PDA

View Full Version : Let's take ALL the money from the Rich, then what?



wazi99
11-14-2012, 12:52 PM
Even if we take every penny of what Obama calls the Rich (People making more than 250,00 a year) there is not even enough to run the country for a year with out taxing the middle class.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1j-cCaKvdo

Here is the warning that everyone should know. There is always someone worse off than you. Some day they may come for you like you are trying to take from the rich.

Trinnity
11-14-2012, 12:59 PM
It's just class warfare. Taxes are gonna go up for everyone, and Obama/PelosiCare is one honkin' huge tax bill, btw. People who think it's just gonna be for people making over 250K and idiots and they got conned by the greatest con artist of all time, Barack Hussein Obama.

Told ya so....TOLD YA SO.....wait and see.

Cigar
11-14-2012, 01:17 PM
Well we tried the Tax Breaks for 12 years and how'd that work out for yea .. :)

keymanjim
11-14-2012, 01:20 PM
Well we tried the Tax Breaks for 12 years and how'd that work out for yea .. :)
Unemployment dropped from 6.4% to 4.6%.

hanger4
11-14-2012, 01:30 PM
Well we tried the Tax Breaks for 12 years and how'd that work out for yea .. :)

If these cuts are so devastating to the economy explain why Obama signed to extent them for two years in 2010 when he had a majority in both houses ??

Calypso Jones
11-14-2012, 01:43 PM
Seriously. Do you think our new leisure class is going to be content with just taking the money of the rich?

bladimz
11-14-2012, 01:58 PM
If these cuts are so devastating to the economy explain why Obama signed to extent them for two years in 2010 when he had a majority in both houses ??
This (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/senate-republicans-no-legislation-until-after-tax-cut-extension/) should give you some idea why...


Senate Republicans: No Legislation Until After Tax Cut Extension

Democrats in the Senate hoping to pass nonbudget-related legislation in the lame-duck session were put on notice by their Republican colleagues Wednesday morning: No tax-cut extension? No laws for you!

In a letter signed by the 42 members of the Republican caucus, delivered to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and mentioned Wednesday on the Senate floor by the minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republicans informed their Democratic counterparts that they would not go forward with “any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/senate-republicans-no-legislation-until-after-tax-cut-extension/
Blocking further legislation is a hell of a way to work with your counterparts. And that's the pathetic thing about the dirtballs that wind up representing their constituents.

patrickt
11-14-2012, 01:58 PM
First we take everything the rich have, who aren't Democrats, and then we shoot them. Then, we start killing the middle class folks with our socialized medicine. The lowest class are killing each other so at some point their killing and the liberals killing will meet.

Cigar
11-14-2012, 01:59 PM
Unemployment dropped from 6.4% to 4.6%.


What was it when he left office?

bladimz
11-14-2012, 02:02 PM
Why is the conservative right so freakin' worried about the rich and their taxes? The rich obviously had no problem making a buck during the Clinton and Reagan administration, and there's no reason why they should have a problem now. Remember that the wealthy includes conservatives AND liberals. That might some happy that some of that tax revenue will be coming out of pockets of liberals.

Cigar
11-14-2012, 02:03 PM
Why is the conservative right so freakin' worried about the rich and their taxes? The rich obviously had no problem making a buck during the Clinton and Reagan administration, and there's no reason why they should have a problem now. Remember that the wealthy includes conservatives AND liberals. That might some happy that some of that tax revenue will be coming out of pockets of liberals.

I don't get it either ... but the GOP sure as hell got them convinced

bladimz
11-14-2012, 02:05 PM
First we take everything the rich have, who aren't Democrats, and then we shoot them. Then, we start killing the middle class folks with our socialized medicine. The lowest class are killing each other so at some point their killing and the liberals killing will meet.As far as the middle class goes, are you going to restrict Obamacare to just the conservative population, or are you including everyone in the middle class?

Just looking for some clarification.

wazi99
11-14-2012, 02:08 PM
Why is the conservative right so freakin' worried about the rich and their taxes? The rich obviously had no problem making a buck during the Clinton and Reagan administration, and there's no reason why they should have a problem now. Remember that the wealthy includes conservatives AND liberals. That might some happy that some of that tax revenue will be coming out of pockets of liberals.

If you watched the video you would see there is not enough money in the Rich to run America under the 2011 Budget for one year. We have to cut spending or tax the middle class.

I vote for cutting spending. Watch the video it breaks it all down.

keymanjim
11-14-2012, 02:23 PM
What was it when he left office?
On it's way up thanks to the democrats minimum wage hikes.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/taxcutsandunemployment.jpg

keymanjim
11-14-2012, 02:28 PM
Why is the conservative right so freakin' worried about the rich and their taxes?
Because we want real solutions and not bullshit class warfare.
Taxing the rich will bring in about $65 billion dollars. With deficits exceeding $1 trillion dollars, the extra tax will cover less than .065% of the government's over spending.
Obama and his dip-shit squad are touting a tax on the rich as a fix-all when in reality, it doesn't do jack shit.

wazi99
11-14-2012, 02:30 PM
I think its important to note that the Bush Tax Cuts happened 5 full years before the mortgage markets went bad.

