Page 34 of 52 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 512

Thread: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

  1. #331
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I do comprehend just fine Joe, and I think that it isn't so much my comprehension as it is your pretzel logic.

    j-mac
    There is nothing pretzel about it. Is this code for you don't understand? I'm not trying to degrade you in any way, but when you respond as if you don't understand, I have to question.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #332
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post
    This statement by Cornyn was kinda odd, imo.



    (One of the senators, John Cornyn of Texas, said he would consider eliminating some tax breaks and corporate subsidies in the context of changes in the tax code, provided there was not an overall increase in taxes.)


    WTF…why do anything with it, if it doesn’t raise a dime?
    It's political double-talk for, "Change the tax code...just make sure that when you do you don't raise taxes on corporations."

  3. #333
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    There is nothing pretzel about it. Is this code for you don't understand? I'm not trying to degrade you in any way, but when you respond as if you don't understand, I have to question.

    No, I understand just fine...What part of recipient class individuals don't you understand?

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #334
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    Obama is offering to cut more than he would probably like, over a shorter period of time.

    What other compromises would you suggest he make?
    Does everyone here understand the difference between "compromise" and "surrender".

    The Republicans are demanding surrender, not compromise.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  5. #335
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:08 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,157

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    First off, the number is more typically 35-40%.
    Nope. For the past 16 consecutive years the bottom 40% have paid nothing. In fact, they "earn" money by filing a tax return.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Secondly, as they do pay other federal taxes, what that number means is less important, less siginficant than made out to be. I think this is made clear in what I have presented.
    Great so you agree there was nothing "factually inaccurate".

    And, since we have the actual numbers, I think people can decide for themselves how "signficant" they are:
    • The bottom 40% bear no federal income tax burden, and about 5% of the total federal tax burden.
    • The top 40% bear 99% of the federal income tax burden, and about 86% of the total federal tax burden.


    The bottom 80% of income earners have shouldered less and less of the total federal tax burden over the past 30 years, with the top 20% making up the difference.

  6. #336
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Nope. For the past 16 consecutive years the bottom 40% have paid nothing. In fact, they "earn" money by filing a tax return.
    35-40%, only federal income taxes, not all federal taxes.

    Great so you agree there was nothing "factually inaccurate".

    And, since we have the actual numbers, I think people can decide for themselves how "signficant" they are:
    • The bottom 40% bear no federal income tax burden, and about 5% of the total federal tax burden.
    • The top 40% bear 99% of the federal income tax burden, and about 86% of the total federal tax burden.


    The bottom 80% of income earners have shouldered less and less of the total federal tax burden over the past 30 years, with the top 20% making up the difference.
    No, the conclusion is factually inaccurate as it uses too limited a criteria. Peopel can decide better with more information,. and not with something limited and skewed as to hide and misrepresent the situation.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #337
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    No, I understand just fine...What part of recipient class individuals don't you understand?

    j-mac
    What about that term is siginficant?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #338
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    LOL that is really funny. So you are saying the GOP has no excessive spending or government programs that it uses to buy votes. John Boehner thanks you.
    "I" am saying that monied interests use sophisticated propaganda to "buy" votes. So I say we don't stop until they stop, otherwise they'll win and everyone who's not already rich gets to be peasants, like in all those countries where our rich folks are competing with other rich folks.

    Global expansionist capitalism turned parasitic when the world filled up. No new unoccupied resource sources, no new exploitable workforces or customers that don't already have some rich persons lips wrapped around them.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  9. #339
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    They are. Wealth redistribution which is what democrats do is theft. We should not be 14 trillion in debt. If we raise the debt ceiling the democrats will just keep spending and wanting more of our hard earned money.
    I've grown tired of this argument. Think about it, people...

    "Redistribution of wealth" means more than just taking earnings from those at the top and then giving it to those at the bottom. I means reducing the earnings potential of the wealth-class and taking those earnings and giving them to those at the bottom thereby increasing their earning's potential thereby moving them - the poor, whether genuinely poor, working poor, average wage earners or above average wage earners - into higher income brackets which, by default would automatically move them into higher tax brackets provided that the tax code isn't changed to negate such from happening. As such:

    Can someone point to evidence that the poor have earned more even when given "tax credits"? Even when they pay no federal income tax?

    Can someone point to evidence that middle-class incomes from the working poor to the above average wage earn have increased marginally or significantly as the incomes of the wealthy have decreased?

    If anybody can point to these things occuring as fact, then I'll be very willing to fully support your claim of wealth redistribution by Liberal politicians.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-05-11 at 02:50 PM.

  10. #340
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    who exactly, is "we"?
    Americas new fledgeling aristocracy. Where the vote is reserved to the monied classes, and everyone else is just another commodity/tool.

    "They can't afford bread? Well let them eat cake!"
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

Page 34 of 52 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •