Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, March 11, 2010

David Corn: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the House budget committee, seems to be his party's go-to guy on fiscal matters. So it's quite fair to view the radical budget plan he unveiled a few weeks ago as a mainstream GOP initiative. Under his proposal ... Social Security would be rejiggered to include private accounts, and Medicare and Medicaid would be replaced with vouchers-based private systems. This would indeed be bold change, and some conservatives just adore Ryan for being so audacious and so in love with the power of markets. But there is a same-old Republican aspect to his plan: The rich would pay less taxes ... and everyone else would pay more.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

doc_sarvis

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

According to the CTJ report: "The 8.5 percent VAT is (almost) the entire reason why the bottom 90 percent of taxpayers would pay more under Congressman Ryan's plan than under President Obama's plan....It's difficult to design a tax plan that will lose $2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more. But Congressman Ryan has met that daunting challenge."

David Corn goes on:

"Ryan's plan has received attention mostly for getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid and pushing Social Security toward privatization. But now there's another case against it: It will squeeze more tax dollars out of low- and middle-income Americans to ease the burden on the wealthy."
www.politicsdaily.com

The zinger comes at the end of Corn's article:

"Democrats ought to have a political field day with Ryan's plan during the 2010 campaign. It shows what the Republicans would like to do if they regain power: cut taxes on the wealthy, boost them for everyone else, while replacing Medicare and Medicaid with vouchers that will not cover the same amount of health care. Free-market health care for the elderly and poor, more regressive taxation -- all this sounds like a road map to the past."
www.politicsdaily.com

It shows what the Republicans would like to do if they regain power: cut taxes on the wealthy, boost them for everyone else

We are not ashamed of this on the right. I like the flat tax, which would in essences cut taxes for the rich and boost taxes for a lot of the poor (if it was at say 15-18%) but without any loopholes the rich would end up paying more than they currently do in a lot of situations.

And why is your name and posting time information so tiny?

"It shows what the Republicans would like to do if they regain power: cut taxes on the wealthy, boost them for everyone else"

We are not ashamed of this on the right.
#2 | Posted by andyuhenet

Obviously.

And why is your name and posting time information so tiny?
#2 | Posted by andyuhenet

They're not tiny. It's your area of focus that's shrinking.

Lord knows I wish more poor people would employ some people...


Lord knows I wish more poor people would employ some people...

#5 | Posted by nanc

Jeeeesssus knows I wish cutting taxes on the rich would employ people, since after Bush we'd have full employment...

ah good one darth...you know..good for a 'fictional' chraracter...

can we add up how much DEMS have inflated the debt and deficit in little more than a year and then look at the value of the dollar..and after that...look at the rasmussion poll about what people think about the health care bill and its costs...

we are in danger...REAL danger.

(here is where leftists put in BULLSHIT comment about where were you during bush years.)

and by the way

RYAN 2012

When trickle down economics fails this clown Ryan proposes....what else....more trickle down economics.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me again and again and again and I'm AFKABL2.

I'm serious on this thread everyones post number, name and post time is tiny. All the other ones look normal.

Maybe I'm losing my mind.

sometimes we need to pay to know what we think.

Everyone should have to write a check for their taxes. Then people would hold the gov accountable.

oh danni

there you go wishing for miracles again...hee hee...

everyones post number, name and post time is tiny...Maybe I'm losing my mind.

Same, here.

Can't vouch for your sanity, however.

but without any loopholes the rich would end up paying more than they currently do in a lot of situations.

#2 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-03-11 08:12 AM

Link?

The rich would pay less taxes ... and everyone else would pay more.

------------

and if the democrats could get away with it they would vote for this too.

all bought.

can we add up how much DEMS have inflated the debt and deficit in little more than a year and then look at the value of the dollar..and after that...look at the rasmussion poll about what people think about the health care bill and its costs...

we are in danger...REAL danger.

(here is where leftists put in BULLSHIT comment about where were you during bush years.)

the deficit was rising anyway. the only way to lower it in such a short amount of time is to cut anything new and raise taxes.
while the health care will cost, so does most government programs. The only reason the people don't like the health care bill is because of all the bullsh!t the republicans insisted be cramped in.

