Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, April 18, 2018

All in, Americans will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes this year. On top of that, they will pay $1.8 trillion in local and state taxes, for a total burden (local, state, and federal) of $5.2 trillion, roughly 30 percent of GDP ... Despite record tax revenue, the federal government will still run an $800 billion budget deficit this year. That's because it will spend roughly $4.1 trillion this year, while taking in the aforementioned $3.3 trillion. This is not rocket science: If you spend more than you take in, you have a problem. Progressives will blame low taxes generally, and the recent GOP tax reform in particular. But the Congressional Budget Office says that tax revenues as a percent of GDP will decline by just 0.7 percent this year. Spending, on the other hand, will increase by 3 percent of GDP, more than four times as much.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Our government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-18 11:37 AM | Reply

Don't you know?

Deficits don't matter again.

Yurtle the Turtle is pushing a bill to make more tax cuts.

Spending problem?

Don't tell Trump, Pruitt, Munchkin or Carson about spending problems. They are all raiding the piggy bank.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-18 11:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

So if tax revenue grew by a few percent of GDP the deficit would be solved, easy.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2018-04-18 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Our government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem."

You state that as if it is more than a talking point instead of the b***s**t that it really is. I'd be ashamed to repeat such garbage.

From the article:
"Quite simply, there is no way to balance the budget or seriously reduce spending without reforming these programs. Yet entitlements remain off-limits on a bipartisan basis."

Simply a lie. Just remove the cap on income subject to SS and Medicare taxes and voila! Sovent forever. Ronald Reagan raised the income level subject to SS taxes, it isn't rocket science.

Jeff, keep your government hands off of my Social Security and Medicare.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-18 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Taxes Don't Cover America's Expenses

Pure BS right-wing propaganda ... what's next, massive trillion dollar tax cuts to corporations already making record profits pay for themselves?

Eisenhower paid off WWII debts while balancing the budget ... with a 90% tax rate.

Thread sucks.

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-04-18 12:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

The right is laying the ground work for killing social security and medicare.

I'm all for means testing for social security. Someone with $2,000,000 of muni income should not be getting social security benefits.

Social security and medicare are not entitlements, they are benefits that we have paid into for decades before using them. To put them on the level of welfare is just more 1% sponsored --------.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-18 12:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm all for means testing for social security. Someone with $2,000,000 of muni income should not be getting social security benefits."

If someone can show that if we cut SS benefits from someone making $2 million in muni income and that makes a dent in the solvency problem of SS, then fine.

let's see it.

.001% of our population drawing $2,500 a month in SS....we can stop that.....but does that matter?

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2018-04-18 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Thread sucks.

#5 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

Of course it does. It eviscerates your little left-wing narrative.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-18 12:15 PM | Reply

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-18 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag: the DR queen of regurgitating talking points....but complains when someone else does it.

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2018-04-18 12:16 PM | Reply

Our government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No, it's got both.

We tax far less than we used to. And we tax far less than the rest of the developed world.

We also have terrible spending priorities. We need to re-invest in education and infrastructure if we want to continue luring business to our country. With solid infrastructure and educated people able to be versatile in the workplace, we actually lower significantly the cost of doing business in our country. A slightly higher tax rate then becomes far less of an issue or even less cost than the alternative.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-18 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Advertisement

Advertisement

I agree that while we have a progressive tax structure, it's not effectively progressive...meaning that it is still flat. We have very wealth individuals in the country who enjoy very low effective rates and we ask labor income to pay more in taxes than interest/dividend income.....and that's a problem we need to address. I totally support reform in that area.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2018-04-18 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"We have very wealth individuals in the country who enjoy very low effective rates and we ask labor income to pay more in taxes than interest/dividend income....."

You're singing my song.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-18 12:41 PM | Reply

We've taken in record taxes, yet Congress still spend more so, yes, we do have a spending problem. Anyone who unable to comprehend that as being a problem most likely be deeply in debt.

Feds Collect Record Taxes Through August; Still Run $673.7B Deficit www.cnsnews.com

#13 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-04-18 03:09 PM | Reply

Oh how lovely. Another BS Social Security Medicare scare tactics thread. Par for the course these days.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-18 10:48 PM | Reply

".001% of our population drawing $2,500 a month in SS....we can stop that.....but does that matter?"

The problem is on the other side of the coin.
Income subject to SSI capture has fallen from ~80% of payroll in the 1980s to ~65% of payroll today.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-18 10:55 PM | Reply

Oh how lovely. Another BS Social Security Medicare scare tactics thread. Par for the course these days.

#14 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Right - just ignore any and all sources that don't conform to your narrative. Obama's chief actuary for Medicare flat-out stated that this program is on a dangerous trajectory.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-18 10:59 PM | Reply

Right - just ignore any and all sources that don't conform to your narrative. Obama's chief actuary for Medicare flat-out stated that this program is on a dangerous trajectory.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-04-18 10:59 PM | REPLY

Let's be honest about it for once. The GOP have wanted to kill these programs since their respective inceptions. They will do anything and everything that they can to kill them today. It's bunk.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-18 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let's be honest about it for once. The GOP have wanted to kill these programs since their respective inceptions. They will do anything and everything that they can to kill them today. It's bunk.

#17 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I get that you disagree with how the GOP proposes to deal with it.

But you are burying your head in the sand when you deny the trajectory of these programs.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-18 11:14 PM | Reply

"Obama's chief actuary for Medicare flat-out stated that this program is on a dangerous trajectory."

JeffJ do you think Medicare should be allowed to negotiate drug prices?
Not a trick question just trying to see if you see the same problems I do.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-18 11:24 PM | Reply

This is Not Rocket Science: Taxes Don't Cover America's Expenses

Pure BS.

Taxes pay for America's expenses.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?
www.cbpp.org

The federal government collects taxes to finance various public services.

