![]() |
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Fuck that. Tax them at....... 98%.
|
|
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. |
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
You know which side your position represents, I know which side my position represents. yeah, it's not a bad discussion, for gfy. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123