I'm serious on this thread everyones post number, name and post time is tiny. All the other ones look normal.
Maybe I'm losing my mind.

No, I doubt that. It looks fine here, but there are many things that can affect the view. There are settings in the browser you're using that may have changed - for instance smallest font, or a font mapping, a style sheet, etc.

The post number, etc. is a different font than the rest of the thread:
post font: Ariel (11 point)
thread font: Times-Roman (16 point)

You may have an "Appearance" tab you can modify the above as far as display - or a minimum font to use when viewing.

On the subject, I posted Ryan's budget a while back. This is a good analysis. NIce to see it's getting the scrutiny it deserves. It is a gift to the Democrats, which isn't a surprise.

We have a flat tax. It's 35%. You just get a discount on the first $373,650.

I'm serious on this thread everyones post number, name and post time is tiny. All the other ones look normal.
Maybe I'm losing my mind.

#10 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-03-11 12:47 PM

No, I went on the thread a while ago and all the posts were in a smaller font.

The Republican party: corporate interests and the extremely wealthy leading the mislead...

No, rich still pay more, just not as much more.

Rich still pay a way disproportionately high amount of taxes however you calculate it: per person, by percentage or by absolute amount. Decreasing one metric doesn't fix the problem, and it won't fix the tax revenue problem either.

How's that "change" working for you guys? Tax something and you get less of it, a lesson the progressives will never learn.

Cutting taxes for those who actually pay taxes is not a bad idea. You cannot cut taxes for those who do not pay taxes.

Another opportunity to post this.

Obama Tax Policy - Explained With Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh would pay $7.
* The eighth would pay $12.
* The ninth would pay $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'
'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only Saved a dollar,too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

So,

If I make more I can pay less? Wow...how much do I need to make to pay nothing?

People making less than $20,063 would have to dole out $1605 in extra taxes.

The perfect plan for the party of fail.

"People making less than $20,063 would have to dole out $1605 in extra taxes."

Do people making $20k even pay any income taxes??

We are not ashamed of this on the right. I like the flat tax, which would in essences cut taxes for the rich and boost taxes for a lot of the poor (if it was at say 15-18%) but without any loopholes the rich would end up paying more than they currently do in a lot of situations.
And why is your name and posting time information so tiny?

#2 | POSTED BY ANDYUHENET

which is why you guys are a bunch of stupid fucks. I piss on all of you.

Ryan's plan has an exemption of $39,000 for a family of four. So if you're married with two kids or single with 3, you pay no taxes under $40,000. Tax rates are 10% up to the first $100,000--with the allowance above--and $50,000 if you're single.

Nah. I like it Obama's way much better. Promise tax cuts to everyone except people making $250,000 or more, then scratch your head with a thumb in your ass as you wonder why tax receipts don't come in like you thought. But it's a-okay! The Chinese are giving us free money!

Cut revenues by close to $3 Trillion over 10 years like the 2 Bush tax cuts did, run up the debt so we're shelling out $700 Billion a year on just that, $150 Billion Medicare Part D, Capitol Gains to 15%, several hundred billion on a war, and pile a recession on top of that and we're supposed to be running breaking even or running surpluses?

Is that how conservative math works?

BPH320.......perfect

"For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible"
this is "root cause" of the problem

If a college were to cut tuition costs. Who should get that money back? The students who actually had to pay for their tuition or those who where given scholarships and grants? Students who didn't have to pay tuition shouldn't get the benefit of because they didn't pay it in the first place.

"Cut revenues by close to $3 Trillion over 10 years like the 2 Bush tax cuts did, run up the debt so we're shelling out $700 Billion a year on just that, $150 Billion Medicare Part D, Capitol Gains to 15%, several hundred billion on a war, and pile a recession on top of that and we're supposed to be running breaking even or running surpluses?"

But you left out, fire millions of workers, outsource their jobs, and forget about the taxes they would have paid, open the borders and let millions of immigrants just flow across the border, working tax free and sending their pay home. Also, try several trillion dollar war when you figure in the long term costs of the VA, etc.
Other than that though I completely agree.

