Watchhttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-end-of-bush-tax-cuts-means-for-you.html
Oops. Making the wealthiest pay their "fair share" has morphed into higher tax rates FOR ALL...AGAIN.
I told you so. Class warfare is what the libs promote. Unfortunately what they don't tell you is the truth.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies. Ron Paul
Follow
Befriend (1)
1 threads
387 comments
Buffalo, NY
Your assumption is predicated on the idea that you can't replace the Bush tax cuts with tax cuts on middle and lower income people. That is what the Democrats have proposed.
Follow
Befriend
42 threads
32 comments
"Soak the Rich becomes HIGHER TAX RATES FOR ALL."
People do not understand that this ideology is exactly why we have income taxes in the first place! In 1913 the federal government convinced the middle class to put an income tax on the top 0.1% of income earners ONLY. Look what we have now! If the course of the last 99 years is not evidence enough to convince someone that this tendency is factual, nothing will!!!
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,576 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
You mean Republicans are refusing to cut taxes for working people because billionaires need a few more millions? That's what I thought you meant.
Honest Abe says
That's right. Cutting taxes on all investment and inheritance income as well as people earning in the top tax bracket. is not class warfare.
However suggesting that we need to return some of these tax cuts for the rich is class warfare!
Confused? Just ask Abe to explain it to you. ROFLOL
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,576 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Cloud says
Scared of the points I made? Thought so. I didn't expect you or Abe to talk about them.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-owes-62-trillion-in-debt_n.htm
Hey Iwog, the unfunded liability is now 62 trillion. You can debate all you want...except you can't change reality.
You and your kind will simply deny it. Just as you deny that taxes have negatively affected all income levels. The bottom, of course, being hit the hardest percentage wise. So much for liberal compassion.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,576 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Cloud says
I can defend it just fine, however this thread isn't about a 30 trillion dollar debt. This thread is about intellectual corruption and pretending Democrats are responsible for actions by reckless Republicans. That's what I responded to, and in true form you simply ran away from the thread, the conversation, and my points.
Why? What are you afraid of that you have to knee jerk "WADDA BOUT 30 TRILLION??" in every thread?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,576 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
I don't deny it. Doesn't that make you a liar?
(I think it does)
Honest Abe says
I don't deny that either. Bush tax cuts expiring will cost Americans more money across all levels. That's 0 for 2. Nice work.
Honest Abe says
You and cloud have the same attention span disorder. Both of you forgot what the thread was about. (pssst......it's about not extending the tax cut)
For two people so obsessed with debt, I'd think both of you would be happy that taxes were going up. No? Disingenuous reaction? Figured.
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
42 comments
Cloud and Abe,
Can you come out of the 30 trillion obsession and may be talk about the expiring Bush tax cuts
Iwog seems to be repeating it but you folks seem to avoid any discussion on it and are sticking to the debt part which is not the OP is about
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
R. Thug, Giving more money to government is like giving more drugs to an addict. The liberal obsession with other peoples money (more taxes) is not the solution either. Thats like approving yet anoter line of credit for a hopelessy bankrupt person. Even a 5th grader could understand that.
THE SOLUTION IS TO GET SPENDING UNDER CONTROL.
As the debt continues to grow under fiscal fraud and mismanagement, the interest on the debt continues to grow. Iwog and the other pinko progressives avoid any discussion on that issue and pretend as if it has no consequences.
Well guess what, IT HAS CONSEQUENCES. And BTW, a 100% tax rate won't service the debt which is why the government (1) borrows money IN ADDITION to taxes, and (2) encourages monetary inflation IN ADDITION to taxes and borrowing.
Iwog is an acronym for I Want Opressive Government, his radical left leaning agenda is in large part discredited due to lack of cause and effect thinking, failure to 'connect the dots', and an obvious lack ofcommon sense...all of which he'll deny.
And there you have it,
H. Abe
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,576 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Wow......I point out that neither of you want to talk about the topic.
Someone else points out that neither of you want to talk about the topic.
Does that change anything? OF COURSE NOT!!!! Republicans simply do not talk about what they do not talk about. If the conversation doesn't conform to a very narrow script programmed into them by Newscorp, they simply cannot EVER go there. This thread is proof and it's disgusting.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
755 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
Honest Abe says
God this is obviously untrue. Perhaps you don't know what "Service the Debt" means. We do currently "service the debt" which means we pay enough taxes to pay the interest.
FWIW, in 2008 the top 1% of tax returns had $1.8T in income, (an average of $1.285M per tax return). There are roughly 1.4M returns in the top 1%.
If they were so concerned about the debt, they could donate ALL of their income except the median family income of $50k, for a little less than 9 years. The ENTIRE debt would be paid.