As policymakers and citizens weigh key decisions about revenues and expenditures, it is instructive to examine what the government does with the money it collects.


Liars lie, and this thread is a perfect example.

#20 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-04-19 06:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We've taken in record taxes,

Presidential golfing trips as at all time high too.

"Feds Collect Record Taxes Through August; Still Run $673.7B Deficit
By Terence P. Jeffrey | September 13, 2017 | 4:28 PM EDT"

Did you look at the date of article? 8 months old.

Here's something a little fresher...

"The revenue collected equals 16.3 percent of gross domestic product. That's the nation's measurement of economic output. That's like saying the average tax rate for the United States itself is 16.3 percent.

If that much production is going to the federal government, then you want to make sure it's reinvested into the economy to support future growth.

It's also much lower than the historical 19 percent target. But that's because the Trump administration cut taxes. It also estimates GDP will increase 3.2 percent in FY 2019. That's higher than the ideal growth rate."

www.thebalance.com

#21 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-19 07:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

NEVER has, doesn't need to. No one cared when the Banks were bailed out to the tune of $22 trillion, a figure which dwarfs even US war mongering.

That said, it will matter if the world loses faith in the US and the US is incapable of supplying its own needs.

#22 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-04-19 07:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But you are burying your head in the sand when you deny the trajectory of these programs."

The programs don't kill themselves, they need someone to kill them. Generally speaking Republicans who do everything in their power, year after year, to destroy great programs which have operated successfully for many decades. They honestly just don't care if Grandma starves. They try to act like they do but when it comes down to it they don't give a crap about their fellow Americans. Recently, during this last decade it has become obvious that not only do they not care about other Americans, they don't give a crap about America.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-19 08:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They honestly just don't care if Grandma starves.

They do care. Just not as much as they care about the 1% get more money.

P.O.S. Chris Collins summed it up 100% spot on.... the 1% that donate to the right told them that if they don't get paid with the Tax Scam that the GOP shoved down our throat last December they would stop funding the rights campaigns.

The 1% demanded to get paid for their investment. Buying a congresscritter is not cheap. If the elderly and poor have to suffer to pay for the pay off, the GOP is fine with that.

#24 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-19 08:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#23 and #24.

You do yourselves a disservice by broad brushing all republicans.

As a liberal, all you see Danni is the benefit, the "gimme". You dont care where or how the money comes. What part of "record" tax revenues dont you understand? You think there's more out there? As usual, coming from someone who isnt making millions, but are willing to forcefully take someone else's money.

Increasing taxes an a small population of people isnt the answer. You want to raise taxes? Raise them on EVERYONE. Stop looking at the affluent as a piggy bank.

#25 | Posted by boaz at 2018-04-19 09:53 AM | Reply

#8 yawn.

When an eighth of more of that increase is DoD spending ($150 billion bump) it confirms that this is hardly a left wing thing.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-19 10:07 AM | Reply

#25 when they can't cut their tax responsibilities in half or more you'll have a point.

Why are you such a shameless sycophant for the rich?

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-19 10:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would love to see taxes increased, across the board so that not only are we not running perpetual deficits but we are also paying into a trust so that our unfunded liabilities become funded.

I guarantee you a massive federal state would have far less appeal if people actually had to pay for it.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 10:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I think we should cut Congresscritters and their staff's salaries to minimum wage, get rid of all benefits, and outsource the back office work to New Dehli. That's what any CEO would do

#29 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-19 11:01 AM | Reply

I would love to see taxes increased, across the board so that not only are we not running perpetual deficits but we are also paying into a trust so that our unfunded liabilities become funded.

I guarantee you a massive federal state would have far less appeal if people actually had to pay for it.

#28 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires using the Eisenhower Era tax rates.

Not hard.

#30 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-04-19 11:02 AM | Reply

Raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires using the Eisenhower Era tax rates.
Not hard.

#30 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

There's not nearly enough money in that bracket to fully fund our government and to begin funding unfunded liabilities.

Tax increases across the board. I'm all for it. Force people to pay for this monstrosity. It's the only way to rein in the federal government.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

the federal government will still run an $800 billion budget deficit this year.

Damn, I thought the libs said it was 1.4 trillion.

#32 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-04-19 11:49 AM | Reply

Just remove the cap on income subject to SS

#4 | Posted by danni

That is NOT an entitlement ddan. It is a government ponzi scheme.

SS made simple

Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.

If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

#33 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-04-19 11:53 AM | Reply

Taxes Don't Cover America's Expenses

After so many years, shouldn't conservatives be ashamed to drag out this functionally dishonest statement over and over? Why isn't trickle-down in a grave, six feet under?

Taxes most certainly COULD cover America's expenses, if Republicans would stop slashing them to the benefit of folks that didn't really need a tax cut. And to top it off, Republicans constantly compound the problem by putting extra expenditures on the Federal credit card with no intention of paying the bill. Then they have the audacity to blame Dems for not cutting social programs.

Republicans need to stop pretending that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. They somehow manage to convince half the electorate that they are doing them a favor by feeding them crumbs. The only thing Republicans are really good at is running up debt to feed money to their crony friends, and then leaving the bills for everyone else.

#34 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-04-19 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There's not nearly enough money in that bracket to fully fund our government and to begin funding unfunded liabilities.

Tax increases across the board. I'm all for it. Force people to pay for this monstrosity. It's the only way to rein in the federal government.

#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Unfunded liabilities is a red herring meant to muddy the waters and to confuse people.

There's plenty of money ...

Here's our major spending initiatives the last 20 years.

• Two Bush Tax Cuts = $6.6 trillion (2001, 2003)
• Medicare Part D = $1 trillion (2003)
• Iraq/Afghanistan Wars = $7 trillion (2003 - 2018)
• Wall Street Bank Bailout = $12.8 trillion (2008)
• Obama Stimulus = $1 trillion (2009)
• Trump/GOP Tax Cuts = $1.5 trillion (2017)

Almost $30 trillion since 2001.

