^^ Great video. Basically saying the same thing I just said. Where the hell does this whole "fair share" bullshit even come from? How is it fair for somebody who gets all the same public things as everybody else to have to pay a higher tax rate.

You're right. I never advocated deficit spending, either. There are more ways to generating revenue than taxing people. Governments, in most countries, are the largest property owners, exercise these property rights, collect revenues through voluntary exchange, like everybody else does.

Of course they would never be able to generate the kinds of revenues required to run in its current size... but as you know, I'm opposed to Government doing anything more than protecting our rights.

There obviously needs to be a transitionary period between what we have today, and how I see the Government should be run. I think Ron Paul's plan to balance the budget in three years and to start transitioning people off social security is the best direction to be taking. In fact, it is the route that will lead to the least misery.

It is one of the funniest things about our government.  It has so many avenues to make profits, yet rarely actually uses it to their benefit.

I mean, imagine if social security was run like a hedge fund instead of an IOU program from the government to itself, like it is now.  Sure 2008 would of killed the social security fund, but it would of already been outperforming what was promised so much it'd be flush with cash.

Heck, if a congressman ran it, it probably wouldn't of been hurt by 2008.  What with their "sweet" legal insider trading abiltities.

As far as I know, every other country in the world takes their money for government run pensions and invests it.   While here in the US the government spends $100 dollars to buy a bond from itself, promising that in 20 years it will pay itself $120.

Which makes about as much sense as me using my retirement money to buy a bunch of videogames and write an IOU for the amount +20% when i hit retirement age.  Well ok, it makes more sense then that since there will be workers afterwords who are paying the bill with their tax dollars, (and loans).

However still, I find it funny when republicans were blasted for calling social security a ponzi scheme when... it's essentially a ponzi scheme. 

If government got out of trying to control everything about the economy they could actually take a part in it, make money and lower the burden to us.

send everybody to the military when they turn 18 including all the snotty nose rich brats. we will save alot of money from the war profiteers when their kids lives are on the line.

this country is pathetic in every way. theres a balance approach to everything you know the whole yin yang thing. theres a fallacy on the right that if you cut government you save money. let's examine that locally. a town lays off police, fireman, teachers and a few other "government" workers. now these 100 people that was paying taxes dont anymore. the stores they used to go to start losing money so they lay off a few people and it the problem multiplies from there.

demand is the job creator. poor people use 100% of their income for demand. middle class people 75% upper middle 50% wealthy %1.

its factually proven that money in the hands of the poor does more to stimulate growth than a 0% tax on the wealthy.

1.) Not exactly sure how you think if every single 18 year old is sent into the military that their lives will be on the line.  There will be such a massive overabundance of people in the military a majority will never even get sent into battle.

2.) Poor people use 100% of their income.  Ok, so if a poor person makes $20,000, gets no taxes, and spends it all, they have put $20,000 total into the economy.  If an upper middle class person makes $200,000, gets taxed at 30% (after all the deductions and whatnot, the federal + state + social security and medicare will be at least this high), they have paid $60,000 in taxes alone.  Lets just say we are talking a conservative person, then they will spend an additional $100,000.  They have put a total of $160,000 into the economy.  The remaining $40,000 will make interest (the amount will vary depending on how it is invested).  Regardless of where it is invested, it is more or less getting put back into the economy.  If it is at a bank, this bank is then borrowing this money out to other people.  Or maybe they will invest it in a mutual fund.  Well this money is then getting put into the economy via this.  So they will also have 100% of their income put into the economy.  The exact same can be said about somebody who makes $10,000,000 a year.  No matter what, the money IS going back into the economy.

Also thought I would mention, one could potentially argue that a 0% tax wouldn't necessarily result in any more money going into the economy.  The government is spending the money we give them via taxes in the economy just like we are.  Regardless of what the tax rate is, pretty much all of everybody's money is going back into the economy in some manner.  The problem I have with the government getting this money is that I would rather choose where it gets spent, not have the government choose this for me.  It has nothing to do with me being able to stimulate the economy more or less than the government.

