"In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers."

Excellent.

That's a good start.

I have no problem with taking the cap off of Social Security. I don't know why such a cap would exist to begin with.

As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name...

"in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined."

Not bad, when you consider the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%.

And when this author talks about taxes, all he's talking about is income taxes, not all taxes. Plus, the language is imprecise, so technically, he's wrong: he's pretending the FICA taxes aren't federal taxes. Oops.

"I don't know why such a cap would exist to begin with."

Historically, because there are payout caps. If those remained, but the pay-ins became uncapped, the wealthy will claim it's more of a welfare program, and rightfully so.

"As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name..."

I'm not sure what that's called, but I do know what the opposite is called:

The Bush Tax Cuts.

I hope BHO = FDR

Cry me a river rich folks.

Every election season, the politicians dangle all kinds of bait and the fish never see the hook. They never learn.

The Tax Policy Center, the GAO, millions of Obama voters, and tens of millions of middle-class Americans will be surprised to learn what Obama's real definition of "wealthy" is.

As for me, I guess I never quite understood why I become better off if the government would only raise taxes on . . . those guys over there. Of course, it never occurred to me that the government would do so, just so they can give the money to me. Which makes me unlike the posters above.

I like where this is headed and the cap for SS needs to be lifted. Here's an interesting Excel spreadsheet from the IRS with latest data to 2005.

Well the rich are going to have to stop laughing all the way to the bank sooner or later.

The rich are hurting these days. The rest of us are.

That's what Bush has done for you.

The rich are hurting these days. The rest of us are.

Dammit!

The rich aren't hurting these days. The rest of us are.

Every election season, the politicians dangle all kinds of bait and the fish never see the hook. They never learn.
POSTED BY RAY
-------

Agreed. Do people actually think Obama is really any different than all the other politicians who promised them things over the years?

Also, does anyone believe any of that $131 billion will relieve taxes on the middle class, or will it just be extra cash to fund more big government?

I don't have much of a problem with this... the top 1% in this country can more then handle a tax increase...

Where I worry is when you break out of that middle class, if he's going to jack up your taxes and put you right back where you started from... $100K+ a year sounds great, but when you throw in where you live, kids and such, etc, you're hardly vacationing in the Hamptons.

The best way to do taxes in this country would be to say everyone pays the same percentage, no write offs, no exemptions. Every American pays x% of what you made.

Hey that guy has a nicer car than me, mommy take it away from him.
Or
Mommy, that rich guy bought himself a bigger ice cream cone then he bought me, will you ruin his please?

Why do you peple hate people with money> Oh I know, You don't haver any you lazy fucks. Go get a job, get off of wefare and pay your own fair share.
It seems to me that you lazy fucks have not done what it takes to et good job abd earn decent money so you hate aone who has.

Sounds like socialism to me.

These people pay more taxes than the rest of us combined.

Danni, put down your bong and go get a fucking job.

Last year, Charles Rangle said he wanted to impose a 4% surcharge on incomes above $150,000 for single people, and above $200,000 for married couples. If those figures are correct, then that's one hell of a marriage penalty!

go to college, work your ass off, save money, make all the right moves and investments just to get f*cked by the democrats again.

make no mistake about it Obama will hit the middle class too, just like Bill did with the largest tax increase in history. if you don't believe this you are all fools

Mommy, she is prettier than me won't you bash her face in please?

Mommy, he is a faster typer, cut of two of his fingers.

Mommy, jimmy won't give me his bike, take it from him please.

Mommy, i shit in my pants, give me his.

As much as i would love to sit here and chat with you socialists, I am off to the links.

When you work hard ( not that many of you know what that is)you get to retire and have fun. Don't forget to check your mails boxe for your welfare check danni, and the rest of you slugs too.

just like Bill did with the largest tax increase in history. if you don't believe this you are all fools

Posted by Maverick at

Let's not forget the biggest tax cut for the rich in the history of the country that Bush gave these folks.

Fools like Maverick always forget the facts.

This won't be raising taxes for the rich as much as it is getting them back to paying the share that they easily paid prior to the gift Bush gave them in a time of War!

just like Bill did with the largest tax increase in history. if you don't believe this you are all fools

Wrong.

A tax increase in 1942 boosted federal revenues by 71%, for example, as the US geared up for war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Measured in inflation-adjusted 1992 dollars, Roosevelt's wartime increase amounted to $73 billion a year, while Clinton's increase averaged $35 billion a year (average for the first two years.)

forgot to mention the new internet tax, global warming tax, windfall profit tax and what ever else the dems dream up. all of these will hurt the middle class more than any other

middle class: a vote for obsama, and if he wins, is a vote for $2000-$4000 more per year in taxes to you, get your billfold out!

Tiger's federal and California taxes

Tiger should stay out of California and play in places with no or low income tax rates. California is one of the worst states for individual income tax, but wait...isn't California one of the wealthiest states?

Furthermore....

In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 0.8% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 0.5%.

Uh oh, someone needs to revisit his talking points.

"These people pay more taxes than the rest of us combined."

Yes this is true but compared to our parent's generation they pay very little. The Boomer generation has reduced taxes on itself even in spite of the educations that many of us received inexpensively or even freely due to our parents willingness to pay taxes. We inherited a virtually debt free nation and have turned it into a debtor nation and now it is so bad that the dollar is losing its value. The wealthy have two choices, one keep the tax cuts and watch their money lose its value or two take away the tax cuts, pay more taxes but the money left will still be worth something.
The rest of us need for our dollars to be worth something.

****** As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name...
Posted by 101Chairborne ******

............yes.........Christ
ianity............

Taxman,

Well if you believe the rights stupid talking points, Tiger would only play in Florida, Nevada, Texas or other states without income taxes in order to minimize the amounts paid in taxes.

Of course for the rightwingtards success is measured only by money.

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime"

Yet some guys here, who are most likely not part of that one percent, and never will be, choose to defend the robber barons.

It's not jealousy, it's sanity. Some people, even ones who "got a good education and work hard," are having a very hard time maintaining even a moderate lifestyle. I will not weep when some guy might not be able to afford a new pool for his second or third home. Call me socialist if you like, but these one percenters are also not the ones spilling their blood in the fucking sand.

Maverick,

You don't have your facts straight.

Why don't you go educate yourself as to not look like such a fool in front of everyone.

Internet Tax huh?

The Internet sales tax is back.

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) has introduced a bill to require Internet-based businesses to charge state sales taxes on out-of-state purchases.

Come on man. You look like a fucking idiot. Maybe you can't help it but do try.

Thomas Jefferson, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Hanover,
They didn't have tax shelters and high paid accountants to hide your money in the 1700's.

"Yet some guys here, who are most likely not part of that one percent, and never will be, choose to defend the robber barons."

Probably the most poignant post on this thread.

I'm looking forward to all the pretty little things Obama will be a' bringin'.

I'm looking forward to gas prices plunging when he starts to build windmills. I'm looking forward to health care costs plunging when he puts doctors on government payrolls. I'm looking forward to prosperity breaking out all over when the government takes more taxes out of the pockets of the rest of us. I'm looking forward to educational achievement shooting through the roof after we zip another few hundred billion the teachers unions' way. I'm looking forward to collapsing food prices as Obama redoubles our efforts to grow food-for-fuel, and we send a few billion bushels of corn up our tailpipes. And I'm looking forward to peace breaking out all over when we surrender to the jihadists in Iraq, and pull our troops home.

Gonna be fun!

Tiger lives in Florida...

Again - this is a typical liberal that thinks simplistically (because they can't handle complex? or because it "feels good")

Do you think the top 1% will just sit back and take it? or do you think the 1% will go somewhere else. (its not like that they can't afford to go).

And when they go somewhere else - remember these are the people that put capital into the stock market and are the ones that fund the new speculative ventures that turn out to be Microsoft and Google that employ thousands - what happens to our access to venture capital, what happens to the stock market and all your sorry ass 401K plans?

As the venture capital dries up - what happens to the US economy long term. The salary's that these people bring by the companies that they manage. Or ..how about your university who has a new football stadium, or engineering building or hospital because of wealthy 1%...but they are now gone....so no wealth to redistribute.

And for all the private held companies that are paying corporation taxes that the 1% own - since the boss has left town..you don't think that they will take the corp. headquarters with them?

Stupid - just frigging stupid. Just like Clinton and the "tax the rich" attack on the boating industry...that COST tax revenue AND Thousands of jobs.

And SKIZZ - its not Christianity...Christ gave the story of talents where the 3 servants were given different amounts...not the same ..different..he did not say "rich guy give your talent to the poor servant" he said " for those that have much - much is asked" and chastised the poor servant for in investing.

As to Social Security - it was SUPPOSED to be an insurance policy BUT the Government during the 60 and 70's added non -contributing people...now it is a welfare system and a way to redistribute wealth...that was unearned and undeserved.

What was the thread a few weeks ago regarding thousands of rich folks that paid ZERO taxes?