If money was a problem, none of the above would never have happened.

Stop with the lies.

#35 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-04-19 12:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

Almost $30 trillion since 2001.

In 2000 our debt was $5.6 trillion. We are now roughly $21 trillion. So, during that same time period you cited we've added roughly $16 trillion to the debt.

www.thebalance.com

Also, TARP was paid back.

U.S. ends TARP with $15.3 billion profit

money.cnn.com

So, if we subtract $12.8 trillion from your numbers that brings us to $17.4 trillion.

Then there's this: • Trump/GOP Tax Cuts = $1.5 trillion (2017)

That is projected over the next 10 years, so I'm removing that as well, which brings those big-ticket items down to $15.9 trillion which is pretty much what we've borrowed. Like I said, taxes don't cover America's spending.

Unfunded liabilities is a red herring meant to muddy the waters and to confuse people.

No. It's a real thing. Take it up with the actuaries.

Unfunded liabilities range from $87 Trillion to $222 Trillion, according to this source:

www.mercatus.org

The most consistently reported number has been approximately $120+ Trillion.

Stop with the lies.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 01:37 PM | Reply

Stop with the lies.

Lol says the guy who trots out the unfunded liabilities nonsense every chance he gets.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-19 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires using the Eisenhower Era tax rates.
Not hard."

You mean typing that and hitting "publish"?

Yeah, not hard at all.

Unless you meant actually doing that.

Well, that's where your plan gets laughed at.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2018-04-19 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lol says the guy who trots out the unfunded liabilities nonsense every chance he gets.

#37 | POSTED BY JPW

If you scroll up, that is how he ended his post directed at me. It's telling that you call me out and ignore Pinch.

Secondly, please explain what is nonsensical about our unfunded liabilities.

I'll wait patiently.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 01:53 PM | Reply

#36 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yes but unfunded liabilities are not due NOW. And being unfunded doesn't mean that incoming cash isn't enough to cover them.

A Mortgage is an unfunded liability. But the homeowner generally pays it every month with incoming earnings.

The same goes for government. So when you say unfunded liability, that doesn't mean there is some crazy financial situation. The question becomes how close are we to being able to meet those liabilities as they come due.

And that question isn't being answered.

#40 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-19 01:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#35 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

If we didn't pass two Bush tax cuts, didn't invade Iraq and had proper regulations on Wall Street...we could have paid off the national debt.

Or...if we didn't listen to idiot Republicans, we would have paid off the national debt by now.

#41 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-19 01:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

#40 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

My understanding, based upon my reading of this issue, is the unfunded liabilities are over and above the projected revenues pegged to those programs (Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security).

www.forbes.com

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 01:58 PM | Reply

#41 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Over the past 30 years or so our best fiscal performances have occurred with a Democrat in the White House and congress controlled by the GOP.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 02:00 PM | Reply

#39

www.washingtonpost.com

I think that's the fifth time I've posted that in a discussion with you.

Fifth times a charm maybe?

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-19 02:13 PM | Reply

I've read that article before (including today). It provides some context but it doesn't dismiss our unfunded liabilities as "nonsense".

Here's some more "nonsense":

www.usnews.com

latest.13d.com

www.valuewalk.com

nationalinterest.org

www.cato.org

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 02:25 PM | Reply

The nonsense is the infinite horizon.

It's similar to the USPS making pension payments for future postal workers that haven't been born yet.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-19 02:28 PM | Reply

but it doesn't dismiss our unfunded liabilities as "nonsense"

No, that's where using your brain comes in.

If I said you'd better start buying lottery tickets because it could one day be worth $900 trillion dollars, would you start buying tickets?

Or would you realize that that's an extrapolated number based on multiple assumptions?

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-19 02:29 PM | Reply

Or would you realize that that's an extrapolated number based on multiple assumptions?

#47 | POSTED BY JPW

Actuaries are pretty good at what they do.

The nonsense is the infinite horizon.

It's not an infinite horizon.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 02:30 PM | Reply

It's funny you say it's not infinite, because you're practically channeling ZeroHedge when you get worked up over your pet issue.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-19 02:36 PM | Reply

#41 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Over the past 30 years or so our best fiscal performances have occurred with a Democrat in the White House and congress controlled by the GOP.

#43 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Ironically right after a Democratic Congress got voted out for passing plans Republicans said would destroy the economy. And then the Republicans come in, don't make any changes, but you give them credit.

Remember Republicans crying that Clinton raising taxes would lead to recession? ...didn't quite happen.
Oh and Republicans saying Obama wouldn't fix Bush's mess? ...but he did and beat the rosy numbers McCain was saying he'd get us to.

#50 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-19 02:57 PM | Reply

Actuaries are pretty good at what they do.

I guess it's the scientist in me that's going nuts...

I'm not debating the analysis or math.

I'm saying you need a healthier dose of salt.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-19 03:06 PM | Reply

#51 Fair enough.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 03:11 PM | Reply

The point of this thread seems to be the rich need more tax breaks.

And people paying into social security their whole lives need to be shafted.

Thanks for sharing, Jeff.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-04-19 03:44 PM | Reply

The point of this thread is that our government spends WAY more than it brings in.

And the trajectory is even worse.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The point of this thread is that our government spends WAY more than it brings in.
And the trajectory is even worse.

#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Quit with the damn tax cuts for rich people, cut military spending a bit, get rid of some of our foreign bases and a little social security/medicare reform will help.

#55 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-19 03:51 PM | Reply

You do yourselves a disservice by broad brushing all republicans.

