Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
dksuddeth, why can you not accept that progressive income taxes attempt to offset the outsized power and influence of the wealthiest and the oopportunities that those assets give them to accumulate even more?
|
what part of my quote didn't you understand?
there is NOTHING progressive about taxes. The reasoning behind this is so very simple if one bothers to look at who makes the tax laws.
special interest groups will always get the power of legislative ears because of money. this 'attention' will almost always garner a favorable outcome for these special interests.
attempting to 'offset the outsized power and influence' is useless because it will only change the balance of power between two general sets of interest groups, especially considering the divide of political power between two radically different parties.
what you're really trying to promote is the redistribution of wealth by 'progressive' taxation, an oxymoron if ever there was one, instead of acknowledging that the reason this taxation looks necessary is because we've let special interest groups provide over-regulation of commerce, thereby providing those groups with even greater power over us.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
How many people do you think would have retired on $509b? Of course it's not the only problem, but the fact that he raided the pantry, and then said the pantry isn't working is beyond disingenuous.
Yes, older people are living longer. Yes, the retirement age doesn't fit with Social Security. Yes, SS prolonged the Great Depression. Yes, I could invest my own money better. That hardly excuses the fact that the money intended for my generation to retire on was used to pay for a war of aggression.
I'd rather see the system abolished than privatized.
|
The SS issue was totally destroyed when it was transferred to the general budget, decades before Bush was president. Trying to blame bush for a deficit or credit clinton with a surplus is nothing more than partisan hack BS.