Wallstreet bailout

[Conspiracy3]

With the recession there are numerous bailout proposals. Barack Obama supports putting the majority of the bailout money into infrastructure. Some support bailing out the housing industry. Some support bailing out the auto industry. Some support bailing out the porn industry(several groups, including hustler magazine, have requested bailouts). For the last month the bailout money has not been spent logically. The government doesn't even know where all of the money is.

My question for you, posters on newgrounds, is how do you think the bailout money should be spent?

I personally support Obama's plan. He focuses mostly on infrastructure improvements (among other things) which will create jobs, allow for industry growth, help the environment, and create many other long term benefits.

[Jon-86]

Bugger the bailout, capitalism and the free-market should be allowed to collapse like communism so we can try something new, all money orientated systems dont serve our best interests, as it turns everyone against each other.

But since thats not the point, bailout money should go to agriculture, if food is cheaper it benifits everyone even thoes who cant get a job. Once you easy the burdon on everyone then you tackle the things that are most needed, infrastructure would come next, porn no, we dont need porn to survive. Even if they stopped making porn today. Theirs so much of it out their already that you would die before you saw all of it! Same goes for cars, their are plenty of working cars in circulation that are not even being used second hand cars. Only after the main problems were sorted would you then move on to helping cars and porn etc

[Conspiracy3]

At 1/9/09 08:37 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Bugger the bailout, capitalism and the free-market should be allowed to collapse like communism so we can try something new, all money orientated systems dont serve our best interests, as it turns everyone against each other.

But since thats not the point, bailout money should go to agriculture, if food is cheaper it benifits everyone even thoes who cant get a job. Once you easy the burdon on everyone then you tackle the things that are most needed, infrastructure would come next, porn no, we dont need porn to survive. Even if they stopped making porn today. Theirs so much of it out their already that you would die before you saw all of it!

The average person's taste as to what is seen attractive changes regularly. In the 20s it was considered attractive for a woman to have really tiny, flat tits. Today it is the opposite. For all we know there might be an epidemic of some new fetish 50 years from now. We need a porn industry to satisfy the people.

I agree though that they don't need a bailout. For every hot porn star there are hundreds of hot amateurs giving it out for free.

Same goes for cars, their are plenty of working cars in circulation that are not even being used second hand cars. Only after the main problems were sorted would you then move on to helping cars and porn etc

many problems here:

1. Cars don't last forever
2. Most old cars don't meet the emissions/safety standards today
3. The population of car owners is increasing. If we stop producing new cars there won't be enough cars to go around.
4. Eventually there will be no gasoline and we will need a car that runs on something else. You will have to produce a new kind of engine in order to run a car on that fuel (unless it is a liquid that behaves similarly to gasoline)

I'm not sure whether or not the auto industry deserves a bailout, but it is necessary

[Jon-86]

Its not an immediate problem though, if all car production stopped today, we would still be good for another 5 years atleast. Thats why a think it could be put on hold, for a wee while atleast.

[Conspiracy3]

At 1/9/09 09:00 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Its not an immediate problem though, if all car production stopped today, we would still be good for another 5 years atleast. Thats why a think it could be put on hold, for a wee while atleast.

Stopping an industry is easy. Starting it back up is hard. If every car factory in the world shut down, the machinery used to make cars would probably be melted down for scrap metal. To restart the auto industry you would have to build factories, train workers, create the machinery necessary, find money to start the industry up with, etc. It isn't that simple.

Right now the auto industry is on the edge of bankruptsy. Pushing it into stability would not be very expensive.

Think about it like this. There is a man being tortured. His body is lying sideways on a giant razor blade. His weight is distributed so that 51% of it is one way and 49% of it the other way. Pushing him slightly so that he is 50/50 would not be difficult, however putting him back up after he falls would be difficult.

[Minarchist]

At 1/9/09 08:29 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I personally support Obama's plan.

You support trillion dollar deficits?

He focuses mostly on infrastructure improvements (among other things) which will create jobs,

At the cost of jobs and capital in industries with consumers.

allow for industry growth,

Which industries? The ones that government chooses, of course, at the detriment to the ones the government doesn't choose, or worse, the ones the government decides to destroy through heavy taxation, like the tobacco industry.

So would you rather have consumers choosing or government officials?

help the environment,

Assuming there is a significant man-made contribution to global warming, of which I haven't seen any compelling evidence, then there is no way that a host of construction and repair projects is going to do anything to help the environment. At best, there will be a decrease in impact on the environment in the long term. Whether or not this long term reduction will outweigh the effect of construction is questionable. In the end, this argument hardly justifies the expenditure.

and create many other long term benefits.

What other long term benefits outweigh the long term detriments associated with deficit spending?

[Tancrisism]

At 1/9/09 10:28 PM, Minarchist wrote: What other long term benefits outweigh the long term detriments associated with deficit spending?

Finally, another person who doesn't agree with Reaganomics! Right?

[Conspiracy3]

At 1/9/09 10:28 PM, Minarchist wrote:

At 1/9/09 08:29 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I personally support Obama's plan.

You support trillion dollar deficits?

The defacit is already over $10 trillion. I opposed the Iraq war. I opposed the Bush tax cuts. The very reason is that we should not aquire debt in good economic times so that we would have money when we really need it. Right now we really need it.

He focuses mostly on infrastructure improvements (among other things) which will create jobs,

At the cost of jobs and capital in industries with consumers.

It isn't intended to be a long term thing. It is meant to create jobs while the market recovers.

allow for industry growth,

Which industries? The ones that government chooses, of course, at the detriment to the ones the government doesn't choose, or worse, the ones the government decides to destroy through heavy taxation, like the tobacco industry.

Most of the infrastructure is designed to make buildings more energy efficient, to create better transportation systems, and to create better power systems.

So would you rather have consumers choosing or government officials?

Government officials.

help the environment,

Assuming there is a significant man-made contribution to global warming, of which I haven't seen any compelling evidence, then there is no way that a host of construction and repair projects is going to do anything to help the environment. At best, there will be a decrease in impact on the environment in the long term. Whether or not this long term reduction will outweigh the effect of construction is questionable. In the end, this argument hardly justifies the expenditure.

It will make the areas more energy efficient, and it will stimulate the economy. The areas are going to be built up whether the government performs infrastructure improvements or not. If the infrastructure improves it can be done in a way that is less harmful to the environment.

and create many other long term benefits.

What other long term benefits outweigh the long term detriments associated with deficit spending?

If troops are withdrawn from Iraq and extremely heavy tax hikes are given to those earning over $500,000 per year there will not be a deficit.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 1/9/09 08:37 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Bugger the bailout, capitalism and the free-market should be allowed to collapse like communism so we can try something new,

Fuckoff, "something new". Rather, the failing companies should fail, the government should aid those who are unemployed minimally, by compensating volunteer work for welfare or something, and new companies will emerge to take their place, companies without failing, nonviable business plans.

These businesses are like Terry Schiavo (without the ethical concerns of a human life involved). We don't need to waste large sums of money to keep dying businesses on life support.

[Dawnslayer]

Infrastructure worked pretty well under Roosevelt, and public works does produce jobs. I say we give the plan a shot; it's better than the past few years of Reaganomics as far as I'm concerned.

[Minarchist]

At 1/9/09 11:03 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 1/9/09 10:28 PM, Minarchist wrote: What other long term benefits outweigh the long term detriments associated with deficit spending?

Finally, another person who doesn't agree with Reaganomics! Right?

Right, but I will admit that there was another dimension to Reagan's fiscal policy, which was to force the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion, much like we are now, except without a reason.

At 1/9/09 11:23 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 1/9/09 10:28 PM, Minarchist wrote:

At 1/9/09 08:29 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I personally support Obama's plan.

You support trillion dollar deficits?

The defacit is already over $10 trillion. I opposed the Iraq war. I opposed the Bush tax cuts. The very reason is that we should not aquire debt in good economic times so that we would have money when we really need it. Right now we really need it.

Or so you think. Keynesian pump-priming has NEVER worked. It makes no sense at all. Government has no wealth. It cannot create jobs without destroying them elsewhere. Your boy Obama is either a moron or likes to take advantage of your lack of knowledge in economics to seize more power and expand his authority. Which is it?

He focuses mostly on infrastructure improvements (among other things) which will create jobs,

At the cost of jobs and capital in industries with consumers.

It isn't intended to be a long term thing. It is meant to create jobs while the market recovers.

I see you're an economic ignoramus, so I'll slow down. Government cannot create jobs. It absolutely has no ability to create jobs because it has no WEALTH. It can only divert wealth from private industries at best at a 1:1 ratio. This is good when it fulfills a role for which we desire a government: to provide for the common defense (without government spending the stealth bomber market wouldn't exist) and to provide a court system to prosecute acts of aggression and fraud (without government they'd still probably be a polycentric legal order, but that's beside the point). Everything else government does is a hindrance to the individual, with each intervention being good for some people and detrimental to others at best, but most often detrimental to everyone.

allow for industry growth,

Which industries? The ones that government chooses, of course, at the detriment to the ones the government doesn't choose, or worse, the ones the government decides to destroy through heavy taxation, like the tobacco industry.

Most of the infrastructure is designed to make buildings more energy efficient, to create better transportation systems, and to create better power systems.

If any of these actually saved any money in the long term, then they would have been done already. A popular argument from economic simpletons like yourself after World War II was that the Japanese had an advantage over the US because all of their factories were new, since we destroyed all of them during the war, so the government should spend millions of dollars improving the countries manufacturing infrastructure. The hilarious punch line is that if it really was advantageous to blow up your factory and build a new one rather than use that capital on other ways to expand your production capability, THEN PEOPLE WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT.

So would you rather have consumers choosing or government officials?

Government officials.

Here's the funny thing about socialists. You guys want the big nanny to approve of everything you do and manage your economy, but this can be done entirely within a free society. Seriously, you and your pals could pack up and find a nice little place to have your own little commune. You can create your own little socialist government with tax collectors and health inspectors and everything. And at the same time, I could live outside your commune and enjoy life my way. But the interesting thing is that socialists don't vote for freedom in processes that involve people that may not be like-minded. Instead, they want EVERYONE to be under their big red umbrella, willingly or unwillingly, despite the fact that they have NO natural authority over other people.

help the environment,

Assuming there is a significant man-made contribution to global warming, of which I haven't seen any compelling evidence, then there is no way that a host of construction and repair projects is going to do anything to help the environment. At best, there will be a decrease in impact on the environment in the long term. Whether or not this long term reduction will outweigh the effect of construction is questionable. In the end, this argument hardly justifies the expenditure.

It will make the areas more energy efficient, and it will stimulate the economy.

Sure, it stimulates the economy in certain areas. What about the majority of America that will never see a dime of that money? Why should they be forced to foot the bill?

The areas are going to be built up whether the government performs infrastructure improvements or not.

Do you always just make stuff up or does having your guy headed into the White House somehow give you a little more courage to bullshit your way through this argument?

If the infrastructure improves it can be done in a way that is less harmful to the environment.

But you said it's going to improve the environment. Less harmful is not improvement.

and create many other long term benefits.

What other long term benefits outweigh the long term detriments associated with deficit spending?

If troops are withdrawn from Iraq

I look forward to the day when America returns all of her troops home from all around the world. It's going to happen one day, and the more we spend the sooner that day will come. Every grand empire in history has crumbled over the weight of its debt. When that day arrives, I think America will be more receptive to the message of freedom.

and extremely heavy tax hikes are given to those earning over $500,000 per year there will not be a deficit.

That will do two things: create incentives for people to hide their actual income through creative accounting and create disincentives to work beyond whatever pays $500,000 per year. And why not $499,999.99 per year? Can't you see how arbitrary and stupid this idea is?

[Dawnslayer]

Economics never makes to me, regardless of school of thought. As far as I'm concerned, it's all about opportunistic people assigning a pretend value to something in their personal grab for power...unless you'd like to demonstrate otherwise?

[Jon-86]

At 1/10/09 02:57 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Fuckoff, "something new". Rather, the failing companies should fail

Aye but its the banks etc that are failing so if we go by you plan the new buisnesses wouldnt even be able to function. Its they money system we use that failed because of credit and debt. A bailout now isnt going to stop it happening again, so time for something new a think.

[D2Kvirus]

Fuck Wall Street, I want to know the important news: has the $5bn bailout of the porn industry been approved or not?

[Memorize]

At 1/9/09 11:03 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 1/9/09 10:28 PM, Minarchist wrote: What other long term benefits outweigh the long term detriments associated with deficit spending?

Finally, another person who doesn't agree with Reaganomics! Right?

I don't agree with deficit spending, but do you honestly think that Reagan would be bailing out these companies with the people's money?

Remember, inflation had hit 13% when Reagan took office, and despite that deficit spending (about $1.5 -$2 Trillion debt over an 8 year period), he got stagflation and inflation well under control (unlike Obama and Bush).

Also take into consideration that Reagan was fighting for a balanced budget, and would've come closer to it had Congress went along with that plan.

Also taking into consideration that Reagan had a rival super power to deal with economically. Whose economic plan (which mirrored that of Harding, Coolidge, and JFK, which placed job creation in the People's hands rather than the government's) did result in huge revenue and 20 million created jobs.

Also consider that Bill Clinton didn't get a budget surplus until the very end of his presidency while he also had to fight with a congress that actually DEMANDED that balanced budget. He ended up accumulating almost as much debt as Reagan (despite his ability to actually cut military spending).

So I fail to see how Bush is practicing Reaganomics at all. He got inflation under control, despised the government's control in the economy (which is the primary cause of our mess), would've never allowed for such massive spending, nor would have bailed out these companies.

[zephiran]

I must say I sort of support Obamas plans to prioritize infrastructure over bailouts, but I wonder if it will work? Keynes teachings have worked in the past, but who knows if it will still work today?

[Conspiracy3]

At 1/10/09 03:26 AM, Minarchist wrote:

At 1/9/09 11:03 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 1/9/09 10:28 PM, Minarchist wrote: What other long term benefits outweigh the long term detriments associated with deficit spending?

Finally, another person who doesn't agree with Reaganomics! Right?

Right, but I will admit that there was another dimension to Reagan's fiscal policy, which was to force the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion, much like we are now, except without a reason.

Yes, but the "trickle down" theory does not work.

The defacit is already over $10 trillion. I opposed the Iraq war. I opposed the Bush tax cuts. The very reason is that we should not aquire debt in good economic times so that we would have money when we really need it. Right now we really need it.

Or so you think. Keynesian pump-priming has NEVER worked. It makes no sense at all. Government has no wealth. It cannot create jobs without destroying them elsewhere. Your boy Obama is either a moron or likes to take advantage of your lack of knowledge in economics to seize more power and expand his authority. Which is it?

The government does have wealth. The fact that it gets that wealth through taxes does not mean that wealth doesn't exist. It can create jobs. Obama is not "my boy" I do not agree with everything he says. I agree with his economic policy. Your last question is the typical biased question. Similar to the classic "George Bush - great president or the greatest president"

He focuses mostly on infrastructure improvements (among other things) which will create jobs,

At the cost of jobs and capital in industries with consumers.

It isn't intended to be a long term thing. It is meant to create jobs while the market recovers.

I see you're an economic ignoramus, so I'll slow down. Government cannot create jobs. It absolutely has no ability to create jobs because it has no WEALTH.

Those statements are false (see above). BTW stop trolling.

It can only divert wealth from private industries at best at a 1:1 ratio. This is good when it fulfills a role for which we desire a government: to provide for the common defense (without government spending the stealth bomber market wouldn't exist) and to provide a court system to prosecute acts of aggression and fraud (without government they'd still probably be a polycentric legal order, but that's beside the point).

So in other words you don't want a road system, a school system, or anything other than law enforcement, justice, or national defense?

Everything else government does is a hindrance to the individual, with each intervention being good for some people and detrimental to others at best, but most often detrimental to everyone.

Try going through life without using the road system.

allow for industry growth,

Which industries? The ones that government chooses, of course, at the detriment to the ones the government doesn't choose, or worse, the ones the government decides to destroy through heavy taxation, like the tobacco industry.

Most of the infrastructure is designed to make buildings more energy efficient, to create better transportation systems, and to create better power systems.

If any of these actually saved any money in the long term, then they would have been done already.

They do save money in the long run and they are being done already.

A popular argument from economic simpletons like yourself

trolling

after World War II was that the Japanese had an advantage over the US because all of their factories were new, since we destroyed all of them during the war, so the government should spend millions of dollars improving the countries manufacturing infrastructure. The hilarious punch line is that if it really was advantageous to blow up your factory and build a new one rather than use that capital on other ways to expand your production capability, THEN PEOPLE WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT.

Obama's infrastructure plans don't ask to destroy the old buildings. It asks to build new ones, and make non-destructive advancements on old ones.

So would you rather have consumers choosing or government officials?

Government officials.

Here's the funny thing about socialists.

I'm not a socialist

You guys want the big nanny to approve of everything you do and manage your economy,

I don't, and neither do the socialists.

but this can be done entirely within a free society.

Leise faire does not work. It allows for too much abuse by the plutocrats.

Seriously, you and your pals could pack up and find a nice little place to have your own little commune. You can create your own little socialist government with tax collectors and health inspectors and everything.

Again, I'm not a socialist.

And at the same time, I could live outside your commune and enjoy life my way. But the interesting thing is that socialists don't vote for freedom in processes that involve people that may not be like-minded.

Socialism is not anti-freedom. The fact is that there is very little difference between socialism and capitalism. In one the civilians are oppressed by the government. In the other the proletarians are oppressed by the plutocrats. Socialists listen to people of other viewpoints just as often as capitalists do.

Instead, they want EVERYONE to be under their big red umbrella, willingly or unwillingly, despite the fact that they have NO natural authority over other people.

I would say that about capitalism. Think about the policies of the US during the cold war to convert every soverign state to capitalist ideas through violence and war.

It will make the areas more energy efficient, and it will stimulate the economy.

Sure, it stimulates the economy in certain areas. What about the majority of America that will never see a dime of that money? Why should they be forced to foot the bill?

You are making the assumption that this wouldn't help the entire nation.

The areas are going to be built up whether the government performs infrastructure improvements or not.

Do you always just make stuff up or does having your guy headed into the White House somehow give you a little more courage to bullshit your way through this argument?

Stop trolling it is seriously getting old.

If the infrastructure improves it can be done in a way that is less harmful to the environment.

But you said it's going to improve the environment. Less harmful is not improvement.

Less harmful is improving. By definition if it isn't as bad it is better.

and create many other long term benefits.

What other long term benefits outweigh the long term detriments associated with deficit spending?

If troops are withdrawn from Iraq

I look forward to the day when America returns all of her troops home from all around the world. It's going to happen one day, and the more we spend the sooner that day will come. Every grand empire in history has crumbled over the weight of its debt. When that day arrives, I think America will be more receptive to the message of freedom.

1. Not all empires crumble due to debt (although many due)
2. I am sick of people just saying the word "freedom" as a buzz word without knowing what it truly means. Using freedom as a buzz word is disrespectful to the word freedom.

and extremely heavy tax hikes are given to those earning over $500,000 per year there will not be a deficit.

That will do two things: create incentives for people to hide their actual income through creative accounting and create disincentives to work beyond whatever pays $500,000 per year.

There already is that incentive.

And why not $499,999.99 per year? Can't you see how arbitrary and stupid this idea is?

It would follow a quadratic curve (meaning that people earning one cent less would also be affected.

[Minarchist]

At 1/10/09 07:18 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Yes, but the "trickle down" theory does not work.

In what way does it not work? No, it's not going to lift everyone up out of poverty and create sunshine and rainbows. It leaves more wealth in the hands of the people who created it. That is always preferable to a harmful and necessarily inefficient redistribution. That isn't to say I think the tax burden should be unevenly distributed, but the rich are over taxed as it is.

The government does have wealth. The fact that it gets that wealth through taxes does not mean that wealth doesn't exist. It can create jobs.

Obviously what I meant was that government does not have any wealth on its own. Government does not CREATE wealth so it cannot CREATE jobs. It's that simple. It can only inefficiently shuffle wealth around or shuffle jobs around OUTSIDE OF CONSUMER PREFERENCE.

If you're going to respond then answer this question: if government can create jobs, then why doesn't it just create a job for everyone?

Obama is not "my boy" I do not agree with everything he says. I agree with his economic policy. Your last question is the typical biased question. Similar to the classic "George Bush - great president or the greatest president"

George Bush was the worst president in recent history, at least since Johnson. Obama will likely be worse. Enjoy your CHANGE.

I see you're an economic ignoramus, so I'll slow down. Government cannot create jobs. It absolutely has no ability to create jobs because it has no WEALTH.

BTW stop trolling.

That's not a troll, it's a compliment given your incredible level of ignorance.

It can only divert wealth from private industries at best at a 1:1 ratio. This is good when it fulfills a role for which we desire a government: to provide for the common defense (without government spending the stealth bomber market wouldn't exist) and to provide a court system to prosecute acts of aggression and fraud (without government they'd still probably be a polycentric legal order, but that's beside the point).

So in other words you don't want a road system, a school system, or anything other than law enforcement, justice, or national defense?

The private sector can deliver all of those better. Private road systems are prevalent in areas all around the world and some areas of the US. Private schools vastly out perform public schools because they aren't burdened by red tape.

Everything else government does is a hindrance to the individual, with each intervention being good for some people and detrimental to others at best, but most often detrimental to everyone.

I'll just leave this here because it's so true and your comment was stupid.

If any of these actually saved any money in the long term, then they would have been done already.

They do save money in the long run and they are being done already.

Then why do we need some bureaucrats in Washington to take our money and tell them to do it?

A popular argument from economic simpletons like yourself

trolling

Complimenting.

after World War II was that the Japanese had an advantage over the US because all of their factories were new, since we destroyed all of them during the war, so the government should spend millions of dollars improving the countries manufacturing infrastructure. The hilarious punch line is that if it really was advantageous to blow up your factory and build a new one rather than use that capital on other ways to expand your production capability, THEN PEOPLE WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT.

Obama's infrastructure plans don't ask to destroy the old buildings. It asks to build new ones, and make non-destructive advancements on old ones.

You see, what I wrote is called an analogy. The point being that if something is economical, then people will do it without needing to be told to.

So would you rather have consumers choosing or government officials?

Government officials.

Here's the funny thing about socialists.

I'm not a socialist

Actually, you are. You advocate government management of industry and the theft of trillions of dollars from private individuals into public ownership.

but this can be done entirely within a free society.

Leise faire does not work. It allows for too much abuse by the plutocrats.

There is no historical evidence to support this position. No matter how rich someone is they cannot force you to do anything. Government is the monopoly of force. If you want to talk about abuse, thumb through a history textbook and look at the behavior of government throughout all of human history.

And at the same time, I could live outside your commune and enjoy life my way. But the interesting thing is that socialists don't vote for freedom in processes that involve people that may not be like-minded.

Socialism is not anti-freedom.

Socialism is built from the premise that man is entitled to neither property nor liberty. Under socialism, I do not own what I produce, and I MUST work. That is, in essence, slavery.

The fact is that there is very little difference between socialism and capitalism. In one the civilians are oppressed by the government. In the other the proletarians are oppressed by the plutocrats.

One cannot be oppressed without the use of force. Freedom is the opposite of oppression.

Instead, they want EVERYONE to be under their big red umbrella, willingly or unwillingly, despite the fact that they have NO natural authority over other people.

I would say that about capitalism. Think about the policies of the US during the cold war to convert every soverign state to capitalist ideas through violence and war.

That is not capitalism because true capitalism rests on the non-aggression principle. In other words, that's a step away from capitalism toward socialism.

You are making the assumption that this wouldn't help the entire nation.

You can't argue that it will help the entire nation without acknowledging the virtue of capitalism to do so independent of government action. In which case, why bother with the "stimulus?"

If the infrastructure improves it can be done in a way that is less harmful to the environment.

But you said it's going to improve the environment. Less harmful is not improvement.

Less harmful is improving. By definition if it isn't as bad it is better.

Less harmful is not an improvement when there is no harm from inaction.

I look forward to the day when America returns all of her troops home from all around the world. It's going to happen one day, and the more we spend the sooner that day will come. Every grand empire in history has crumbled over the weight of its debt. When that day arrives, I think America will be more receptive to the message of freedom.

2. I am sick of people just saying the word "freedom" as a buzz word without knowing what it truly means. Using freedom as a buzz word is disrespectful to the word freedom.

Freedom (n)
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

and extremely heavy tax hikes are given to those earning over $500,000 per year there will not be a deficit.

That will do two things: create incentives for people to hide their actual income through creative accounting and create disincentives to work beyond whatever pays $500,000 per year.

There already is that incentive.

Yeah, so if something already doesn't work, let's just make it worse.

And why not $499,999.99 per year? Can't you see how arbitrary and stupid this idea is?

It would follow a quadratic curve (meaning that people earning one cent less would also be affected.

Perhaps not arbitrary but certainly still stupid.