Obama Confused About Taxes...

If they used 93% of public services, then I would agree with you.

The top 50% of income tax payers contrinute 97% of the income tax revenue, while the bottom 47% pay no income tax. That leaves about 3% paying the remaining 3%.

 

These ideas would maybe put a small dent in the problem. Spending is the majority of it.

 

Your physical limitation is something nobody could have been aware about. I'll cut you some slack.

The poll is still correct. My point was that more liberals got out and voted than conservatives, even though conservatives outnumber liberals. Too many conservatives were not happy with the offerings and didn't vote. That all changed at the midterm elections.

 

Spending is the problem here, not taxes. I don't think taxes should be raised, as that is not a real solution.

 

Which is your unfounded opinion, look at the graph I sent you, can't you see that in the 50's, 60's and even 70's when the rich actually had to pay taxes or spend some of it sheltering it, that the debt didn't go crazy, unemp was generally low and even recessions lasted very short times? Oh and teh Cold War spending then was huge too, from 46 to 58 we had nuclear weapon exploration and development that was vastly expensive, as well as Korea and the rest of teh Cold War costs, yet the debt didn't go crazy and unemp was never stupid high.

See, the difference between your opinion and mine is that I actually have data to support mine.

Now, if you knew data ata all you could retort that during the so-called roaring 20's, the debt actually fell. Of course this wholesale shift of wealth to the rich yielded that the top .1% (not to be confused with the top 1%) held as much welth as the entire bottom 40% and the tax cuts also led to the Great Depression, but you could argue if we:

- Cut military spending back to very little

- Cut 90% of all social programs, revoke SS, Medicare, et al

- Cut taxes just 10% lower than they are now

That we could repeat this roaring era (until the wheels fell off again) and actually start to pay off the debt. Of course the streets would be full of elderly and all the rest of the anarchy, but you could have your utopian dream. See, the reason why the sociopaths who you elect are able to avoid this mess is that we deficit spend as a way of protocol, whereas back in the 1920's we didn't do that so we had to actually see all these people sufferring in the streets while the debt goes crazy.

Finally they (Hoover in this example) yanked their heads out of their a55 and raised taxes. Altho RW morons think it was FDR who raised taxes the most, it was Hoover who, after kicking the Bonus Army to the curb and so many other niceties, finally raised the top marginal tax brkt from 25% to 63% and raised other taxes incredibly too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932

 

I don't care if you don't cut me slack, hell, I skydive and work as an acft mech, so it's a PIA, but I can work around it. I haven't seen crap for substance from you, let's see that and quit worrying about whether I miss a letter or reverse a couple.

As for your theory as to who's more liberal, who's not, who showed up, etc; who cares? The Repubs have been taking a crap for a long time, with all their sexual deviants they even alienated the moral fundie base, they ahve trashed the economy and are considered just a mess. If the best they can do is kick forward and old senile Reagan debt increaser with a whore loser for a co-pilot, ideologues like you need to quit worrying about the Dems and clean your own house, considerin ideologues don't stray from their party.

What really happened was that the youth were sick of some crusty ole white dude shifting all the wealth off to the rich, so they opted for change. Obama wasn't up for the mid-term so with that the R's ran the table. The big question is whether they show up again in 12.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2752549...08/t/youth-vote-may-have-been-key-obamas-win/

And then the young vote dropped off huge in 2010 http://www.thenation.com/blog/15647...08-2010-dems-wont-win-2012-if-trend-continues

It's not hard to understand, racisst say the black vote won Obama the election when just 2M more showed up than in 04. The youth showed up in 08 and not in 10, just that simple. Will they be back in 2012? If R's keep running their mouth and denoucing him with veiled racism they sure will.

 

What I mean is laws, loopholes and regulations reduces competition, increasing prices. Corporations in industries that are regulated in a manner that favors large incumbents, reduce/eliminate competition, so those corporations are able to increase their prices. Part of that increase is used to influence government, the rest is kept as "riches".

There are a lot of honest corporations, more before politicians started flexing their muscle. With only a few thousand people in government to control huge amounts of money, you don't huge amount of bribery.

And, it isn't only corporations, union leadership is part of the "rich".

None of this is extortion or fraud. Being passed by politicians, just like taxes, perfectly legal.

Here I'll disagree. Politicians are interested in staying in power. They aren't concerned about the electorate (voters), but the "selectorate", those voters and contributors needed to assure they stay in power.

Us the US as an example, with only a few, large states winning by 1 vote, as little as 19% of the voters can determine who is President. Add in that both major parties have their party faithful that will vote the party line, (they have even elected dead people). All that is necessary is to influence those that don't drink party koolaid.

More importantly, we only get to choose among those the parties offer, so the party leadership is in power, not the voter. Who influences the leadership? Those with money to buy time for contributions.

How do they keep us from being slapped in the face with this, that is called politics. Several years ago my wife and I registered in different parties. One day two letters comes from the office of one of our senators about a particular issue, one supporting one side, the other supporting the other.

