The Presidency that Saved America

[redrumjuice]

Everyone really wants the govt. to balance the budget, until they really don't.

 

I don't give a flying flip about balancing anything, waste and fraud drive me insane.

[nuke'em ttg]

looks like the Jags won and Washington is F'n up typical

[evil_gop_liars]

I knew hussein would be bad, I never thought he could get elected with that resume and what he was on record of supporting, but I never in a million years thought he could be this bad.

 

He is a 1st degree narcissist with absolutely no idea how to lead or govern. Pelousy and reid were doing their part to riun the dems, hussein put them over the top.

 

This is top grade stuff.

[TimC]

That's true, because all minorities govern the same.

 

So the anti-Zobama worst president evah circle jerking is a bit premature.

 

Outside of Obama nuking a major American city killing more than a half million people right after he loses in 2012, Lincoln's role as the worst American President ever is pretty secure.

[SEC=UGA]

Outside of Obama nuking a major American city killing more than a half million people right after he loses in 2012, Lincoln's role as the worst American President ever is pretty secure.

 

You have absolutely redeemed yourself.

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

What if I decided to run? Would you vote for me?

 

You know I would.....

[WaterMan]

The rich are not getting taxed more in our current times. They are getting taxed far less than they have ever been taxed in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s.

 

I fail to see why taxing higher levels of incomes at the same rate as Reagan is somehow horribly unfair and contra to American principles.

 

It's because the rich now 100% own the government. That's why they aren't paying taxes like they used to.

[WaterMan]

I knew hussein would be bad, I never thought he could get elected with that resume and what he was on record of supporting, but I never in a million years thought he could be this bad.

 

He is a 1st degree narcissist with absolutely no idea how to lead or govern. Pelousy and reid were doing their part to riun the dems, hussein put them over the top.

 

This here is alot of trying to but overall the poster is just from watching too much Fox News. There are other channels to watch. Maybe just walk outside and enjoy the cold weather.

[SEC=UGA]

It's because the rich now 100% own the government. That's why they aren't paying taxes like they used to.

 

Is that why they have decided to let almost 50% of the population to pay no net income taxes?

[Ursa Majoris]

Is that why they have decided to let almost 50% of the population to pay no net income taxes?

Is that because 50% of the population don't earn enough and if taxed, would be unable to pay e.g. rent, etc? There are two ways of looking at almost everything.

 

A few statements to toss around:

 

Giving money to the poor by whatever means will guarantee it goes into the economy

The percentage of the overall national wealth that is concentrated in the top 5% has increased. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just is.

Tax rates on the wealthy (and pretty much everyone else) are at all time lows (over the past many decades)

The tax cuts of 2002 do not appear to have stimulated much at all when compared to the economy over the previous ten years, under higher tax rates

Virtually all money flows back to the top, as Detlef so well described. There it flows down again by various means. It appears to be stopped at the top right now.

We are broke. Fixing this is going to require cuts, redefinition of major programs and tax increases.

 

Just a few things to kick around.

[bpwallace49]

Is that why they have decided to let almost 50% of the population to pay no net income taxes?

 

If it puts more money in the pockets of the poor . . . that turn around and then buy the products that the rich produce . . . and then the rich KEEP an increasingly larger piece of that revenue by paying less in taxes . . . how is that bad for the 50% that do pay taxes again?

 

Concentrating the wealth in the hands of a very small minority, and continuing to enhance that disparity is the stuff that revolutions are made of. Hundreds of examples throughout history on this . . . .

[driveby]

Is that because 50% of the population don't earn enough and if taxed, would be unable to pay e.g. rent, etc? There are two ways of looking at almost everything.

 

A few statements to toss around:

 

Giving money to the poor by whatever means will guarantee it goes into the economy

The percentage of the overall national wealth that is concentrated in the top 5% has increased. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just is.

Tax rates on the wealthy (and pretty much everyone else) are at all time lows (over the past many decades)

The tax cuts of 2002 do not appear to have stimulated much at all when compared to the economy over the previous ten years, under higher tax rates

Virtually all money flows back to the top, as Detlef so well described. There it flows down again by various means. It appears to be stopped at the top right now.

We are broke. Fixing this is going to require cuts, redefinition of major programs and tax increases.

 

Just a few things to kick around.

Here's something else to ponder while savoring the sweet nectar of taxing the rich.

 

In spite of their nominally higher tax rates, many wealthy people pay less in income taxes than you and I do. That's because the tax code is a rat's nest of tax loopholes - credits, exemptions, subsidies and deductions for everything from home ownership to watering your lemon trees to keeping your Montana ski lodge on the cutting edge of green technology. People with a lot of money spend a lot of money keeping attorneys and accountants busy protecting them from income taxes. As Leona Helmsley famously said, rich people don’t pay taxes. Little people pay taxes.

 

Cut the tax rates, get rid of the tax exemptions, and even wanna-be Helmsleys pay taxes. Instead of paying nothing, Leona would have been paying over $300,000 on every million dollars of income, and her income was a lot of millions. Estimates are that the total collected from all of us would be an additional $1 trillion. That's per year, not over ten years. The sums dwarf additional revenues that would be raised by pushing marginal tax-rates on millionaires upward.

 

[SEC=UGA]

If it puts more money in the pockets of the poor . . . that turn around and then buy the products that the rich produce . . . and then the rich KEEP an increasingly larger piece of that revenue by paying less in taxes . . . how is that bad for the 50% that do pay taxes again?

 

Concentrating the wealth in the hands of a very small minority, and continuing to enhance that disparity is the stuff that revolutions are made of. Hundreds of examples throughout history on this . . . .

 

The poor, so 50% of this country is poor? By what standard?

 

And these revolutions of which you speak, ummm, none of the poor enjoyed the standard of living of the poor in the US. 50% of the people in the US are not poor. There are MILLIONS of people in 1985 USSR that would have traded places with a poor person in the US in a heartbeat.

[bpwallace49]

Here's something else to ponder while savoring the sweet nectar of taxing the rich.

 

 

 

 

That is why a flat tax makes waaaay too much sense.

 

15% on everyone (with a poverty floor) seems as fair as can be . . . . .

[gbpfan1231]

Is that because 50% of the population don't earn enough and if taxed, would be unable to pay e.g. rent, etc? There are two ways of looking at almost everything.

 

A few statements to toss around:

 

Giving money to the poor by whatever means will guarantee it goes into the economy

The percentage of the overall national wealth that is concentrated in the top 5% has increased. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just is.

Tax rates on the wealthy (and pretty much everyone else) are at all time lows (over the past many decades)

The tax cuts of 2002 do not appear to have stimulated much at all when compared to the economy over the previous ten years, under higher tax rates

Virtually all money flows back to the top, as Detlef so well described. There it flows down again by various means. It appears to be stopped at the top right now.

We are broke. Fixing this is going to require cuts, redefinition of major programs and tax increases.

 

Just a few things to kick around.

Forgot one

 

We spend a diaper dirt load

[bpwallace49]

The poor, so 50% of this country is poor? By what standard?

 

And these revolutions of which you speak, ummm, none of the poor enjoyed the standard of living of the poor in the US. 50% of the people in the US are not poor. There are MILLIONS of people in 1985 USSR that would have traded places with a poor person in the US in a heartbeat.

 

Of course, it is all relative.

 

And the standard of living being so high in the US just means that the rich will continue to consolidate until the system changes. Revolutions have come based on unbridled greed on the top % of wealth and the disparity between the lower brackets. since we do not have widespread starvation, desease, etc, we wont have an armed revolution. Plus the American dream of opportunity has everyone thinking that they too can be a billionaire . . if they hit the lottery. There is no permanent caste system (at least officially) that provides long term hostility and civil unrest. The illusion of riches and prosperity coupled with a very high standard of living compared to the rest of the world collectively means that we can always have people in the lower income brackets constantly striving for the very wealthy to continue to be wealthy!

[Big F'n Dave]

IBTL!!!

[Perchoutofwater]

My problem with allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire on the wealthy is that the dems only want it to be the wealthy. If they let them expire for everyone, I wouldn't have that much heartburn over it. Personally I think we do need to raise taxes, though I question if right now is the correct time to do it. I think rather than having a time table as to when they should expire it should be linked to unemployment.

