You cannot help the poor by giving more tax cuts to the rich

[JakeStarkey]

The fact that teapartysamuraiFascist ignores is that Bush and the GOP signed onto the bill that began it all in 2008 and the dems continued. MissFascist cannot in any way suggest much less prove that without the TARP and the Stimulus we would be in the economy of hell.

MissFascist's reactionary agenda-driven of the beyondfarright appeals to 14 people. End of story.

 

[teapartysamurai]

We stand today in this financial mess NOT because of the poor, but because the very richest. They had to be bailed out and it was the taxpayers who paid. Well, the poor is the countries largest work force and it's the poor who will pay more than anyone else. It's not the poor passing on debt to the rich, but the rich passing their debt on to the poor.

The rich are the minority in this country not the other way around. The bailouts = $175,000 per American citizen. How would you like to be poor and get stuck with that?

How would you like to be among the millions of American poor who slaved for years working in factory's only to have the company up and go overseas and taking with it the only major employer in their area?

The poor are the very heart of America. Right now they are getting poorer by the day due to mismanagement of funds by the wealthy bankers and cooperation's. If you look at the statistics its this countries poor who enlist into our military services more than any other group. It's always been that way. So, they are the largest workforce thus paying in more taxes as a whole than any other, fighting and dieing for American freedoms more than any other, yet they are the scum of the earth to you?

No wrong.

WHAT CORPORATIONS???

GM? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Countrywide?

Who bailed them out? It sure as hell wasn't you or me.

And what do you mean I think the "poor are the scum of the earth."

That's typical liberal non thinking, that if I don't want to turn the US into some marxist "utopia" I must not care for the poor.

AS IF the only way to care for the poor, is through a bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy.

It was THE SAME BLOATED government that bailed them out.

Who's fault is that? Bush and the Republicans warned this country, the bottom was going to fall through as early as 2002.

Guess who blocked anything getting fixed until too late? THAT'S RIGHT, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!


They were more interested in covering for Franklin Raines than fixing the problem. They didn't care how many Americans got hurt, when the bottom fell out. All they cared about was covering for a liberal corruptocrat!

Then there's Countrywide!

]

Fannie Mae and Barney Fwank?



Who doesn't care for the poor? Who made their condition worse?

Who caused this economic mess?

The evidence makes it clear it was DEMOCRATS, while liberals desperately try to pin the blame on Bush.

I am speaking of ALL of the bailouts be it Frannie and Freddie, Auto Industry, etc..

It goes like this: This country was broke before the bailouts happened. To pay for the bailouts we went to the Federal Reserve and had them print the money. The Fed is NOT a Government Entity, It is owned by private banks. Since we stopped using gold to back our currency in 1971 the Fed prints money out of thin air. This is than loaned to the Government to use and passed on to the taxpayers to pay. Every time you print money from thin air you devalue the dollar.

The U.S. dollar is worth 4 cents as compared to what it was when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. Once again this is NOT owned by our Government. We cannot audit them or even look at their books.

Since the working poor make up the largest labor force than it stands to reason that they as the collective pay more money in taxes, thus are the ones who got screwed the most.

I am NOT of either party for there is NO difference in the two. They want you to think that there is though so you will not recognize their true agenda which is world government.
If there was a difference the first thing you would see from a new President taking office from a President of the opposing party would be him repealing things done from the previous.

I didn't mean to offend you in anyway, it's just that the poor are the true backbone of this country. Someone needs to speak on their behalf.

Dude, that's ludicrous saying the Fed Reserve isn't part of the govenrment.

The head is chosen by the government.

When Bush wanted the TARP bailout it was then Fed Chairman, Ben Berneke that basically forced companies to sign for this bailout.

But TARP is chump change compared to Obama stimulus.

I'm really not taking "sides' with parties either. I'm not fond of the Republican leadership, either.

The Republicans spent far too much during the Bush years. But Facts are FACTS.

And the FACTS are Obama made all that spending look like the "good old days" compared to stimulus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

FACTS are FACTS, MissFASCIST.

You are a (very poor) shill for the reactionary agenda-driven ohtoofarright.

 

[Bern80]

opinion pieces from rightwingnut trash sites really don't prove very much.

and if there was such a thing as trickle down economics, it would have worked over the last 10 years.

but feel free to explain why, with higher taxes, the economy was healthy under clinton, and crashed under bush.



good luxk.

Because tax rates aren't the only variable that influences the economy?

 

[Bern80]

Let's look at this, shall we?

First, the nimrod, stupid ass comment, "But since he did not show any concern for his future at that point, he should have realized that raising a family on 8 bucks an hour would be tough, and perhaps not had those kids to start with. Condoms are cheap."

Second, the ass of a nimrod thinks he understands in other people's lives the events that lead to situations. Some of them, yes, are, undoubtedly, the result of poor choices. Others are events beyond one's control.

I have no use for such attitudes. Fuck em.

Seeing as how the first satement is NOT one of those things out of one't control, your second statement doesn't really apply now does it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nimrod 1, and you, Nimrod2, Bern80, made a statement which you support, said statement was stupid.

Thus, you support stupid. Nimrod1 tried to make a class out of a single example to indict the larger point.

Fail.

 

[teapartysamurai]

opinion pieces from rightwingnut trash sites really don't prove very much.

and if there was such a thing as trickle down economics, it would have worked over the last 10 years.

but feel free to explain why, with higher taxes, the economy was healthy under clinton, and crashed under bush.



good luxk.

Because tax rates aren't the only variable that influences the economy?

Actually, it was a tax cut that fueled the success of the 90s. That tax cut being the one the Republicans forced on him in 1995. THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUT!

When we had a very mild recession in 1992 (which Clinton called the "worst economy in 50 years" what a joke), Bush(41) told us that the solution was a capital gains tax rate.

But alas, the Democrats were in charge of Congress and would not vote on one.

But Republicans took the Congress by storm in 1994, FORCING TWO KEY THINGS ON CLINTON.

One was a Capital gains tax cut.

The other was welfare reform.

The capital gains tax cut, turned out to be a huge success for the Clinton admin, despite he fact, the only signed it, because he did not want to be embarrassed by a Republican override of his veto.

The "rich" no longer hid their money in shelters, freeing up huge amounts of capital and spurring the economy.

Liberals ever since then credit the Clinton tax hike as the reason for Clinton successes, but the proof is in the pudding.

When Clinton ran in 1996, he didn't run on his tax hike. He ran on welfare reform and the capital gains tax cut, TWO MEASURES FORCED ON HIM BY THE REPUBLICANS.

The fact is, the CBO predicted deficits going into 2010 for the Clinton admin PRIOR TO THE REPUBLICANS TAKING THE CONGRESS. That didn't change until Clinton signed the capital gains tax cut.

THAT is why the 90s were boom years, and became even better under the Bush years DESPITE the enron scandal, the dot.com bubble burst, and 9/11.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Bush years were only good for the upper middle class and the wealthy, MissFascist.

That will not be permitted to happen again. Trickle down, as we have since steadily since the eighties, trickes $$$ up and almost nothing done.

 

[Bern80]

The Bush years were only good for the upper middle class and the wealthy, MissFascist.

That will not be permitted to happen again. Trickle down, as we have since steadily since the eighties, trickes $$$ up and almost nothing done.

Except for the fact that the poor and middle class got the largest income tax cut. But never mind that......

 

[Jarhead]

The Bush years were only good for the upper middle class and the wealthy, MissFascist.

That will not be permitted to happen again. Trickle down, as we have since steadily since the eighties, trickes $$$ up and almost nothing done.

Except for the fact that the poor and middle class got the largest income tax cut. But never mind that......

true....but the poor and middle class get all sorts of free stuff from the wealthy via the government.

So the question is...

