The GOP?s Intellectual Dishonesty Regarding Bush Tax Cuts - GoFuckYourself.com

BFT3K · 08-11-2010, 03:32 PM

This is a current Newsweek article...

Republicans say that tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended to protect the economy and small businesses, even though neither would be affected by their lapse.

story continues here...

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-ga...-tax-cuts.html

Vendzilla · 08-11-2010, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

This is a current Newsweek article...

Republicans say that tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended to protect the economy and small businesses, even though neither would be affected by their lapse.

story continues here...

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-ga...-tax-cuts.html

Read it, don't agree with it.
Administration is just looking for ways to get more money, plain and simple. so they pay for people to explain it in a way that makes some sort of sense.

More money in private hands is better for the economy, government needs to be smaller

Amputate Your Head · 08-11-2010, 03:58 PM

Fuck that. Tax them at....... 98%.

u-Bob · 08-11-2010, 04:11 PM

http://www.amazon.com/Mommy-Loves-St...dp/0557084180/

Robbie · 08-11-2010, 04:15 PM

I don't care one way or another about Republicans or Dems.

I'm of the persuasion that my money is MY MONEY. The less the govt. touches it the better off everybody is. We definitely need many services the govt. provides...but it's turned into a numbers game and a freakin' money grab. We need to hit the "reset" button and get things back to what they are supposed to be.

TheDoc · 08-11-2010, 04:27 PM

Well, the tax cut didn't boost the economy, so no reason for the top few to keep benefiting when it was said that doing this would generate more tax revenue because the wealthy would spend, invest, do company crap more, etc... if they are taxed less, which wasn't true. So it's logical not to allow them to keep the benefit.

Reagan insider thinking taxes should be higher.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rea...0?pagenumber=2

IllTestYourGirls · 08-11-2010, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Well, the tax cut didn't boost the economy, so no reason for the top few to keep benefiting when it was said that doing this would generate more tax revenue because the wealthy would spend, invest, do company crap more, etc... if they are taxed less, which wasn't true. So it's logical not to allow them to keep the benefit.

Reagan insider thinking taxes should be higher.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rea...0?pagenumber=2

The GOP did destroy the economy..... with big government and progressive policies.

u-Bob · 08-11-2010, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I don't care one way or another about Republicans or Dems.

I'm of the persuasion that my money is MY MONEY.

Robbie · 08-11-2010, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

So it's logical not to allow them to keep the benefit.

I think what Washington D.C. fails to understand that it isn't a "benefit" for people to keep their own money that they earned.

Here's what the superhero of Democrats said about taxes in a speech:

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

? John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962

Robbie · 08-11-2010, 05:09 PM

Here's another:

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased ? not a reduced ? flow of revenues to the federal government."

? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

And another:
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort ? thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963

JFK was a firm believer in govt. cutting taxes to allow growth in our economy.

IllTestYourGirls · 08-11-2010, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

And another:
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort ? thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963

JFK was a firm believer in govt. cutting taxes to allow growth in our economy.

Great quotes. This is exactly what is happening now. Funny because I was called a bullshitter in another thread for saying this haha

TheDoc · 08-11-2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Here's another:

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased ? not a reduced ? flow of revenues to the federal government."

? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

And another:
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort ? thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963

JFK was a firm believer in govt. cutting taxes to allow growth in our economy.

You do realize taxes in the early 1960's - 1981 for the top brackets was 70-90% right? Our gov has reduced taxes by 50%.

To JFK our taxes have been reduced ... he wasn't correct.

theking · 08-11-2010, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You do realize taxes in the early 1960's - 1981 for the top brackets was 70-90% right? Our gov has reduced taxes by 50%.

To JFK our taxes have been reduced ... he wasn't correct.

When JFK became President it was 92 percent.

Amputate Your Head · 08-11-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

When JFK became President it was 92 percent.

We should return to the days of JFK.

Robbie · 08-11-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You do realize taxes in the early 1960's - 1981 for the top brackets was 70-90% right? Our gov has reduced taxes by 50%.

To JFK our taxes have been reduced ... he wasn't correct.

I guess what I'm saying is if reducing taxes HELPS the economy when you lower it from a too high rate to a lower rate and for the obvious reasons JFK stated...
Then why would raising taxes HELP the economy?

I was watching some guys on a business show the other day and one guy laid it out like this:
Corporations and businesses NEVER pay more taxes. They simply pass it on to the consumer and/or make cuts in employees. The name of the game is to keep a profit level.

So if that is true, wouldn't it stand to reason that giving Washington D.C. even more money is gonna have a bad effect on the economy?

And if not, could you please explain to me what the theory is that is going to encourage business growth and by extension employment if the govt. takes more money from them and leaves them with LESS.

I don't quite understand how that will work.

And if it does work to somehow have people keep less of their own money. Then why doesn't Washington try the same "great" concept and stop spending so much? If it won't hurt business to have less money, then it shouldn't hurt good ol' Uncle Sam to have less either. Right?

theking · 08-11-2010, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I guess what I'm saying is if reducing taxes HELPS the economy when you lower it from a too high rate to a lower rate and for the obvious reasons JFK stated...
Then why would raising taxes HELP the economy?

I was watching some guys on a business show the other day and one guy laid it out like this:
Corporations and businesses NEVER pay more taxes. They simply pass it on to the consumer and/or make cuts in employees. The name of the game is to keep a profit level.

So if that is true, wouldn't it stand to reason that giving Washington D.C. even more money is gonna have a bad effect on the economy?

And if not, could you please explain to me what the theory is that is going to encourage business growth and by extension employment if the govt. takes more money from them and leaves them with LESS.

I don't quite understand how that will work.

And if it does work to somehow have people keep less of their own money. Then why doesn't Washington try the same "great" concept and stop spending so much? If it won't hurt business to have less money, then it shouldn't hurt good ol' Uncle Sam to have less either. Right?

I will point out that while the Bush tax cuts have been in place the economy has gone down the tubes...and when Kennedy was President the economy was in pretty good shape...with much, much higher taxes.

IllTestYourGirls · 08-11-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I will point out that while the Bush tax cuts have been in place the economy has gone down the tubes...and when Kennedy was President the economy was in pretty good shape...with much, much higher taxes.

Well, according to the liberals it was only a tax break on the rich. So why would it work? It wasnt really a tax cut. Besides he did not stop the spending, he was a big spending progressive.

GatorB · 08-11-2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I don't care one way or another about Republicans or Dems.

I'm of the persuasion that my money is MY MONEY. The less the govt. touches it the better off everybody is. We definitely need many services the govt. provides...but it's turned into a numbers game and a freakin' money grab. We need to hit the "reset" button and get things back to what they are supposed to be.

Yeah and the letting the Bush tax cut expire for the rich won't effect you much if at all. funny people bitch about having to pay taxes and say shit like "MY money" then when a bridge falls, or prisoners are released to overcrowding or they want more border patrols or they want to be defended against terrorist they wonder why those services aren't up to par. What in fuck do you think pays for that? You too cheap to pay the soldiers that defend YOUR ass so you don't have too?

Bill8 · 08-11-2010, 06:14 PM

no prob - cut defense spending by about 70%.

and let the superrich continue to funnel real wealth out of the country.

everybodies happy, except the middle class, they are fucked no matter what, but they are the pigs to be slaughtered in this dynamic, so nobody gives a shit.

whats going to be funny is the squealing you will hear from republican baggers when their place at the tax trough gets cut.

Robbie · 08-11-2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yeah and the letting the Bush tax cut expire for the rich won't effect you much if at all. funny people bitch about having to pay taxes and say shit like "MY money"

It is my money. I'm in the upper tax bracket so yes it does directly affect me and my family. Extra money is extra money my friend. And when you are writing quarterly checks to the govt. and you see the money you are handing over to them...well, all I can think is: Boy if I only didn't have to give this money I made to them I could achieve a shitload of things.

And yes...I would invest it. I've had two very big deals that I could have gotten in on over the last year. But I didn't have the money to become one of the investing partners in either one. If I could somehow magically have kept all my money without paying taxes (I know that's wishful thinking) I COULD have invested in both.

And one of them is a local business here in Vegas that will be hiring around 70 + people. So yeah, it would help the economy in my opinion.

Robbie · 08-11-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

no prob - cut defense spending by about 70%.

and let the superrich continue to funnel real wealth out of the country.

everybodies happy, except the middle class, they are fucked no matter what, but they are the pigs to be slaughtered in this dynamic, so nobody gives a shit.

whats going to be funny is the squealing you will hear from republican baggers when their place at the tax trough gets cut.

Why, in your opinion are the middle class getting slaughtered? Are you saying that if you make $100,000 a year your tax rate is too high and you are getting slaughtered? Well, if that's the case, then why isn't the tax rate too high for somebody making $250,000 ?

I guess I'm just against the govt. taking our money and then not really being accountable for it. I'm not sure that any of us can say with certainty what the govt. does with our tax money these days. Seems they just spend it like drunken sailors sometimes.

Anyway, that's my thought on it. I'm not interested in the political argument OR the class warfare bullshit. In my mind the govt. uses that shit to keep people from seeing the reality of what they are doing.

It's just misdirection. While some of you are fighting about Republicans VS Dems, and others are class warfare enthusiasts with rich VS poor....the govt. takes our money and does what it wants to. Next time your Senator gives himself another raise, then shoves a shitload of pork into every bill to pay off his buddies back home and then takes a private jet to a tropical locale on "official business" just remember that you were busy worrying about the misdirection play that they fooled you with.

Bill8 · 08-11-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Why, in your opinion are the middle class getting slaughtered? Are you saying that if you make $100,000 a year your tax rate is too high and you are getting slaughtered? Well, if that's the case, then why isn't the tax rate too high for somebody making $250,000 ?

well, I wouldn't call it my opinion, thats the numbers, I posted a bigpicture link about a recent FT article about this in another post. Median wages have been essentially flat since 1973, was the articles point, calling the phenom "median wage stagnation" or some such economic bullshit.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08...-middle-class/

anyway, if the rich aren't going to pay more taxes, the poor sure as fuck can't, leaving the middle class the sector that will pay no matter what.

somebody is going to pay - either thru currency devaluation or cutback in services or some other artifice. It won't be the rich, they have already won the wealth wars and are impervious.

so you tell me, who's going to pay, if not the middle classes, especially the lower middle class?

so whats the answer? - cut the giant unnecessary expense of military adventures and being the world's incompentent policemen.

then the superrich are happy, baggers are happy becaus ethe superrich can continue to funnel real wealth out of the country, the world is happy, everyone is freeking jumping for joy.

except the america middle class, they are still fucked no matter what. the new america has no need for such a large intermediate class, we are becoming feudal, deal with it.

TheDoc · 08-11-2010, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I guess what I'm saying is if reducing taxes HELPS the economy when you lower it from a too high rate to a lower rate and for the obvious reasons JFK stated...
Then why would raising taxes HELP the economy?

I was watching some guys on a business show the other day and one guy laid it out like this:
Corporations and businesses NEVER pay more taxes. They simply pass it on to the consumer and/or make cuts in employees. The name of the game is to keep a profit level.

So if that is true, wouldn't it stand to reason that giving Washington D.C. even more money is gonna have a bad effect on the economy?

And if not, could you please explain to me what the theory is that is going to encourage business growth and by extension employment if the govt. takes more money from them and leaves them with LESS.

I don't quite understand how that will work.

And if it does work to somehow have people keep less of their own money. Then why doesn't Washington try the same "great" concept and stop spending so much? If it won't hurt business to have less money, then it shouldn't hurt good ol' Uncle Sam to have less either. Right?

It helps simply because it forces money to move around. Our entire economy, stock market, banks, money system, heck even companies are all based on money flow. The problem with a recession, stock crash, bank crash, etc is the money stops flowing, people in fear stop spending or have no money to spend and people hoard the money which all stops the money from flowing. Taxes... reverse that.

The tax cut that happened though, they said "that tax cut" would force money to flow, that the wealthy would spend more. But that's not what happened because they have no reason to spend it.

If you're earning $250k a year personally and removing this tax cut bothers you, then I understand... it is your money. However, you should be spending that extra money, every dime of it - if you want to help the economy. While you probably would, it appears most didn't.

Robbie · 08-11-2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

so whats the answer? - cut the giant unnecessary expense of military adventures and being the world's incompentent policemen.

I personally do believe that we don't have any reason to be spending money to have troops stationed in over 80 countries around the world. So yeah, that would be a start.

I'm pretty sure that entitlement programs are going to have to be cut as well. The numbers just don't add up with more and more people retiring and the population aging.

I have no real hopes that I will ever see the TON of money I put into Social Security. I just don't see how I'll ever get that back in my old age.

I don't know what the answer is. The rich already pay most of the taxes in this country. And "rich" can be pretty subjective too. After what happened to the stock market and the housing market the last couple of years...a shitload of people who WERE rich on "paper", are now struggling.

Again, I don't see exactly how raising taxes in any way is going to help the economy recover and get the country back on it's feet. I'm also not sure if NOT raising them will "help". But it certainly won't hurt. Whereas raising taxes and taking more money away from business will definitely hurt it. How can it not?

kane · 08-11-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Besides he did not stop the spending, he was a big spending progressive.

That is the key to all of it. Cutting taxes is good. More money in people's hands is a great thing and can help grow an economy. The problem is that the government fails to cut spending along with this so when they cut income taxes less money comes in, but they still spend like a drunken porn webmaster at a strip club and grow the deficit then they end up raising taxes somewhere else. It may not be income taxes, but they raise something, like gas taxes etc.

Bill8 · 08-11-2010, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm pretty sure that entitlement programs are going to have to be cut as well. The numbers just don't add up with more and more people retiring and the population aging.

That sounds just great. I think it's going to be funny as hell watching the politicians say "it's time to cut social security and medicare".

I can just see those millions of old folks and boomers now, placidly agreeing to take one for the team.

cut away! I'll never see social security anyway, I don't give a fuck. Your side can go ahead and cut like a motherfucker.

good luck.

I accept that your side wont let the superrich be taxed. Until the day comes when the system dies and folks start running around looking for someone to blame and someone to hang - then I think your side is going to be the first up on the ropes, and it will be the baggers tying the knots.

kane · 08-11-2010, 07:06 PM

Social Security and Medicare are never going to be completely cut. They might see some cut backs, but they are not going anywhere even if we deficit spend to finance them. There are far too many baby boomers that vote who are relying on it for this to happen. Anyone who votes to shut those programs down will be voted out of office and replaced with someone that will promise to bring them back in the next election. You will see a lot of that in the fall as the republicans run on the platform of getting rid of the healthcare bill.

Politicians only really seem to do whatever it takes to get them elected again. They don't really care what is actually good for the country, they do care what is good for them and them keeping their jobs. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but it seems to me that most of them are this way.

Robbie · 08-11-2010, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

your side

Huh? My "side"?

I thought I'm making it pretty clear that I don't "side" with anybody. That's just a misdirection trick the govt. uses to make people fight amongst themselves while they assrape us.

I am pretty sure the "rich" are already taxed. Don't know why you might think otherwise.

Anyway, I'm not gonna get drawn into foolish arguments. This isn't a sporting event. There aren't REALLY any "sides". That is just something you're being led to believe by the govt. so they can just keep on taking your money and spending it without being accountable for it.

I will vote for the guy who lies the best about not taking my money. (They all will once they get in power anyway lol ) You go vote for the guy that wants to take my money. At least we can still both go do that...even if it doesn't change anything anyway.

I'm pretty sure the govt. will continue to grow, raise taxes, and congressmen and senators will continue to spend money in amounts that you and I can't even fathom on kickbacks in the form of pork attached to bills.

Good discussion guys. I enjoyed it.

tony286 · 08-11-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I personally do believe that we don't have any reason to be spending money to have troops stationed in over 80 countries around the world. So yeah, that would be a start.

I'm pretty sure that entitlement programs are going to have to be cut as well. The numbers just don't add up with more and more people retiring and the population aging.

I have no real hopes that I will ever see the TON of money I put into Social Security. I just don't see how I'll ever get that back in my old age.

I don't know what the answer is. The rich already pay most of the taxes in this country. And "rich" can be pretty subjective too. After what happened to the stock market and the housing market the last couple of years...a shitload of people who WERE rich on "paper", are now struggling.

Again, I don't see exactly how raising taxes in any way is going to help the economy recover and get the country back on it's feet. I'm also not sure if NOT raising them will "help". But it certainly won't hurt. Whereas raising taxes and taking more money away from business will definitely hurt it. How can it not?

Business is doing fine look at the markets, its the middle class taking it in the ass. Big business has 2 trillion dollars in reserves and is making records profits.Making less do alot more work for less is very profitable. I dont think those jobs are ever going to come back.I dont give a fuck who is president.Wages have been flat for a long time and cheap credit made people feel like they were doing better than they really were. Companies for profits have been shipping jobs off for awhile during all those bush tax cut years and they aint coming back I dont care if they made corporate tax zero because as long as they can hire someone for 78 cents an hour. Hiring people overseas is much much lower than any tax rate.

Bill8 · 08-11-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Politicians only really seem to do whatever it takes to get them elected again.

which is why the middle class is fucked. the rich can buy the politicians, the politicians have to present the appearance of kowtowing to big special interests like the elderly, and nothing substantial can be taken from the poor, they've already had most of their entitlements stripped and are taxproof.

leaving the middle class, especially the lower middle class, the most superfluous part of the middle class and the old economy, holding the shitty end of the stick.

anyway, any debate about the bush tax cuts is silly. congress will let them expire, but create loopholes that makes their expiration meaningless. then the baggers will take office - cuz the republicans are dead in the water - reinstate tax cuts cuz thats what the bagger masters tell them to do, and they have no real policies of their own - and we are right back where we were, but with a few million more lower middle class now permanently in the lower class, and facing currency devaluation and an even worse infrastructure.

round and round we go - because we are stupid americans and can't face facts and think our way out of this trap.

Fenris Wolf · 08-11-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I guess I'm just against the govt. taking our money and then not really being accountable for it. I'm not sure that any of us can say with certainty what the govt. does with our tax money these days. Seems they just spend it like drunken sailors sometimes.

For the past several years I have been using my mobile phone as my primary means of communication for my home. I finally decided to get a land line so if the family needed to use 911 we could. Instead of depending on the gps in our mobile phones to connect us with the right law enforcement agency. I contacted ATT to get the lowest contract for residential use. I was $10.12 for the month. The bill came this month for the first time. $10.12 as per the contract and an additional $9.37 in government fees, taxes, and surcharges. Needless to say I was a little surprised that the government fees were almost as equal. I contacted an ATT rep wondering were all that additional money in taxes and surcharges went and she had no clue. She replied, "The government just tells us what to collect and we do".

So were does the money go. Same thing with your personal income taxes. Personally I don't mind paying for my share of taxes but when you look at everything you have to pay you want to to see at the very least a direct or indirect benefit to you and society as a whole. Our K-12 education system is failing our youth, our infrastructure is falling apart, so you ask yourself you want to tax me more. Really.

All I know is we need accountability from our elected officials. It is at a point were we need to demand it.

Bill8 · 08-11-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Huh? My "side"?

---

Good discussion guys. I enjoyed it.

well, if you are not willing to own up your affiliance to the political tribes that shape the language of these debates, and your position in the spectrum of positions, I suppose that's your priviledge, but it doesn't make your position in the tribal warfare any less clear.

You know which side your position represents, I know which side my position represents.

yeah, it's not a bad discussion, for gfy.

Robbie · 08-11-2010, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenris Wolf

For the past several years I have been using my mobile phone as my primary means of communication for my home. I finally decided to get a land line so if the family needed to use 911 we could. Instead of depending on the gps in our mobile phones to connect us with the right law enforcement agency. I contacted ATT to get the lowest contract for residential use. I was $10.12 for the month. The bill came this month for the first time. $10.12 as per the contract and an additional $9.37 in government fees, taxes, and surcharges. Needless to say I was a little surprised that the government fees were almost as equal. I contacted an ATT rep wondering were all that additional money in taxes and surcharges went and she had no clue. She replied, "The government just tells us what to collect and we do".

So were does the money go. Same thing with your personal income taxes. Personally I don't mind paying for my share of taxes but when you look at everything you have to pay you want to to see at the very least a direct or indirect benefit to you and society as a whole. Our K-12 education system is failing our youth, our infrastructure is falling apart, so you ask yourself you want to tax me more. Really.

All I know is we need accountability from our elected officials. It is at a point were we need to demand it.

Great Post! I agree entirely. I would bet that if people sat down and actually calculated how much tax they pay everyday in everything they do...they would be shocked.

kane · 08-11-2010, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

which is why the middle class is fucked. the rich can buy the politicians, the politicians have to present the appearance of kowtowing to big special interests like the elderly, and nothing substantial can be taken from the poor, they've already had most of their entitlements stripped and are taxproof.

leaving the middle class, especially the lower middle class, the most superfluous part of the middle class and the old economy, holding the shitty end of the stick.

anyway, any debate about the bush tax cuts is silly. congress will let them expire, but create loopholes that makes their expiration meaningless. then the baggers will take office - cuz the republicans are dead in the water - reinstate tax cuts cuz thats what the bagger masters tell them to do, and they have no real policies of their own - and we are right back where we were, but with a few million more lower middle class now permanently in the lower class, and facing currency devaluation and an even worse infrastructure.

round and round we go - because we are stupid americans and can't face facts and think our way out of this trap.

Until the middle class decides to not allow themselves to be manipulated by stupid things like gay marriage, abortion and "morality" they will always get fucked. There are a lot of people who vote for or against someone just because of their stance on one of these things no matter how much they get fucked over by them in other areas. I have said for a long time that the republicans greatest success was to convince an entire group of people to vote against their own self interests. not that the democrats are any better, but if you are poor, typically the democrats will do more to help you. That said, until people pull their heads out and vote for someone who will actually cut spending and do things that will help move the country forward things will not be improving any time soon. And seeing as only about 60% of those eligible to vote actually do so I don't hold out much hope for the near future.

Bill8 · 08-11-2010, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenris Wolf

All I know is we need accountability from our elected officials. It is at a point were we need to demand it.

our "elected officials" are laughing at all of us and our pathetic demands.

they take their marching orders from the rich, who fund their campaigns.

they manage their constituencies like flocks of sheep.

the media, owned by the rich, deflects any attempts to change the dynamic, using "wedge issues" and information control to keep us fighting each other rather than fighting the new aristocracy.

the wealth war is over, we lost, the new age of american fuedalism is here, and we all here are well and truly fucked.

i for one welcome our new bagger overlords.

Joshua G · 08-11-2010, 07:50 PM

strictly on a moral basis, the government should not tax any human above 35%, tops. 35% of the public wealth is more then plenty to provide for the health & safety of the country. People who want more then 35% hate how capitalism distributes wealth & want to transfer it to their own special interests.

It baffles me how Hugh Hefner makes 35K in social security checks when he is a multi millionaire & half the country doesnt make that much money...instead they pay 8% into the system that cuts him that check. Thats what i call immoral.

Fenris Wolf · 08-11-2010, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

our "elected officials" are laughing at all of us and our pathetic demands.

they take their marching orders from the rich, who fund their campaigns.

they manage their constituencies like flocks of sheep.

the media, owned by the rich, deflects any attempts to change the dynamic, using "wedge issues" and information control to keep us fighting each other rather than fighting the new aristocracy.

the wealth war is over, we lost, the new age of american fuedalism is here, and we all here are well and truly fucked.

i for one welcome our new bagger overlords.

Of course they are laughing at us. Look at the strength and conviction of our demands.

epitome · 08-11-2010, 08:25 PM

I bet everyone that bitches about high taxes are happy they were not alive when the wealthiest paid 90% in taxes from income and didn't really complain too much.

kane · 08-11-2010, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

which is why the middle class is fucked. the rich can buy the politicians, the politicians have to present the appearance of kowtowing to big special interests like the elderly, and nothing substantial can be taken from the poor, they've already had most of their entitlements stripped and are taxproof.

leaving the middle class, especially the lower middle class, the most superfluous part of the middle class and the old economy, holding the shitty end of the stick.

anyway, any debate about the bush tax cuts is silly. congress will let them expire, but create loopholes that makes their expiration meaningless. then the baggers will take office - cuz the republicans are dead in the water - reinstate tax cuts cuz thats what the bagger masters tell them to do, and they have no real policies of their own - and we are right back where we were, but with a few million more lower middle class now permanently in the lower class, and facing currency devaluation and an even worse infrastructure.

round and round we go - because we are stupid americans and can't face facts and think our way out of this trap.

Until the middle class decides to not allow themselves to be manipulated by stupid things like gay marriage, abortion and "morality" they will always get fucked. There are a lot of people who vote for or against someone just because of their stance on one of these things no matter how much they get fucked over by them in other areas. I have said for a long time that the republicans greatest success was to convince an entire group of people to vote against their own self interests. not that the democrats are any better, but if you are poor, typically the democrats will do more to help you. That said, until people pull their heads out and vote for someone who will actually cut spending and do things that will help move the country forward things will not be improving any time soon. And seeing as only about 60% of those eligible to vote actually do so I don't hold out much hope for the near future.

Bill8 · 08-11-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenris Wolf

Of course they are laughing at us. Look at the strength and conviction of our demands.

as long as we accept the media we have, and the minds we are told to have by that media, our demands will, statistically, most likely be pathetic.

until the whole thing crashes - and the aristocracy figures it can use the army to keep us helpless while they make their getaway in the chaos.

look at the bagger demands - feckless, dull witted, scattered, pathetic, paranoid, with no particular policy and no particular plan. thats the kind of thing the media allows and promotes, and thats why the baggers are on tv.

hey look, I'd love to see strength and conviction - it's just not allowed by the owners. Stength and conviction will not get airtime, and in a population of sheep something without airtime doesn't exist.

Bill8 · 08-11-2010, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

That said, until people pull their heads out and vote for someone who will actually cut spending and do things that will help move the country forward things will not be improving any time soon. And seeing as only about 60% of those eligible to vote actually do so I don't hold out much hope for the near future.

its a silly cliche I know, but if voting could change anything, it would be illegal.

the problem is worse than anything voting can solve - the owners will just pick a puppet that looks like what might be good, then when the puppet is in power, keep up the same old shit.

they might even let the puppet pretend to do something, just so long as it doesn't interfere with the long term project, stripping americas real wealth before resource delpeletion ends the game.

obama is such a puppet, a pathetic loser, a totally owned clown.

we have to look to solutions beyond voting. the aristocracy will not help us, they aren't ALLOWED to help us, we are going to have to figure out some other path out of this trap.

fatfoo · 08-11-2010, 08:57 PM

For more information about this topic you can read the Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama. You can read what the President of the United States writes about taxes for rich and poor.

Atticus · 08-11-2010, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

strictly on a moral basis, the government should not tax any human above 35%, tops. 35% of the public wealth is more then plenty to provide for the health & safety of the country. People who want more then 35% hate how capitalism distributes wealth & want to transfer it to their own special interests.

It baffles me how Hugh Hefner makes 35K in social security checks when he is a multi millionaire & half the country doesnt make that much money...instead they pay 8% into the system that cuts him that check. Thats what i call immoral.

This baffles you? Social Security isnt a bonus doled out to those in need. You pay into the fund out of your income and then start collecting at age 62. Hefner contributed just like everyone else his entire life. Because he worked hard and now has money he's supposed to be fucked out of his share?

directfiesta · 08-11-2010, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenris Wolf

For the past several years I have been using my mobile phone as my primary means of communication for my home. I finally decided to get a land line so if the family needed to use 911 we could. Instead of depending on the gps in our mobile phones to connect us with the right law enforcement agency. I contacted ATT to get the lowest contract for residential use. I was $10.12 for the month. The bill came this month for the first time. $10.12 as per the contract and an additional $9.37 in government fees, taxes, and surcharges. Needless to say I was a little surprised that the government fees were almost as equal. I contacted an ATT rep wondering were all that additional money in taxes and surcharges went and she had no clue. She replied, "The government just tells us what to collect and we do".

So were does the money go. Same thing with your personal income taxes. Personally I don't mind paying for my share of taxes but when you look at everything you have to pay you want to to see at the very least a direct or indirect benefit to you and society as a whole. Our K-12 education system is failing our youth, our infrastructure is falling apart, so you ask yourself you want to tax me more. Really.

All I know is we need accountability from our elected officials. It is at a point were we need to demand it.

Communication companies were/are in bed with governement for spying on citizens ( immunity ) ... Why wouldn't they be in for $$$$

tony286 · 08-11-2010, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

strictly on a moral basis, the government should not tax any human above 35%, tops. 35% of the public wealth is more then plenty to provide for the health & safety of the country. People who want more then 35% hate how capitalism distributes wealth & want to transfer it to their own special interests.

.

they need a flat tax everyone pays 15 percent no deductions no bullshit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews
"It would fair.Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the "Sage of Omaha", has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic; I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed."

L-Pink · 08-11-2010, 09:15 PM

Look at the current tax rates and the yearly deficit, the problem is obvious. Lower government spending!

.

Barry-xlovecam · 08-11-2010, 09:26 PM

The Bush tax cuts and the perfect storm

The costs of the wars in the name of 9/11 made the tax cuts DOA, they only guaranteed a larger deficit.

The second round of tax cuts, the JGTRRA, reduced the tax rates on capital gains and dividends (2003.) How this might have affected the housing bubble I am not sure. However, it did free up considerable funds. The funds were used in the equity markets, with at least some, for the new mortgage backed securities that started this recession December, 2007 an inflated the "bubble" that burst in the summer of 2008.

Probably the fairest thing to do is to let these tax cuts expire for everyone. We could use the money to pay down the deficit to manageable levels before that really causes more serious economic trouble than it has already.

Even Alan Greenspan, who was a proponent of these tax cuts, is advocating their abandonment.

Fenris Wolf · 08-11-2010, 10:29 PM

Bill8 my comment was meant to be sarcastic. I really don't think we do anything with strength and conviction anymore. At least for reasons that deserve merit. Remember the protests at the height of the Vietnam War? Will we ever see that again today? I don't know. I think as a society we are to apathetic.

Bill8 · 08-11-2010, 10:54 PM

ahhh, my bad, the sarcasm is visible in retrospect, but i missed it.

i appreciated the chance to play with rhetoric in any case.

Brujah · 08-12-2010, 01:36 AM

Don't just lower it, eliminate the income tax completely. Figure out other ways of managing the budget and/or alternative taxes.

Quote:

Seven states impose no income tax. These states are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Additionally, New Hampshire and Tennessee limit their state income taxes to only dividends and interest income.