Republicans deserve all the criticism they're getting. They're bankrupting the country while supporting a petulant man child who's selling off the government to the highest bidders and looting our government for personal expenses.

Conservatives do themselves a disservice by being part of today's Republican Party.

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-04-19 03:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The point of this thread is that our government spends WAY more than it brings in.

Thanks to nearly 40 years of republican policies.

Also, before someone says, "but the democrats!"

Yes. I will concede, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama continued a lot of republican policies and added some of their own.

#57 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-04-19 03:55 PM | Reply

You dont care where or how the money comes.

It gets taken out of my paycheck every week. And then you get some of it. Cause you chose to join the army. To kill brown people.

What part of "record" tax revenues dont you understand?

What part of, taxes are lower than ever, don't you understand?

You think there's more out there?

Absolutely. It's being hoarded in off shore bank accounts.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-04-19 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"...cut military spending a bit, get rid of some of our foreign bases and a little social security/medicare reform will help." #55 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

My beef with your statement is the same that I have for dems in general: that your thinking is too small.

Your willingness to compromise for crumbs is not enough. As long as you'll settle for their crumbs, that's all you'll ever be offered by your 'less evil' party.

#59 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-19 04:04 PM | Reply

The point of this thread is that our government spends WAY more than it brings in.

#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yep. And if Republicans hadn't given so many huge gifts in the form of tax cuts to their wealthy benefactors over the last forty years, government would be bringing in FAR more revenue. Then this wouldn't be nearly as big a problem.

The BEST solution would be to reverse the tax cuts that have caused the problem. Not to kill the programs that honest folks have paid into all their lives, and that shouldn't even be counted as part of discretionary spending.

#60 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-04-19 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"...cut military spending a bit, get rid of some of our foreign bases and a little social security/medicare reform will help." #55 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
My beef with your statement is the same that I have for dems in general: that your thinking is too small.
Your willingness to compromise for crumbs is not enough. As long as you'll settle for their crumbs, that's all you'll ever be offered by your 'less evil' party.

#59 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

So you want to get rid of all military spending, ditch all our foreign bases, and get rid of all social security/medicare?

#61 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-19 04:29 PM | Reply

The point of this thread is that our government spends WAY more than it brings in.

And the trajectory is even worse.

#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

The point of this thread is to show there's plenty of money, we just almost always spend it on wrong things.

Free college education? Easy. With the added benefit that smarter and brighter Americans ultimately lowers healthcare costs ...

healthitanalytics.com

And free college education is just one example that has long lasting positive effects for the country (aka: everyone).

The problem is to get people to free their minds from decades of dogma that's been force-fed to regular Americans since the end of WWII.

#62 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-04-19 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

What part of "record" tax revenues dont you understand?
#25 | POSTED BY BOAZ

The fact that its not REALLY a record.

The actual record is 19% of the GDP for Federal Tax dollars. 2018 is expected to be 16.3%.

We should be raising taxes when the economy is doing well and lowering taxes/increasing spending to spur growth during recessions.

But Republicans always love to do it backwards and Democrats have to fix the problem.

#63 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-19 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Taxes don't cover America's expenses."

They were never supposed to. But then again, how many of our elected reps. actually follow the constitution?

#64 | Posted by thetwilightzone at 2018-04-19 04:52 PM | Reply

So you want to get rid of all military spending, ditch all our foreign bases, and get rid of all social security/medicare?
#61 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Defend our borders, ditch all foreign bases, end World Police action, fully fund SS/Medicare, implement single payer, implement full public education through college, infrastructure, jobs, end cannabis prohibition, close gitmo, end global spying, fair tax the rich and corporations, i could go on, but I'm sure you're familiar with liberal ideology.

As long as you buy into NeoConCorky's doom and gloom of "it can be done, but with crumbs" mantra, that's all you'll get - inch-by-inch more evil and crumbs.

#65 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-19 05:15 PM | Reply

-NeoConCorky

What a moran. And still waiting for Stein's Inauguration. Idiot.

As long as you buy into the idea that there are more liberal voters than conservative ones, you'll stay stupid.

Bubba and Barack won election, twice, because they brought together the liberals, the moderates, and even some conservative Dems. Anyone who only brings one of those groups is doomed to failure.

The (Still) Conservative States of America

As the ideological sorting of American voters continues, liberals find themselves outnumbered in four out of five states.

www.citylab.com

#66 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-19 05:25 PM | Reply

"Bubba and Barack won election, twice, because they brought together the liberals, the moderates, and even some conservative Dems. "

With lies that will no longer be supported. Your neoliberal ship is sinking.

I'll celebrate when it hits the bottom.

#67 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-19 05:39 PM | Reply

- With lies that will no longer be supported.

Speaking of lies, that's a big one.

"liberals find themselves outnumbered in four out of five states."

You are truly totally oblivious, aren't you.

(not a question)

#68 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-19 05:58 PM | Reply

glub, glub, glub.

That's the sound of progress.

Your neoliberal globalist empire ship is sinking, Mr. Colonialism.

#69 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-19 06:10 PM | Reply

#69 |

More claims, less evidence. It has always been such with stupid sheep.

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-19 06:16 PM | Reply

glub, glub, blurbble-blurbble, glub.

#71 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-19 06:24 PM | Reply

#69 |

You should spit that out... you've done enough for Trump.

#72 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-19 06:27 PM | Reply

"You do yourselves a disservice by broad brushing all republicans."

Yeah, but it's easy.

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2018-04-19 06:47 PM | Reply

Our government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ

Then either cut the military's trillion dollar year waste, or raise taxes on the rich, who are richer than ever before.

Dont say we need to cut support for schools, the sick, the eldery, or investments in our nation when those things are already struggling while the rich are thriving.

It's obvious where all the money in america is. Yet repubs keep trying to take from the poor and give more to the rich. Just like jesus.