Cigar can you please explain how tax cuts caused the Mortgage Markets to collapse?

Bane
11-14-2012, 02:34 PM
Why is the conservative right so freakin' worried about the rich and their taxes? The rich obviously had no problem making a buck during the Clinton and Reagan administration, and there's no reason why they should have a problem now. Remember that the wealthy includes conservatives AND liberals. That might some happy that some of that tax revenue will be coming out of pockets of liberals.

Why are YOU and your communist friends so worried about how much the rich take home?

You do realize, you could tax them 100% and it won't solve the problem right? So what is really behind this "soaking the rich" crap?

Cutting spending, that is the solution. Unless your a communist, then that idea is completely foreign and stupid for some reason. The more money WE bring home (rich or poor) the better we all are. The government needs to downsize, it's to big for its own good.

bladimz
11-14-2012, 03:13 PM
Well, it looks like some of you guys just can't get past the bizarre concept that i expect the expiration of tax-cuts for the wealthy to solve the deficit problem. It's funny; the only ones who even mention the stupid thought that a return to Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy wouldn't solve the problem are the right-wingers. Who said it would? Who even implied that it would come close? That's not the point. Increased revenues are... revenues plus spending cuts is the way to go. Why does it have to be "starve the beast"? What the hell has austerity done for anyone lately.

You DO know that a return to the pre-Bush tax rates will bring in a revenue of 1 trillion dollars in tax revenue alone. That's not chump change and it's a big deal.

wazi99
11-14-2012, 03:21 PM
Well, it looks like some of you guys just can't get past the bizarre concept that i expect the expiration of tax-cuts for the wealthy to solve the deficit problem. It's funny; the only ones who even mention the stupid thought that a return to Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy wouldn't solve the problem are the right-wingers. Who said it would? Who even implied that it would come close? That's not the point. Increased revenues are... revenues plus spending cuts is the way to go. Why does it have to be "starve the beast"? What the hell has austerity done for anyone lately.

You DO know that a return to the pre-Bush tax rates will bring in a revenue of 1 trillion dollars in tax revenue alone. That's not chump change and it's a big deal.

Do you see Obama talking about real spending cuts?

Regan raised taxes and was promised that he would get spending cuts also. Democrats in congress quickly went and raised spending and even override his veto in violation to the promises they made.

They lied to us before when they said if we raise taxes they would cut spending how can we count on them to do it now?

Deadwood
11-14-2012, 03:43 PM
This (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/senate-republicans-no-legislation-until-after-tax-cut-extension/) should give you some idea why...


Blocking further legislation is a hell of a way to work with your counterparts. And that's the pathetic thing about the dirtballs that wind up representing their constituents.



I agree. It is as wrong as Barack Obama stating on election night he wants to "work with both sides congress" and than says "I am, not going to budge".


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/8719-quot-i-am-not-going-to-budge-quot'


OK, fair's fair. "I'm not going to budge" Obama ignites a fire....so why is it the Republicans fault?

At least they have the grit to stand up to the mealy mouthed fuck off sewer swilling slime.

Calypso Jones
11-14-2012, 03:44 PM
Why is the conservative right so freakin' worried about the rich and their taxes? The rich obviously had no problem making a buck during the Clinton and Reagan administration, and there's no reason why they should have a problem now. Remember that the wealthy includes conservatives AND liberals. That might some happy that some of that tax revenue will be coming out of pockets of liberals.

but none of it will be coming out of yours so you're okay with it?

Deadwood
11-14-2012, 03:47 PM
I think its important to note that the Bush Tax Cuts happened 5 full years before the mortgage markets went bad.

Cigar can you please explain how tax cuts caused the Mortgage Markets to collapse?


Sorry. Mr. Cigar never replies to any answers that might cause himself, the DNC or any member of the Obama clan any form of embarrassment., indignity or snot to dribble.

Please forward your question to one capable and willing to provide an answer; having a brain that works is an asset

Calypso Jones
11-14-2012, 03:48 PM
You DO know that a return to the pre-Bush tax rates will bring in a revenue of 1 trillion dollars in tax revenue alone. That's not chump change and it's a big deal.

I know it looks like that in the mind of a leftist...but that's not the reality of it...and ESPECIALLY NOW. You're gonna see more and more conservatives and i'll bet democrats too, picking up their ball, selling it off and going home. We're not gonna help, not gonna hinder, but not gonna help.

Mainecoons
11-14-2012, 03:51 PM
That trillion dollar number looks impressive, Blad, until one realizes that it is a totally grab ass guess over a long period when all we know for sure is the much more short term estimate by CBO that it MIGHT raise $100 billion per year assuming that the rich all the sudden lose their proven skill in tax avoidance, which is also nonsense.

And tell us Blad, just where is Mr. Obama offering any real spending cuts, and NO I don't mean lower spending increases, as a compromise for this tax increase. Nope, just another one-sided Obama non-compromise exercise in fanning divisive class warfare and squeezing the already primary payers of the tax burden more.

This has nothing to do with any serious attempt to do anything about the disastrous ObamaDeficits and everything to do with yours, and his, obsession with class warfare and hatred. That's all it is and that is why you harp on it incessantly while dodging the question of where the spending cuts are.

bladimz
11-14-2012, 03:53 PM
but none of it will be coming out of yours so you're okay with it?If you're wondering if i pay my taxes, yes. I do. It comes out of my pocket. And i don't whine about it. I don't like how it's spent, but i don't whine about paying my tax bill. It's part of living here in America.

bladimz
11-14-2012, 03:57 PM
I know it looks like that in the mind of a leftist...but that's not the reality of it...and ESPECIALLY NOW. You're gonna see more and more conservatives and i'll bet democrats too, picking up their ball, selling it off and going home. We're not gonna help, not gonna hinder, but not gonna help.
If you aren't going to help, then you are hindering. If you don't think we're in this together, then you're the one struggling with reality. If you don't like sharing the load, pull out.

Bane
11-14-2012, 04:01 PM
If you're wondering if i pay my taxes, yes. I do. It comes out of my pocket. And i don't whine about it. I don't like how it's spent, but i don't whine about paying my tax bill. It's part of living here in America.

Oh my, so even you, a liberal, don't like how your taxes are being spent, BUT YOU STILL HAVE NO PROBLEM empowering that same entity that you don't like how their spending YOUR tax dollars, to grab MORE tax dollars from people, to be spent............where???????

LMAO! This is just nuts.

"I don't like how they spend my tax dollars, BUT I want tem to take more of other people's money. For what, I don't know, it just sounds like the right thing to do."

If you don't like how your tax dollars are being spent, then what in God's name are you doing empowering the same government to take more money away from people????????? This is crazy man, just crazy.

Bane
11-14-2012, 04:03 PM
If you aren't going to help, then you are hindering. If you don't think we're in this together, then you're the one struggling with reality. If you don't like sharing the load, pull out.

Not going to help what????

bladimz
11-14-2012, 04:18 PM
That trillion dollar number looks impressive, Blad, until one realizes that it is a totally grab ass guess over a long period when all we know for sure is the much more short term estimate by CBO that it MIGHT raise $100 billion per year assuming that the rich all the sudden lose their proven skill in tax avoidance, which is also nonsense.

And tell us Blad, just where is Mr. Obama offering any real spending cuts, and NO I don't mean lower spending increases, as a compromise for this tax increase. Nope, just another one-sided Obama non-compromise exercise in fanning divisive class warfare and squeezing the already primary payers of the tax burden more.

This has nothing to do with any serious attempt to do anything about the disastrous ObamaDeficits and everything to do with yours, and his, obsession with class warfare and hatred. That's all it is and that is why you harp on it incessantly while dodging the question of where the spending cuts are.I really don't recall "dodging" any spending-cut questions. But whatever you want... I don't know exactly what spending cuts Obama has suggested, honestly. But i've already said, and you know this, that increased tax revenue plus serious spending cuts is the only realistic way to attack this problem. If Obama and his democrats refuse to offer those cuts, they're just as failed as the GOP and their bull-headed mindset.

This phrase, "class warfare" really sends a tingle up your leg, apparently. You use it all the time, yet all you can as "proof" is an expectation that the 2% pay the pre-bush tax-cut rate that they paid back then. Was it "class warfare" then? I don't remember anyone pissing their pants about it then. But now... you and your broken-record rant cry out for the pain that the rich will quietly bear. You and i both know, as you mentioned in your first paragraph, that these guys will find their way to circumvent a portion of that. In fact, i would bet that they'd enjoy the challenge.

Remember:

"There's class war alright. But it's my class that's making the war. And we're winning it." - Warren Buffet

Chris
11-14-2012, 04:20 PM
"There's class war alright. But it's my class that's making the war. And we're winning it." - Warren Buffet

All with the collusion of our government.

bladimz
11-14-2012, 04:22 PM
Not going to help what????
Ask Calypso. She's the one who said they'e not going to help... :rollseyes:

KC
11-14-2012, 04:37 PM
Well, it looks like some of you guys just can't get past the bizarre concept that i expect the expiration of tax-cuts for the wealthy to solve the deficit problem. It's funny; the only ones who even mention the stupid thought that a return to Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy wouldn't solve the problem are the right-wingers. Who said it would? Who even implied that it would come close? That's not the point. Increased revenues are... revenues plus spending cuts is the way to go. Why does it have to be "starve the beast"? What the hell has austerity done for anyone lately.

You DO know that a return to the pre-Bush tax rates will bring in a revenue of 1 trillion dollars in tax revenue alone. That's not chump change and it's a big deal.

I sure hope you're right. It looks like Obama is ready to return to the Clinton era rates and it doesn't like House Reopublicans are gonna stop him.

wazi99
11-14-2012, 04:46 PM
I don't know exactly what spending cuts Obama has suggested, honestly.

That is because other than cutting the Military he has not suggested any.

patrickt
11-15-2012, 08:07 AM
Why is the conservative right so freakin' worried about the rich and their taxes? The rich obviously had no problem making a buck during the Clinton and Reagan administration, and there's no reason why they should have a problem now. Remember that the wealthy includes conservatives AND liberals. That might some happy that some of that tax revenue will be coming out of pockets of liberals.

Why is the left so concerned about people who, as Cigar put it, make a "free-will choice" to not work? These deadbeats don't give a moments thought to people who work and have to support them. I've never been rich and never will be rich but I do know that higher taxes often result in higher costs. There's a liberal fantasy that higher taxes will eat into a rich person's vacation account. I also know that the 1% cannot support the 99% so rising taxes are not limited to "the rich". It won't be "the rich" paying for Obamacare and it won't be the politicians.

I realize one of the few themes the liberals can admit is the class war. Get over it. We're all in the sinking boat together.

Chris
11-15-2012, 10:55 AM
"free-will choice" to not work

What liberals tend to forget is freedom is a responsibility and that free-will choices come with consequences. But if not working is met with welfare then there are no consequences and it's not a free-will choice. Still, consequences cannot be avoided, here, the loss of freedom to dependency.

truthmatters
11-15-2012, 10:58 AM
when has this tax rate been this low in the country before?

patrickt
11-15-2012, 02:11 PM
when has this tax rate been this low in the country before?

For most of its history. But, you avoid the question. When the liberals have taken all of the money from the rich people, where will they go then? When they've bankrupted the major industries and driven business out of business, where will they go then?

wazi99
11-30-2012, 07:16 PM
I wonder if Obama has ever thought about a long term solution.

Captain Obvious
11-30-2012, 08:10 PM
Why is the conservative right so freakin' worried about the rich and their taxes? The rich obviously had no problem making a buck during the Clinton and Reagan administration, and there's no reason why they should have a problem now. Remember that the wealthy includes conservatives AND liberals. That might some happy that some of that tax revenue will be coming out of pockets of liberals.

Because Rush says so.

Peter1469
11-30-2012, 08:27 PM
Because Rush says so.


Maybe because tax revenue bears so little in relation to spending that the last few years spending has exceeded revenues by over ~$1.3T. This proposed tax increase will make at best $100B. But that assumes that the tax increase won't cause a recession and less tax revenue. Spending is the issue, not raising taxes.

Plus the push to tax the rich isn't about revenue anyway. Obama has said over and over that raising taxes in a bad economy is bad and can cause a recession. It is about driving a wedge between economic classes. Currently 47% pay no federal income taxes. What will election results look like once 55% don't pay federal income taxes?

Captain Obvious
11-30-2012, 08:32 PM
Maybe because tax revenue bears so little in relation to spending that the last few years spending has exceeded revenues by over ~$1.3T. This proposed tax increase will make at best $100B. But that assumes that the tax increase won't cause a recession and less tax revenue. Spending is the issue, not raising taxes.

Plus the push to tax the rich isn't about revenue anyway. Obama has said over and over that raising taxes in a bad economy is bad and can cause a recession. It is about driving a wedge between economic classes. Currently 47% pay no federal income taxes. What will election results look like once 55% don't pay federal income taxes?

That's a much broader point though, Peter. I was merely commenting on Blad's suggestion that conservatives are institutionalized to believe that taxing the rich is a bad thing - ironically (or pathetically) when most "conservatives" in this sense are middle class at best.

Your point outlines a flaw in our political system - a number of flaws, the largest one being that consensus is not fiscally responsible.

Deadwood
11-30-2012, 11:21 PM
Maybe because tax revenue bears so little in relation to spending that the last few years spending has exceeded revenues by over ~$1.3T. This proposed tax increase will make at best $100B. But that assumes that the tax increase won't cause a recession and less tax revenue. Spending is the issue, not raising taxes.

Plus the push to tax the rich isn't about revenue anyway. Obama has said over and over that raising taxes in a bad economy is bad and can cause a recession. It is about driving a wedge between economic classes. Currently 47% pay no federal income taxes. What will election results look like once 55% don't pay federal income taxes?

You can guarantee that as tax rates rise without spending cuts, and we may as well expect spending increases out of this no-budget Senate, that interest rates are going to rise. That will suppress mortgages and that will begin another recessionary spiral.

Let the good times begin!

Peter1469
11-30-2012, 11:26 PM
You can guarantee that as tax rates rise without spending cuts, and we may as well expect spending increases out of this no-budget Senate, that interest rates are going to rise. That will suppress mortgages and that will begin another recessionary spiral.

