Beware The Tax-Raisers

[red states rule]

Here they come folks, Dems with their hands out; ready to take more of your money. Dems keep telling us how lousy the economy is, but they still want to help themselves to as much of your money as they get

Now some in the media are starting to call them on thier asinine economic ideas

Being called on their ideas is the main reason Obama wil not take part in any more debates



Beware the tax-raisers
By Donald Lambro
April 24, 2008

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are coming under fire from some rather unusual quarters, who are challenging their plans to hike taxes at a time when the economy needs all the stimulus it can get.

And the "R" word — as in redistribution of incomes — is being raised by these critics, too, a political killer in any election cycle, but especially in an economic downturn that is squeezing incomes across the board.

The incoming fire isn't just from Republican John McCain, who thinks raising taxes in a sick economy is sort of like the 18th century practice of bleeding. Criticism is coming from the news media and from academia.

"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?" CNBC economic reporter Maria Bartiromo asked Mr. Obama a few weeks ago. It's a question that could define the rest of the presidential election and boost GOP prospects at a time when the No. 1 issue is the economy, dwarfing the war in Iraq.

Picking up on Mrs. Bartiromo's pointed question, ABC News anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos also pummeled both Democratic candidates last week for their tax policies.

"If the economy is as weak a year from now, as it is today, will you ... persist in your plans to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier Americans?" Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs.Clinton said, yes, she would raise the top 35 percent marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 "to the rates they were paying in the 1990s" under President Clinton, which would lift them to a confiscatory 40 percent.

"Even if the economy is weak?" an incredulous Mr. Stephanopoulos asked.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080424/COMMENTARY05/37716210/1012/COMMENTARY

[actsnoblemartin]

but i thought entitlements were free :dance:


Here they come folks, Dems with their hands out; ready to take more of your money. Dems keep telling us how lousy the economy is, but they still want to help themselves to as much of your money as they get

Now some in the media are starting to call them on thier asinine economic ideas

Being called on their ideas is the main reason Obama wil not take part in any more debates



Beware the tax-raisers
By Donald Lambro
April 24, 2008

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are coming under fire from some rather unusual quarters, who are challenging their plans to hike taxes at a time when the economy needs all the stimulus it can get.

And the "R" word — as in redistribution of incomes — is being raised by these critics, too, a political killer in any election cycle, but especially in an economic downturn that is squeezing incomes across the board.

The incoming fire isn't just from Republican John McCain, who thinks raising taxes in a sick economy is sort of like the 18th century practice of bleeding. Criticism is coming from the news media and from academia.

"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?" CNBC economic reporter Maria Bartiromo asked Mr. Obama a few weeks ago. It's a question that could define the rest of the presidential election and boost GOP prospects at a time when the No. 1 issue is the economy, dwarfing the war in Iraq.

Picking up on Mrs. Bartiromo's pointed question, ABC News anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos also pummeled both Democratic candidates last week for their tax policies.

"If the economy is as weak a year from now, as it is today, will you ... persist in your plans to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier Americans?" Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs.Clinton said, yes, she would raise the top 35 percent marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 "to the rates they were paying in the 1990s" under President Clinton, which would lift them to a confiscatory 40 percent.

"Even if the economy is weak?" an incredulous Mr. Stephanopoulos asked.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080424/COMMENTARY05/37716210/1012/COMMENTARY

[red states rule]

but i thought entitlements were free :dance:

Only to the ones who get them

We are the ones footing the bill

It is called redistriubtion of wealth - or as it more commonly known - liberalism

[actsnoblemartin]

hahahaha


Only to the ones who get them

We are the ones footing the bill

It is called redistriubtion of wealth - or as it more commonly known - liberalism

[red states rule]

hahahaha

You should not laugh - it is true and it will cost you alot of money

[Joe Steel]

Here they come folks, Dems with their hands out; ready to take more of your money. Dems keep telling us how lousy the economy is, but they still want to help themselves to as much of your money as they get

The economy isn't bad for everyone. It's only bad for the poor and middle-class. The rich are doing quite well and easily could afford more taxation. A tax increase for them would be not only harmless but a step toward tax equity.

[red states rule]

The economy isn't bad for everyone. It's only bad for the poor and middle-class. The rich are doing quite well and easily could afford more taxation. A tax increase for them would be not only harmless but a step toward tax equity.

Tax cuts would bring about fairness.

The top 1% of earners currently payy 29% of all federal income taxes

The top 25% pay 86%

The top 50% pay 97%

How fair is that? Now the left wants them to pay even more

[theHawk]

The economy isn't bad for everyone. It's only bad for the poor and middle-class. The rich are doing quite well and easily could afford more taxation. A tax increase for them would be not only harmless but a step toward tax equity.

But the question is how does taxing even just the rich help anyone else?

[red states rule]

But the question is how does taxing even just the rich help anyone else?

What libs wil not admit, it does not help. Higher taxes reduce the amount of money in the private sector. It reduces the amount of capital business has to invest and expand. It reduces economic activity, thus reducing the amount of revenue coming into government

I never got a job from a poor man

[Little-Acorn]

"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?" CNBC economic reporter Maria Bartiromo asked Mr. Obama a few weeks ago.

A **CNBC** reporter asked that question? Of a DEMOCRAT????

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Somebody check Hell! I think it just froze!

[red states rule]

A **CNBC** reporter asked that question? Of a DEMOCRAT????

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Somebody check Hell! I think it just froze!

Perhaps she is fed up forking over half (or more) of her income in taxes to the governemnt

[Joe Steel]

Tax cuts would bring about fairness.

The top 1% of earners currently payy 29% of all federal income taxes

The top 25% pay 86%

The top 50% pay 97%

How fair is that? Now the left wants them to pay even more

Our notion of "fair" comprises more than arithmetic. We decide fundamental fairness by considering a number of factors including the ability of the taxapary to pay the tax and its burden on his lifestyle. The rich are taxed relatively more because they can afford to pay more and because relatively higher taxes don't affect their lifestyles.

[Joe Steel]

But the question is how does taxing even just the rich help anyone else?

Most will pay something but the rich will pay more. The increased revenue raised from the rich can be used to subsidize the poor and middle class. For instance, it could be used to fund food programs for poor children.

[red states rule]

Our notion of "fair" comprises more than arithmetic. We decide fundamental fairness by considering a number of factors including the ability of the taxapary to pay the tax and its burden on his lifestyle. The rich are taxed relatively more because they can afford to pay more and because relatively higher taxes don't affect their lifestyles.

So the fact the "rich" are already paying more after the Bush tax cuts then they did before the Bush tax cut does not count?

How much more do you want them to pay? These people are already shelling out about 50% of their total inocme in taxes

Who deems them can afford it?

Libs need to understand the producers are not a renewable money source for their thirst for more and bigger government

[Joe Steel]

What libs wil not admit, it does not help. Higher taxes reduce the amount of money in the private sector. It reduces the amount of capital business has to invest and expand. It reduces economic activity, thus reducing the amount of revenue coming into government

What do you think the government does with the money it collects in taxes?


I never got a job from a poor man

Maybe you haven't but many have gotten jobs serving business supported by benefit recipients. For instance, they may drive bread trucks making deliveries to groceries in poor neighborhoods which take food stamps.

[red states rule]

What do you think the government does with the money it collects in taxes?



Maybe you haven't but many have gotten jobs serving business supported by benefit recipients. For instance, they may drive bread trucks making deliveries to groceries in poor neighborhoods which take food stamps.

The government pisses through it with handouts, pork, and waste. Dems have far exceeded the previous Republican pork Congress

Business does not operate on government funding. By raising taxes on the company and its employees, you take money out of the private sector and reduce economic activity

[Joe Steel]

The government pisses through it with handouts, pork, and waste. Dems have far exceeded the previous Republican pork Congress

That's irrelevant.

The government spends the money so it's part of economic activity. Republican war spending, however, is not as helpful to the economy as domestic spending.


Business does not operate on government funding. By raising taxes on the company and its employees, you take money out of the private sector and reduce economic activity

Nonsense. Government spends the money and it goes right back into the economy.

[avatar4321]

The economy isn't bad for everyone. It's only bad for the poor and middle-class. The rich are doing quite well and easily could afford more taxation. A tax increase for them would be not only harmless but a step toward tax equity.

tax equality? They already get taxed at nearly 10% higher than the poor and middle class. how is that equality?

BTW what Joe hasnt told everyone is that the rich are anyone who actually earns money through work.

[avatar4321]

Our notion of "fair" comprises more than arithmetic. We decide fundamental fairness by considering a number of factors including the ability of the taxapary to pay the tax and its burden on his lifestyle. The rich are taxed relatively more because they can afford to pay more and because relatively higher taxes don't affect their lifestyles.

in other words, you define fair as punishing those who succeed and subsidizing those that you consider failures.

The sad thing is we have so many ignorant Democrats like Joe determining how our government is run and screwing up our economy even more.

[avatar4321]

What do you think the government does with the money it collects in taxes?

wastes it.


Maybe you haven't but many have gotten jobs serving business supported by benefit recipients. For instance, they may drive bread trucks making deliveries to groceries in poor neighborhoods which take food stamps.

So you're actually arguing that a poor man hired these deliverers? and exactly what did they pay them with?

[theHawk]

That's irrelevant.

The government spends the money so it's part of economic activity. Republican war spending, however, is not as helpful to the economy as domestic spending.



Nonsense. Government spends the money and it goes right back into the economy.

Your own two statements directly contradict each other. "War spending" does go directly back into our economy. Almost all the money used by the military goes right back into the companies it does business with. Its US manufacturing companies that make all the equipment.

[Joe Steel]

Your own two statements directly contradict each other. "War spending" does go directly back into our economy. Almost all the money used by the military goes right back into the companies it does business with. Its US manufacturing companies that make all the equipment.

Nonsense. They're not contradictory.

First, I said "not as helpful" not "not helpful." War spending creates some economic activity but not as much as spending on domestic programs.

Secondly, war materials are not productive assets. Spend $100,000 on machine tools and you can make things to sell for years. Spend $100,000 on a bomb and it's gone in a few seconds.

Finally, a good deal of Bush's war spending is spent overseas. For instance, the US buys small arms ammunition from Israel, hires Pakistani service workers and Australian mercenaries.

[theHawk]

Nonsense. They're not contradictory.

First, I said "not as helpful" not "not helpful." War spending creates some economic activity but not as much as spending on domestic programs.

Secondly, war materials are not productive assets. Spend $100,000 on machine tools and you can make things to sell for years. Spend $100,000 on a bomb and it's gone in a few seconds.

Finally, a good deal of Bush's war spending is spent overseas. For instance, the US buys small arms ammunition from Israel, hires Pakistani service workers and Australian mercenaries.

Oh, pray tell, what do those domestic spending progams produce? :laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

Oh, pray tell, what do those domestic spending progams produce? :laugh2:

Economic stimulus.

[theHawk]

Economic stimulus.

Paying people for not working is not economic stimulus.

[Joe Steel]

Paying people for not working is not economic stimulus.

Only rich farmers get paid to "not work." Some poor people get paid to not starve.

[avatar4321]

Only rich farmers get paid to "not work." Some poor people get paid to not starve.

you're telling me that i am going out and paying to not starve when i could be making money not to eat it? Wow.. what the heck was i thinking?

[midcan5]

Curious but Clinton did it - raised taxes - to correct the deficits Reagan/Bush left behind and guess what? It worked.

If the republicans are in power much longer the numbers below will only rise.


"UNICEF states that although the U.S. is still the wealthiest country on Earth, with income levels higher than any other country, it also has one of the highest incidences of child poverty among the rich, industrialized nations. Denmark and Finland have child-poverty levels of less than 3 percent, and are closely followed by Norway and Sweden, thanks to higher levels of social spending. In the U.S., 17 percent of children live in poverty."

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0104-24.htm

[manu1959]

The economy isn't bad for everyone. It's only bad for the poor and middle-class. The rich are doing quite well and easily could afford more taxation. A tax increase for them would be not only harmless but a step toward tax equity.

what is the salary range for middle class.....

[semi liberal girl]

Curious but Clinton did it - raised taxes - to correct the deficits Reagan/Bush left behind and guess what? It worked.

If the republicans are in power much longer the numbers below will only rise.


"UNICEF states that although the U.S. is still the wealthiest country on Earth, with income levels higher than any other country, it also has one of the highest incidences of child poverty among the rich, industrialized nations. Denmark and Finland have child-poverty levels of less than 3 percent, and are closely followed by Norway and Sweden, thanks to higher levels of social spending. In the U.S., 17 percent of children live in poverty."

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0104-24.htm

You left out a few points. First, in 1994 Bill Clinton lost the Congress, and back then Republicans did cut pork and control spending

Deficits are not caused by tax cuts. They are caused by excessive spending. Now my party is the party of drunken sailors

When Pes Bush took offcie he did have to deal with the Clinton recession,a nd 9 months later 9-11

[midcan5]

Deficits are not caused by tax cuts. They are caused by excessive spending. Now my party is the party of drunken sailors

Republican? Nice to see a liberal one.

"Did you know that ALL recessions since the 1930's, save one, have taken place under Republican presidents? True fact. The single exception occurred at the conclusion of World War II during the administration of Harry S. Truman and it was a predictable consequence of ending a war...plus it was the shortest as well as the shallowest. Contrast that with the fact that we are now enduring our SECOND recession due to the gross mismanagement of that congenital idiot currently stinking up the White House and his band of thugs."

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/1643

[semi liberal girl]

Republican? Nice to see a liberal one.

"Did you know that ALL recessions since the 1930's, save one, have taken place under Republican presidents? True fact. The single exception occurred at the conclusion of World War II during the administration of Harry S. Truman and it was a predictable consequence of ending a war...plus it was the shortest as well as the shallowest. Contrast that with the fact that we are now enduring our SECOND recession due to the gross mismanagement of that congenital idiot currently stinking up the White House and his band of thugs."

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/1643

We are in a recession? Can you tell me when the US economy had back to back negative growth querters?

Under pres Ronald Reagan we had the largest peace time growth in out economy ever

Despite the slow down now, this economy took a $1 trillion hit on 9-11, went through a string of storms that hit our east and gulf coast, and high oil prices

If my party would get back to basic economics they had under JFK, and stop the insane Bush hating crap maybe we could actually fullfill the promises we made to get elected in 2006

[Joe Steel]

tax equality? They already get taxed at nearly 10% higher than the poor and middle class. how is that equality?

Equity.

Not "equality.

Equity.


BTW what Joe hasnt told everyone is that the rich are anyone who actually earns money through work.

I never said that. I never implied it. It's a figment of your delusions or an attempt to distort and misrepresent the issue.

[semi liberal girl]

[QUOTE=avatar4321;236144]tax equality? They already get taxed at nearly 10% higher than the poor and middle class. how is that equality?/quote]

Equity.

Not "equality.

Equity.



I never said that. I never implied it. It's a figment of your delusions or an attempt to distort and misrepresent the issue.

The so called "rich" are currently seeing about 50% of their income taken in taxes. How is that "fair"?

[Joe Steel]

in other words, you define fair as punishing those who succeed and subsidizing those that you consider failures.

Nope.


The sad thing is we have so many ignorant Democrats like Joe determining how our government is run and screwing up our economy even more.

No. The trouble is, we have so many ignorant conservatives believing economic fantasies and making it difficult for progressives to keep the economy running smoothly.

[Joe Steel]

you're telling me that i am going out and paying to not starve when i could be making money not to eat it? Wow.. what the heck was i thinking?

That doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say?

[semi liberal girl]

Nope.



No. The trouble is, we have so many ignorant conservatives believing economic fantasies and making it difficult for progressives to keep the economy running smoothly.

and so many obnoxious and arrogant Democarts who cannot get over their desire to push the class warfare card and punish achievement keeps them from doing what is needed to grow the economy

[Joe Steel]

what is the salary range for middle class.....

I don't know.

What's your point?

[Joe Steel]

Deficits are not caused by tax cuts. They are caused by excessive spending.

Sorry, no.

Deficits are caused by insufficient taxation.


When Pes Bush took offcie he did have to deal with the Clinton recession,a nd 9 months later 9-11

Sorry, no.

The economy was not in recession when Clinton left office.

[semi liberal girl]

I don't know.

What's your point?

My party keeps lowering the income level for what they consider "rich"

Perhaps you should know what you are talking about before you start talking about it

[Joe Steel]

Under pres Ronald Reagan we had the largest peace time growth in out economy ever

Nonsense.

Economic performance, as determined by average annual GDP growth, was worse for Reagan than for every Democratic president since WWII except Jimmy Carter. Reagan's first term was better than Carter's term but Carter's performance was better than Reagan's second term. Reagan was a snake oil salesman whose only skill was making suckers feel good.

[Joe Steel]

The so called "rich" are currently seeing about 50% of their income taken in taxes. How is that "fair"?

The rich aren't even paying close to 50% of their income in taxes...and THAT isn't fair.

[Joe Steel]

and so many obnoxious and arrogant Democarts who cannot get over their desire to push the class warfare card and punish achievement keeps them from doing what is needed to grow the economy

The class war was started by conservatives. Progressives are just fighting-back.

[semi liberal girl]

The rich aren't even paying close to 50% of their income in taxes...and THAT isn't fair.

Again you should know what you are talking about

When you add up Federal Income taxes, State income taxes, local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxs, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes they are paying half their income taxes in taxes

I own my own business, I know damn well what I am paying - and I am NOT rich

[Joe Steel]

My party keeps lowering the income level for what they consider "rich"

Perhaps you should know what you are talking about before you start talking about it

What are you talking about?

[Joe Steel]

Again you should know what you are talking about

When you add up Federal Income taxes, State income taxes, local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxs, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes they are paying half their income taxes in taxes

I own my own business, I know damn well what I am paying - and I am NOT rich

Utter nonsense. You're not even close to 50% unless you're very, very prosperous and aren't smart enough to hire a good tax accountant.

Do you understand the "marginal tax rate" concept?

[semi liberal girl]

What are you talking about?

You admit you have no idea what income level constitutes middle class

You sure do not know how much in taxe the "rich" are paying

You seem to depend on class warfare talking points for your information

[Joe Steel]

You admit you have no idea what income level constitutes middle class

You sure do not know how much in taxe the "rich" are paying

You seem to depend on class warfare talking points for your information

What would like the income levels to be?

They're irrelevant to general discussions of policy so just make them whatever you want.

[semi liberal girl]

What would like the income levels to be?

Im want to rates cut for all income levels, and a flat tax for all would be perfect

I am sick of this class warfare, and the risk takers being attacked

[Joe Steel]

Im want to rates cut for all income levels, and a flat tax for all would be perfect

I am sick of this class warfare, and the risk takers being attacked

The "fair tax" is class warfare. It's designed to shift taxes from the rich to the poor and middle-class.

[semi liberal girl]

The "fair tax" is class warfare. It's designed to shift taxes from the rich to the poor and middle-class.

Under our current tax system the top1% pay 39% of all federal Income taxes

THAT is unfair

[Joe Steel]

Under our current tax system the top1% pay 39% of all federal Income taxes

THAT is unfair

Without commenting on your number, it isn't unfair. The can pay more than they do now. Americans are the least-taxed taxpayers in the First World.

[semi liberal girl]

Without commenting on your number, it isn't unfair. The can pay more than they do now. Americans are the least-taxed taxpayers in the First World.