In addition both side put out their talking points that keep both side convinced the other is evil - divide and conquer....

Will of the people my a$$.

 

Of course that wouldn't be totally fair since the folks that rely on Uncle Sam the most, do not have much disposable income to do anything. My point is that wealthier folks pay enough taxes. If they are not paying their "fair share", it is because of legal avenues in the over-burdensome tax code.

Yes, we need to take more drastic measures. Our government spending is way out of control because government is way out of control. Our federal government has expanded over the years way outside its Constitutional restraints. There are many government agencies that are so bloated, layered with bureaucrat after bureaucrat, and quite frankly, serve no real public purpose. There is plenty of spending cuts that can be made, but it will take some brave, selfless politicians to enact them.

 

First of all, your link in the post you mention, does not work.

A depression is not anyone's utopian dream. Don't be silly.

Manufacturing in the U.S. was booming in previous decades, government spending was much less compared to today. This is not an apples to apples comparison.

Taxing the rich is not a real solution. At most, it would be a tiny temporary band-aid that would soon fall off.

You should watch this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ[/ame]

 

You are now ranting like the bitter liberal you are showing yourself to be. Stop it.

You also bring up pointless information like sexual deviants. Your party has plenty of them. John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, etc. Not important though.

The young folk most certainly helped Obama win, but so did the Black vote, as some 98% voted for Obama, most likely because he is Black. SO, now who's racist. Stop with the racist crap. It doesn't help you.

Many folks, including many Blacks, have lost faith in Obama. We'll see in 2012, if the sheeple of America have opened their eyes or not.

 

ROTHL - the youth, like the media, and like a lot of independants were enthralled by the thought of Obama, young, black, without history, with sound bites from Regean and Kennedy, against yet another in a long line of old white guys. All Obama had to do was promise "change", and keep the veil closed until after the election - which he did.

Will Obama get the youth vote, the black vote, depends who runs against him. Will he get the Jewish vote, the independant vote, almost certainly not.

'08 was lost because Bush and the Republican leadeship stopped listening to conservatives. The Tea Party wasn't started with Obama, but with Bush. Obama and the Democratic congress were the catalyst needed as a call to action.

In parallel, during the campaign, Obama promised apple pie and motherhood, and none of the media did squat to vet him. Since then, Obama has done himself in with the Health care bill, his lack of leadership and perpetual scapegoating (trying to get the buck to stop somewhere else). He will push a Republican in office if he trys to blame the last 4 years on Bush.

 

I am all for removing many of these tax loopholes. As far as fair share, how much of your money do you think the government should be able to keep? Just because someone may do well financially, doesn't mean that the government needs to keep taking more and more. The wealthy pay a higher tax rate, and the effective rate would be higher if some loopholes were eliminated. I do not know exactly what they would be.

Remove loopholes, thereby raising effective tax rates. I'm not sure which ones, however.

I do not believe in income redistribution though.

 

Sure, who'll fix it, the government?

I have described this several times, including my way of fixing it.

How would you fix it?

Does this look like the selectorate is the majority of the people? As long as the majority drinks the koolaid of one party of the the other, the selectorate will always be a small subset.

 

wow, that was insightful

 

removing restrictions on entities that have strictly enforced state regulated privilege, and economic advantage is not "deregulation", it is payola.

Sorry that you are misguided, again.

 

sorry that you need to use the word "deregulation", as handed to you by the political status quo. Removing barriers within a highly regulated position of privilege and advantage is not "deregulation".

In reality it is the practice of bribing someone to use their position of influence to promote your particular interest. ie PAYOLA

go back to sleep.

 

not

you haven't defined it at all. You just keep saying it exists.

I'm very glad you did.

there has been no deregulation.

 

Rioters in London, a nanny state…….same as Wisconsin. This country was founded on revolution, such as the Boston Tea Party, which you would support, so you are being completely ridiculous with your selective rubber-stamping of some revolt, others are just criminal acts.

Ad Hominem on Michael Moore, somehow this matters to what? Then to call him obese, 450 lbs of quivering… This shows any intelligent person what the video will be about when they reference a guy's weight as tho it will bring relevance to this argument. I would be embarrassed if I were you for posting this as substantive.

Have the wealthy locked up all the wealth? Uh, top 20% have 93% of all wealth, you figure it out.

Left wins when they find 1 isolated sob story and make it representative of the whole. I see, 50 million w/o HC ins, many of the rest with HC are so underinsured that they cannot actually get the HC or time off work to get the surgery they need.

Statistics, data, evidence is fatal to the liberal world. What he posted here is not data, it's rheotoric that I later establish you could shove GWB, Reagan or any other deficit spender in place and the rhetoric would be the same. Here's data akin to what you posted:

Consumption of ice cream motivates people to commit rape.

Sure it does, incidents of rape increase in the summer, ice cream consumption peaks in the summer, therefore ice cream causes rape.... or is it rape that gives rapists a hankering for ice cream?

No one is suggesting any president balance the budget, other than Clinton with his tax increases and dotcom boom, we won't see that and don't need to. We need to get people back to work, ensure all have HC and reestablish a manufacturing base. WE HAVE NEVER RECOVERED FROM A MAJOR ECONOMIC RECESSION / DEPRESSION UNDER LOW TAXATION IN THE LAST 100 YEARS+. Remember, pre-WWII we had a completely different structure, almost no social svs, limited military expenditures until the mid-late 30's, but still, tax increases have shown to the only way to recover from a major economic situation as it forces the rich who pool the money to employ people; they simply won't do this on their own.

As for his calendar of debt, he acts as tho the debt or the annual deficit in this case is Obama’s fault. He acts as tho it’s normal to not run a deficit when in reality the last time we actually didn’t run a deficit was under Clinton for just 2 years. How did Clinton get there? Oh yea, tax increases on top of GHWB's increases. The time before that was when? Oh yea, 1969 for just that year. How did that happen? LBJ raised taxes in 67 and this created a surplus in 1969 but don’t worry, Nixon cut them back to the pre-increase levels and guess what happened? Oh yea, we ran a deficit again. Before that it was Eisenhower who, against his party of developing sociopaths kept taxes at 91% all 8 years. The budget was balanced 3 of his 8 years and of the 5 it wasn’t, it wasn’t far off.

Hollywood are idiots? Mel Gibson, Schwarzenegger and so many right wingers and your hero here calls them all idiots? OK, I can agree on some fronts.

This was a completely abstract way to look at an annual budget. We have almost never balanced it thru the history of the US, in fact, we were established as a country 75M in debt due to the Revolutionary War. Shall we talk about your other hero, GWB? His last year the debt rose > 1 trillion dollars, he just signed TARP which was funded under Obama as well as the stimulus equaling $1.5 trillion + the $1 trillion deficit he inherited that was worsening at an alarming rate, leaving a $2.5 trillion hole from the get go, not to mention the unemployment rate had increased 3% in just the 1 year prior to Obama’s term, another of the many messes he had to contend with. Shall we talk 2 wars and a GDP that was negative 4 of the 5 quarters as Obama took office, something we hadn’t seen since the Great Depression.

So you can run this asinine video which is just an abstraction of reality considering you could run it against any president / congress for the last 60 years other than Clinton, LBJ or Eisenhower.

Let’s talk reality. Raising taxes forces the rich to reinvest their profits. How many of the rich actually pay the 70% top bracket? Obviously, so it makes them reinvest for a shelter and it makes wages go higher as now working people are in demand. These are elements the rich do not like; being forced to reinvest and having wages increase, empowering the working person. So play your little joke of a video with its abstraction, but here are some data that you won’t like:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

The one that didn’t come up before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg

Now, explain to me thru example, A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT THAT HAS BENEFITED THE ECONOMY. Now I know you will show us fascist Ronny’s cut, but that took a stable debt picture and trippled it, not a good example. I’m talking one where most indicators show overall improvement. I realize some small indicators might show negative, so I’m not being ridiculous here, just show us a major federal tax cut where most indicators showed better for us. Obviously the major indicators are things like the GDP, Unemployment rate, stock market, deficit/debt, etc. Oh and take 100 years or so, I don’t want to confine you. Of course it’s most relevant to consider things past WWII, as that is more like contemporary times than pre-WWII, but hey, show me some tax cuts that have been great ideas and that have worked well, I’ve heard enough of the trickle down theory, I want to see some examples of success using data as your hero on that video stated.

Again, your retarded video, you could put GWB, Reagan or any other massive deficit spender in there and the rhetoric would be the same, difference is those 2 clowns inherited stable debt pictures, esp GWB who inherited the tail end of the most robust time in US history and in 8 years turned it into a complete mess.

Now tell me, with your tax cuts and spending cuts we would have to kick granny to the curb, mentally ill people to the streets, most social spending cut to nothing meaning inner-city kids would be even more radical and violent. See, you have a great prescription for the rich, it is just a sort of sick utopia. It sounds nice to….ahhhhh cut spending, but then you need to look at the reaction when you do that, then the reaction to that, etc. Kicking the poor to the curb and watching crime shoot even higher would be the result. And we have some of the lowest spending of social programs of industrialized nations anyway and you want them cut?

Not sure government spending was less, like to see your data. In the 50’s the defense dept spent a lot, I don’t think you realize. Manufacturing was high, so how do we get it back? Perhaps cut CEO salaries so we can sell our products cheaper? How do we mandate that? We can’t.

Gee, that Band-Aid stayed on all of Clinton’s 8 years until GWB ripped it off. You can only show bastardized data from an extremely abstract and obscure angle, you don’t want to look at 100 years of history where it constantly shows taxes increasing, the debt/deficit getting relief. Taxes cut, chaos. So answer my question, show me a major federal tax cut that did some good.