Let the good times begin!

Correct. Because under your case, we will have to print money like madmen. That will cause inflation to rise.

The interesting question is inflation or deflation in the short term. If we don't go too wild I would predict deflation as we saw in 2008-9 (except in food and oil- but that was caused by our failed energy policy). I understand that the established class says deflation is horrible. But to responsible people who save and don't deliberately live pay check to paycheck (meaning not the poor), deflation is much more preferable to inflation.

An example: let me pay down my mortgage with cheaper USD than what the bank considered when we entered into my mortgage.

Captain Obvious
11-30-2012, 11:33 PM
Correct. Because under your case, we will have to print money like madmen. That will cause inflation to rise.

The interesting question is inflation or deflation in the short term. If we don't go too wild I would predict deflation as we saw in 2008-9 (except in food and oil- but that was caused by our failed energy policy). I understand that the established class says deflation is horrible. But to responsible people who save and don't deliberately live pay check to paycheck (meaning not the poor), deflation is much more preferable to inflation.

An example: let me pay down my mortgage with cheaper USD than what the bank considered when we entered into my mortgage.

Time value of money. That concept isn't factored into indebtedness for a number of reasons - mostly because you are borrowing on a specific value (the property) at that specific point in time. What happens to the value of that property (or the dollar for that matter) is a subsequent event that the borrower must bear.

The reverse is also true in up-markets.

patrickt
12-01-2012, 07:54 AM
I wonder if Obama has ever thought about a long term solution.

Of course. His mentor, Rev. Wright, preached "God Damn America". President Obama took that to heart and his long term solution is the destruction of America and the installation of a new socialist dictatorship. It would probably be on the Hugo Chavez model were there are elections but opposition media are seized or the journalists are sent to prison and any opposition is a potential criminal offense. A judge was sent to prison and the workers in the prison felt safe in raping her.

He stood with a stupid smile while his wife announced that night was the first time in her adult life she'd been proud of the U.S. Have we ever had a President before this one who proudly announced his intention to bankrupt an industry? Have we had a President before this one who said everyone deserves their share with no concern for their contribution or lack thereof? Have we ever had a President who said income inequality needs to be eliminated by government redistribution of wealth?

Mainecoons
12-01-2012, 07:59 AM
An example: let me pay down my mortgage with cheaper USD than what the bank considered when we entered into my mortgage.

Peter, that's an example of one of the "benefits" of inflation, not deflation. With inflation, you have more dollars but each one buys less, except for the mortgage where the dollar figure is fixed over the life of the mortgage, unless it is relatively short term "balloon" paper.

You get paid "more" in inflated dollars (worth less) with which you can use to pay back dollars that were worth more when you borrowed them.

With deflation, you get fewer dollars but again, the dollar amount of the mortgage is fixed, hence you are giving the mortgage holder back dollars that are more valuable than the ones he lent you.

You are correct that deflation benefits those with substantial savings as those savings buy a lot more. This is how some people with substantial savings got rich on the depression. They accumulated the savings before the deflation, didn't lose them in the crash, and used them to buy severely depreciated assets like real estate, with pre-deflation dollars.

countryboy
12-01-2012, 08:56 AM
It's just class warfare. Taxes are gonna go up for everyone, and Obama/PelosiCare is one honkin' huge tax bill, btw. People who think it's just gonna be for people making over 250K and idiots and they got conned by the greatest con artist of all time, Barack Hussein Obama.

Told ya so....TOLD YA SO.....wait and see.
B.O. is not even that bright, let alone "the greatest con artist of all time". It's just that the sick morons that voted for the idiot are actually that stoopid. :wink:

Mainecoons
12-01-2012, 09:02 AM
No but the people who created him and who run him are definitely very bright and very disengenuous.

Awryly
12-02-2012, 11:08 PM
Even if we take every penny of what Obama calls the Rich (People making more than 250,00 a year) there is not even enough to run the country for a year with out taxing the middle class.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1j-cCaKvdo

Here is the warning that everyone should know. There is always someone worse off than you. Some day they may come for you like you are trying to take from the rich.

Oh Jeez. Let's take the most extreme scenario that suits the GOP and make it policy.

I assume a balanced approach of higher taxes and spending cuts (that are already happening) are far too reasonable a proposition for doomsayers.

Peter1469
12-02-2012, 11:16 PM
There are no spending cuts. Spending is increasing.

Awryly
12-02-2012, 11:19 PM
There are no spending cuts. Spending is increasing.

Uh-huh.


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-defense-cuts/1#.ULwmOuSV25w

Awryly
12-02-2012, 11:30 PM
No spending cuts, huh?


Over the next ten years, President Obama's proposed budget, which includes $1.1 trillion in spending cuts, is projected to cut the deficit by nearly half, reducing it by $626 billion, from $1.33 trillion to $704 billion. Obama's budget includes more than $4 trillion in balanced deficit reduction so that, by 2018, the deficit will be less than 3 percent of GDP. For every $1 in new revenue generated from the new taxes on those making over $250,000 per year, and from closing corporate loopholes, the budget has $2.50 in spending cuts, including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-whitman/reason-22-1-trillion-in-s_b_1819355.html

patrickt
12-03-2012, 07:09 AM
The liberals are pretending that the rich are not taxed which is patently untrue. Then they try to pretend they aren't paying their fair share. There is no definition of fair share and for the liberals it seems to be all of what "the rich" have. The concept of pulling your own weight and contributing to the general welfare doesn't exist for liberals. For the liberals, if you make a free-will choice to not work then those working have an obligation to support you in a style that of which those who don't pay taxes approve.

This, conservatives don't think the rich should pay taxes is a lie and incredibly stupid. It is quite legitimate for someone to ask of the liberals, when you get your wish and take everything the rich have and piss it away, what then?

corrocamino
12-03-2012, 07:10 AM
The liberals are pretending that the rich are not taxed which is patently untrue. Then they try to pretend they aren't paying their fair share. There is no definition of fair share and for the liberals it seems to be all of what "the rich" have. The concept of pulling your own weight and contributing to the general welfare doesn't exist for liberals. For the liberals, if you make a free-will choice to not work then those working have an obligation to support you in a style that of which those who don't pay taxes approve.

This, conservatives don't think the rich should pay taxes is a lie and incredibly stupid. It is quite legitimate for someone to ask of the liberals, when you get your wish and take everything the rich have and piss it away, what then?

"Free will" is a myth.

Carygrant
12-03-2012, 07:17 AM
"Free will" is a myth.


He was a real Killer whale . I saw the film .

corrocamino
12-03-2012, 07:32 AM
"There is no definition of fair share...."

I think there is a commonsense definition of distribution of wealth within a society that is commensurate both with the overall health of the society in its totality and with the disparities in personal wealth that arise from the bell-shaped curve, to which Jefferson alluded with his "natural aristocracy". And I think that the Reagan-onwards distribution of wealth in the USA is far from such definition. And I think Jefferson, among others of his era, would be appalled by our present condition.

Mainecoons
12-03-2012, 07:43 AM
He would certainly be dismayed about the professional political class and what has happened to the Constitution. As far as the distribution of wealth, I doubt it.

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 08:45 AM
No spending cuts, huh?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-whitman/reason-22-1-trillion-in-s_b_1819355.html

You post admits that there are no real cuts, just less spending than projected. We are currently spending ~$1.3T more than revenues. Cut all of that, then more. That would be a real cut. Anything else is spending more than we take in.

Chris
12-03-2012, 09:08 AM
Oh Jeez. Let's take the most extreme scenario that suits the GOP and make it policy.

I assume a balanced approach of higher taxes and spending cuts (that are already happening) are far too reasonable a proposition for doomsayers.


Let's take the most extreme scenario that suits the GOP and make it policy.

What has that to do with a video exposing the extreme liberal view that all we have to do is tax the rich?


I assume a balanced approach of higher taxes and spending cuts (that are already happening) are far too reasonable a proposition for doomsayers.

This is being discussed here: Raise Taxes or Cut Spending (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/9151-Raise-Taxes-or-Cut-Spending). Join us if you think you have an argument to contribute.

countryboy
12-03-2012, 04:57 PM
You post admits that there are no real cuts, just less spending than projected. We are currently spending ~$1.3T more than revenues. Cut all of that, then more. That would be a real cut. Anything else is spending more than we take in. Lib definition of a spending cut. A very small, almost imperceptible, decrease in projected over-spending increases. In the same manner they refer to not raising taxes as a, "tax cut for the rich". And just as anyone making $250,000+ is a "millionaire and billionaire".

Oy vey.

nic34
12-03-2012, 05:02 PM
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary. No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered-not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes"
--Teddy Roosevelt

Chris
12-03-2012, 05:03 PM
"There is no definition of fair share...."

I think there is a commonsense definition of distribution of wealth within a society that is commensurate both with the overall health of the society in its totality and with the disparities in personal wealth that arise from the bell-shaped curve, to which Jefferson alluded with his "natural aristocracy". And I think that the Reagan-onwards distribution of wealth in the USA is far from such definition. And I think Jefferson, among others of his era, would be appalled by our present condition.

Then please give it.

Chris
12-03-2012, 05:05 PM
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary. No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered-not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes"
--Teddy Roosevelt

Yes, indeed, the "fair" meme is old at least as progressive FDR.

But you notice he too fails to define it.

nic34
12-03-2012, 05:38 PM
What was it when he left office?

7.8%

Awryly
12-03-2012, 07:49 PM
Yes, indeed, the "fair" meme is old at least as progressive FDR.

But you notice he too fails to define it.

The rich need there to be total confusion about what is fair. And to that end, promote confusion.

If clarity should ensue, they would no longer be rich.

I assume you are all rich?

countryboy
12-03-2012, 07:54 PM
The rich need there to be total confusion about what is fair. And to that end, promote confusion.

If clarity should ensue, they would no longer be rich.

I assume you are all rich?

Well then, end the confision here and now. What percentage of the tax burden should the so-called "rich" assume? Give us a number or STFU.

Captain Obvious
12-03-2012, 07:58 PM
The rich need there to be total confusion about what is fair. And to that end, promote confusion.

If clarity should ensue, they would no longer be rich.

I assume you are all rich?

By NZ standards, yes.

Awryly
12-03-2012, 08:05 PM
Well then, end the confision here and now. What percentage of the tax burden should the so-called "rich" assume? Give us a number or STFU.

Don't ask me. Ask Walmart workers.

Chris
12-03-2012, 08:09 PM
The rich need there to be total confusion about what is fair. And to that end, promote confusion.

If clarity should ensue, they would no longer be rich.

I assume you are all rich?

Clarify it, tell us how to determine what's fair, tell us what fair means.

Chris
12-03-2012, 08:10 PM
Don't ask me. Ask Walmart workers.

Damn, here I thought you knew.

countryboy
12-03-2012, 08:19 PM
Don't ask me. Ask Walmart workers.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Awryly
12-03-2012, 08:20 PM
By NZ standards, yes.

And by American standards?

countryboy
12-03-2012, 08:32 PM
You see folks, libs can't give the number they think is "fair", because to libs no amount of punishment is fair enough for those eeeeevil millionaires and billionaires who report gross revenues of $250,000+ on their tax returns.

Chris
12-03-2012, 08:38 PM
Well, if you don't draw a line in the sand, and simply apply the liberal platitude of soak the rich, recursively, you will of course arrive at fair, where the playing field is truly leveled, and we all have nothing.

Awryly
12-03-2012, 08:55 PM
Well, if you don't draw a line in the sand, and simply apply the liberal platitude of soak the rich, recursively, you will of course arrive at fair, where the playing field is truly leveled, and we all have nothing.


Ah, the "nothing" argument. The Romans called it reductio ad absurdum.

And they were unhappily proved right by the Visigoths.

Chris
12-03-2012, 09:05 PM
Ah, the "nothing" argument. The Romans called it reductio ad absurdum.

And they were unhappily proved right by the Visigoths.

Actually, it dates back to hê eis to adunaton apagôgê. Such logic is not temporal.

Conley
12-03-2012, 09:07 PM
Actually, it dates back to hê eis to adunaton apagôgê. Such logic is not temporal.

Your letters are wearing funny little hats. I like it! :grin:

Awryly
12-03-2012, 09:13 PM
Actually, it dates back to hê eis to adunaton apagôgê. Such logic is not temporal.

That I knew. But my computer does not speak Aristotlean.

Chris
12-03-2012, 09:14 PM
Your letters are wearing funny little hats. I like it! :grin:

Scattered showers.

countryboy
12-03-2012, 09:45 PM
Ah, the "nothing" argument. The Romans called it reductio ad absurdum.

And they were unhappily proved right by the Visigoths.

Speaking of nothing, still refuse to tell us what "fair" is eh? Why is that, hairy little doggy got yer tongue?

Awryly
12-03-2012, 09:50 PM
Speaking of nothing, still refuse to tell us what "fair" is eh? Why is that, hairy little doggy got yer tongue?


Move to the city, Countryboy.

Chloe
12-03-2012, 09:55 PM
You see folks, libs can't give the number they think is "fair", because to libs no amount of punishment is fair enough for those eeeeevil millionaires and billionaires who report gross revenues of $250,000+ on their tax returns.
I don't know what the exact number should be but the very rich aren't hurting from the taxes they pay on their incomes because most of their money comes from investments.

Millionaires and billionaires aren't evil but they do have advantages that the vast majority of Americans will never have when it comes to investing their money and making huge gains off of those investments. They can usually afford much better accountants that know exactly how to protect a millionaires money than your average accountant and because of that they will always have an unfortunate advantage just because of the privilege of having wealth to make more wealth.

Awryly
12-03-2012, 10:09 PM
I don't know what the exact number should be but the very rich aren't hurting from the taxes they pay on their incomes because most of their money comes from investments.

Millionaires and billionaires aren't evil but they do have advantages that the vast majority of Americans will never have when it comes to investing their money and making huge gains off of those investments. They can usually afford much better accountants that know exactly how to protect a millionaires money than your average accountant and because of that they will always have an unfortunate advantage just because of the privilege of having wealth to make more wealth.


The problem is, of course, that the rich subvert public policy.

Just look at the current kerfuffle in the UK where Starbucks, Google and Amazon are miraculously revealed to have been paying almost no tax .. legitimately ... for years.

Corporations, including Romney's, do the same in the States.

Why? Because they pay legislators to be kind to them.

Chris
12-03-2012, 10:46 PM
The problem is, of course, that the rich subvert public policy.

Just look at the current kerfuffle in the UK where Starbucks, Google and Amazon are miraculously revealed to have been paying almost no tax .. legitimately ... for years.

Corporations, including Romney's, do the same in the States.

Why? Because they pay legislators to be kind to them.

Rather, because government is corrupt and open to being bought off.

Man, in general, tends to take the easy way. Economic means are more difficult than political means. Thus man will tend to take the political means if it is available. This is true whether it be social or corporate welfare.

Which takes us back to democracy and one of the reasons it's the worst form of government, as per Alexander Tytler: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

Awryly
12-03-2012, 10:51 PM
Rather, because government is corrupt and open to being bought off.

Man, in general, tends to take the easy way. Economic means are more difficult than political means. Thus man will tend to take the political means if it is available. This is true whether it be social or corporate welfare.

Which takes us back to democracy and one of the reasons it's the worst form of government, as per Alexander Tytler: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

How would governments become corrupt if it were not for people who seek to corrupt them?

countryboy
12-03-2012, 11:49 PM
Move to the city, Countryboy.

Why, will you suddenly become forthcoming and candid if I do?

Awryly
12-03-2012, 11:53 PM
Why, will you suddenly become forthcoming and candid if I do?

I am surprised to think there are who think those qualities are not already obvious in my demeanour and attitude.

What do you want to be forthcoming and candid about?

Don't be shy.

Chris
12-04-2012, 01:17 AM
How would governments become corrupt if it were not for people who seek to corrupt them?

Duh, of course it takes both, that's what I explained. But man is man, it's his nature to seek the easier path, but he becomes corrupt only with power, and that is the state, government, especially democratic government.

Awryly
12-04-2012, 02:01 AM
Duh, of course it takes both, that's what I explained. But man is man, it's his nature to seek the easier path, but he becomes corrupt only with power, and that is the state, government, especially democratic government.

You are merely displaying your ignorance of (a) the meaning of government and (b) the records of most democratic governments.

But, given that you live in a country run by a democratic-in-name only government, that is to be expected.

GrassrootsConservative
12-04-2012, 02:03 AM
They certainly are democratic-in-name-only, in reality they're more like communist.

Chris
12-04-2012, 09:00 AM
You are merely displaying your ignorance of (a) the meaning of government and (b) the records of most democratic governments.

But, given that you live in a country run by a democratic-in-name only government, that is to be expected.

And you prove yourself yet again a troll. For rather than discuss politics, government, and other topics, you turn every topic personal, a sort of personal pissing contest. What you say is meaningless except as a poor attempt at a put down, why, well, because rather than argue the point, by giving us the meaning of government, as you might see it, or the records, as you might recall them, you follow your ad hom with yet another unfounded, inflammatory put down of my country. If it weren't for cary, you'd be the biggest boor this forum has.

Awryly
12-04-2012, 09:25 AM
And you prove yourself yet again a troll. For rather than discuss politics, government, and other topics, you turn every topic personal, a sort of personal pissing contest. What you say is meaningless except as a poor attempt at a put down, why, well, because rather than argue the point, by giving us the meaning of government, as you might see it, or the records, as you might recall them, you follow your ad hom with yet another unfounded, inflammatory put down of my country. If it weren't for cary, you'd be the biggest boor this forum has.

I resent Cary's :occasion6: success.

Awryly
12-04-2012, 09:40 AM
It's little short of incomprehensible that Obama's tax plan will raise taxes on the top 2% but that 37% of Americans complain about it.

Why is that?

http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

Chris
12-04-2012, 09:41 AM
I resent Cary's :occasion6: success.

At least you're honest about being a troll, I'll give you that.

Chris
12-04-2012, 09:43 AM
It's little short of incomprehensible that Obama's tax plan will raise taxes on the top 2% but that 37% of Americans complain about it.

Why is that?

http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

Because it won't solve the problem. See Raise Taxes or Cut Spending (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/9151-Raise-Taxes-or-Cut-Spending) for discussion.

countryboy
12-04-2012, 10:24 AM
It's little short of incomprehensible that Obama's tax plan will raise taxes on the top 2% but that 37% of Americans complain about it.

Why is that?

http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-topincome-earners-make-percent/

Because, unfortunately there must only be 37% of us that are smart enough to see the truth. It's the decline of Western civilization.

Awryly
12-04-2012, 10:28 AM
Because, unfortunately there must only be 37% of us that are smart enough to see the truth. It's the decline of Western civilization.

If you say so. :studying:

countryboy
12-04-2012, 10:29 AM
Because it won't solve the problem. See Raise Taxes or Cut Spending (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/9151-Raise-Taxes-or-Cut-Spending) for discussion.
For libs it's not about solving the problem, it's about punishing the "haves".