Perhaps the assumption is that most voters aren't so utterly daft that they must be told government expenditures have to be funded. Or perhaps most voters are reasonable enough to know that a relatively minimal increase of spending of the sort proposed in these queries is far more likely, given the political implications of tax increases, to be funded through a tax increase on the relatively small portion of voters with high incomes, as opposed to the much larger portion of middle-class and lower-income taxpayers. Or, even more likely still, perhaps a majority of voters aren't so throughly selfish and rotten-to-the-core that they're unwilling to give up whatever inconsequential minor luxury they would have to forego to ensure their brothers and sisters don't have to live in destitute poverty.
Or maybe I live in a s***-hole country where most voters are as dumb and morally bankrupt as your question seems to presume. After all, the 2016 election seemed to be pretty strong evidence of that.
9:21 i guess you have NEVER seen a school tax increase fail in your area.
Things people believe: Bigfoot is real The election was stolen Earth is Flat Vaccines contain microchips to track you Reality TV is real That the country is run by a group of cannibals that eat children and rise to power in government, media and the world.
And you want me to believe they know the funding stream for SSI. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The second chart says there has been no set increase in the resource limit since 1989. This is incorrect. There has been no increase in teh resource limit since 1974. 45 years ago.
7 comments:
Data for Progress? Really? No bias there.
Notice the question dont say that to pull all this off there would likely have to be a significant tax increase.
@8:53 AM
Perhaps the assumption is that most voters aren't so utterly daft that they must be told government expenditures have to be funded. Or perhaps most voters are reasonable enough to know that a relatively minimal increase of spending of the sort proposed in these queries is far more likely, given the political implications of tax increases, to be funded through a tax increase on the relatively small portion of voters with high incomes, as opposed to the much larger portion of middle-class and lower-income taxpayers. Or, even more likely still, perhaps a majority of voters aren't so throughly selfish and rotten-to-the-core that they're unwilling to give up whatever inconsequential minor luxury they would have to forego to ensure their brothers and sisters don't have to live in destitute poverty.
Or maybe I live in a s***-hole country where most voters are as dumb and morally bankrupt as your question seems to presume. After all, the 2016 election seemed to be pretty strong evidence of that.
9:21 i guess you have NEVER seen a school tax increase fail in your area.
Things people believe:
Bigfoot is real
The election was stolen
Earth is Flat
Vaccines contain microchips to track you
Reality TV is real
That the country is run by a group of cannibals that eat children and rise to power in government, media and the world.
And you want me to believe they know the funding stream for SSI. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
@ 10:22. right on.
The second chart says there has been no set increase in the resource limit since 1989. This is incorrect. There has been no increase in teh resource limit since 1974. 45 years ago.
@ 11:44
Incorrect:
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/archive/3-10-00socsec.htm
Post a Comment