I have to say, I've never once in my life heard somebody try to say that poor people stimulate the economy more than wealthy people.

its a fact.  demand is more important to most businesses than anything.  if you dont have customers you dont have a business.  the poor put pratically every dime they make back into the economy directly.  and last time i check most cities and states have sales taxes plus ss and fica so they pay taxes.  thats the most ignorant argument the right makes.  EVERYBODY pays taxes.

theres a fallacy in the right that thinks if you give the wealthy more money they will create jobs. all most of them do is play in the high stakes casino that is wall street. 

as for the military argument its rich old farts going after oil sending mostly poor kids to battle to pad their pockets.  they'd think twice if it was their kid that had to go on the front line.

i see things differently and im pretty well off.  this country is going to shit fast.  the poor is the dirt covering the roots of an oak tree.  the middle class are the roots.  the more dirt thats washed away the more the base of the tree erodes until eventually the tree topples or die.

the bible said there will always be poor but it also said we should look out for them.

but this is america a nation of hypocrites

No, it isn't a fact, so don't insinuate it as such. NOTHING in economics is a fact. It is entirely based on theories that such and such will happen based on such and such happening. Your first mistake was made when you said that.

The second mistake you made was in reference to taxes. Go talk to any right person in the world, and ask them what they mean when they say the poor pay no taxes. They will say they pay 0% federal and 0% state income taxes. Oftentimes, they actually get more money back than what they paid in. This money could in essence "cover" at least a portion of the social security and medicare taxes that were paid.

The third mistake you made was in reference to demand. Yes, demand is crucial for a business. But somebody making $200,000 a year versus somebody making $20,000 a year has a lot more demand, even for essential things such as housing, food, transportation, etc. Your original argument said money in the hands of the poor does more to stimulate the economy. NO IT DOOESN'T. The first $20,000 that the wealthier person made is doing the EXACT same thing the $20,000 the poor person made. Going towards necessities. They then have a lot more money going in as well.

Lets go onto your fourth mistake. In your original argument, you immediately say that cutting government costs results in laying people off. This is how THEY choose to cut their costs. There are so many other wasted costs, it isn't even funny. They could VERY easily cut these same costs, and not lay off anybody. Matter of fact, the governments cutting costs could very easily cut twice the costs, without a doubt in my mind, and still be perfectly fine off. As a 19 year old, I can GUARANTEE you I could go into any government entity and find so much money being wasted I would almost cry.

One final mistake I saw. You say that the rich just play in the "high stakes casino". You do realize if this "high stakes casino" didn't exist, a LOT of jobs would also be lost. You act as if this "high stakes casino" has absolutely nothing to do with the economy, but it is so crucial. Let this portion crash, and everybody goes down.

------------

Finally, I'm going to mention one of the FUNNIEST things yet about people who use stuff like that bible argument. Did you know that Republicans, on average, make less money, yet donate considerably more money to charities? Isn't that just hilarious? Isn't it just fricking hilarious that somehow we are the selfish bastards that don't help anybody out?

Oh, but we don't want the government to help out the poor? Did you ever think that has something to do with the INCREDIBLE innefficiency of anything run by the government? A lot more help could be provided to the poor if there were no taxes and people replaced those tax expenses with donations to charities, due to the much higher efficiency.

Do you think the rich have money bins that hold a large amout of cash outside of the economy?

If your money is in the bank, you have purchased an illiquid asset (stock, bond, etc.), you bought a luxury, or you paid for a necessity the money you used has been returned to the economy; either as available credit for other individuals, or as payment for something you bought from them. For the most part, money spent by the wealthy is redistributed among people who are not wealthy because people of fairly modest incomes produce or sell the goods, services or investments that these individuals are buying.

In an odd way, the only difference between the wealthy spending their money and the poor spending their money is where the goods that are being bought are designed and produced. While the luxury items that are prized by the wealthy are often manufactured in western developed nations, the goods bought by the typical westerner are more often being manufactured in developing nations. This difference is the result of the cost of labour being much more of a factor in lower-end products, and typical consumers being more motivated by modest differences in price. For example, while they aren't (really) a practical product for most people, Yachts and sail boats are manufactured in developed nations by highly skilled workers for middle class wages.

I'd just like to say that my parents own a local veterinary clinic and have actively avoided making over a certain amount because of the increase in taxes. If they did, they would end up with less money after everything was said and done. This results in them being able to afford to employ fewer people and limits the number of patients they can see, but when the alternative is going out of business...

...Just to let you know, that isn't how taxes work.  With the current tax system in place, once you hit certain incremements, you will hit a higher tax percentage on any income above that amount.  The previous taxes are the same.