#74 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-19 08:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

OK, let's be honest here folks. We used to need the oil from the ME. We don't need it any more. Russia used to have power because of their ability to bring oil but now we can replace that. The world has changed. America is now, by far, the most powerful country in the world, not just militarily bur also we are the biggest supplier of energy in the world.

We can now effectively control the price of oil and natural gas.

We have, by far, the most powerful military in the world.

Our problem is that some of us want to use that for good while some of us want to use that for power and profit.

I don't think I am being rude when I say that the Republican party wants to use it for power and profit.

The Democratic Party wants to use it for the benefit of mankind.

Both parties are the same? --------!

Some Democrats aren't perfect, they're humans, but the party is dedicated to the benefit of the average working American and the welfare of people in every nation on Earth.
Deny it, go on a Hillary rant, whatever, it's still the truth.
I'm 67 years old and I have watched politics all my life. I am not a naive person, I know some Democrats go astray, but the Democratic Party is the best option for struggling Americans, we do care about you. We are you.
Tell the Jill Steins of this world to present some results, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps? Greens have brought nothing.
And I don't hate the Greens, I just want them to to strt with Legislatures, Congress, etc., not the Presidency. Build a constituency, don't try to demonize the party that has successfully brought so many good things to working Americans, poor Americans, demonized Americans, like gays and transgendered.
Laura, is a person who has demonized the one person who has fought harder for gay rights than anyone else I can think of. Hillary Clinton is a gay rights, transgender rights icon, whether or not you want to recognize it. Sure, she was a little late to the party but when she got there she was powerful and gays and transgendered people would not enjoy the acceptance and the legal right to be who they are tody if she had not stood up for us.
OK, it wasn't soon enough but she did stand up before the vast majority of Congress. I'll be honest here, I'd be honored to vote for her again for President and I hope she goes for it. God damn, that would be brave!

#75 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-19 10:57 PM | Reply

...we are the biggest supplier of energy in the world.

So why do you still import 10 Million barrels per day?

#76 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-04-19 11:24 PM | Reply

"We used to need the oil from the ME. We don't need it any more."

Actually, we do.

Because we don't own our oil.

Huge multinationals like ExxonMobil and smaller domestic companies like Arbusto own it.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-19 11:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We used to need the oil from the ME. We don't need it any more."
---------
Actually, we do.
Because we don't own our oil.
Huge multinationals like ExxonMobil and smaller domestic companies like Arbusto own it.

#77 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

My bet is that you'd like to see our government appropriate it in order to benefit the greater good.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-19 11:43 PM | Reply

"My bet is that you'd like to see our government appropriate it in order to benefit the greater good."

Only when you put the cart before the horse.

It is already ours.
We misappropriate it when we give it to private companies.
But feel free to explain why we shouldn't use those natural resources for the greater good of all Americans. I'd love to hear why you oppose that.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-19 11:57 PM | Reply

"My bet is that you'd like to see our government appropriate it in order to benefit the greater good."
Only when you put the cart before the horse.
It is already ours.
We misappropriate it when we give it to private companies.
But feel free to explain why we shouldn't use those natural resources for the greater good of all Americans. I'd love to hear why you oppose that.

#79 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Are you not aware that oil companies lease the land they drill on from the federal government?

It was kind of a thing during the last administration to slow-walk approval of new leases in an attempt to 'necessarily skyrocket' energy costs.

When entire industries are nationalized Venezuela is the result. i seriously don't get your love affair with Communism.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-20 07:02 AM | Reply

When entire industries are nationalized Venezuela is the result. i seriously don't get your love affair with Communism.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-04-20 07:02 AM | REPLY

Your ignorance of the subject matter is duly noted. Venezuela has heavy and extra heavy crude.

en.wikipedia.org

According to World Resources Institute, concentrations of remarkable quantities of heavy oil and oil sands are found in Canada and Venezuela.[2][10] The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in 2001 that the largest reserves of heavy crude oil in the world were located north of the Orinoco river 270-mile long by 40-mile wide Orinoco Belt in eastern Venezuela. At that time Venezuela began authorizing "joint ventures to upgrade the extra-heavy crude resources." [11] Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) at that time estimated that there were 270 billion barrels of recoverable reserves in the area,[11] the same amount as the conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.[12] The Orinoco Belt in Venezuela is sometimes described as oil sands, but these deposits are non-bituminous, falling instead into the category of heavy or extra-heavy oil due to their lower viscosity.[13] Natural bitumen and extra-heavy oil differ in the degree by which they have been degraded from the original conventional oils by bacteria. Thirty or more countries are known to have reserves.

Production, transportation, and refining of heavy crude oil present special challenges compared to light crude oil. Generally, a diluent is added at regular distances in a pipeline carrying heavy crude to facilitate its flow. Dilbit (diluted bitumen) is a means of transporting highly viscous hydrocarbon. Per the Alberta Oil Sands Bitumen Valuation Methodology, "Dilbit Blends" means "Blends made from heavy crudes and/or bitumens and a diluent usually condensate, for the purpose of meeting pipeline viscosity and density specifications, where the density of the diluent included in the blend is less than 800 kg/m3."[14][15]

#81 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-20 07:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

There is nothing ignorant about it, Laura.

Chavez appropriated the entire industry and gave it to 'the people'.

As it turns out, 'the people' lacked the resources and knowledge to refine oil, so in spite of being an oil-rich country, their wealth sits in the ground because their all-mighty Socialist government drove out the entities that were capable of extracting it, refining it and bringing it to the market.

That's what Snoofy wants to bring here.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-20 07:30 AM | Reply

As it turns out, 'the people' lacked the resources and knowledge to refine oil, so in spite of being an oil-rich country, their wealth sits in the ground because their all-mighty Socialist government drove out the entities that were capable of extracting it, refining it and bringing it to the market.
That's what Snoofy wants to bring here.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-04-20 07:30 AM | REPLY

You show your ignorance yet again. The country has heavy and extra heavy crude oil which costs more to extract and to refine therefore less profitable for the oil companies. This is why it's still in the ground instead of in production. Socialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with that. Get a clue next time dear.

#83 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-20 07:35 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Chavez appropriated the oil industry and the oil companies abandoned their refineries.

I am well aware the light, sweet crude is easier and cheaper to bring to market than heavy crude.

Heavy crude is brought to the market all over the world.

This is recent history. It's kind of sad that you are oblivious as to what happened.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-20 07:41 AM | Reply

This is what Snoofy (and you?) wants:

The staggering decline is another sign of Venezuela's economic and political crisis. The country is heading toward a presidential election in April that international critics are already labeling fraudulent.

Venezuela has more crude oil than any other country in the world and it heavily depends on the commodity to power its economy. Crude oil makes up about 95% of Venezuela's exports. The country has no other source of foreign income.

Yet the government-owned oil company, PDVSA, has pumped less and less oil for the last few years because of corruption, crumbling infrastructure and a massive debt crisis.


money.cnn.com

That country had a solid economy until it became socialist.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-20 07:45 AM | Reply

Let me try and educate you Jeff because you are sorely lacking on this issue.

oilprice.com

India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues

Venezuela's Indian, Chinese, and American clients are complaining that crude shipments from PDVSA are poor in quality and are resulting in demands for discounts and returned shipments, according to a new report by Reuters, including interviews with over a dozen sources and supporting documents.

The disputes involve the contamination of crude with water, soil, and other minerals that make it difficult for refineries to effectively process crude for mass consumption.

But the sources speculated that the low quality of shipments was due to lack of upkeep at PDVSA facilities as officials try to cut corners to save operating costs. In addition, the state-owned company lacks the resources to buy chemicals that aid in the long-term storage of crude before shipment.

American refiner Phillips 66 has cancelled at least eight shipments totaling 4.4 million barrels in the first half of the year due to the low quality of crude coming in from Venezuela, official PDVSA documents show.

#86 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-20 07:59 AM | Reply

"That country had a solid economy until it became socialist."

It had an economy that served a small sector or their population, the rest lived in abject poverty. I have a cousin, adopted, who my aunt brought back from Venezuela. His mother gave him up because they were so poor they couldn't afford food. Meanwhile, the white minority lived in comfort. Hey, most of them are here in S. Florida now, living well on the money they were able to take away from Venezuela. I won't defend Sanchez or Maduro but they are the results of many decades of greedy people stealing the wealth and not doing anything for the people of that nation. Capitalist nations, like the U.S. love to isolate and boycott nations that turn to socialism and then point and laugh when their economies fail. We're still doing it to Cuba. Stupidest policies ever made by our country, most of the Communist nations on Earth would have changed their economic policies long ago if we had opened up our markets to them....think I'm wrong....look at China.

#87 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-20 08:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Great thread which clearly shows the mental hurdles it takes to sustain the GOP mindset.

#88 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-04-20 09:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When entire industries are nationalized Venezuela is the result. i seriously don't get your love affair with Communism.

#80 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada = Venezuela?

According to consulting firm PFC Energy, only 7% of the world's estimated oil and gas reserves are in countries that allow private international companies free rein. Fully 65% are in the hands of state-owned companies such as Saudi Aramco, with the rest in countries such as Russia and Venezuela, where access by Western companies is difficult. The PFC study implies political groups unfavorable to capitalism in some countries tend to limit oil production increases in Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Russia. Saudi Arabia is also limiting capacity expansion, but because of a self-imposed cap, unlike the other countries.[3] en.wikipedia.org

#89 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-04-20 10:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's what Snoofy wants to bring here.

Hey, really nice strawman. Where did you get it?

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-20 10:56 AM | Reply

When entire industries are nationalized Venezuela is the result. #80 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

According to consulting firm PFC Energy, only 7% of the world's estimated oil and gas reserves are in countries that allow private international companies free rein. Fully 65% are in the hands of state-owned companies such as Saudi Aramco, with the rest in countries such as Russia and Venezuela, where access by Western companies is difficult. - #89 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-04-20 10:09 AM

Hey, nice copy and paste from Wikipedia that doesn't refute the point that JeffJ made. In case you're not sure, oil and gas reserves are not entire industries. Also, not allowing private companies 'free reign' is also not the same as nationalizing an industry.

#91 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-04-20 11:11 AM | Reply

Hey, nice copy and paste from Wikipedia that doesn't refute the point that JeffJ made. In case you're not sure, oil and gas reserves are not entire industries. Also, not allowing private companies 'free reign' is also not the same as nationalizing an industry.

#91 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

But you're not refuting the point either. There are middle options to complete free market and complete state ownership.

#92 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-20 12:28 PM | Reply

Chavez appropriated the oil industry and the oil companies abandoned their refineries.
I am well aware the light, sweet crude is easier and cheaper to bring to market than heavy crude.
Heavy crude is brought to the market all over the world.
This is recent history. It's kind of sad that you are oblivious as to what happened.

#84 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-04-20 07:41 AM | REPLY |

i am not oblivious to the dramatic increase in availability of cheap natural gas that has dramatically lowered the demand for heavy crude.

Technology has reduced the amount of on-site energy use during generation. Older power plants used as much as 20% of the power they generated in the process of generating power. Newer gas fired plants can use as little as 2-3%

rising US oil output combined with falling global consumption changed the equation and made heavy crude less viable. No company is going to spend more to harvest a resource than they can sell it for

#93 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-04-20 12:38 PM | Reply

But you're not refuting the point either. #92 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-20 12:28 PM
Nor was I attempting to.

There are middle options to complete free market and complete state ownership.
Precisely my point to WhoDaMan. Which is why his attempted refutation of JeffJ's point was a failure.

#94 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-04-20 12:52 PM | Reply

Precisely my point to WhoDaMan. Which is why his attempted refutation of JeffJ's point was a failure.

#94 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Ok, then we can agree. And yeah, I'm with you that complete state ownership is a terrible idea. Even majority state ownership is bad.

#95 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-20 12:54 PM | Reply

"Are you not aware that oil companies lease the land they drill on from the federal government?"

It's corporate welfare.
You're a dim bulb if you can't see that.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-20 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Right - I just ignore any and all sources that don't conform to my narrative.
#16 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Your honesty is refreshing.

#97 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2018-04-20 05:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

tax the rich, then we'll talk.

#98 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-04-20 07:52 PM | Reply

When entire industries are nationalized Venezuela is the result. #80 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

sorta like Trumplandia?

corruption, graft, and isolation, is what causes that to which you refer. isolation alone, self-imposed or from external "partners," will do it, too.

#99 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-04-20 08:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

all that talk. these things are plain. :))

#100 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-04-20 08:14 PM | Reply

#89 don't confuse, eg, Saudi, "state owned" with Socialism.

#101 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-04-20 08:22 PM | Reply

Dean Baker, "It is important to note that we have already paid an enormous price for having deficits that are too small. We have needlessly kept the unemployment rate higher than necessary, with a cost to our children of a permanently smaller economy, to the tune of $1 trillion to $2 trillion annually. For some reason, the deficit hawks are never forced to acknowledge the enormous damage they have inflicted on the country."

#102 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-04-20 08:38 PM | Reply

it's time we establish not just a better country, but a better global community.

#103 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-04-20 08:42 PM | Reply

#84,92

yes, checking the HL and provided abstract...
Socialism and it's various forms (economics and liberty) has SO much more at stake than fossil fuels and Texas tea.

#104 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-04-20 08:49 PM | Reply

"It had an economy that served a small sector or their population, the rest lived in abject poverty."

Uh, no. Venezuela always had one of the strongest economies in South America. Poor by USan standards, but relatively wealthy when compared to the rest of the continent.

Now they're in abject poverty...all thanks to socialism. In 2016, 75% of the population lost weight, with an average of 19 pounds per person. I weigh 200 pounds. A 10% loss of my body weight would be significant. It's far, far more significant for someone who started out at 130 pounds.

For decades, the people in power got rich off of Venezuela. They still are. The difference between now and then is now they people in power are billionaires, while the rest of the country begins to look more and more like Sudan or Bangladesh. And it's not the first time this has happened. A similar situation developed in Chile under Allende, sparking mass revolts that eventually wound up in a coup to overthrow the government. That's not likely in Venezuela, which has followed the route of other dictatorships in ensuring that the party maintains complete control over the military and law enforcement.

#105 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-04-20 11:17 PM | Reply

What's the Matter with Venezuela?: It's Not Socialism, It's Corruption

www.pastemagazine.com

Live and learn, I guess... or not, if Myth Bombing is your stock and trade.

#106 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-20 11:22 PM | Reply

Dorky,

Maybe you don't remember, but back around 2007-2008, the GoV nationalized petroleum extraction and production facilities and handed them over to the PDVSA. Before that, those sites had been operated by outside by western oil conglomerates. At the time, oil prices were high, and Chavez wanted to capture more of the profits. The result was that the oil companies pulled out and wrote off the facilities as a loss. The PDVSA took the facilities over, but were unable to effectively manage the systems, leading to massive reductions in output.

The Chavez family today sits on billions, so there is no question that corruption is a player. But it always has been. The difference is that prior to socialism, the people of Venezuela weren't starving. And even if you were to find some way to cut corruption, it's not going to put food on the table.

The other fun side effect of socialism has been a massive increase in the murder rate. The country is now only second to Honduras.

#107 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-04-20 11:52 PM | Reply

The difference is that prior to socialism, the people of Venezuela weren't starving.

You mean prior to absolute corruption the people of Venezuela weren't starving?

I love it how bastardized versions of socialism are held up as nails in the coffin of socialism while our continued bastardized version of capitalism isn't considered a nail in the coffin of capitalism.

#108 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-21 12:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

JPW

From a historical standpoint the standard of living for humankind has increased exponentially over the last century or so.

Stuff even those in poverty take for granted weren't even luxury options 120 years ago.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-21 12:44 AM | Reply

#108 bastardized version of socialism?

It's a loaded term. How would you succinctly define it?

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-21 12:48 AM | Reply

Modernization will do that.

But two questions remain.

a. Was capitalism necessary (we'll never know this answer)

b. Is what worked for the last 120 years what's right for the future.

Fact is, economic expansion isn't infinite and (I know I'm venturing into "controversial" territory here...) we can't pollute and destroy the planet infinitely.

In any case, the foolish thing to do is think in terms of black and white. I don't advocate for straight up communism or capitalism. But government regulation of capitalist markets is an appropriate use of government power and a necessary one IMO. There is a proper blend of the two that is best for everyone involved.

We, unfortunately, are skewed towards what's best for the top 1%, even if it cuts the legs out from under what makes the 1% the 1%.

#111 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-21 12:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's a loaded term. How would you succinctly define it?

Claiming the "common good" while taking everything for yourself.

Much like the past few Repub administrations (and accelerating...) here in the US.

#112 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-21 12:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#111

I mostly agree with that.

The technological advances couldn't have happened without capitalism. By the same token the environmental regs and worker safety regs wouldn't have been possible without government.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-21 01:00 AM | Reply

Sorry, the last reply was in the DR tradition of trying to take a shot at an "opponent" lol.

But in all seriousness, do you really think the USSR represented actual communism? Do you think Chavez led Venezuela actually represents socialism?

Or were Stalin and Chavez quintessential Rand-ites using collective arguments to achieve social Darwinist, self-serving ends?

In all seriousness, the characterizations of Communism and Socialism in the past sound shallow and mailed in at best. Just because someone claims to be something doesn't mean they are in fact that thing. One must read their actions to truly assess the intentions behind their rhetoric. Did Stalin act communistic or socialistic? ---- NO. He and party higher ups live the high life while millions died under them. That's hardly Communistic or Socialistic and sounds more to me like someone who used a popular thought process to gain absolute power.

#114 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-21 01:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#112

I construe that as a rip on Socialism. I don't think that was your intent. I don't mean to be a pain.... if you can restate based upon my comment...

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-21 01:08 AM | Reply

The technological advances couldn't have happened without capitalism.

I disagree.

The manned space program of the 60's led to massive innovation and advancement of technology.

www.computerworld.com

The proper mix is always always containing some restraint on inherent human greed. Often times this comes in the form of forced long term profit motive/thinking, a mindset that seems to have been present in far more prosperous times than now.

#116 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-21 01:12 AM | Reply

#114

I get all of that. However countries and cultures that claim certain ideologies do better than countries that lay claim to other ideologies. Can you name a self-labeled Communist country that hasn't been a disaster?

#117 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-21 01:14 AM | Reply

I construe that as a rip on Socialism. I don't think that was your intent. I don't mean to be a pain.... if you can restate based upon my comment...

Ugh I didn't think this would be that hard.

If someone claims the tenants of something to gain power and wealth but doesn't follow them personally, that's not really the thing they're claiming to uphold, right?

If a so called socialistic system funnels all wealth and resources upwards to those in power or with influence, is it really socialist? No. It's a hijacking of a school of thought or rhetoric, likely because it rings true with those on the losing end, to further the end of those in power.

Which means it's not an actual test case of socialism.

Just another test case of human ------------ capabilities.

#118 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-21 01:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Can you name a self-labeled Communist country that hasn't been a disaster?

#117 | Posted by JeffJ

What they label themselves is a function of state controlled outlets of information.

A better question is can you name a self-labeled Communist country that was actually communist in practice? One where the Party elite didn't live like kings while the rest lived in squalor?

Because that isn't communism no matter how much they claim it is. But you have to be willing to analyze actions and disregard words to see it.

#119 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-21 01:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You just described why socialism can never work.

It's contrary to human nature. Socialism has never worked because it hasnt been adhered to. It's actually been tried many times with tragic results because it centralizes power.

#120 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-21 01:29 AM | Reply

- And even if you were to find some way to cut corruption, it's not going to put food on the table.

Um, yeah, it would. There as well as here.

Otherwise, JPW's 108 blew up your myth, Bomber.

#121 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-21 01:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#119

Communism requires centralized power. But unlike a monarchy all private property is owned by the state. It's a recipe for oppression and human suffering.

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-21 01:34 AM | Reply

Jeffy, there is a back page thread on Paul Ryan just for you....

#123 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-21 01:34 AM | Reply

Paul Ryan is a out to retire, El Corkol

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-21 01:37 AM | Reply

Is Norway socialist?
In capitalism, wealth is power and the tendency is towards wealth concentration.
So based on your assertion capitalism can never work.

#125 | Posted by bored at 2018-04-21 01:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Think of it as an honest send off for Eddie Munster.

#126 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-21 01:39 AM | Reply

You just described why socialism can never work.

Except it has.

And those countries lead the US in education, health care, happiness...

We're ideologically attached to our misery.

It's almost become THE central thread to the American psyche.

t's actually been tried many times with tragic results because it centralizes power.

You've just described why it's never worked.

The implementation of it is intentionally flawed from the get go.

IMO, if you're honest about it, you would never claim that an honest attempt at communism has been tried at a national level.

All that has occurred is sociopaths/psychopaths using the rhetoric (because it appeals to the masses) to gain power. That's it.

#127 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-21 01:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Modern Northern European countries have nicely mixed a democratic brand of welfare state socialism with lightly regulated capitalism.

#128 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-21 01:44 AM | Reply

"However countries and cultures that claim certain ideologies do better than countries that lay claim to other ideologies."

Roll that back to 900 CE and tell me who's doing better.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-21 01:47 AM | Reply

Communism requires centralized power.

You mean dictatorship requires centralized power.

Which is, in the end, the only actual conclusion you can reach regarding any of the so called "communist' countries.

That conclusion being the populist message is frequently utilized to gain significant control of the populace of multiple counties.

Why else do you think so many find Trump worrisome?

But unlike a monarchy all private property is owned by the state. It's a recipe for oppression and human suffering.

Look up fascism.

An uncomfortable aspect of history often misconstrued as being a "liberal" part of history.

#130 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-21 01:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

never claim that an honest attempt at communism has been tried at a national level.

I would argue that an honest attempt could never even get off the ground at a national level. How are we going to collectively decide things. Will we have a vote to decide how much food every person gets? What if someones car dies? Are we going to have a national vote to see if we can make them a new car, each time? I have allergies I guess it should go to a vote if I get Claratin or not? We would spend so much time voting on the needs of 300 million people we would never get any actual work done.

I do see a possibility of setting it up as like a "go fund me" type thing the car breaks down you post if enough people click like you get the new car if not have fun walking. Of course that still sets up the guys who write the algorithms as the commissars of the future.

#131 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-04-21 06:53 AM | Reply

I'd like to tip my hat to JPW.

Everyone of his posts from 108 have been spot on and well delivered.

Thank you.

#132 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-04-21 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The technological advances couldn't have happened without capitalism. By the same token the environmental regs and worker safety regs wouldn't have been possible without government."

Capitalism is a government program too.
It's weird how you refuse to acknowledge that.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-21 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort