Is Ken Paxton a Democratic Socialist?

QP!

QP!

Verified User
"Washington has made it harder than ever to get ahead, and the American Dream is slipping away as the cost of everything from housing to health care goes up," Paxton said in a news release. "My agenda is simple: every Texan should be able to buy a home, raise a family, and live a healthy life without the bills burying them. That's the promise of opportunity in our state, and that's why I'm unveiling my 'Protecting the Texas Promise' agenda — to put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of working Texans."...


Following are the four pillars of Paxton's economic plan:

  • A $25,000 tax deduction for all out-of-pocket medical expenses, including health insurance premiums, for every individual, plus an additional $25,000 deduction for each dependent;
  • A $50,000 deduction for first-time homebuyers, and an additional $50,000 down payment deduction for those moving to a new primary residence;
  • A $5,000 tax deduction for expenses ties to a healthy lifestyle, including exercise and gym costs, nutrition plans, GLP-1 medications, and sports activities for dependents;
  • Make Trump Accounts permanent and double the Child Tax Credit.
Paxton also committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare, two programs that have been targeted by Republicans in recent years.

"(Our) parents and grandparents paid into Social Security and Medicare with every paycheck of their lives," he said. "Those benefits are theirs — they earned them and I'm going to protect them. I'm running because the American Dream is still worth fighting for."
 
Someone is certainly full of shit here, because every one of these proposals is about letting people reduce their own tax liability for expenses they actually incur.

You can argue whether the deductions are good policy, whether they favor certain taxpayers, or whether the numbers make fiscal sense. Fine.

But pretending that “you get to keep more of your own money” is some kind of government handout requires a pretty heroic misunderstanding of what a tax deduction actually is.

It is genuinely embarrassing watching socialists argue about economics when they ignore the part where they’re barely functioning adults and their entire philosophy is built around having government compensate for that fact.
 
zymurgy said:
Someone is certainly full of shit here, because every one of these proposals is about letting people reduce their own tax liability for expenses they actually incur.

You can argue whether the deductions are good policy, whether they favor certain taxpayers, or whether the numbers make fiscal sense. Fine.

But pretending that “you get to keep more of your own money” is some kind of government handout requires a pretty heroic misunderstanding of what a tax deduction actually is.

It is genuinely embarrassing watching socialists argue about economics when they ignore the part where they’re barely functioning adults and their entire philosophy is built around having government compensate for that fact.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about your spin attempt.

The argument that this is just "keeping your own money" ignores how these policies actually function in the real economy. Free-market capitalism does not use the federal tax code to micromanage housing, healthcare, and wellness choices, that is a social outcome approach.

By shrinking the tax base with these massive deductions, the government is essentially creating tax expenditures—which economists treat exactly like spending programs. The state is choosing winners and losers, subsidizing specific industries (like real estate and healthcare), and using government power to insulate citizens from free-market costs.


Furthermore, expanding and doubling the Child Tax Credit often creates a refundable credit, meaning the government sends direct cash checks to families with zero tax liability. That is a direct federal safety net.

You can change the mechanism from a direct government check to an IRS deduction, but the structural outcome is identical: it is state-directed economic engineering designed to alleviate the financial burdens of everyday citizens. That is the exact core definition of populist interventionism.
 
QP! said:
Nobody cares about your spin attempt.

The argument that this is just "keeping your own money" ignores how these policies actually function in the real economy. Free-market capitalism does not use the federal tax code to micromanage housing, healthcare, and wellness choices, that is a social outcome approach.

By shrinking the tax base with these massive deductions, the government is essentially creating tax expenditures—which economists treat exactly like spending programs. The state is choosing winners and losers, subsidizing specific industries (like real estate and healthcare), and using government power to insulate citizens from free-market costs.


Furthermore, expanding and doubling the Child Tax Credit often creates a refundable credit, meaning the government sends direct cash checks to families with zero tax liability. That is a direct federal safety net.

You can change the mechanism from a direct government check to an IRS deduction, but the structural outcome is identical: it is state-directed economic engineering designed to alleviate the financial burdens of everyday citizens. That is the exact core definition of populist interventionism.
Click to expand...

The spin attempt here is entirely yours — and it’s stupid as fuck. You started with “Is Ken Paxton a Democratic Socialist?” and, when that didn’t hold up, quietly changed the test to “Does Ken Paxton subscribe to Austrian economics?” Those are not the same argument.

No. He doesn’t. Neither does essentially any Republican politician. That doesn’t make them democratic socialists. It just means you changed the definition halfway through the argument because the original accusation was indefensible.
 
zymurgy said:
The spin attempt here is entirely yours — and it’s stupid as fuck. You started with “Is Ken Paxton a Democratic Socialist?” and, when that didn’t hold up, quietly changed the test to “Does Ken Paxton subscribe to Austrian economics?” Those are not the same argument.

No. He doesn’t. Neither does essentially any Republican politician. That doesn’t make them democratic socialists. It just means you changed the definition halfway through the argument because the original accusation was indefensible.
Click to expand...
"indefensible" except for this...

"...You can change the mechanism from a direct government check to an IRS deduction, but the structural outcome is identical: it is state-directed economic engineering designed to alleviate the financial burdens of everyday citizens. That is the exact core definition of populist interventionism...."
 
And to be clear nobody is asking Ken Paxton to be an Austrian economist so you can unstuff that strawman.

The point is that these specific policies go far beyond standard Republican economic intervention—they land squarely in progressive populist territory.

Classic conservative policy uses broad, across-the-board tax cuts to stimulate the general economy. Paxton’s plan doesn't do that. Instead, it uses massive, hyper-targeted tax expenditures to artificially lower the cost of living for specific social needs.

When you use government policy to heavily subsidize healthcare bills, underwrite home down payments, and hand out direct cash transfers via a doubled Child Tax Credit, you are using the exact policy blueprint popularized by the populist left.

The mechanism might be a tax deduction, but the goal is the same: using the power of the state to insulate citizens from free-market costs. You can call it whatever you want, but it is a massive departure from traditional conservatism, and it shares the exact same DNA as the programs the left advocates for.
 
QP! said:
And to be clear nobody is asking Ken Paxton to be an Austrian economist so you can unstuff that strawman.

The point is that these specific policies go far beyond standard Republican economic intervention—they land squarely in progressive populist territory.
Click to expand...

Which specific policies? Of the ones you listed, the Child Tax Credit is the only one that can actually become a net transfer by refunding more than a person’s federal income-tax liability. The deductions simply let taxpayers keep more of their own income.


And even the Child Tax Credit has a perfectly conventional pro-family, pro-natal rationale: encourage family formation and children who eventually become workers, consumers, and taxpayers.


You can call that populist or interventionist if you want. But lumping ordinary tax deductions together with refundable welfare payments and declaring the whole package “progressive populism” is exactly the spin you’re accusing everyone else of.


So yes—you’re full of shit.
 
QP! said:
"Washington has made it harder than ever to get ahead, and the American Dream is slipping away as the cost of everything from housing to health care goes up," Paxton said in a news release. "My agenda is simple: every Texan should be able to buy a home, raise a family, and live a healthy life without the bills burying them. That's the promise of opportunity in our state, and that's why I'm unveiling my 'Protecting the Texas Promise' agenda — to put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of working Texans."...


Following are the four pillars of Paxton's economic plan:

  • A $25,000 tax deduction for all out-of-pocket medical expenses, including health insurance premiums, for every individual, plus an additional $25,000 deduction for each dependent;
  • A $50,000 deduction for first-time homebuyers, and an additional $50,000 down payment deduction for those moving to a new primary residence;
  • A $5,000 tax deduction for expenses ties to a healthy lifestyle, including exercise and gym costs, nutrition plans, GLP-1 medications, and sports activities for dependents;
  • Make Trump Accounts permanent and double the Child Tax Credit.
Paxton also committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare, two programs that have been targeted by Republicans in recent years.

"(Our) parents and grandparents paid into Social Security and Medicare with every paycheck of their lives," he said. "Those benefits are theirs — they earned them and I'm going to protect them. I'm running because the American Dream is still worth fighting for."
Click to expand...
As the Trumppers would say, SOCIALISM!
 
Jarod said:
As the Trumppers would say, SOCIALISM!
Click to expand...
Keynesianism accepts a largely private-market economy and argues that government should use fiscal and monetary policy to manage aggregate demand, recessions, unemployment, and inflation

It is genuinely embarrassing watching socialists argue about economics when they ignore the part where they’re barely functioning adults and their entire philosophy is built around having government compensate for that fact.
 
zymurgy said:
Which specific policies? Of the ones you listed, the Child Tax Credit is the only one that can actually become a net transfer by refunding more than a person’s federal income-tax liability. The deductions simply let taxpayers keep more of their own income.


And even the Child Tax Credit has a perfectly conventional pro-family, pro-natal rationale: encourage family formation and children who eventually become workers, consumers, and taxpayers.


You can call that populist or interventionist if you want. But lumping ordinary tax deductions together with refundable welfare payments and declaring the whole package “progressive populism” is exactly the spin you’re accusing everyone else of.


So yes—you’re full of shit.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating versions of the same flawed concept so i will keep repeating that the argument that it only counts as "populism" if a direct cash check is cut completely misunderstands how modern economic policy works.

Whether the government sends a $25,000 subsidy check for medical bills or reduces a tax liability by $25,000 for medical bills, the structural result is identical: the state is absorbing private costs to achieve a specific social outcome. In public finance, these are called tax expenditures, and economists from both the left and right classify them as "spending through the tax code."

Furthermore, claiming the Child Tax Credit is just "pro-family rationale" is exactly how the populist left frames it too.

When progressive Democrats pushed to expand the Child Tax Credit, they used the exact same argument: investing in family formation and future taxpayers. Wrapping a massive government intervention in "pro-family" language doesn't change its economic DNA.

By using the tax code to underwrite housing, healthcare, and lifestyle choices, Paxton is abandoning traditional free-market conservatism—which leaves those choices to the market—in favor of state-guided economic engineering. You can call it a deduction, but it is the exact policy blueprint used by the populist left to alleviate the financial burdens of everyday citizens.


Answer this question ...
  • "If a progressive Democrat proposed a $50,000 tax deduction exclusively for first-time homebuyers to solve the housing crisis, would you call it 'letting people keep their own money,' or would you call it a radical, left-wing government distortion of the housing market?"
 
Jarod said:
As the Trumppers would say, SOCIALISM!
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder if Zymurgy fought fiercely in favor of the Biden student debt cancellation which i can spin using his logic by pointing out if his definition of a handout is strictly about whether a direct cash check is cut, then you must also agree that Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness wasn't a government handout either.

After all, Biden didn't mail direct cash checks to borrowers. He simply reduced or eliminated a financial liability owed to the government. By that logic, Biden was just 'letting people keep more of their own monthly income' to spend on housing and healthcare.
 
QP! said:
"Washington has made it harder than ever to get ahead, and the American Dream is slipping away as the cost of everything from housing to health care goes up," Paxton said in a news release. "My agenda is simple: every Texan should be able to buy a home, raise a family, and live a healthy life without the bills burying them. That's the promise of opportunity in our state, and that's why I'm unveiling my 'Protecting the Texas Promise' agenda — to put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of working Texans."...


Following are the four pillars of Paxton's economic plan:

  • A $25,000 tax deduction for all out-of-pocket medical expenses, including health insurance premiums, for every individual, plus an additional $25,000 deduction for each dependent;
  • A $50,000 deduction for first-time homebuyers, and an additional $50,000 down payment deduction for those moving to a new primary residence;
  • A $5,000 tax deduction for expenses ties to a healthy lifestyle, including exercise and gym costs, nutrition plans, GLP-1 medications, and sports activities for dependents;
  • Make Trump Accounts permanent and double the Child Tax Credit.
Paxton also committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare, two programs that have been targeted by Republicans in recent years.

"(Our) parents and grandparents paid into Social Security and Medicare with every paycheck of their lives," he said. "Those benefits are theirs — they earned them and I'm going to protect them. I'm running because the American Dream is still worth fighting for."
Click to expand...
Well, the republicans will abandon him immediately.
 
zymurgy said:
Someone is certainly full of shit here, because every one of these proposals is about letting people reduce their own tax liability for expenses they actually incur.

You can argue whether the deductions are good policy, whether they favor certain taxpayers, or whether the numbers make fiscal sense. Fine.

But pretending that “you get to keep more of your own money” is some kind of government handout requires a pretty heroic misunderstanding of what a tax deduction actually is.

It is genuinely embarrassing watching socialists argue about economics when they ignore the part where they’re barely functioning adults and their entire philosophy is built around having government compensate for that fact.
Click to expand...

The Marxists are in a panic. Paxton is a lock in Texas.

Instead of taking control of the Senate, the Commies look to lose two seats. Hence the shrill idiocy from KewPee and other Marxists.

Even the house is in serious question for the Commies at this point.
 
QP! said:
@T. A. Gardner , @AMERICA FIRST , @Matt Dillon do you approve of tax payer dollars going to these things? Basically free GLP1's for everyone and a whole lot more!
Click to expand...
I think his plan is unrealistic, simplistic, and really doesn't do much for anyone other than those that can already afford those things. The healthy lifestyle one is particularly problematic as it chooses winners and losers in that area, and that sort of thing never works. To reach the full deduction on federal taxes on all of that ($80,000) you'd have to be making well in excess of $100,000 per year and likely be above $250,000 per year.

For the average person, at best they pay no federal income tax. At worst, they can't itemize deductions so it's all irrelevant. He'd be better off politically pointing out that he doesn't want to raise taxes and would like to see people's federal tax burden lowered if making say $100,000 a year or less while simultaneously pointing out that his opponent's plan is to make you pay more directly or indirectly.

But, if he wanted to really make something like lower health insurance costs occur, there's better ways to do it, and more government is not one of them.
 
QP! said:
"Washington has made it harder than ever to get ahead, and the American Dream is slipping away as the cost of everything from housing to health care goes up," Paxton said in a news release. "My agenda is simple: every Texan should be able to buy a home, raise a family, and live a healthy life without the bills burying them. That's the promise of opportunity in our state, and that's why I'm unveiling my 'Protecting the Texas Promise' agenda — to put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of working Texans."...


Following are the four pillars of Paxton's economic plan:

  • A $25,000 tax deduction for all out-of-pocket medical expenses, including health insurance premiums, for every individual, plus an additional $25,000 deduction for each dependent;
  • A $50,000 deduction for first-time homebuyers, and an additional $50,000 down payment deduction for those moving to a new primary residence;
  • A $5,000 tax deduction for expenses ties to a healthy lifestyle, including exercise and gym costs, nutrition plans, GLP-1 medications, and sports activities for dependents;
  • Make Trump Accounts permanent and double the Child Tax Credit.
Paxton also committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare, two programs that have been targeted by Republicans in recent years.

"(Our) parents and grandparents paid into Social Security and Medicare with every paycheck of their lives," he said. "Those benefits are theirs — they earned them and I'm going to protect them. I'm running because the American Dream is still worth fighting for."
Click to expand...
image1785952579.png
 
zymurgy said:
Keynesianism accepts a largely private-market economy and argues that government should use fiscal and monetary policy to manage aggregate demand, recessions, unemployment, and inflation

It is genuinely embarrassing watching socialists argue about economics when they ignore the part where they’re barely functioning adults and their entire philosophy is built around having government compensate for that fact.
Click to expand...
You idiots scream SOCIALIST! for almost anything a liberal does. Remember the Obama poster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top