue shortfall. The only way that the government recovers that 15% through income taxes is if we enough of us hit it big and suddenly move up an income bracket or two. Those we employ will likely not move up an income bracket because their wages are set on supply and demand. This reasoning only makes sense if there is significant unemployment so that new businesses start employing people that we previously unemployed and not paying income taxes. Somebody tell me specifically how you plan on recovering that 15%.

The other option by cutting income tax rates is to simply shift taxes from income to propertly, goods & services, etc. However, that is simply shifting the tax burden to another person or to another portion of our monthly expenses.

Second: I think that many of you have the mistaken impression that the government (both state and federal) is spending money hand over fist, and the government employees are living cush lifestyles full of cavier and champagne. I hate to break your bubble, but have you actually visited a government office lately? Sometime when you are in Bismarck, hop on the elevator and visit an agency or two. You will find old furniture and technology that is ten years old. You will find that most government employees are barely making a living wage. You will also find (in ND at least) that government employees haven't been given raises in over 10 years to compensate for inflation. In fact, ND state employees lose money every year (this means that their wages do not increase with the cost of living).

As a result, the state government is losing (or has lost) the best and brightest to private industry. Do you want better government? If the answer is "yes", then you need to attract and keep the best and the brightest. If the answer is "no", then keep doing what you are doing,and you will get that classic idiot bureucrat when you call a state or federal agency with a real problem or question. If you want to talk to somebody intelligent, you need to attract him or her.

Last:



> Big Dad,
> You truly are the most bleeding heart liberal on this site.


Thank you for the compliment. You see, a liberal is defined by Webster's as follows:



> Main Entry: 2liberal
> Function: noun
> : a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights


I am open-minded and try to change things that need changing. I don't do things a certain way just because "that's the way we have always done them". I look for creative solutions to long-standing problems. I believe in individual rights. I view "liberal" as a compliment.

Along these same lines, "conservative" is an insult. "Conservative" is defined by Webster's as follows:



> 3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners


Ever wonder by ND is losing population? Every wonder why we seem to continue to lag behind the rest of the country? It's because we do things the way we have always done them. We are too conservative (that's an insult).


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> OK, somebody help me out with the math here. Say we all get a 15% income tax break across the board. The government has just taken a 15% revenue cut. Now we all go off happy and keep 15% more money, and maybe we really do invest or take an entrepreneurial risk. We might even hire a few people. However, the government is still operating on a 15% revenue shortfall. The only way that the government recovers that 15% through income taxes is if we enough of us hit it big and suddenly move up an income bracket or two. Those we employ will likely not move up an income bracket because their wages are set on supply and demand. This reasoning only makes sense if there is significant unemployment so that new businesses start employing people that we previously unemployed and not paying income taxes. Somebody tell me specifically how you plan on recovering that 15%


There is no maybe, the money will be reinvested infact the only money that is not working efficiently is money tied up because of various tax problems( capital gains ect.) with moving it to the best advantage of the owner of the money.

Big Daddy the problem with your reasoning is your assuming its a zero sum game which its not, when the economy grows (because of the additional supply of capital available) the federal tax revenues in actual dollars go up, and this in historical fact its happened everytime taxes were reduced since Kennedy. So both the average Joes of the world benefit as does the goverment with more disposable money. The problem as I've stated before is the congress always goes nuts with pork barrel spending when they are flush with money, both the Reps and dems. This isn't meant as a partisan comment.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> when the economy grows (because of the additional supply of capital available) the federal tax revenues in actual dollars go up


Bob, where do the increased federal tax revenues come from? Are these income tax dollars? From property taxes? How does the federal government get these dollars?

I agree that both parties tend to spend more when there is more money available. This could truly be pork, but it could actually be increased appropriations for a valuable government program that was under-funded in the past.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

They come from all the various taxes on commerce in this country including income taxes. Heres an exaggerated and very simplified example lets say that current tax rate is 30%. total commerce is 10000 
10000 x .3 = 3000.00 of tax revenue to the gov. If due to cutting the tax rate to 20% lets say the increase capitol allows more companies to start up or expand their operations and makes us more price competitive in foriegn markets to the point that now total commerce is 15000. 15000 x .20 (new lower tax rate) = 3000 so this example would be revenue neutral to the government yet allow more jobs to be created ect.
Obviously this is a very simplified example but you get the drift. 
As for underfunded government programs that may ahppen sometime but the real problem with goverment programs is that their funding often is determined by how much they spent the previous year so there is a built in prejudice to not attempting to be frugal. In other words if they innovate and save money their budget the folliowng years will be cut so they don't do it. The result ends up being a disincentive to save and an ever spiraling upward trend of government size and expense.
Many goverments agencies will go on a spending spree at the end of their fiscal year to makes sure the spend all their budget whether they need the stuff or not, its crazy because you and I are the goverment.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

And what kind of paper is the Minneapolis Red Star? Never heard of it! Is it affiliated with the Pembina Star and Tribune?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> 10000 x .3 = 3000.00 of tax revenue to the gov. If due to cutting the tax rate to 20% lets say the increase capitol allows more companies to start up or expand their operations and makes us more price competitive in foriegn markets to the point that now total commerce is 15000. 15000 x .20 (new lower tax rate) = 3000 so this example would be revenue neutral to the government yet allow more jobs to be created ect.


Bob, what is "total commerce"? Are you talking about GNP? You describe a system in which taxes are initially cut, but then the tax revenue eventually recovers because of higher total commerce. What is taxed under "total commerce"? Is this individual income, property, corporate income, or all of the above? I want to know specifically where the taxes will come from to compensate for a tax break.

Do you have any references to support the fact that this strategy will work?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Yeah total commerce, GNP in my example their basically interchangeable... I was just trying to give a good analogy while I was working on something else and I didn't do a very good job of it I guess. However I should be able to find some good articles on the topic that I can give the links to. I bought a new laptop this week and I'm in the middle of configuring a bunch of stuff so I'm kind of getting driven nuts ( a short drive for me :lol: ). 
This is really a pretty complex topic for short answers I've read a good bit on it and it will cause your eyes to cross after a while.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Heres a good article about this and this web site has a lot of articles about these issues
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-13-03.html

I really support fairtax .org and the principles they are pushing. Its getting stronger bipartisan support and is designed to be revenue neutral so that it can continue to get the support from both sides its interesting and will take some study.


----------