1.4MM tax returns going from the top 1% in income to the current median. All debt paid off in less than nine years.
Seems like a good investment because the debt is what they claim is hindering our economic recovery. So put you rmoney where you mouth is: they have the lions share of the assets, and if the economy exploded like they say they would be the primary benefactor.
No one is talking about taking assets. Just agressively retiring debt on those assets so the economy could flourish. The asset holders would be the benefactors, if the premise of the debt being the anchor holding th eeconomy back were true...
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,576 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Cloud says
What in hell does that have to do with you being scared to discuss the thread topic????????? How can any human being be this dense?
I love talking about how the Republican conservative policies of Coolidge and Hoover slammed this country into the Great Depression. Do I talk about it in every single thread regardless of topic? Nope. I'd be a fucking moron if I did that.
How about you Cloud? What does bringing up a $30 trillion national debt in every single thread say about you?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,576 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
david1 says
He doesn't care about the truth. His entire world is hyperbole.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,499 comments
Honest Abe says
It's a 75 year projection for god's sake.Two year projections aren't very accurate. A 75 year one is just fantasy
Honest Abe says
Ok, you always say that. How? Which to cut, SS, MC, Military, Medicaid? Those are the only programs big enough to matter. The only ones driving debt are military and medicaid. SS and MC are still in the black. Considerably so if you count what is owed by the general budget. So we eliminate the military and medicaid is what you are saying?
Come on HONEST abe, how about an HONEST response. You voted for expand the military Reagan and go to war Bush, both of whom put the bill on the national credit card. Was that wrong or are you saying you just don't want to pay for it after the fact?
Cloud says
More homo fantasy about IWOG, at least you're consistent cloud.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,499 comments
If you ever actually read my posts you would find out I am totally opposed to government debt and have always been. Taxes should have never been lowered without cutting spending first. Reagan really blew it on that score. I have disagreed extensively with IWOG on the subject. How do you figure IWOG is my hero, you're always the one following him around.
That being said it's time to pay the piper for all the neocon military build up and wars which represent the bulk of the debt. Even with massive cutting of the military, medicaid, and the rest of the federal government it is mathmatically impossible to get things under control by cutting spending. Taxes will have to be raised and/or the debt inflated away and/or debt defaulted away. There are no other options.
Of course the cloud/abe/bap set will still insist that cutting off the welfare queens and booting out the illegals will magically fix all the problems. Facts never enter into the debate with demagogues.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Bob, you and I agree in that we both oppose massive government debt, and spending cuts need to occur first.
But I disagree that "its mathematically impossible to get things under control by cutting spending". How did it get this bad in the first place? Could it be the result of a latent overactive promissory gland found in most politicians, as well as overspending?
What would it take to get things under control? How about a 20% cut, across the board, on EVERYTNING? If that doesn't work, how about a 35% cut, if that doesn't work...well, you get the point.
At some point things would reach a balance. And the pain would be equally shared. Equality of suffering - now thats a concept the libs can get their arms around - equality, haha.
BTW, endless wars and empire building would end with a sound currency, as I have pointed out countless times before. A sound currency would have the same effect as taking away a pre approved credit card, with no limit, away from a fiscally irresponsible teenager. NO MONEY = NO WAR.
And yea, welfare queens shouldn't be offered a lifetime of dependency on the backs of working people. A "life line" yes, a "safety net" yes, a lifelong government sponsored hammock - NO. Welfare shouldn't be a way of life...should it ???
Illegals...on the one hand they provide cheap labor. On the other hand they burden the system. They overload schools, hospitals, law enforcement, and get preferential treatment in college.
By the way, you're not inferring that I"M a demagogue, are you?
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,653 comments
Honest Abe says
Tax cuts and foreign wars. Next question?
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,499 comments
Honest Abe says
No I don't get the point.
The federal budget is 2.8 trillion, the deficit is 1.32 trillion. An honest accounting says that over half of the budget is military. Interest on the debt of .4 trillion is strictly off limits. So we need to cut 1.32 trillion out of 2.4 trillion or about 55%. Would you like to start with a 55% cut to all military and government pensions as well as active duty service people? Air traffic control? Prisons? Name it.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,653 comments
bob2356 says
Not to mention that when you cut that much out of the economy, tax receipts are going to shrink considerably so you'll end up chasing your tail and will never balance the budget...
Follow
Befriend
19 threads
1,534 comments
Los Angeles, CA
I guess were screwed and turning into japan with permaZIRP+infiniteDeficitSpending.
I hear Japan is still a nice place but everybuddy lives in a tiny box worse that SF?
Follow
Befriend (8)
204 threads
4,416 comments
Davis, CA
PockyClipsNow says
Japan has a lot of hilly terrain. Whats left is where you pack the farms and factories and people.