Explain To Me How RAISING Taxes On The Middle Class Will Create Jobs

No, in fact, I am not wrong at all. The SS rate that employees pay today is 6.2% (actually, it is 12.4%, but half is paid directly by the employer). That is the exact same rate they paid when Obama took office, as I stated. It hasn't gone up a dime. Your blog doesn't show otherwise at all. Obama took office in 2009, not 2011.

No misconception. If you don't care about the taxes the middle class pays why are you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about it?

 

Does everyone on the left distort quotes?

It is hurting people. Not that you care, you are on the left. It costs these people more every year then what they would get if you took the CEOs they work for in a big corporation's salary and gave it out to all their employees....but here you are complaining about the rich. Why?

I agree with the cutting part, but why the raising it on others part? Why would I want someone else to pay more while I pay less? Isn't that........greedy?

When?

Spending drives taxes.

Why did you skip the part where I asked about where the last 850 in obama stimulus went? Why the dodge? Seems like you saw an argument you didnt want to fight, and said, Oh wait! I know, I will post a cute cartoon, that will distract him. Your Obama mind tricks won't work on me, I am on to you.
Step 1: Obstruct and use control of the House to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the economy. E.g. Create as much uncertainty as possible by threatening to cause the US to default on its obligations and blow up the economy if political demands aren't meant. Add 700,000 people to the unemployment lines by firing state government workers. Block every single proposal by the President to create jobs. Force cuts in Govt spending to prevent or limit economic growth.


Step 2: Blaaaaame Obaaaaaamaaaaaa and hope the sheeple will simply blame whoever is president.

[/QUOTE]

 

Doesn't every on the right make bogus statements?

Sure I care. Do you? That is why you should write your Terrorist Party represenetatives and tell them to cut taxes on the middle class and raise them on the richest instead.

Where did I complain about the rich? More fabrication.

Because we already have too much debt thanks to 30 years of irresponsible leadership, save for 1993-2000.

Last 3 years. Didn't Rush tell you?

Silly nonsense. If that were the case we'd have no debt.

Diversion. But it went to saving 2-3 million jobs. We still lost over 700,000 thanks to the Republican dominated states, though.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Lets keep it step by step so you don't lose focus with the crazy claims.

Less employment before or after the stimulus?

 

Both. There was less employment immediately after the stimulus. What else would you expect when the economy that was losing 700,000 jobs every month like Obama inherited?
But there is more employment now than before the stimulus.

 

Well..hang on there pardner,

Our very own Brownback and several republican state governors have been very successful in eliminating or severely cutting taxes on the rich and shoving the tax burden to the middle and lower classes via higher sales taxes and property taxes. Why do they get a pass?

 

By 'destruction and harm' you mean 'change in government spending levels', meaning that anyone who engages in real politics is a terrorist.

Wow, I thought you weren't stupid.

 

Wait, so raising taxes on property and sales hurt only poor people? If they are poor, they probably don't own "much" property, nothing that anyone else doesn't own. And sales tax on small items will at most effect people on the lower class just as much as people in the upper class. Upper class people spend more money than lower class people (logically), which is why upper class people pay for 70% of the Taxes in the US. You can't pay taxes if you don't own or buy much.

Raising taxes always means to take from one group and give to another, which is like bulldozing a bunch of houses that are vacant, just to rebuild vacant houses in their place. All for the "sake of the economy." Taxes in no way provide any up front benefit to ANYONE, not even the poor. Just because the government takes money from one class of people, does not guarantee a job, home ownership, good education or anything. Any argument contrary to this most likely overlooks the fact that there are TONS of taxation happening, yet the lower class GROWS and the performance of the lower classes FALL.

Simple logic should point us into the direction of lower taxes, and only taxing for ESSENTIAL things, such as education, infrastructure maintenance, and obviously providing a way to healthcare for elderly, who are already locked into the dismal government healthcare as it is. We don't need more programs for people who are already dealing with the prior failed programs. The economy would wake back up if the government eliminated departments so that entrepreneurs could take their place.

 

No, I mean the effects caused by a shutting off government spending. You mean you think there would be no negative effects?

Wow. I thought you weren't that stupid. Actually I didn't.

 

I think it has been Republican Party reasoning (since Reagan) that when demand falls you incentivize the supply side. It's never made a lot of sense to me because no matter how you expand your business, the demand for your product will still not be there. You'll never get a Republican to say that it might be time to start working from the bottom up.

 

So you don't know what destruction is. What a waste of time.

 

YOU KNOW where the names are. You mentioned 5 of them in Post # 43 roflol

I taught economics in college 35 years ago. You think you're going to teach me about economics ? Trade imbalances occur when one country allows another country to get the better of them, as the US has been doing with Mexico for decades. We allow Mexico to invade us with cheap labor "troops", to steal our jobs and businesses, and to maintain an unfavorable (to us trade imbalance).

FALSE! The welfare system has some faults, but it does the job of providing for destitute Americans. The impropriety is when it allows itself to be hijacked by foreign nations to pay their poverty bills with our money. The anchor baby racket should be shut down, by abolishing birthright citizenship, which the 1st amendment was never intended to be used by foreigners to help themselves to US taxpayers $$$. As for remittance coming back as sales, no they don't. Remittances to Mexico are $25 Billion/year. We get nowhere near that much in sales, plus your sales point is NOT a point (as I already pointed out), because they sell more to us than we sell to them.

 

....34....