 

I heard on the radio driving back from the deer lease last night that since 1970 for every $1 in additional revenue the federal government has taken out of our pockets through it's various taxes, fees, etc... that there has been a $1.10 increase in spending. I really thought that when the Bush Tax cuts were passed they were passed in an effort to starve the beast and force cuts in spending. Unfortunately up until now congress hasn't had the balls to make those cuts, and based on the responses to the debt panels plan, it looks like they still might not have the balls to do it.

 

We need to get away from an income tax, or at the very least go to a flat tax with no deductions (except charitable donations as most charities are more efficient than the government) so that we do not penalize success and ambition. We need to make being on welfare hurt, rather than being comfortable. We need to make it viewed as a last resort, as it was a generation or so ago. We need to drastically reduce the size and scope of our federal government back to be closer in line to what it was originally intended and then let the state and local governments pick up the slack.

 

I'd love to see us get unemployment back to more reasonable numbers and then raise taxes and reduce spending by a 1:2 ratio until our national debt is paid off. After than we can increase spending and cut taxes by a 1:2 ratio if that is what we desire, though I think that in doing that many of the programs that are now being funded by the federal government would be funded by state and local governments, and that we would see that smaller governments can be more efficient at handling these than the federal government, as they can be watched much more closely. There are very few new federal departments in the last 70 years that are really needed to be addressed at the federal level. Most could and should be done away with, and relinquished to the state and local governments to decide. The only two departments that I can think of (I'm sure there are a few more) are the EPA and Homeland Security, and I think Homeland Security needs to be watched very carefully to make sure it does not trample The Constitution.

[bpwallace49]

My problem with allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire on the wealthy is that the dems only want it to be the wealthy. If they let them expire for everyone, I wouldn't have that much heartburn over it. Personally I think we do need to raise taxes, though I question if right now is the correct time to do it. I think rather than having a time table as to when they should expire it should be linked to unemployment.

.

 

I think we should have let the tax cuts expire on the wealthy immediately and only extend the rest for two years with a hard date to expire. It bridges the gap without hurting the recovery . .. but I am sure not an economist.

 

If a plan was put in place to cut enough spending across the board in two years to balance the tax holiday, then keep the middle class ones and even re-instate the tax break for the upper tiers. But the key is reducing spending to offset . . something all the career politicans of both parties are loathe to do.

[Perchoutofwater]

I think we should have let the tax cuts expire on the wealthy immediately and only extend the rest for two years with a hard date to expire. It bridges the gap without hurting the recovery . .. but I am sure not an economist.

 

If a plan was put in place to cut enough spending across the board in two years to balance the tax holiday, then keep the middle class ones and even re-instate the tax break for the upper tiers. But the key is reducing spending to offset . . something all the career politicans of both parties are loathe to do.

 

I think those on the far left would like to create a crisis in order to increase the size and scope of government, like Rahm said "never let a good crisis go to waste."

 

It think those on the far right are ok with the tax cuts because they may cause a real crisis that will force us to make spending cuts in programs that never should have existed in the first place.

 

I personally don't think either one of these lines of thought are good, but if forced to choose one or the other I'd chose the second. Until we start making significant cuts in spending it doesn't matter what the tax rate is we are eventually going to end up being Greece. If this speeds up an honest debate on curbing spending and actual action being taken from that debate then it might be a good thing. If we are doomed regardless, I'd rather spend my money than have the government do it for me. Hopefully we can get spending under control and our federal government closer to it's intended size.

[bpwallace49]

It think those on the far right are ok with the tax cuts because they will be the ones that benefit most from the tax breaks, and considering we all worship Ayn Rand and dont care about anyone else that is cool with us. .

 

edited for accuracy

[Perchoutofwater]

edited for accuracy

 

grow up

[bpwallace49]

grow up

 

 

Do you actually believe what you wrote about "what the right thinks" regarding the tax breaks? Seriously?

[Perchoutofwater]

 

Do you actually believe what you wrote about "what the right thinks" regarding the tax breaks? Seriously?

 

I said the far right, and yes I think there are conservatives out there that are willing to weather just about any storm to get the government back to the size and scope it was originally intended to be. I'm sure there are some that just look at the tax cut as more money in their pocket just like there are a number of liberals out there that look at welfare and tax credits as more money in their pockets.

[bpwallace49]

I said the far right, .

 

Point taken.

 

Which makes my "fixed for accuracy" even more correct . . . . right?

Edited December 8, 2010 by bpwallace49