Got tired of typing the mess left behind

Look at all of the full employment during Bush. I think the only job growth was in the military.

For all of the so called conservatives that think lowering taxes increase tax revenue where is your evidence. Reagan lowered taxes and Bush SR had to increase them because the revenue was not there. After Clinton raised taxes we actually had a surplus on the budget. All i see is higher taxes, more tax revenue. Rich people do not take their jobs oversea because of taxes, they do it for cheaper labor, like child labor.

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-03-11 07:59 AM

Doc_Soreass at it again...he is afraid he will have to pay tax on his welfare checks.

The GOP have always been hell bent on redistributing wealth upwards.

Anyone who disagrees with their odious tactics is promptly labeled by them to be invoking a "Class War".

Lawls. Like THAT hasn't been going on since the dawn of time.

This latest piece of shit legislation should come as a surprise to exactly no one.

Be Well.

If anyone thinks the massive shift of wealth to a few is an accident they're sorely mistaken

Everyone in the top 10 percent ($127,769 and above) would receive a break. Those in the bottom 80 percent ($88,658 and below) would pay more taxes -- on average $1700 more. People making less than $20,063 would have to dole out $1605 in extra taxes.

To use the progressive term, everyone gets to pay their fair share. If everyone can't pay an equal share of what it cost to run the government, then it's a sine that it cost too much. Time to cut back.

The GOP have always been hell bent on redistributing wealth upwards.

A tax cut isn't redistrubiting wealth upwards, its lessening the amount of income that the government takes away.

If you are talking about corporate welfare, you have a point, but not when talking about tax cuts.

A tax cut isn't redistributing wealth upwards

The BushCo tax cuts certainly did.

45% of the money "saved" was given to the top 5% of income earners while the bottom 80% only received 22% of the "savings".

Factor in inflation and most people on the lower end saw no real savings at all.

The wealth inequity gap continues to grow which kinda disproves any argument that the GOP are not engaging in a class war on the poor.

The Dems are continually referred to as "Tax and Spend".

The reality is that the GOP are "tax cuts for the wealthy and spend, spend, spend".

The US government needs to bring government spending down and give tax relief to those who really need it.

Too bad DC these days is increasingly run by the Golden Rule.

ie. Those who got the gold get to make the rules and everyone else can just STFU and go DIAF.

Be Well.

45% of the money "saved" was given to the top 5% of income earners while the bottom 80% only received 22% of the "savings".

I don't have a link for that. I assume you do. But that is close to proportionate share of what they pay. Top 5% pay 53% (Federal taxes)

You can argue that the wealthy should pay more.

but I don't see how the savings being distributed has impacted the wealth distribution.

people put way too much emphasis on tax policy regarding wealth distribution as though it is the only factor

All I know is that I paid more in taxes this year, making the same amount of money as last year, than I ever have in my life. Obama found a way to make single guy making much less than $250,000 a year to some how being a rich person. Because I've NEVER paid as much in taxes as I had to this year. Thanks, Obama, you dick.

Lord knows I wish more poor people would employ some people...

#5 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-11 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag: CALL GIRL BUSINESS IN TATTERS; THINKS IT'S THE ECONOMY, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY THE TITS

#23 | Posted by bph320

That's cute. But let me explain how it really works. The tenth man can leave. That's fine. He can go to a country with lower taxes on the rich like Mexico, Angola, Indonesia, or India. He can spend substantially more to ensure he has basic services. He can spend substantially more to hire security to replace the underfunded police forces in these countries. I suggest he not drink the local water. But he is free to drink at the bar with his new friends...if he can find some.

Better yet, he can cash out his investments in this country and take them with him. He can then invest in local businesses in these countries. These businesses will of course fail because of the poor local economy, changing political structure, intense political pressure, incredible inflation, local syndicate activities, or any number of other reasons. He will of course lose significant income during this period. And of course, lets not discount the set up costs of his new investments.

This tenth man will very surely learn soon that paying a little more sucks, but it gives him access to an economic system that allows him to make more money than other places.

