politicartoons | Shocking, no?

fizzyland.livejournal.com posting in

Kansas' Tax Cut Disaster

Hey, quit shooting my brain!

"The largest tax cuts went to those at the top, and Kansas actually raised taxes on the lowest-income families. Nothing in the Kansas economy’s subpar performance since these tax cuts were enacted suggests the benefits have “trickled down” to ordinary Kansans."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

Nice job dodging what we both know the question was.

Decades ago, not "what the MW was when it was first created"
I mean, unless you think SS should only be for widows and orphans again.

From:

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

I don't think Social Security should really exist at all anymore, so it's kind of moot. If it means we can compromise by making it about widows and orphans again, though, it's a starting point.

The question for me is not "can we make minimum wage worth what it was at some arbitrary point in time," but rather "does minimum wage act as the best way to increase buying power considering the pros and cons of the policy." You seem to believe it does, but don't seem to have a really clear understanding as to why.

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

I am 100% certain I am going to regret asking this, but WHY do you think SS is should not exist anymore?

Oh, and I understand exactly why I support the MW, and increasing it (to a reasonable level, nobody is suggesting $100/hour, except for dingbat conservatives trying to undermine it)

From:

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

I am 100% certain I am going to regret asking this, but WHY do you think SS is should not exist anymore?

From a legal standpoint, I can't see how it meets our Constitutional standards.

From a policy standpoint, it is not something we can afford long term, as it's basically a Ponzi scheme. When you make a class of citizens reliant on a program we can't guarantee and cannot afford long term, what message are you sending? More importantly, what does that do to those people who need it?

From a moral standpoint, it is a definite driver in our poor savings habits. It creates bad incentives in terms of policy expectations, and it creates a class of people who are more and more dependent on the taxpaying public.

The minimal good it offers is far outweighed by the many bad outcomes it creates and institutionalizes on the public.

Oh, and I understand exactly why I support the MW, and increasing it

And that reason?

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

It's a fine thing that you aren't a constitutional lawyer.
It's not a ponzi scheme. It's a fucking POOLING OF RESOURCES.
You seem to have a really big problem with anything that involves WORKING WITH OTHER PEOPLE
This rugged individualism of yours is more fitting in Lord of the Flies than in the real world.

The very same TAXPAYERS who paid into the system of SS are getting their money back when they are older. Don't even TRY and claim that people on SS are somehow "leeching" off the system.

You know that ZERO politicians could ever get elected saying they need to repeal SS. I just want to make sure you know how OUTRAGEOUSLY out of touch you are with what Americans want from their representational system of govt.

And the reason is that the MW helps bring people out of poverty, as well as it puts MORE MONEY into the economy, cause MW workers who get a raise, will spend EVERY PENNY they get.

When Mitt Romney gets an extra million, he spends 70%. MW Workers spend 100-105% (they borrow against their income) of any raises they get. It's good for the economy and it's good for the workers. It's a really simple win-win.

As a sidenote: the state that has the highest MW law also has the highest job-growth and lowest unemployment rate in the country. So suck-it, randian ethos.

From:

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

It's a fine thing that you aren't a constitutional lawyer.

Alas.

It's not a ponzi scheme. It's a fucking POOLING OF RESOURCES.

Take a look at what a Ponzi scheme entails sometime. The only thing Social Security misses on the checklist is that it's not considered fraudulent. Why not? Well, because the government does it. Convenient.

You seem to have a really big problem with anything that involves WORKING WITH OTHER PEOPLE
This rugged individualism of yours is more fitting in Lord of the Flies than in the real world.

I have no problem at all with working with other people. It's the compulsion that I have the problem with.

The very same TAXPAYERS who paid into the system of SS are getting their money back when they are older. Don't even TRY and claim that people on SS are somehow "leeching" off the system.

You can't guarantee the former, and the latter is not entirely true in many regards, as they get back more than they pay in for many regards.

Except for folks like you and me, who are going to end up with getting smaller payouts than what we would otherwise.

You know that ZERO politicians could ever get elected saying they need to repeal SS. I just want to make sure you know how OUTRAGEOUSLY out of touch you are with what Americans want from their representational system of govt.

I realize that people would rather handouts than truth-telling. I get that. There's a reason I don't run for office and have no interest.

And the reason is that the MW helps bring people out of poverty, as well as it puts MORE MONEY into the economy, cause MW workers who get a raise, will spend EVERY PENNY they get.

So why doesn't this happen in practice? It's great in theory, but this idea that the money circulates and the economy improves isn't really historically so. Many, many more factors come into play, and when people invariably lose their jobs or end up with fewer hours because of the wage
hikes, how does that pan out?

As a sidenote: the state that has the highest MW law also has the highest job-growth and lowest unemployment rate in the country. So suck-it, randian ethos.

It's almost as if an economy is not governed solely by the wages it pays!

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

So why doesn't this happen in practice? It's great in theory, but this idea that the money circulates and the economy improves isn't really historically so. Many, many more factors come into play, and when people invariably lose their jobs or end up with fewer hours because of the wage hikes, how does that pan out?

This is factually false. And this is when I stop discussing matters with you, you disgusting, lying, sack of corporate funded feces.

Again, state with highest MW has lowest unemployment. If what you said was true, we would see diff results. If deeply red states, with deep red state legislative and executive bodies were thriving, given their policies, you'd have a case. You do not.

From:

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

This is factually false. And this is when I stop discussing matters with you, you disgusting, lying, sack of corporate funded feces.

Not a word of it was false, of course.

Again, state with highest MW has lowest unemployment.

Which tells us little in a vacuum.

From:

angelcerv25.livejournal.com

Of course, of course, of course.

You suck at trying to sound smart.

From:

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

It doesn't matter if I sound smart as long as I'm telling the truth.

From:

oslo.livejournal.com

Spoken like a true campus preacher. You should market your services to College Republican groups around the country; they could hire you to rabble-rouse on the student commons. Like the typical campus preacher, you'd derive immense personal satisfaction/martyrdom from being yelled at by a bunch of barely-adult students who have little idea of what they're talking about. You'd also be able to overlook the fact that the professors and more intelligent students ignore you completely.