Maybe it pays to be poor or middle class....


What to do...what to do.

 

[Stashman]

No wrong.

WHAT CORPORATIONS???

GM? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Countrywide?

Who bailed them out? It sure as hell wasn't you or me.

And what do you mean I think the "poor are the scum of the earth."

That's typical liberal non thinking, that if I don't want to turn the US into some marxist "utopia" I must not care for the poor.

AS IF the only way to care for the poor, is through a bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy.

It was THE SAME BLOATED government that bailed them out.

Who's fault is that? Bush and the Republicans warned this country, the bottom was going to fall through as early as 2002.

Guess who blocked anything getting fixed until too late? THAT'S RIGHT, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!


They were more interested in covering for Franklin Raines than fixing the problem. They didn't care how many Americans got hurt, when the bottom fell out. All they cared about was covering for a liberal corruptocrat!

Then there's Countrywide!

]

Fannie Mae and Barney Fwank?



Who doesn't care for the poor? Who made their condition worse?

Who caused this economic mess?

The evidence makes it clear it was DEMOCRATS, while liberals desperately try to pin the blame on Bush.

I am speaking of ALL of the bailouts be it Frannie and Freddie, Auto Industry, etc..

It goes like this: This country was broke before the bailouts happened. To pay for the bailouts we went to the Federal Reserve and had them print the money. The Fed is NOT a Government Entity, It is owned by private banks. Since we stopped using gold to back our currency in 1971 the Fed prints money out of thin air. This is than loaned to the Government to use and passed on to the taxpayers to pay. Every time you print money from thin air you devalue the dollar.

The U.S. dollar is worth 4 cents as compared to what it was when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. Once again this is NOT owned by our Government. We cannot audit them or even look at their books.

Since the working poor make up the largest labor force than it stands to reason that they as the collective pay more money in taxes, thus are the ones who got screwed the most.

I am NOT of either party for there is NO difference in the two. They want you to think that there is though so you will not recognize their true agenda which is world government.
If there was a difference the first thing you would see from a new President taking office from a President of the opposing party would be him repealing things done from the previous.

I didn't mean to offend you in anyway, it's just that the poor are the true backbone of this country. Someone needs to speak on their behalf.

Dude, that's ludicrous saying the Fed Reserve isn't part of the govenrment.

The head is chosen by the government.

When Bush wanted the TARP bailout it was then Fed Chairman, Ben Berneke that basically forced companies to sign for this bailout.

But TARP is chump change compared to Obama stimulus.

I'm really not taking "sides' with parties either. I'm not fond of the Republican leadership, either.

The Republicans spent far too much during the Bush years. But Facts are FACTS.

And the FACTS are Obama made all that spending look like the "good old days" compared to stimulus.

No your wrong, and very much so. Yes the president does choose the Chairman of the Fed, but he does so from a list given to him from the Fed itself. There are NO elected officials with the Fed.

The Federal Reserve System is a banking cartel and the biggest fraud in history. The following is a link to a video of the Glen Beck show from last March. He shows how the fed was created and what it truly is.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2roews2_1c&feature=player_embedded]‪March 25th, 2011‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

Sure you can. Rich guy gets a tax break, has extra money to spend so he hires a poor fella and then the poor fella works 8 hours a day for five days a week. Then on every Friday, or every other Friday in some cases the poor fella gets a pay check. Then the poor fella if he is smart will save some of that money, and after awhile he wont be poor any more. Aside from that, there are very few poor in this country considering the "poor" in this country have a TV in each bedroom of there house as well as and X-Box 360 and a computer.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Bush years were only good for the upper middle class and the wealthy, MissFascist.

That will not be permitted to happen again. Trickle down, as we have since steadily since the eighties, trickes $$$ up and almost nothing done.

Completely false. the Bush years were excellent for me. And I dont nearly qualify for upper middle class and wealthy yet.

Of course, there is more to life than money. But compared to now, the Bush years were times of plenty.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

The Bush years were only good for the upper middle class and the wealthy, MissFascist.

That will not be permitted to happen again. Trickle down, as we have since steadily since the eighties, trickes $$$ up and almost nothing done.

Completely false. the Bush years were excellent for me. And I dont nearly qualify for upper middle class and wealthy yet.

Of course, there is more to life than money. But compared to now, the Bush years were times of plenty.

I did good to ! lots of money getting thrown around, and hurricanes to. I was working well into 2010 on busted yachts and houses. The bad thing about those years was the fact that a good deal of that money was on credit cards, and loans.

 

[kaz]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

You can't help the poor by giving money to government either, that's how you give them dependency

 

[Steelplate]

"Once again... You seem oblivious to the fact that less comes out of your paycheck in federal taxes than if localities were responsible for their own solutions without the help of the Federal Government. Because Communities with a higher population, and therefore a higher tax base, helps out smaller communities that produce our food supply(rural and farming communities). Imagine if that stopped. How would a rural community with a population of 5k or less manage to educate their children, pave their streets, protect their citizens from crime and catastrophe?"

I'm guessing you're one of those people that lives in a big city on one of the coasts? Here's a new flash for you. It's the rural farming communities in the heartland of America that have always lived within their means who subsidize the nation's urban areas that have not. We're not in the fiscal crisis that we are because of the "excesses" of rural towns in Kansas or the Dakotas...we're in the fiscal crisis we are because of the excesses of urban areas like New York City and Los Angeles.

No... live in Snyder County PA(look it up).... and you are delusional. a town of 5k doesn't have the tax base to "live within their means" without state and Federal Subsidies. You're just too blinded by rhetoric to believe or understand it.

 

[Oldstyle]

I keep hearing the same refrain from progressive about how "bad" Reagan was for everyone but the rich and yet when I look around the country today the people that I see struggling are the middle class and the working poor. How can you folks call Reagan bad for everyone but the rich when we were all so much better off when he was President? I know that you all worship the ground that Barry walks on but what has he done in the 2 1/2 years he's been President? TARP brought us back from the edge of a financial collapse but that was a Bush thing that Obama simply continued. The Obama stimulus was a huge failure. We spent a trillion and a half dollars and unemployment went up not down. He did pass Obama Care...which was supposed to lower everyone's health care costs. Anyone seeing that happen? Mine went up and the real costs of Obama Care haven't kicked in yet. Month after month goes by with no improvement in the housing market or in unemployment yet all our President wants to talk about is green energy jobs and high speed rail. Sorry, but I don't think he's got a clue what he's doing when it comes to economics. His entire economic staff (save for Geithner) has tucked tail and run back to their teaching jobs at Harvard and Berkeley because everything they said would work...hasn't. I think the only reason Geithner hasn't left is he can't find anyone foolish enough to hire him. Let's face it folks...if you can't figure out Turbo Tax then you're not exactly a financial whiz.

 

[Oldstyle]

"No... live in Snyder County PA(look it up).... and you are delusional. a town of 5k doesn't have the tax base to "live within their means" without state and Federal Subsidies. You're just too blinded by rhetoric to believe or understand it."

"I'm" blinded by rhetoric? Think about what you're saying. Where do you think State and Federal subsidies come from? Government doesn't create wealth...it takes it from those who do. So what you're saying is that it makes sense for us to take wealth from local people...send it all the way to Washington...run it through the morass that is the Federal Government...and then send what ever is left over back to local people in the form of subsidies? That's literally one of the most absurd things I've ever heard and anyone who thinks that's efficient is either smoking crack or is just plain not very smart. Here's a suggestion...let local people KEEP their money to deal with local problems. Our founding fathers understood that the less the Federal Government interfered with local issues the better.

 

[Steelplate]

And you think that when 49% of the country pays 3% of the federal taxes, while 1% of the country pays over 50% of the federal taxes, that it isn't taxation without representation for those 49% to vote themselves more government goodies at everyone else's expense?

I got news for you, that's what the Tea Party and the November 2010 election was about.

There are people saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! We are NOT going to just shut up and keep paying for a bloated entitlement system.

You are totally out of touch. You think it's the 1960s and Johnson's "Great Society" is still a great idea.

Welcome to 2011, dude. The welfare state cannot be sustained indefinitely. They are now borrowing and printing worthless money just to try and hold off that day when it collapses.

Your living wage is not something that can be sustained forever.

The only people saying enough is enough is the extremely rich... who through loopholes and credits... end up paying less than I do in taxes at $100k. Them... and people like you who actually believe the "poor little rich folk" propaganda that gets spewed from the Corporate Controlled Media.

Dude, according to Obama, YOU ARE RICH, you poor clueless sap!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SavgJlBLA"]‪Obama: families making $97,000 are "upper class" and should pay more taxes‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

You are an idiot! Obama HAS STATED THAT THOSE MAKING 97K ARE "THE RICH!"

And what are you whining to me for? My husband makes under 75K while I am looking for a job (and since I have been a stay at home mom since 1994) I doubt our combined salaries will get us UP to 100K.

Yet, I have ABSOLUTELY NO ILLUSION that my taxes WILL GO UP under Obama.

You can be stupid and believe Obama will not raise YOUR taxes. But the last time taxes were raised, (retroactive to Jan 1) in 1993, guess what?

HERE ARE THE FACTS!

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 [WHEN REAGAN CUT TAXES] to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.

Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

What this means is, when taxes were cut it REDUCED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, while when taxes were raised, IT RAISED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, WHILE THE TOP TIER SIMPLY EMPLOYED STRATEGIES TO AVOID IT!

Now THIS IS REALITY! You can rattle off your fantasies about how Obama will close the loopholes, but his hundreds of waivers for preferred companies to avoid Obamacare prove it to be just that, A FANTASY!

The loopholes will go no where! And those who can't avoid the loopholes WILL SIMPLY LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Tim Horton's has already done so.

Obama's tax hike will NOT have the effect that you fantasize about. It will not hurt the rich you dream about "getting even" with. It will hurt and is DELIBERATELY TARGETED AT YOU!

You'll feel it first before I will, you moron!

Wow... you are quite insane. I can tell by the maniacal laughter at the end of your posts. First off... if you notice... I said the extremely rich... $100k is doing pretty OK, but it is still very much in the Middle Class realm. Furthermore, If my taxes go up a little.. I can live with that.

What I can't live with is that when I turn 65, that I can't afford to live. I've been busting my ass since I was 14 and my body is starting to break down already at 46. I've had a three level fusion surgery to my back, and my knees will someday need replaced. I'll be lucky to get my 35 years in... that's 13 years away, let alone work till I'm 67 or 70.

As far as your idiotic blathering about "getting even" with the rich? This isn't about "getting even".... this is about doing what's right for America's people. They will just "leave"? yeah right... do you know what Corporate Taxes tend to run in other countries that don't have loopholes to jump through? All I know is that while the Rate is 39%, they pay next to nothing.. yes.. I know... GE.. Obama... blah, blah, blah... I don't excuse GE at all... they are part of the problem... but you act as though GE is the ONLY one... because they are fun for you guys to use because of your hatred of Obama.

I'll tell you what... they're bluffing. Regulations are higher in other countries, there is more of that hated "Socialism"... health care, etc... in other countries and there is less Corporatism in other countries... they ain't going nowhere.

I think I'm done trying to have a conversation with you... You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

 

[Steelplate]

"1.1 Trillion in tax cuts since 2008.....all with economic stimulation in mind....and you see where it's gotten us."

We aren't in trouble because of tax cuts, Vanquish...we're in trouble because we have out of control spending. Raising taxes will not bring us out of this recession. Cutting wasteful Federal spending and allowing that capital to remain the private sector will.

That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you.

Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No fucking way.