The real problem with Washington...

Yes, we know. He came in after Bush when the economy at a time the economy was tanking at a -7% rate, and losing 700,000 jobs a month.

But that's all Obama's fault. He should have just snapped his fingers and stopped those loses immediately.

Since Jan 2010, the private sector has created 5 million jobs.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

That Warren Buffet is a hypocrite? That was my point that I proved.

 

How did it prove that?

 

According to the BLS website, total private (seasonally adjusted) jobs were at 106793 for Jan 2010, and projected at 109170 for August 2011. That is a gain of 2.377 million, not 5 million. Private jobs are still down 1.811 million since Obama took office.

It may not be all Obama's fault, especially right when he took office, but on the other hand, when will all you liberals stop blaming the prior Administration?

 

Warren Buffet says that the rich aren't paying enough in taxes, yet he fights back-taxes owed.

 

That's the basis for your claim he's a hypocrite?

Warren Buffet doesn't owe back taxes, to my knowledge.

That was easy to clarify.

 

We know that, I guess. His company does however, and he is the head of it.

 

Buffet's company has disputes with the IRS, like many other companies. How does that make Buffet a hypocrite?

 

Just the fact that Buffet is the Chairman and CEO. If he was a Tea Party conservative, you would miraculously see the connection.

 

That because the wealthy are the only people makng money...

Republican's plan.

Give more money to the wealthy claiming a rising tide raises all boats.

When only the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, claim it is because the rich don't have enough money and need more tax breaks.

Then when the rich pay more taxes because they are earning so much more money, even with lower tax rates, claim that the problem is that the poor aren't paying enough taxes.

And then there are fools that believe this garbage and start chanting that they have never been hired by a poor person. Yet they are too dumb to realize they have never been hired by a rich person either, they work for corporations.

 

Don't forget, it is the government that has created this entitlement nightmare. The wealthy already pay most of the taxes. Tax everyone, and the tax base will be much larger. That is why I support a consumption tax, flat tax, fair tax that replaces income taxes.

 

So again, how does that make him a hypocrite?

 

You're a liberal. You will never see the connection like rational folk.

 

A common argument by conservatives is that you'll never teach someone how to make it on their own if they get handouts, but you won't teach them by abruptly taking away their safety net either... We need to stop subsidizing giant corporations, because they aren't creating any jobs with their disgustingly low effective tax rates, and spend money on education to improve the quality of schools in low-income areas. Then less people will be dependent on these government programs. It's interesting how Mitt Romney doesn't want to spend on education and government programs, but will fork massive bundles of cash to corporations.

 

The flat tax idea was tossed in the trash can in the 30s because intelligent people realized it was a scam to screw the poor.

 

A flat tax is a great idea to make the rich even richer and the middle/lower classes poorer. Which I suspect is Onalandline's objetive.

 

Many folks believe that what is happening now is a scam to screw the poor. How does a flat tax screw the poor?

 

Tell me how it will do this.

 

Poor/middle class pay more taxes, rich pay less taxes.

 

What did George Bush say?

The President. Well, that would be a flat tax, and it's pretty hard to get because I think a lot of people would think that's unfair. They think it's unfair that a rich guy would pay the same as the person that's really struggling to make ends meet.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=21663&st=flat+tax&st1=#ixzz1uKkq7SdC


Opponents of the flat tax contend that the flat tax system penalizes the low-income segment of the population. Low-income individuals and families must spend money on the same necessities required by higher-income people. However, after the necessities are purchased, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts. Implementing a flat tax system could dismantle the IRS. Many view the IRS as an imposing, intimidating arm of government; however, this institution employs numerous people who were trained to work in the tax industry. IRS employees would most likely lose their jobs under a flat tax system. Many believe that a flat tax system reduces tax for, and actually benefits, high-income earners. For example, if the tax rate were 10 percent, then someone making $1,000 would have $900 spending income left after taxes. Someone who makes $10,000 is left with $9,000 after taxes; this inequity is thought to prove that a flat tax disproportionately benefits the rich. If the rich paid less tax, many believe that the government would lose significant revenue. A uniform tax rate treats individuals and corporations fairly, but it eliminates a backup revenue source, the extra dollars generated by taxing high-income earners at a higher rate for the government. The government relies heavily on revenue generated from income taxes.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/pros-cons-flat-tax-4210.html

FDR was a big proponent of the progressive tax system.

The movement toward progressive taxation of wealth and of income has accompanied the growing diversification and interrelation of effort which marks our industrial society. Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort. The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market.

Therefore, in spite of the great importance in our national life of the efforts and ingenuity of unusual individuals, the people in the mass have inevitably helped to make large fortunes possible. Without mass cooperation great accumulations of wealth would 'be 'impossible save by unhealthy speculation. As Andrew Carnegie put it, "Where wealth accrues honorably, the people are · always silent partners." Whether it be wealth achieved through the cooperation of the entire community or riches gained by speculation—in either case the ownership of such wealth or riches represents a great public interest and a great ability to pay.

I My first proposal, in line with this broad policy, has to do with inheritances and gifts. The transmission from generation to generation of vast fortunes by will, inheritance, or gift is not consistent with the ideals and sentiments of the American people.

The desire to provide security for oneself and one's family is natural and wholesome, but it is adequately served by a reasonable inheritance. Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security. In the last analysis such accumulations amount to the perpetuation of great and undesirable concentration of control in a relatively few individuals over the employment and welfare of many, many others.

Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government.

Creative enterprise is not stimulated by vast inheritances. They bless neither those who bequeath nor those who receive. As long ago as 1907, in a message to Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt urged this wise social policy:

"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like tax would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood."

A tax upon inherited economic power is a tax upon static wealth, not upon that dynamic wealth which makes for the healthy diffusion of economic good.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15088&st=progressive+tax&st1=#ixzz1uKmQJE50

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

Yes, and it was just as easy to prove the alleged "clarification" to be the bold faced liberal lie it is, as well.

Buffet, as the owner/ceo of these companies does in fact owe back taxation as the link above, contrary to certain claims made previously in this thread, clearly shows.

But thanks for yet again demonstrating how easily, and willing liberals are to bold faced lie to everyone when it suits the leftist political agenda to do so.

And thereby in doing so, reminding us all, exactly why it is. That as conscientious voters, we should use our vote to kick every last liberal out of public office every chance we as voters get.

 

They would all pay the same percentage. The rich make more, thus will pay more. The poor make less, thus will pay less.

 

See post #48.