1989
Well-Known Member
We have been on hyper trickle down ever since TARP. Only the fed is doing anything for jobs. And some argue, creating asset bubbles.
Last edited:
President Obama cracks jokes and SLAYS FOX NEWS at dinner!
- Thread starter The Other Side
- Start date
1989
Well-Known Member
1989
Well-Known Member
Maybe the IRS could give out more earned income tax credits to people who don't qualify? If they could increase that number from 13-15 billion to maybe 20-25 billion. Would that be considered a trickle up? I bet walmart could boost their divy.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101669155
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101669155
DID YOU READ THE BILL?
Its clear as a bell. IT WANTS TO OVERTURN THE CLEAN WATER ACT and eliminate ANY requirements for a corporation to seek a dumping permit into water ways. It ALSO, eliminates the need to investigate WATER CONTAMINATION from GAS FRACKING.
READ THE BILLS... thats why I asked for them.
NONE OF YOU READ ANYTHING... except those that give a crap.
He is exactly right. If he wants to open an oil recycling facility, and he dumps excess waste into a river, the REPUBLICANS are cool with this. It says so in the bill.
READ IT before you tell someone they are nuts.
TOS.
Why are you "tipping your hat" to this post?
What build our country after the great depression? Private business? If it wasnt for government "stimulation" this country would have folded.
When our country is in "dire" economic straits, and the private sector isnt helping to correct it, what choice does our government have but to intervene until economic recovery begins?
As if the private sector wasnt already wiping out jobs for two years prior to OBAMA taking office. 11.5 million jobs lost and a doubling of the unemployed in this country.
We have lots to do in this country. We need better roads all over the place. We need to widen freeways and highways, we need to fix bridges, we need to re-pave roads in every state, we need to build better schools, we need to fix cities like detroit.
These are things the government can start and private business to finish.
These are jobs the republicans just dont want to agree to. Instead, they would rather push for tax cuts for the rich and wars in the middle east that cost trillions and return ZERO.
How did "shock an awe" work out for us? Terrorist groups are still plotting and planning all over the middle east.
Rather than our government spending trillions in the middle east, how about spending billions here in the states employing americans, instead of providing free health care for iraqi's or afghans? How about spending a few billion putting poor people to work on projects here in the states instead of recruiting them into the military and sending them overseas to be killed for peanuts?
Our government has every reason to get involved when the country is destroyed from the inside out. BUSH caused so much economic damage to our infrastructure its not even funny anymore.
Its easy to say do nothing, but its not the simple.
I say, "keep your hat on".
TOS.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
You really should follow your own advice and do some research or at least use some common sense.
The rich only make up a small percentage of the population and are already paying up 71% (that figure goes up and down depending on what your definition of "rich" is) of the taxes required to cover this administration's massive spending. You can literally tax them at 100% and it doesn't even come close to covering the bill when accompanied by taxes that come out of the middle/lower class. So you see....government spending is the problem. Not tax breaks for the rich or how much taxes they pay. Only an idiot or someone too naive to function would believe or think that the rich are in anyway responsible for our government's deficit or overspending. It's an outright lie.
Liberals always claim that the middle class are paying more taxes than the rich. Statistically speaking that is simply a lie. If the rich (only a small percent of the population) are already paying between 40%-70% of the taxes than how the hell does the claim that they aren't paying their fair share hold up? It doesn't. In fact, a study in 2010 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...ome-taxes-bottom-40-paid-91-got-average-18950 that it was the middle class that didn't pay their fair share. According to the study by the CBO the top 40% paid 106% of the taxes!
The rich are not responsible for this mess. There aren't enough of them to tax to fix this mess. It's is 100% the fault of excessive government spending. Nothing more. Nothing less. Anyone using common sense or logic can see this. Well, that excludes most liberals. They are too blinded by emotions such as jealousy and hatred that is fueled by the pathetic liberal/socialist propaganda machine called the mainstream media to use basic math to understand that taxing 1-10% of the population can't cover our nation's bills.
And regarding HR872 and HR910.....again.....you really should follow your own advice. They don't repeal anything.They amend! Read the summaries VERY VERY VERY carefully.
Last edited:
Please, dont defend the rich as if you are a part of them. Thats laughable. And dont give me the talking points of RUSH LIMBAUGH defending the outcomes of taxing the rich.
Are rich people in the higher tax brackets?? Yes of course they are. Do they actually pay those tax rates??
OF COURSE THEY DONT.
Sean Hannity is always crying about having to pay 60% total in taxes, but does he? NO WAY. After deductions, he is like Romney, he pays less than 20%.
How about YOU? Do you pay less than 20% in taxes a year? of course you dont but you will stick up for MITT and SEAN so they can keep their money, you just want to pay "your fair share".