08-11-2010, 03:32 PM	#1
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	The GOP?s Intellectual Dishonesty Regarding Bush Tax Cuts This is a current Newsweek article... Republicans say that tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended to protect the economy and small businesses, even though neither would be affected by their lapse. story continues here... http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-ga...-tax-cuts.html

08-11-2010, 03:58 PM	#3
Amputate Your Head There can be only one Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Somewhere else Posts: 39,075	Fuck that. Tax them at....... 98%. __________________ SIG TOO BIG

08-11-2010, 04:15 PM	#5
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I don't care one way or another about Republicans or Dems. I'm of the persuasion that my money is MY MONEY. The less the govt. touches it the better off everybody is. We definitely need many services the govt. provides...but it's turned into a numbers game and a freakin' money grab. We need to hit the "reset" button and get things back to what they are supposed to be. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

08-11-2010, 04:27 PM	#6
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	Well, the tax cut didn't boost the economy, so no reason for the top few to keep benefiting when it was said that doing this would generate more tax revenue because the wealthy would spend, invest, do company crap more, etc... if they are taxed less, which wasn't true. So it's logical not to allow them to keep the benefit. Reagan insider thinking taxes should be higher. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rea...0?pagenumber=2 __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

08-11-2010, 05:09 PM	#10
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Here's another: "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased ? not a reduced ? flow of revenues to the federal government." ? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964 And another: "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort ? thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate." ? John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963 JFK was a firm believer in govt. cutting taxes to allow growth in our economy. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

08-11-2010, 04:11 PM	#4
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	http://www.amazon.com/Mommy-Loves-St...dp/0557084180/

08-11-2010, 06:14 PM	#19
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	no prob - cut defense spending by about 70%. and let the superrich continue to funnel real wealth out of the country. everybodies happy, except the middle class, they are fucked no matter what, but they are the pigs to be slaughtered in this dynamic, so nobody gives a shit. whats going to be funny is the squealing you will hear from republican baggers when their place at the tax trough gets cut.

08-11-2010, 07:06 PM	#27
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	Social Security and Medicare are never going to be completely cut. They might see some cut backs, but they are not going anywhere even if we deficit spend to finance them. There are far too many baby boomers that vote who are relying on it for this to happen. Anyone who votes to shut those programs down will be voted out of office and replaced with someone that will promise to bring them back in the next election. You will see a lot of that in the fall as the republicans run on the platform of getting rid of the healthcare bill. Politicians only really seem to do whatever it takes to get them elected again. They don't really care what is actually good for the country, they do care what is good for them and them keeping their jobs. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but it seems to me that most of them are this way.

08-11-2010, 07:50 PM	#36
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	strictly on a moral basis, the government should not tax any human above 35%, tops. 35% of the public wealth is more then plenty to provide for the health & safety of the country. People who want more then 35% hate how capitalism distributes wealth & want to transfer it to their own special interests. It baffles me how Hugh Hefner makes 35K in social security checks when he is a multi millionaire & half the country doesnt make that much money...instead they pay 8% into the system that cuts him that check. Thats what i call immoral.

08-11-2010, 08:25 PM	#38
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	I bet everyone that bitches about high taxes are happy they were not alive when the wealthiest paid 90% in taxes from income and didn't really complain too much.

08-11-2010, 08:57 PM	#42
fatfoo ICQ:649699063 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 27,763	For more information about this topic you can read the Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama. You can read what the President of the United States writes about taxes for rich and poor. __________________ Send me an email: [email protected] Last edited by fatfoo; 08-11-2010 at 08:59 PM..

08-11-2010, 09:15 PM	#46
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	Look at the current tax rates and the yearly deficit, the problem is obvious. Lower government spending! .

08-11-2010, 09:26 PM	#47
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	The "Bush Tax Cuts" The Bush tax cuts and the perfect storm The costs of the wars in the name of 9/11 made the tax cuts DOA, they only guaranteed a larger deficit. The second round of tax cuts, the JGTRRA, reduced the tax rates on capital gains and dividends (2003.) How this might have affected the housing bubble I am not sure. However, it did free up considerable funds. The funds were used in the equity markets, with at least some, for the new mortgage backed securities that started this recession December, 2007 an inflated the "bubble" that burst in the summer of 2008. Probably the fairest thing to do is to let these tax cuts expire for everyone. We could use the money to pay down the deficit to manageable levels before that really causes more serious economic trouble than it has already. Even Alan Greenspan, who was a proponent of these tax cuts, is advocating their abandonment.

08-11-2010, 10:29 PM	#48
Fenris Wolf Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,040	Bill8 my comment was meant to be sarcastic. I really don't think we do anything with strength and conviction anymore. At least for reasons that deserve merit. Remember the protests at the height of the Vietnam War? Will we ever see that again today? I don't know. I think as a society we are to apathetic.

08-11-2010, 10:54 PM	#49
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	ahhh, my bad, the sarcasm is visible in retrospect, but i missed it. i appreciated the chance to play with rhetoric in any case.