Under the current tax rate, the "rich" are paying MORE now with the tax cuts, then they were before the tax cuts

I am so fed up with people in my party saying they think others can pay more

As a business owner I can tell you from personal experience, we are OVER TAXED and all I hear is how I need to pay more

[Joe Steel]

Under the current tax rate, the "rich" are paying MORE now with the tax cuts, then they were before the tax cuts

Not because of the tax cuts.

They're paying more because they have higher taxable income and that's because the Bush Regime has rigged the economy to favor the rich.

[semi liberal girl]

Not because of the tax cuts.

They're paying more because they have higher taxable income and that's because the Bush Regime has rigged the economy to favor the rich.

The tax cuts caused economic growht, thus you have people making more money

You have a larger group of people. paying a lower tax rate, on a \n increased income

Once again, my party ignores these facts, and wants to raise taxes only out of what they call "fairness" I call it insanity

[Joe Steel]

The tax cuts caused economic growht, thus you have people making more money

You have a larger group of people. paying a lower tax rate, on a \n increased income

Once again, my party ignores these facts, and wants to raise taxes only out of what they call "fairness" I call it insanity

Bush's tax cuts did not cause economic growth. Whatever growth we've seen during the Bush administration is less than what it would have been without the tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts have hurt rather than helped the economy.

[semi liberal girl]

Bush's tax cuts did not cause economic growth. Whatever growth we've seen during the Bush administration is less than what it would have been without the tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts have hurt rather than helped the economy.

This is why I am geting fed up with my party. They ignore facts, and live in a world of fantasy

For the last several years, the tax cuts did create more economic activity, and thus allow more people to make more money.

What do you want Joe, a top tax rate of 90% like it was when JFK took office?

[avatar4321]

The "fair tax" is class warfare. It's designed to shift taxes from the rich to the poor and middle-class.

i cant imagine how a tax system that taxes all people equally shifts the taxes from the rich to the poor. the poor still dont have money to pay taxes.

[manu1959]

The "fair tax" is class warfare. It's designed to shift taxes from the rich to the poor and middle-class.

sales tax is a fair tax.......in fact the only tax that is not equal is the one where people earn money.....if i am better at earning money than you.....the government takes mine to give it to you or worse yet give it to people who can't or won't help.......in fact you should feel guilty that you don't help as much as i do.....

[manu1959]

Not because of the tax cuts.

They're paying more because they have higher taxable income and that's because the Bush Regime has rigged the economy to favor the rich.

what yearly income would make one rich.....

[Joe Steel]

what yearly income would make one rich.....

Why?

What's you point?

[avatar4321]

Why?

What's you point?

he is trying to establish what your definition of rich is because its impossible to have a conversation with someone who doesnt share their definition and uses the terms however they wish.

[Joe Steel]

he is trying to establish what your definition of rich is because its impossible to have a conversation with someone who doesnt share their definition and uses the terms however they wish.

Nonsense.

Theoretical discussions almost always deal in broad concepts without specifics.

[avatar4321]

Nonsense.

Theoretical discussions almost always deal in broad concepts without specifics.

Look if you have a discussion without defining terms discussion is impossible.

[Joe Steel]

Look if you have a discussion without defining terms discussion is impossible.

Even without the exact limits of the economic class, everyone has a good-enough idea of what rich, middle-class and poor mean to discuss them generally.

[avatar4321]

Even without the exact limits of the economic class, everyone has a good-enough idea of what rich, middle-class and poor mean to discuss them generally.

then why cant you define them? I mean everyone knows it. So it should be easy.

[Joe Steel]

then why cant you define them? I mean everyone knows it. So it should be easy.

The rich have a lot of money. Much. maybe most, of it comes from owning things rather than being employed for salary or wages.

The middle-class have a good deal less money than the rich and most of it comes from being employed for salary and wages.

The poor have little money and many are employed in low-paying jobs or don't have jobs at all.

So, what's your point?