Why do you think they have such high tax brackets?
Do you think for one second the tax code takes into consideration deductions that reduces the amount of taxes paid by rich individuals?
Nobody is jealous of the rich.
What people are upset about is the breaks for the wealthy while the middle class picks up the slack for those wealthy people.
Luxury boxes for the rich at sporting events needs a permanent tax break? REALLY????
Private condos in las vegas hotels needs a permanent tax break for the wealthy???
These are the things you are defending while the country racks up deficits year over year.
Reagan started it with his tax cuts for the top 1% of earners in the country. He ends up being the first president to exceed a trillion dollars in national debt and when he left, he left a 3.7 trillion dollar deficit for someone else to clean up. BUSH 1, with his no new taxes pledge, racked up an additional 2.5 trillion before having to raise taxes and reducing that debt.
Clinton restore the tax rate on the wealthy and paid the debt down.
BUSH2 cut taxes on your beloved RICH and presto, 11 trillion dollars in debt when he leaves office. 3.5 trillion of that debt from the BUSH tax cuts themselves.
Dont give me that crap that taxing the rich doesnt hurt the country. It sure does.
The only ones dumb enough not to believe it are the ones who repeat the limbaugh explanations.
TOS.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
I don't have to be rich to stand up for them just like I don't have to be a women to stand up for women's rights. And attacking the rich is the main focus of the left and it has to be stopped. Why? It's wrong and causes many ignorant voters to vote democrat and this country is collapsing as result. Also....I don't listen to Rush.
If they aren't paying those rates then it's either because of deductions, which are legal, or because they are tax dodgers. Either way the left's accusation that the rich in general "aren't paying their fair share" is completely without a doubt debunked (as in sending the lie down in flames) by the very simple math I mentioned before. You, and everyone else that participates in such class warfare, just refuses to ignore said math. It's simple: Take the known amount of rich people as a percentage of the population and their known tax contributions as a percentage and you will see that no matter how much you tax them it will not solve the problem. That problem is the amount of spending and borrowing our elected officials have accumulated. The left's whole premise on taxing the rich based on an OPINION that they aren't paying their fair share but in reality the numbers don't lie. They are paying their fair share. And more.
Even with their deductions, which, again, are legal, they are STILL contributing what is required and so is most of those that are in their tax bracket. Again.....if they weren't then how could they also be accounting for up to 70% of the tax pie? Simple math and logic shows that you are dead wrong.
I pay far less than 20% because I claim as much as I possibly can on my W4. I refuse to get a bunch of money back every year that amounts to nothing more than an interest free loan for the government to blow on god knows what that only adds to the debt. Anyone who complains about their tax rate while getting thousands of dollars back in refunds every year needs to wake up. You don't have to pay that high rate. Be smart and lower your withholdings. That's simply what "Mitt" and the like are doing. And yes I stick up for Mitt and Sean because they have done nothing wrong. They are being falsely accused of something despite their being ample evidence to the contrary. I defend ANYONE that is wronged.
Yes, it does. It was written knowing that the deductions would lower the taxes paid just like it was written knowing that the deductions would lower the middle and lower class's taxes paid. Why? Because it was known that the rich would still be paying much more than the middle and lower class. Last time I check 14% of $3million is a hell of allot more than 20% of $85k. I do, however, think that all deductions should be eliminated for all classes. I'm in favor of a fair tax or something like it.
Riiiiiiiiiiight. I believe that. Syke.
Hear me on this one even though I've repeated it several times already and even explained how to understand it. THE MIDDLE CLASS DOES NOT PICK UP THE SLACK FOR THE WEALTHY PEOPLE! The proof is in the numbers. You just refuse to accept them. My link about the CBO study in 2010 alone should convince most people with an open mind and desire for the truth. You just refuse to open your eyes. Let alone your mind.
I'll don't agree with such tax breaks. But guess what......it doesn't change a thing. No amount of tax revenue from condos or luxury boxes will put a dent in the deficit and spending. That's what you refuse to accept. The real problem is spending. Not the tax breaks for the rich. There aren't enough of them (tax breaks or rich people) to close the gaps. It's that simple math I keep mentioning and you keep refusing to apply.
Umm...really? Is that what your rolling with here? We didn't lose 11 trillion dollars from raising taxes for 1% of the population. That came from two wars (one of which wouldn't have been necessary if Clinton hadn't been a whip at foreign policy and fighting terrorism).
Taxing the rich, no matter how much you take from them, won't change a thing with the kind of spending this administration is dishing out. And the more they tax the higher they raise the debt ceiling.
I don't repeat political talking heads. I use simple math, logic, and practicality. Only overly partisan minions accept that 1% of the population getting breaks on their condos and luxury boxes is causing a government spending problem.