RiR,
Seriously, what do ya think is gonna happen, especially regarding oil?
Gas prices ain't goin down, at least not permanently. It will continue to go up. Always has.
What happens to the guy workin his ass off makin $12-15/hour with a family, has a 20 mile one way commute to work, drivin a 98 F-150 because that's all he can afford, maybe he needs it to carry his tools. How's he supposed to get by as gas skyrockets?
What about the school buses? Schools don't have unlimited budgets.
How much can the airlines afford to pay for fuel, before flying is affordable by only the wealthy?

"Gonna be fun!"

Thing is though, if we look to the not too distant past when our parents did pay higher tax rates all those things did happen and our generation received the good public school educations, low college tuition (free in some states), there were good paying jobs, it was a great country...until the cheapskate generation came along.....received more gifts from America and gave the least back. It's time to put the taxes back to where we can actually educate our children, rebuild our infrastructure and make Americans more financially secure whether the whining wealthy like it or not. I really just don't give a crap.

Fosh,
Jesus wasn't talking about only money in that parable, he was talking about the spiritual gifts people are given.
Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what is Caesars, regarding taxes.

"...until the cheapskate generation came along....."

Another good post. The seniors and super wealthy seem to forget that others were paying their taxes as they were making their climb to where they are now. Suddenly, neither group wants to pay any taxes.

***** And SKIZZ - its not Christianity...Christ gave the story of talents where the 3 servants were given different amounts...not the same ..different..he did not say "rich guy give your talent to the poor servant" he said " for those that have much - much is asked" and chastised the poor servant for in investing.
Posted by foshaffer ******

.......so Christ was a capitalist ??.........

The recently passed and signed Veterans bill was the first step in restoring America after its recent bout with Supply Side Economics. Our recovery will continue though the same voices who told us how wonderful Voo Doo would be will continue to try and frighten us into going back to Reaganomics. Hopefully America will never again listen to those voices who claim "deficits don't matter."

Capitalism=survival of the fittest=as far from the teachings of Christ as you can get.

***** Do you think the top 1% will just sit back and take it? or do you think the 1% will go somewhere else. (its not like that they can't afford to go).******

......money EARNED in the US is taxed as income in the US........

......so people can relocate if they want, but they still pay the taxes here on money earned here.......

......and if they really feel so unpatriotic as to not want to pay taxes in the country that gave them the opportunity to MAKE their millions ....then piss on them.....Mexico or Sweden can have them......

Hey foks, argue all that you want but the proof is in the pudding.

Here is the question:

"Has the Bush Tax cuts helped or hurt this economy?"

Sorry, but the evidence is in.

Raise their Fucking Taxes!

Cutting them has put this country in this horrible financial situation and the Facts are the Facts.

You may stop your internal dialogue now.

"But the rich will not"

SHUT THE FUCK UP! The Facts are the Facts and YOU ARE WRONG!

"Having the rich pay their share will cause prices to go up."

SHUT THE FUCK UP! The Facts are the Facts and YOU ARE WRONG!

"Have the poor pay more will increase.."

SHUT THE FUCK UP! The Facts are the Facts and YOU ARE WRONG!

We have had massive tax cuts for the rich. How's that going for this country as a whole?

"Well we would be in a lot worse.."

SHUT THE FUCK UP! The Facts are the Facts and YOU ARE WRONG!

The pudding is on the table folks. Worst economic situation in HOW long for the average Joe?

Thank God for Change huh? Enjoy the pudding!

"go to college, work your ass off, save money, make all the right moves and investments just to get f*cked by the democrats again.

Posted by Maverick at 2008-07-02 11:51 AM"

Get born with a silver spoon in your mouth, barely work in school, sniff coke and drink your ass off until you're 40 while fucking up several business ventures thereby losing other people millions of dollars, just to get rewarded by your own tax cuts. Gomerica!

(Maverick, you are batting 0 for 3 now. Is that why you slunk away, retard?)

"These people pay more taxes than the rest of us combined."

That's because they make more than the rest of us combined.

"In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined."

That's because they make more than that 128 million.

Now, if the tax took into consideration the cost of living in each particular area, I think that would be fair. 100K in NYC is barely middle class (unless you have rent control) compared to what 100K does for you in Arkansas or somewhere.

"...he did not say "rich guy give your talent to the poor servant"

Posted by foshaffer

Well, not in that parable, which wasn't really even about money, but He was pretty specific here...

"Sell everything you have and give to the poor," said Jesus to a rich man (Luke 18:22).

yes.........Christ
ianity............

Posted by skizziks at 2008-07-02 12:00 PM | Reply

Since you are such an expet on the faith tht you disdain, please show us where Jesus says that the government should take money from hard-working, successful people and give it to lard-asses like Danni?

Jesus advocated INDIVIDUAL charity, which is why most day care, food programs, etc., are run by churches. It's also the reason that Americans are the most generous people in the world.

You can see the difference by comparing the tax returns of Kerry or Clinton (ZERO charity) to that of Bush (10%)

"And when they go somewhere else - remember these are the people that put capital into the stock market and are the ones that fund the new speculative ventures......"

I don't think everyone else worships these people the way you do. I think alot people figure that if they leave the country, the sun will still rise in the morning and we will move along without them as if they were never here.

Sorry Skizz...but a Talent was a standard coin of the Roman empire - and worth about a months wages of the average person.

And yes Christ was a capitalist...he was a successful carpenter - which was the highest skilled trade at that time.

and to the point of the Earned...if I am headquartered in Bermunda then I am exempt from paying US taxes on any portion of the income earned outside the US or IN THE US as part of international commerce.

Look it up.

Which is why you have so many Bermunda Corporations.

And "Piss on them" does not counter the argument - and the reality - that the money he is counting on will diminish to the detriment of all of us.

"A man shall be known by the sweat of his brow" - Christ did not expect a GOVERNMENT to take care of people..he made it YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Ironic that Wall Street folks making big bucks are supporting Obama isn't it. You'd think they would fear the higher taxes he has said he will inflict upon them but they don't...why???
Maybe because they can see that inflation is eating up more than what they will lose in taxation and that those taxes will help to bring inflation back under control. Uncertainty is worse for most investors than income tax or capital gains taxes because losing your investment is worse than giving up part of your profit on that investment.

Shhhh. Psychopaths is having another argument with the voices in his head.

How's your pudding Right?

"hard-working, successful people and give it to lard-asses like Danni?"

First I am no lard ass, I run 3 miles every other day and have very little body fat but if it helps you to counter my arguments by pretending I am fat, be my guest.
Secondly, I am hard working, and have been my entire life, even working two jobs at some points to support myself and my kids with no child support or public assistance of any kind but again, if it helps you make your point feel free to make shit up....you do anyway.

How much money do you take from the Government Danni?

"You can see the difference by comparing the tax returns of Kerry or Clinton (ZERO charity) to that of Bush (10%)

Posted by vernon"

That pesky calculator problem rears its ugly head again.

According to Kerry's 2002 tax return, he gave 12.9% of his taxable income to charity.

LOL at the idea that higher tax rates quell inflation. If that's true, why not raise taxes on all of us? After all, if I could send the government another thousand to save me two at the grocery store, I'll sign up for that all day long.

But, somehow, I don't think you're talking about taxes on yourself.

You can see the difference by comparing the tax returns of Kerry or Clinton (ZERO charity) to that of Bush (10%)

Posted by vernon

The bible also says that if you're going to be charitable, do it secretly, without expecting credit.

Posting it on your taxes, for the deduction I might add, hardly seems like doing it charitably, or secretly.

Are you saying that Vernon doesn't have a clue to what he is talking about? Again?

(GASP)

What a shock!

$0.00 Manypaths. None of my kids get a dime either. Nor anyone in my entire extended family and none of us are old enough for SS yet. But we have all paid income taxes our entire lives. We have all worked our entire lives. Even my older Republican brothers are beginning to think Bush and Voo Doo Economics has cost them more than it has saved them.

"LOL at the idea that higher tax rates quell inflation."

Balancing the budget will help quell inflation because we won't be printing more dollars and borrowing more money. Pretending otherwise seems silly considering the situation we find ourselves in presently.

But, somehow, I don't think you're talking about taxes on yourself.

Posted by rightisright

No, we aren't.

Way to catch up to the rest of the class.

Try to keep up now.

How much money do you take from the Government Danni?

Posted by Manypaths

$0.00 Manypaths. None of my kids get a dime either. Posted by danni

Me either Danni. I just wanted to point out that most of the Right's argument on this topic is MOOT at best and a blatent lie at the very worst.

Matthew Chapter 6 vs 1 through 4

Matthew Chapter 6 vs 1 through 4

Posted by LarryMohr

Whatever argument you were in, you just lost.

"Every American pays x% of what you made."

We already do.

The other 16,840 pages of the tax code define "made".

"And yes Christ was a capitalist...he was a successful carpenter - which was the highest skilled trade at that time."

Unless you can show the verse, I believe you made up everything except that he was a carpenter...period.

Ah..Manypath...typical liberal...You say Facts Are Facts...so where are they? Where are your "Facts"? No ..you can't handle a challenge (like all the liberals) so it is 1) tell everyone to shut up because it does not meet with your screwed up version of reality - can't challenge liberal dogma 2) do a personal attack.

ManyPaths that was in reference to HC's comment.

Larry

ManyPaths that was in reference to HC's comment.
Posted by LarryMohr

That's what I thought... was just going to check on that.

MP's comment was still funny though. Your post did seem to be in response to...?

"Also ...on supply side economics...its now taught in most business schools as valid..."

That WAS true but isn't any more. It is now considered Voo Doo economics as Bush I aptly named it.

Good point HC

Supply Side Economics:

Taxes & Economic Growth

By Michael Gethings

Business Economics

Professor Jim Stodder

MGMT 6300

Spring 2003

"At the outset of this paper I had sought to validate that supply side economics was responsible for the economic growth of the 1980's and should be pursued by George W. Bush to stimulate growth in the economy. My research has not led me to the unquestioned conclusion that supply siders are right on the fundamental economic arguments when they are put into practice in the real economy. The most vocal critic that I came across was certainly Paul Krugman. His basic economic arguments appear fundamentally sound but his consistent outrage towards all things conservative and his reflexive left wing bias caused me to question his credibility. The article that seemed most credible in debunking the supply side argument was by Richard Kogan from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In "Does Cutting Tax Rates Increase Economic Growth?" Kogan cites empirical data on productivity, private savings, hours worked, and population over a number of business cycles to measure the impact of tax cuts. The data indicates that productivity has declined from the 70's and remained relatively constant through out the 80's (His study does not include productivity statistics from the 90's which have certainly improved due to information technology). Private savings declined, and hours worked as well as the working population remained relatively constant. This led Kogan to the conclusion that the dramatic tax cuts of the 1980's did not have a material impact on economic growth. The study did not include the 90's but it is worth noting that both Clinton and Bush 41 raised taxes and therefore improvements in the areas studied by Kogan could not be the result of tax cuts."

What the down-and-outers seem not to understand is that when you take money away from the rich, the rich hire less people, stop building pools and new houses and stop spending as much.

In other words, when you pull from a rich man's wallet, they make up for it in other ways. All you idiots are right about one thing- the rich guy is not going to hurt much from this. The people that are going to hurt are the construction workers, the hotel employees, the luxury car manufacturers, the limo industry, the catering industry and many other service-based outfits that are employed by the rich.

The bottom feeders are not suddenly going to become better off if the rich are penalized. Isn't it obvious? How many people here have ever been employed by a poor person?

Let's say I sell sweet corn for $1 per dozen and I make $1 million dollars a year and employ 20 people. Let's say I'm taxed currently at $250,000 a year. Now let's say I'm taxed an extra $100,000 per year thanks to Barry's new tax plans.

Am I:

a) going to pay it and be angry.
b) going to start charging $1.25 per dozen to make up for it.
c) get rid of a few employees and downsize the company.
d) b and c

But, even though history has shown that redistribution of wealth only hurts everyone, maybe if we try it one more time, this time it might work!

Where are your "Facts"?

Stocks tank on GM, oil

Vulture real estate investors swoop in

Change of plans for July 4 - gas too pricey

Starbucks to close 600 stores

Gas: 3rd straight record

Auto sales plunge 18% in June

UnitedHealth cuts profit view

Paulson: U.S. facing a tough second quarter

Jobs report likely to show more losses

Cities, states begin to feel economic downturn

New-home sales, prices tumble further

Small businesses fighting to survive

Home-equity-loan Delinquencies Hit Record High In ABA Data

"(GM) bankruptcy is 'not impossible' if the U.S. auto market continues to slump, Merrill Lynch said."

Facts are that the ecoonmy was much better off prior to giving the richest Americans a tax cut.

Who's denying that?

Why are you righties avoiding the pudding?

MP,

"Where are your "Facts"?
Stocks tank on GM, oil
Vulture real estate investors swoop in
Change of plans for July 4 - gas too pricey
Starbucks to close 600 stores
Gas: 3rd straight record
Auto sales plunge 18% in June
UnitedHealth cuts profit view
Paulson: U.S. facing a tough second quarter
Jobs report likely to show more losses
Cities, states begin to feel economic downturn
New-home sales, prices tumble further
Small businesses fighting to survive
Home-equity-loan Delinquencies Hit Record High In ABA Data"

Yeah but besides that, life's great!

"What the down-and-outers seem not to understand is that when you take money away from the rich, the rich hire less people, stop building pools and new houses and stop spending as much."

They already fooled the country with that line of bull a couple of times. Unfortunately it doesn't work out that way as our present economic situation demonstrates. It makes it hard for righties when our economy is so obviously in the tank and one party had so long to make Voo Doo work but couldn't.

""(GM) bankruptcy is 'not impossible'"

I remember a slogan...."As goes General Motors so goes the nation."

Facts are that the ecoonmy was
much better off prior to giving
the richest Americans a tax cut.

Who's denying that?

Heh. Okay, the facts are that the economy was much better off prior to Seinfeld going off the air too! Damnit, Jerry.

That is a typical rightie, pretending that Seinfeld and taxation are equally relevant to the economy. Which Economics school teaches that anyway?

>They already fooled the country
>with that line of bull a couple
>of times. Unfortunately it doesn't
>work out that way as our present
>economic situation demonstrates.

I really don't believe that our current situation is as bad as the media is making it, and the current situation is not necessarily because of Bush tax cuts. In fact, I submit that the problem would be worse if the tax cuts weren't in place. But I'm sure the Reagan tax cuts and the Reagan years were just an anomaly.

BTW, don't worry, it's almost over. On Jan 21, 2009, when Osama is in office, all of a sudden the media will be reporting the return of economic prosperity and things will instantly improve and there will be no more woes when the Messiah is president.

>That is a typical rightie,
>pretending that Seinfeld and
>taxation are equally relevant
>to the economy. Which Economics
>school teaches that anyway?

Oh, crap. Sorry, Danni, I forgot the caliber of person I'm dealing with. You see, this is called "making a point of absurdity." I guess I should have explained this. I assume you went to the public schools. Sorry.

In other words, just to explain a little further, I was making the exact opposite point that you were gleaning from my though. What was was trying to say is that Seinfeld had nothing to do with it. Just like the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with it.

In the future, I'll try to use less confusing comparisons.

And all of that you just listed has happened since the Democrats have taken hold of Congress.

Foshaffer,
So, given your post:

"but when it comes down to it...the higher the taxes the less incentive I have to work - or invest."

If you're making 25k/50k/100k/year, whatever, and are getting taxed at 50%, you wouldn't try harder to make 150k/year?
You do understand that unless taxes are at 100%, the more you make the more you KEEP?!?!

From reading the majority above the left has been successful promoting their class warfare agenda. It's now a horrible thing to be successful. Well, I can only assume those of you who are so gleeful about this are the losers who either failed or never had the drive to try to succeed. Congratulations - you have been brainwashed.

"And all of that you just listed has happened since the Democrats have taken hold of Congress."

If we were to look back, would you have been one of those who, 2 years into the 1st Bush (mis)Administration when the economy was bad and jobs were disappearing faster than Rush's pill supply, said it was a residual effect from the Clinton years?????

There is a point where you're on the verge of entering the next tax bracket where getting there means keeping less, but that's not the case for the majority of people.

If we were to look back, would
you have been one of those who,
2 years into the 1st Bush (mis)
Administration when the economy
was bad and jobs were disappearing
faster than Rush's pill supply,
said it was a residual effect
from the Clinton years?????

Wow, that biting wit. Rush's pill supply. Ah hah hah!

No, but if you'll recall when GW was just in office, there were already signs of a recession. Oh, and then there was that pesky pair of planes going into those buildings.

But- regardless, I don't think that you can blame any of this- now or then- entirely on any administration or congress. You CAN, however, blame it on too much spending by congress, welfare programs, social security, medicare, medicaid, and many other goverment programs that have sucked the private sector dry. If our goverment would stop spending and taxed everyone less, we would not be in the situation we're currently in!

"From reading the majority above the left has been successful promoting their class warfare agenda."

As if the left started the "Class War."
Look to Ronnie Raygun for that one.

Look to Ronnie Raygun for that one.

Posted by danni

I think you have to go a little bit farther back than that, danni.

Nixon? He was the first to decide us po folks should get our medical care through HMOs. He caused all that inflation in the 70's.

Danni can't. She's most likely not old enough.

Nixon? He was the first to
decide us po folks should get
our medical care through HMOs.
He caused all that inflation
in the 70's.

Oh yeah, COULDN'T have been Carter. That loser.

Which makes me unlike the posters above.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-07-01 11:44 PM

they are honest and have credibility. You are corrupt and truly evil.

"Oh yeah, COULDN'T have been Carter. That loser."

That must be why I still remember Gerald Ford introducing the WIN Button. You know what WIN stood for, right HUMANEAR?????

"Danni can't. She's most likely not old enough."

hahahahahahahaha!

That must be why I still
remember Gerald Ford
introducing the WIN Button.

Yes, and Gerald Ford WAS a boob.

I'll concede the point that inflation was a problem prior to Jimmy, but Jimmy certainly exacerbated the problem. I know that we were facing economic crises that compare to today's problems. And what was Carter's solution to high energy prices? Wear a fucking sweater and turn your thermostat down.

Apparently you ARE old enough and in fact are older than I. Just shows you that ignorance does not discriminate against the elderly. :-)

Nixon?
Posted by danni

I was talking farther than that... back to the guys who said that only landowners had the right to vote and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person... but, for god's sake, only for representational purposes.

Facts are that the ecoonmy was much better off prior to giving the richest Americans a tax cut.

Who's denying that?

Why are you righties avoiding the pudding?

Posted by Manypaths
* * * * *

If you believe that, then it's also true that the economy was much better off prior to giving the middle class enormous tax cuts too. And increases in the child tax credits. And increases in the Earned Income Credits. And cuts in the dividend tax rates.

Maybe we should just go back to Clinton-era tax rates for everyone, eh?

Ah, what was I thinking. You guys want to keep your Bush tax cuts, you just want everyone in the tax brackets just above yours to pay for the extra cuts you think you should be getting. But to moral compasses like Rastaninija, pointing such a thing out makes me evil.

Party on. Good luck in going after other people's stuff.

Balancing the budget will help quell inflation because we won't be printing more dollars and borrowing more money. Pretending otherwise seems silly considering the situation we find ourselves in presently.

Posted by danni
* * * *

So why did the inflation rate plunge by 3/4ths during the Reagan years, while deficit spending soared?

Hmmm. Maybe there's not such a correlation after all. But if you feel that strongly about it, maybe we should return to the Treasury all the Bush tax cuts the middle and lower class has gotten. In addition to the upper class, of course. You know--just so we can do our part to keep inflation down.

"I'll concede the point that inflation was a problem prior to Jimmy, but Jimmy certainly exacerbated the problem. I know that we were facing economic crises that compare to today's problems. And what was Carter's solution to high energy prices? Wear a fucking sweater and turn your thermostat down."

You demonstrate how little you know about Jimmy Carter. He put together an Energy Plan that had Ronnie Raygun not cancelled it we would not now be importing oil from the ME. Pretending that it would have been easy to stop inflation once it had gotten going is ridiculous, I remember those days and inflation SUCKED!!! Finally Carter brought Paul Volker into the Fed and he applied very high interest rates to bring inflation and just about everything else too to a halt but that is what was required. Imagine if you will that the Fed suddenly raised rates to 10-12%, that is what it took. Actually rates will probably be rising soon because inflation is on the rise now so get ready for a struggling economy to struggle harder. Thanks Bush, Supply Side, War, More War, Bush Tax Cuts.

This declaration, though far from becoming law, is a good sign.

He put together an Energy Plan that had Ronnie Raygun not cancelled it we would not now be importing oil from the ME.
* * *

Uh huh. Please tell me how, if Saudi Arabia can profitably pump at $15 a barrel, and Oklahoma at $45 a barrel, that the Middle East won't sell every drop of oil they pump? Would Jimmah's energy plan have repealed the laws of economics, as well as supply and demand? Did tearing off Jimmah's solar panels from the White House mean that Texas and Pennsylvania wells started to cap out and run dry?

And by the way, if Carter was such a big fan of his silly solar power, how come there are no solar panels at his library?

Just curious. I know it's considered bad form to come on a lefty 'blog and beat up on a president booted from office nearly 30 years ago. But not even he believed in his own energy plan.

"Would Jimmah's energy plan have repealed the laws of economics, as well as supply and demand?"

RisR we could have raised the CAFE standards a long time ago and made it economically too expensive for most folks to drive gas guzzlers. The high prices are now doing exactly what we could have done with standards or taxation. Where do you get that Jimmy didn't believe his own plan?

You said that if we'd followed Carter's energy plan, we wouldn't be importing oil from the Middle East anymore. But that's false. As long as they're the lowest-cost producers, they will always sell all their product. What would have happened is exactly what DID happen--oil prices fell, dramatically, in the 1980's, and domestic oil production went off a cliff.

Oil prices are set by the last marginal producer of crude. Always have been, always will be. But you can't say no to nuclear, no to coal, no to new natural gas drilling, no to new domestic crude, and wonder why prices are soaring in the face of higher demand. So here we are, and Obama promises only more of the same. Which is what we'll deserve, apparently.

Oh, yeah, Danni, you're right. The Carter years were such great times. Remember those good old times of high unemployment, super high interest rates, long gas lines, record high gas prices? Yeah, remember everyone being so well off during the Carter years?

Those high interest rates were directly responsible for a huge recession. It also caused investment funds to plummet, causing many older people and people planning retirement to suffer greatly. He took a problem, tried to solve it and fucked it up worse than it was. Gee, Obama, you have something to look forward to in your coming presidency- you can do it. You can beat Carter's record.

You demonstrate you don't know shit and you're defending the indefensible. But you won't admit you're wrong, will you.

And by the way, Carter's foreign policy was just abysmal and most historians will agree on that. His foreign policy was to kiss terrorist dictator ass and to malign the Jews whenever possible. Again, his policy was the exact opposite of what it should have been. And don't forget his Iranian Hostage fiasco.

Oh, and incidentally inflation and economy woes began in the early to mid 60s. Gee... who was president then, Danni boy?

But again, I submit that it's many many other things besides who's in office, but I'm sure that's something you'll never concede. It's all the Republicans' fault, huh.

"As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name..."

It's called Marxism.

RisR neither one of us can really know what would have happened had Carter's energy plan been followed but I don't think anyone can intelligently argue that it would have been a bad idea to get Americans out of gas guzzlers and into small, high mileage vehicles and there were methods available to have accomplished that. I won't blame it all on Reagan because other presidents and Congress are also to blame but Jimmy Carter was the only leader that seems to have understood the proportions of the energy problems we face and how important they were for our economy.
HUMANEAR you're just making wild accusations about Carter because you really don't know anything. Not really interested in continuing a discussion with you. At least RisR has knowledge to back up his attacks though I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions.

"As for everything else, taking from the rich to give to the poor has a name..."

Is that what Robin Hood called it???

Well, an hour ago you were saying that had we only followed Carter's energy plan, we wouldn't be importing oil from the Middle East anymore. Now you acknowledge that none of us can really know.

But I do know. The Middle East would still be pumping away, making money off of crude provided it held over $15 a barrel. And if the US drillers couldn't get their price below that, there was no way--none, zero, zip, nada--that we wouldn't be importing a whole lot of crude from the ME. We don't import Saudi crude because we don't pump enough from here; we pump from here because the Saudis can't give us more. That's the way a commoditized market works.

If Carter were really looking for energy efficiency, he would've certified dozens of nuclear power plants. But he didn't. Carter was a Luddite, terrified of nuclear power because of what he saw in a movie. So here we are. Thanks to Carter and people like him, we're burning 20 million more tons of coal a year. If you believe in global warming, he's on the top ten list of reasons why.

Carter was, if I am not mistaken, an atomic engineer on submarines. He was not "terrified" of nuclear power because of a movie.

You Cons better look to the disastrous mess you made of this economy and stop trying to witch-hunt, or blame the media for reporting statistics.

Because we're not buying anymore.

"So here we are. Thanks to Carter and people like him, we're burning 20 million more tons of coal a year."

Carter was only in office for four years, since then we've had three Republicans and one Democrat in the WH so it is a little ridiculous to blame Carter for much of anything.

Carter also dealt with Three Mile Island and had previously in his life helped the clean up of the Chalk River Laboratories reactor meltdown in Canada so to say he was a Luddite who got his knowledge about nuclear power from a movie is ridiculous. He was also trained to command a nuclear submarine but left the service before he took command of one.

I remember when the Three Mile Island incident occurred and Saturday Night Live did a skit with the real Jimmy Carter in it....they made him look 100 ft. tall looking in through tiny windows as if the radioactivity had made him grow to giant proportions.

Tax the rich, they move their wealth to internationally where it can't be touched. It's more true with corporations. Tax em and they are not going to stick around. Why don't we stop taxing corporations, which WILL bring more businesses to relocate to the United States. I would create more jobs, let alone way more money in our economy. If we did that our cost of labor issues wouldn't be an issue at all.

Evil,

There becomes the trade off that I would not work any more.

I have sales guys in Europe that I want to hand bonuses to because they do a better job than others - but I can't ...I have to give them trips because if I hand them money the tax rate is so high they see virtually nothing of it.

The result is that the good guys slowly do not produce much more than the poor ones..there is no incentive for them to do so.

Also - there is the invest issue...why take any capital risk if your return is 50% less due to tax. Therefore venture capital will dry up.

It may make you all feel good short term to Screw the Rich...but what goes around comes around...and also remember that it is not only Income taxes that they are talking about raising...its all other taxes. So 44 Million Americans (not rich..lower middle class) get around income taxes but they get hit with a tax on virtually everything else.

"Also - there is the invest issue...why take any capital risk if your return is 50% less due to tax. Therefore venture capital will dry up."

I think a review of the Clinton years would show that increased taxation does not necessarily prevent economic growth, venture capital investment, etc. But keep trying maybe you will turn B.S. into something useful.

I have 3 big issues with this:

1.) Taxable income should not be used to define 'wealthy' which should be a measure of networth and raising taxed on earned income while keeping taxes lower on dividend and capital gains is shifting the tax burden to 'working people' vs. investors. I think this is completely unfair and just one more obstacle for those trying to get wealthy by wo