A Funny Thing Happened On the Way To Bankruptcy

I was recently tweeting a bit with a woman who says she wants the government to stay out of her bedroom, but she also wants the general public to leave their wallets on the nightstand in order to pay for her sexcapades. (Where I come from that’s a whore.)

Some guy named The Helzing Reports jumped in and offered this -

Are you okay with paying for tax cuts for the wealthy? Equal rights for certain people is an oxymoron.

I answered back -

Why do u PAY 4 a CUT? It’s what the left can’t compute., cuts mean end the service- not shift the cost.

With the left everything is semantic wordplay, a device invented by scummy politicians, and now the more challenged members of our citizenry is parroting these obfuscations as if they make sense.

Firstly, the top rate is not being cut. So this constant whining about “cuts” is a misnomer. The rates were cut years ago. What is being argued is whether the top marginal rate should be raised. If they aren’t raised NO ONE IS GETTING A CUT. That is just red meat agitprop served up for the stupid.

Here are some of the tweets from this professor -

When the wealthy get tax cuts that means the middle class has to make up the burden of revenue lost…

No. One doesn’t lead to the other unless you live in a world where you cannot fathom that a service, program or entitlement be trimmed. That world is obviously Progtardia, where government grows and grows, regardless of the ebb and flow of the private sector engine – the engine which drives the economy and from which all government revenue is confiscated. If they do not have the money, they do not have to engage in deficit spending. That is a choice, and a reckless one. (See 17 trillion dollar debt.)

Either that or the deficit grows because revenue isn’t coming in. #Economics101 Educate yourself.

No professor, you’re wrong. Deficit spending and expansion need not be a fait accompli. Cuts in spending is an attractive alternative.

1. The US is not out of money. 2. You can stop spending, but the deficit will remain unless revenue is raised.

Define “the US.” If you’re talking about the federal government, yes, they are indeed out of money. That’s what a debt is, being out of money.

If you’re talking about its citizenry I would simply cite this statistic:

The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all. – Heritage Foundation

What is it that you’re aiming for? What is the progressive tax formula you are advocating? I think the people who shout loudest about “economic justice” are actually calling for “economic injustice.”

2. No. The deficit does not have to remain if revenue is not raised. You can craft a budget that spends less than you take in. See how simple?

Trickle down didn’t work. Fact. Supply side didn’t work. Fact. Despite the Bush tax cuts for job creators, jobs were lost. Fact

“Trickle down didn’t work.”  This could be this guy’s most idiotic statement, and he probably thinks that the mechanism behind it was invented the day Ronald Reagan uttered the phrase.

What doesn’t work is the name of the theory. It creates a false premise. When an entrepreneur decides to open a business, everyone gets paid before they do. Before a store opens who gets paid? The architect, the real estate owner, the construction crew, the painter, the rug installer, the advertisement team, the sign painter – EVERYONE except the risk taker. They get paid last if the business is a success.  That’s TRICKLE UP theory, and it’s what built this country’s economy.

Now, for more Economics 1o1, this is Trickle Down Economics. Your lifestyle is the direct result of existing in the same economy as rich people.

Take an accounting of all the things in your possession, things that you take for granted now, that you could not even fathom having when they first became available. So much technology is within the reach of the average person in America, and it’s because people, people who were in an economic bracket above you, drove the prices down.

It took money to develop the first home VCR. When Phillips introduced its first model it was about $5,000. And that was in the late 70′s. I remember reading about it in Playboy, and they showed James Caan at home with one. That was a pipe dream. Guess what? If rich people didn’t find the idea worthwhile enough to part with 5 grand, you would never have had one. As the market develops, and demand from the top is vigorous enough, competition from other companies starts driving the price down and down – and today, you can get one free with a tank of gas, if you want it at all. Meanwhile, there are countries where the citizenry never had a VCR. You know why? No rich people. Think Russia before they decided to adopt “the U.S. system that doesn’t work.”

Today’s standard car comes with innovations that were only available on the most expensive cars in the world. Why? Trickle down economics. You’re welcome, you dumb ingrate.

As for the other blather, what jobs are going to be created by spending more  confiscated revenue? Suppose Obama got his hands on 6oo billion dollars (just to take an “imaginary” amount of revenue) by siphoning it out of the private sector and dumped it into the economy. How many jobs do you think it would create?  Gee, if only we had a way of knowing for sure….

Look at the unemployment rate before the 2001 Bush tax cuts and compare it to December 2008. Tax cuts for the wealthy don’t work.

Who are you, Al Gore?  Does the warming follow the carbon dioxide or does the carbon dioxide follow the warming? Here’s a hockey stick graph for ya.

However tax cuts for the middle class will allow more constant spending which stimulates the economy.

I’m all for tax cuts for the middle class. When do they start?  Oh, question. Does it not stimulate the economy when a rich guy spends money?

Giving the middle class money to buy things from companies the wealthy invest in will help everyone. Fact.

Giving them money? Who will “give” them money, and where does it come from? If by “give” you mean NOT TAKING IT FROM THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE then you have some serious mental problems. You actually think the government gives you things? Economics 101 – the government gives you nothing.

Take a macro-economics class, you can even have the government pay for the cost.

No stupid, that would be me paying for it.