? For liberals: If taxes go up on rich, how will you feel about consequences?

[Mr Natural]

My answer to the OP is in my sig line.

 

[daveman]

Well, that's the problem, right there: don't waste your time with trolls like daveman, who is incapable of addressing your points, or offering anything more substantial than photoshops and smilies.

The definition of "troll" seems to have changed. Now it apparently means "anyone who doesn't immediately and unquestioningly agree with any stupid shit that falls from a leftist's head".

If you want an echo chamber, go back to DU, dumbass. Be advised that here, you're going to hear scary different opinions.

Chickenshit.

 

[daveman]

I will try not to ignore you! And I agree wholeheartedly with your point. I earlier pointed out to daveywoman that reconciliation - specifically the Byrd rule - and not some republican prescience caused the ten year expiration of the tax cuts. THEY wrote it into the legislation so that they could pass it with only 51 votes and avoid a filibuster... and then, ten years later, they HOWLED when they thought that the democrats would use the same tactic to pass health care!

Well, that's the problem, right there: don't waste your time with trolls like daveman, who is incapable of addressing your points, or offering anything more substantial than photoshops and smilies.

I am coming to understand that!

You two get a room.

 

[maineman]

Well, that's the problem, right there: don't waste your time with trolls like daveman, who is incapable of addressing your points, or offering anything more substantial than photoshops and smilies.

I am coming to understand that!

You two get a room.

and you should just settle down with you jar of jergens and your kiddieporn videos... you fuckin' LOSER.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, that's the problem, right there: don't waste your time with trolls like daveman, who is incapable of addressing your points, or offering anything more substantial than photoshops and smilies.

The definition of "troll" seems to have changed. Now it apparently means "anyone who doesn't immediately and unquestioningly agree with any stupid shit that falls from a leftist's head".

No, it means someone who laughs, and posts doctored photos and smilies at opposing ideas IN PLACE OF countering those ideas with facts.

If you want an echo chamber, go back to DU, dumbass. Be advised that here, you're going to hear scary different opinions.

But obviously not from you.

Chickenshit.

I'm here posting facts. You? Not so much.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Way the World Works!!!!

OK.......now go back over the thread and tell us. Which posters have no clue???!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Greenbeard]

The Way the World Works!!!!

OK.......now go back over the thread and tell us. Which posters have no clue???!!!!

You know, taken literally and assuming your y axis is scaled correctly, that graph would suggest that increasing marginal tax rates will increase revenues (and decreasing will decrease revenues) anywhere below and up to the 50% marginal tax rate.

So are you arguing for a tax increase? Or would like to post a different variation of that graph that's not quite so symmetrical?

 

[Mr Natural]

So the lower the tax rate, the greater the revenue?

What if the tax rate was zero? Where would revenue come from then?

 

[daveman]

Well, that's the problem, right there: don't waste your time with trolls like daveman, who is incapable of addressing your points, or offering anything more substantial than photoshops and smilies.

The definition of "troll" seems to have changed. Now it apparently means "anyone who doesn't immediately and unquestioningly agree with any stupid shit that falls from a leftist's head".

No, it means someone who laughs, and posts doctored photos and smilies at opposing ideas IN PLACE OF countering those ideas with facts.

Wrong yet again! Aren't you tired of that?

If you want an echo chamber, go back to DU, dumbass. Be advised that here, you're going to hear scary different opinions.

But obviously not from you.

In my opinion, you're a moonbat.

Chickenshit.

I'm here posting facts. You? Not so much.

Ummm...could you point me to one of these alleged "facts"? I think you're confusing moonbat talking points for something else entirely.

"Trollman"? What a child.

 

[maineman]

what is equally funny is the way republicans on here are running away from the FACT that the expiration of the ill advised Bush tax cuts were planned and written directly into the legislation by republicans. Why can't they just man up and accept responsibility for that?

You're saying they should have foreseen the economy circling the bowl the way it is now?

where did I accuse YOU of complaining about the dems using reconciliation? Oh that's right. I didn't. It has been YOU mischaracterizing my statements from the gitgo... because YOU won't be man enough to admit that the ten year expiration was REQUIRED by the legislative procedure that YOUR party used to pass the tax cuts in the first place... the very same procedure that the leadership of your party condemned the democrats for even CONSIDERING using.

Question: Why am I being held responsible for something I never said?

I AM saying that, in the first post above, you clearly implied that the reason the republicans wrote the sunset into the law was because they anticipated better economic conditions ten years in the future. That was NOT the case. THey wrote the sunset into the law because it was required by the Byrd Rule under the reconciliation procedures. They wrote it in because THEY didn't want to have to scrounge up 60 votes so they passed it with only 51. By using reconciliation.... you remember... that process that the democrat's contemplated using for health care? the one that was DEMONIZED by the GOP?

 

[daveman]

what is equally funny is the way republicans on here are running away from the FACT that the expiration of the ill advised Bush tax cuts were planned and written directly into the legislation by republicans. Why can't they just man up and accept responsibility for that?