Two lessons should be learned. First, you don't want to pay the taxes, fine leave. Foreign investors are ready to take your place in a heartbeat (and do). Other Americans are ready to replace you at your job as well. You aren't a special snowflake or that talented. Get over it. Second, you and your story are stupid. Way to oversimplify something and pretend it has meaning.

We used to have insanely high income tax rates through Reagan and beyond. And yet, we still produced more wealth than any country on the planet. Our economy continues to grow in insane leaps and bounds. Obviously the rich aren't leaving but choosing to invest here.

The Conservatives should learn you get what you pay for. Don't want to pay to be here? Fine. I hear Ethiopia is looking for a few good millionaires.

Too bad that most Americans are ignorant of America's best and most significant writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was a personal hero of my g-father' who came here from the old country only with a shirt on his back to live out his dreamed paradise life. Being of strong and unbending character he often expressed a concern over people's casual ignorance of basic facts of life. I remember his response to the "Bolsheviks" as he called them when they were squealing like pigs about rich people: "Even the richest person has only one stomach and eats so many steaks each day. The rest of the money is invested and working to create jobs for you Bolsheviks-not that your ignorance would allowed you to appreciate it". I hope that kind of spirit is still alive, somewhere.

I think that those Bolsheviks would be well advised to learn from such wisdom today and Emerson should be mandatory reading before they start telling everyone how to live their lives, who is rich and who is not.

#22-Best seen to date.

"The GOP have always been hell bent on redistributing wealth upwards."

Nah, their record on redistribution is nearly as bad as the dems..the biggest difference is in the republicans absence of marxist rhetoric.

In a free society, wealth will always, ALWAYS accumulate with the most productive citizens...those whom society considers to be the most valuable. As I have said before, Bill Gates didn't get rich because people felt like giving him money, he got rich because in return for their money, he gave the people copies of Windows and Office. Society could have not bought those products, and not made him rich, but having those products and him being rich is a better alternative than not having the products and him not being rich.

The only way you can correct for wealth inequality is to suppress the free will of society to allocate resources in the manner they see most fitting. And if society does truly care about income or wealth disparity, it would be reflected either through their consumption habits (buying goods only from companies that paid all employees more "equal" wages), or by contributing more money to charities or giving it to those that don't make it for themselves.

So I'm curious, especially for those that are so adamant about wealth being more equitably distributed. What actions specifically should be taken to limit the free choice of consumers? Should you simply tax the shit out of those that consumers deem to be most valuable, confiscating their earned wealth, or prohbiting consumers from offering buying those services in the first place, thereby making them rich?

Sycophant,

The point that you conveniently chose to forget is, that without the rich man, the rest suffer. Big Time. Because they lack the ability to produce sufficient wealth on their own. but more to your point, businesses have been leaving, specifically because they have found that, like the tenth man, there is less and less incentive to produce wealth in the US. They can go to India, or China, or any other myriad of places in the world where people realize the true benefit of the free market, as something other than a funding source for beer.

As for the other nine dudes remaining. They are still poor. They have not improved their position one iota. In fact, they are far worse off.

Personally, I would like to see the beer thing happen in the real world...let the bleaters see how bad life really is without the rich supporting them. I have no doubt that they would have a newfound appreciation for those that pay for virtually every good and service our government provides.

You should thank the rich...not deride them

"Do people making $20k even pay any income taxes?"

If that's supposed to be a joke, it's not funny. Otherwise it shows how completely out of touch and ignorant you are with reality.

Obama Tax Policy - Explained With Beer

If you believe that people in the bottom 40% of income don't pay taxes, then you are smoking crack.

If you think everyone is getting beer, then you must be one of the alcoholics (probably either in the top 10% or bottom 10%) who are hoarding it all and unconvincingly asking "hey, where did all the beer go? *hic*".

"If you believe that people in the bottom 40% of income don't pay taxes, then you are smoking crack."

Statistically, they don't pay federal income tax. And if those making the claim are on crack, then we need to start drug testing the IRS, because it is they that are making the claim.

"www.calt.iastate.edu"

They do pay taxes, sales tax, state tax, whatever, but not federal income tax

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable