How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

Deficits went through the roof because the Democrats in Congress increased spending.

Another lo-lo poster chimes in.

Bush didn't have a Democratic Congress you moron.

The Dems didnt retake Congress in 2006? Who knew?
But Reagan did, and that invalidates your argument right there.

The GOP is just as big spenders as Democrats. Anyone who does not realize this is naive in the extreme. The GOP only wants power back so they can be the ones doing all the spending.

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.
 
Bush didn't have a Democratic Congress you moron.

The Dems didnt retake Congress in 2006? Who knew?
But Reagan did, and that invalidates your argument right there.

The GOP is just as big spenders as Democrats. Anyone who does not realize this is naive in the extreme. The GOP only wants power back so they can be the ones doing all the spending.

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.
You're extrapolating from the early Bush years. Agreed the GOP screwed the pooch and tried to act like Democrats. With any luck they learned their lesson although of course it's always tempting to be the good guy giving away free money.
 
The Left didn't write the tax code. It was written by rich lobbyists and approved by rich Senators.

Say what?

You really do just make shit up as you go along, don't you?

Anybody that uses the idiotic terms of "Left' and "right' when referring to politics is suspect anyway.

What is 'left'? What is 'right'?

Was Woodhead Wilson left or was he right? He was a dimocrap but he was a racist.

Was FDR left or right? He was a redistributionist but he stopped the immigration of Jews into America on racial quota grounds. He also interred tens of thousands of Japanese for the sole crime of being Japanese.

So he was a racist, too.

Was Lenin a rightie or a leftie? He was a redistributionist but he was also a murdering thug.

How about Stalin? ANother redistributionist who murdered MILLIONS?

Pol Pot? A redistributionist (BTW, being a redistributionist is a REQUIREMENT for being considered a leftist) and a genocidal mad man.

What about Abraham Lincoln? He was a Republican so he had to be a Right-Winger, right? But yet he fought our costliest War (against dimocrap scum, BTW) to free Black People from Slavery.

What about Castro? Is he left or right?

What about Chavez and his toadie, Maduro? Left or right?

You know what I think?

I think you people are dishonest scumbags.

I think you assign the term 'left' to anything and anybody you like and/or approve of, and assign the term 'right' to those you dont' approve of.

Is Kim Jong Un a leftie or a rightie? He's got your worker's paradise in full operation.

Which is he? left or right.

You people.... You libturds.... You are the most dishonest, deceptive scumbags to ever walk the earth.

Everything you do is dishonest and everything you say is a lie couched in a half-truth.

Everything.

You don't know what you believe.

Lincoln raised taxes to pay for the Civil War.
 
The Dems didnt retake Congress in 2006? Who knew?
But Reagan did, and that invalidates your argument right there.

Why did Reagan keep raising taxes after his tax cuts?

Deflection noted.

Now you're running away from your claims? lol

In 1980 revenues were 19% of GDP. By 1988 revenues had fallen to 18.2% of GDP. If the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues,

why were they producing LESS revenue relative to GDP??
 
Why did Reagan keep raising taxes after his tax cuts?

Deflection noted.

Now you're running away from your claims? lol

In 1980 revenues were 19% of GDP. By 1988 revenues had fallen to 18.2% of GDP. If the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues,

why were they producing LESS revenue relative to GDP??

Because GDP increased substantially due to Reagan's policies. In absolute terms the government had more revenue. Your thesis is wrong.
 
Deflection noted.

Now you're running away from your claims? lol

In 1980 revenues were 19% of GDP. By 1988 revenues had fallen to 18.2% of GDP. If the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues,

why were they producing LESS revenue relative to GDP??

Because GDP increased substantially due to Reagan's policies. In absolute terms the government had more revenue. Your thesis is wrong.

In absolute terms the government had more revenue during the Clinton years, after his tax increases. That would prove your theory wrong.
 
I wasn't born where? Did Reagan help the middle class by selling weapons to terrorists and using the money to fund genocide in Central America?

Was that good for the economy? Did it strengthen the middle class? If it did then let's do it again, because Reagan was the greatest American President in the universe and the 80s were so prosperous for everyone.

The 80s, economically speaking, were waaay better than the 70s. :D
 
Now you're running away from your claims? lol

In 1980 revenues were 19% of GDP. By 1988 revenues had fallen to 18.2% of GDP. If the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues,

why were they producing LESS revenue relative to GDP??

Because GDP increased substantially due to Reagan's policies. In absolute terms the government had more revenue. Your thesis is wrong.

In absolute terms the government had more revenue during the Clinton years, after his tax increases. That would prove your theory wrong.

While Clinton got credit for the economy, it was Gingrich and the DotCom bubble that created it.

Clinton was a bystander.

Although I will give him credit for the Welfare reform act that obama neutered,

Other than that, he was pretty useless. He just simply signed stuff that Gingrich sent him -- Including the Welfare Reform Act

Just a fact
 
The left don't want the tax code fixed.. as it would bring more of the citizenry into the paying of income taxes.. with more people having a stake in the game, spending would be a much higher concern for them.. if spending is scrutinized and under attack by people who actually pay income taxes (those that don't pay don't care and only see what they can get from government), the liberal way of government takes a hit.. they don't want any hit to come to their power

Hammer on nail.
Like many I left the big city to raise my fam in a small suburban town. The citizen involvement was incredible and the elected officials had no choice but to act responsibly but at the county and state levels it was the poor towns demanding higher taxes (what did they care ... they weren't paying them) and greater support from the wealthier ones and those officials had more room to maneuver (and overspend).
That big city is now in big financial trouble.
 
Now you're running away from your claims? lol

In 1980 revenues were 19% of GDP. By 1988 revenues had fallen to 18.2% of GDP. If the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues,

why were they producing LESS revenue relative to GDP??

Because GDP increased substantially due to Reagan's policies. In absolute terms the government had more revenue. Your thesis is wrong.

In absolute terms the government had more revenue during the Clinton years, after his tax increases. That would prove your theory wrong.

Everybody here who can read needs to read this and understand the LIES dimocraps have been foisting on us for years.

They do it every chance they get. Every chance.....

And it's a lie... An incredible, bald-face lie

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase - Forbes

However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.

Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.
 
OP says Dems want to destroy the rich except....they are "the rich".

Makes sense if you've been dropped on your head a few times
 
OP says Dems want to destroy the rich except....they are "the rich".

Makes sense if you've been dropped on your head a few times

No no Dems are for poor people. Poor people like Oprah and Hollywood stars and gay athletes.

Wall Street IS dimocraps....

Why Goldman Sachs, Other Wall Street Titans Are Not Being Prosecuted - The Daily Beast

And let's not forget who's getting even more stinking rich because of the denial of the Keystone XL pipeline -- Warren Buffet.

Then there's Bill Gates. And Peter Lewis. And Tom Steyer.

I don't know if our resident dimocraps are so stupid as to believe their propaganda of ignorance or not..... I suspect they are that stupid, but the fact is -- Most of the FILTHY RICH are dimocraps.

Just look at Hollywood and the benefactors of obama's porkulus package and Wall Street and...

dimocraps just aren't very bright. They vote for those who hate them. They hate them even worse than I do.

The difference is -- I'm up front about it. And I want them to learn and improve their lot in life.

dimocrap elites want them to stay right where they are.

dimocraps are easy

And really, really DUMB
 
Rich Dems want to take away their own wealth and hurt the poor by giving them assistance.

Birds Swim and Fish Fly!
 
Rich Dems want to take away their own wealth and hurt the poor by giving them assistance.

Birds Swim and Fish Fly!

No, idiot. Do you understand the difference between wealth and income? Probably not. You probably thjnk Michael Jackson was wealthy when he died.
 
Rich Dems want to take away their own wealth and hurt the poor by giving them assistance.

Birds Swim and Fish Fly!

No, idiot. Do you understand the difference between wealth and income? Probably not. You probably thjnk Michael Jackson was wealthy when he died.

I know! The Dems hate the poor thats why they seek to help them with....help. On the other hand the GOP really cares about them thats why they tar and feather them regularly. Makes 'em tough!
 
Rich Dems want to take away their own wealth and hurt the poor by giving them assistance.

Birds Swim and Fish Fly!

Idiot.

The Filthy Rich have TEAMS of lawyers whose only jobs are to find tax loopholes.

And very few of them have an Income. They make their money off Capital Gains and Stock Dividend distributions.

Plus the fact, everything they do is paid for by their Company as a cost of doing business. Including their Gulf Streams...

Gulfstream-Jet-4.jpg


Are you that stupid or that dishonest....?

Or both?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

All you ever do in here is lie your fucking ass off.

You need to be kicked to the curb permanently.
 

Forum List

Back
Top