Here's a decent way of explaining things for you to understand.......
An apartment owner has ten units that should cost $1million/year to manage and he charges rent according to income. He spends $10million on lavish furniture that is included, full channel DirecTv, and provides each unit with food, medical insurance, and a car he would be in debt up to his ass and would eventually lose the complex. So, the logical thing to to would be to ditch all of those things....meaning....the tenants would have to provide their own furniture, food, cable tv, transportation, medical insurance. But....by your logic he should simply charge the one or two tenants with the highest incomes more (much more) even though they are already paying more than anyone else to offset the difference instead of making the logic choice of cutting what he shouldn't be spending money on. There. Get it now? Probably not. I'm sure it took plenty of hair off as that concept was whizzing by right over your head.
Last edited:
If just the top 1% were taxed at 67%, it would raise $4 trillion over a decade.
moreluck
golden ticket member
4 trillion in 10 years ?? That's not enough to cover 10 years of gov't spending.
It's still not enough if you tax the richest 100%.............cutting the spending is the only way.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Sent using BrownCafe App
They just can't grasp that concept. No matter how many times, or how simply anyone explains it to them. You simply can't reason with animals that are foaming at the mouth.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
And blame everything on Bush, and Global Warmi....uh....cooling....umm......climate change?
moreluck
golden ticket member
That's ALL he can do........his repertoire is very shallow !!
And speaking of shallow.... you still havent produced a bill that purports to create jobs.
The others attempted at least to show bills that destroyed the clean air act, the clean water act, extension to tax cuts to the wealthest americans, defunding of the ACA...
But not one jobs bill.
I would call that pretty shallow of an argument.
TOS.
1989
Well-Known Member
How about YOU? Do you pay less than 20% in taxes a year? of course you dont but you will stick up for MITT and SEAN so they can keep their money, you just want to pay "your fair share".
I think I paid about 12% (federal) on about 180K gross. Take out deductions, of course I would have paid more. I could have put cash in other places and paid less. That's just how the tax code works. If I would have grossed more, I would have probably bought a boat and paid less.
I think I paid about 12% (federal) on about 180K gross. Take out deductions, of course I would have paid more. I could have put cash in other places and paid less. That's just how the tax code works. If I would have grossed more, I would have probably bought a boat and paid less.
Is there a "dispute" that deductions lower tax liabilities??
That was the POINT. The RICH, like sean hannity claim they PAY 60% in taxes and they dont. They are in the 60% bracket, but they dont come close to paying 60%.
OUT is just one of the people who want to stand up for rich americans by saying they pay TOO MUCH because they are in these tax brackets, and yet, he leaves out that they dont come close to paying such rates.
They are rich enough to almost pay nothing. The tax breaks for the rich are BEYOND ridiculous yet its the REPUBLICANS who do a great job of convincing people like OUT that the tax breaks for the rich (like luxury boxes) is something that has to be protected while the middle class recieves nothing near equality.
Since Reagan started cutting the taxes of the top 1%, national deficits have grown year over year. Reagans vision of tax cuts for the top 1% punched a giant 3.7 trillion dollar hole in the governments budget. At the end of Reagans second year after cutting taxes, unemployment sat at 10.7%. He took office with unemployment at 6.1% and it was clear cutting taxes didnt create jobs.
Not willing to raise taxes to pay the debt down, BUSH 1 kept the rates the same and added another 2.5 trillion to the deficit before having to raise taxes, break his pledge and lose re election over it. Unemployment sat at 7.1% when BUSH left office.
Clinton raised taxes on the top 1% and paid down the debt and went on to create 8 years of solid growth. Clinton lowered unemployment to a flat 4% and had money left over in the budget.
Bush 2 comes into office, and in his first state of the union address, stated that TAX REFORM was on the way. He got his wish and cut taxes again for the top 1%. His republican congress went further by writing tax laws that benefited the rich until they started running deficits higher than 5 trillion dollars in the first 5 years. In 8 years, BUSH policies and tax cuts brought the total deficit to 11 trillion and growing.
2 wars, 1 prescription drug bill, tax cuts spread over 10 additional years, the highest fuel prices in history and a near depression cost the country REVENUE. When people lose homes and jobs, the government loses revenue.
So, you add up tax breaks for the rich, and bad policies and you have a national disaster.
The rich will always control the republican party. They will always benefit from the GOP control.
The GOP will never level the playing field and will always hold the middle class back.
TOS.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
I've figured out why liberals can't understand the simple math needed to clearly see why government overspending can't be corrected by taxing the rich more! They use common core math. 
Sent using BrownCafe App
Sent using BrownCafe App
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
It has never been and never should be governments responsibility to try to create jobs.