You're saying they should have foreseen the economy circling the bowl the way it is now?

where did I accuse YOU of complaining about the dems using reconciliation? Oh that's right. I didn't. It has been YOU mischaracterizing my statements from the gitgo... because YOU won't be man enough to admit that the ten year expiration was REQUIRED by the legislative procedure that YOUR party used to pass the tax cuts in the first place... the very same procedure that the leadership of your party condemned the democrats for even CONSIDERING using.

Question: Why am I being held responsible for something I never said?

I AM saying that, in the first post above, you clearly implied that the reason the republicans wrote the sunset into the law was because they anticipated better economic conditions ten years in the future. That was NOT the case. THey wrote the sunset into the law because it was required by the Byrd Rule under the reconciliation procedures. They wrote it in because THEY didn't want to have to scrounge up 60 votes so they passed it with only 51. By using reconciliation.... you remember... that process that the democrat's contemplated using for health care? the one that was DEMONIZED by the GOP?

Yes, I remember. I remember I didn't complain about it, because the rules allowed it. So again: Why am I being held responsible for something I never said?

 

[maineman]

You're saying they should have foreseen the economy circling the bowl the way it is now?

Question: Why am I being held responsible for something I never said?

I AM saying that, in the first post above, you clearly implied that the reason the republicans wrote the sunset into the law was because they anticipated better economic conditions ten years in the future. That was NOT the case. They wrote the sunset into the law because it was required by the Byrd Rule under the reconciliation procedures. They wrote it in because THEY didn't want to have to scrounge up 60 votes so they passed it with only 51. By using reconciliation.... you remember... that process that the democrat's contemplated using for health care? the one that was DEMONIZED by the GOP?

Yes, I remember. I remember I didn't complain about it, because the rules allowed it. So again: Why am I being held responsible for something I never said?

I am not holding you responsible for anything that you never said. I am not saying that the democrat's consideration of reconciliaton was demonized by daveywoman.... it WAS, however demonized by the leadership of your party and by the talking heads of hte right. All I am holding you responsible for was not knowing WHY the ten year sunset was placed in the bill and instead suggesting that the republicans did so because they could not have foreseen the economic difficulties ten years hence.

 

[JBeukema]

The Way the World Works!!!!

OK.......now go back over the thread and tell us. Which posters have no clue???!!!!

That chart... is counterfactual in light of history

 

[daveman]

I AM saying that, in the first post above, you clearly implied that the reason the republicans wrote the sunset into the law was because they anticipated better economic conditions ten years in the future. That was NOT the case. They wrote the sunset into the law because it was required by the Byrd Rule under the reconciliation procedures. They wrote it in because THEY didn't want to have to scrounge up 60 votes so they passed it with only 51. By using reconciliation.... you remember... that process that the democrat's contemplated using for health care? the one that was DEMONIZED by the GOP?

Yes, I remember. I remember I didn't complain about it, because the rules allowed it. So again: Why am I being held responsible for something I never said?

I am not holding you responsible for anything that you never said. I am not saying that the democrat's consideration of reconciliaton was demonized by daveywoman.... it WAS, however demonized by the leadership of your party and by the talking heads of hte right. All I am holding you responsible for was not knowing WHY the ten year sunset was placed in the bill and instead suggesting that the republicans did so because they could not have foreseen the economic difficulties ten years hence.

Horseshit.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

? For liberals: If taxes go up on rich, how will you feel about consequences?

Gee.....I feel ashamed, already.....

The 1%ers will have to find SOME way to survive, WITHOUT that ANNUAL BMW-PURCHA$E??!!!



We Liberals/Progressives had no IDEA the trials & tribulations the 1%ers were facing!!!​

 

[editec]

Somebody's got to pay the bills.

It falls upon those who are making the most to pay the most.

"Not fair!," you say?

Yes, you're absolutely right.

Life is not fair.

That exactly why the top 1% own as much and make more than as the lowest 40% combined, too.

Because life is not fair.

 

[maineman]

Yes, I remember. I remember I didn't complain about it, because the rules allowed it. So again: Why am I being held responsible for something I never said?

I am not holding you responsible for anything that you never said. I am not saying that the democrat's consideration of reconciliaton was demonized by daveywoman.... it WAS, however demonized by the leadership of your party and by the talking heads of hte right. All I am holding you responsible for was not knowing WHY the ten year sunset was placed in the bill and instead suggesting that the republicans did so because they could not have foreseen the economic difficulties ten years hence.

Horseshit.

so....are you saying that you WERE aware of the ten year requirement of the Byrd rule when the Bush tax cuts were initially passed?

 

[rightwinger]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."

If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

Yea sure...

40% of the people will be laid off because of a 3% tax increase

Guess what? Lay off 40% of your workforce and who suffers?

You do

You make money off of each employee. If you don't, they shouldn't be working for you. A job is not a charity offering. You make a wage off your labor and your employer makes a profit off of your labor. Taxes only aply to the portion that is profit, what is paid in salary is deductable

 

[8537]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."

If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

What the fuck?!?!

Why would allowing the individual income tax top marginal rate to increase by 4 points lead to corporations - who pay the corporate tax rate - laying off the labor force?

Do people ever do an ounce of investigation before they post?