• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?


  • Total voters
    95
Oh, that's not spin. That's the facts. And show me the link to your Reid accusation, if you would.


that's what everyone says about their spin. " no, they're facts!".. uh huh.. sure thing :lol:

read any article on the matter, every one of them has Harry setting it aside because he said it doesn't have the votes in the Senate and he wanted to bring it up in an infrastructure bill... which never happened.
the obama administration wanted to tackle it during their proposed comprehensive tax reform... which also never happened.

Harry sets the agenda ... Harry decided not to include the bill in his agenda.... that's just the way the chips fell.
 
Corporations rarely pay taxes..... they have too many deductions and loopholes.... but I think a progressive tax would be ideal..

Say some ceiling of 300k paying 10% across the board and everyone above that paying 20%..

Of course it would never happen.. with 8,000 pages of tax code, special interests exemptions are the name of the game and gives idiot politicians their power.

I like the idea, but agree with your conclusion. Big money pours into laws. And only the rich have the big money.
 
that's what everyone says about their spin. " no, they're facts!".. uh huh.. sure thing :lol:

read any article on the matter, every one of them has Harry setting it aside because he said it doesn't have the votes in the Senate and he wanted to bring it up in an infrastructure bill... which never happened.
the obama administration wanted to tackle it during their proposed comprehensive tax reform... which also never happened.

Harry sets the agenda ... Harry decided not to include the bill in his agenda.... that's just the way the chips fell.

I provided you with facts. So far, you're the only one spinning. Again, facts on your accusations about Reid, please.
 
Great argument..bravo turtle i expect nothing less from ya.
Anyways i'm not advocating for tax rates like that anyways.
The point being that our current tax bracket is LOW..trickle down itself was redistribution of wealth

how is that? only if you think the money the rich have belongs to the government can you spew such nonsense.

Any taxes the rich pay above what average citizens pay is clearly redistribution
 
You speak as if there is only a fixed supply of money, rather than the reality that wealth is produced.

Not completely true: Some wealth is produced; some is taken. There are plenty of win-win economic scenarios and plenty of zero-sum game economic scenarios. Wealth is usually created around innovation and the fruitful economic activities that contribute to or facilitate that innovation. OTH, activities that deal largely with arbitrage are generally (there are exceptions) zero sum games....
 
Try not to respond within my quotations, Muddy Creek.

MuddyCreek said:
How do you figure? IF insurance companies have NO regulation, they STILL have to have consumers.

And if they price their own consumers out of the insurance pool, that's called an insurance death spiral, and the companies fold. That's a GOOD thing ultimately, because we don't want failed business models lingering on and on as people get poorer and poorer. The mandate chains us to the rails of the sinking ship.

Foodstamps have expanded due to republcian slashing of government jobs.

Non sequitur. There is nothing necessarily relating these two things. We can expand/extend food stamps or we can end/cut back on them independently of what's going on in the labor markets. But that's not even the point. The point is that Obama appoints Big Ag / biotechnology insiders to key posts within his administration and regulatory agencies. The foxes guard the henhouses in Obama's administration. THAT is the point. Don't move the goalposts. Biotech executives do not help the middle classes, and food stamps don't either. The middle class pays for all that ****.

Bush and Henry Paulson, his Treasury Secretary...

We're not talking about them. Stop moving the goalposts.

You on the right can't have it both ways. FIRST, you want government OUT of our lives...NO regulation on wages and health insurance and safety on the job.


Who the **** was talking about eliminating basic safety provisions in this thread? Who in this thread has advocated for zero regulations by government whatsoever?

THEN you say the GOVERNMENT doesn't create jobs,

It doesn't, except by subtracting money from somewhere else to give people something to do.

Now you say you blame Obama for NOT doing enough for the middle class

No, that is not why I criticize Obama. He doesn't need to do anything for the middle class. He needs to STOP doing so many favors for the rich and the poor and forcing the middle classes to pay for them.


You are impossible to debate with, NOT because you make any good points, but because you jump all over the place, bringing up past administrations and partisan irrelevancies about Republicans. My comments are about Obama and how his stated policies differ from the effects of his actual policies. You keep trying to move the target off of Obama, distract from what I'm saying, because you don't want to own up to the crony bull**** Obama is doing that so closely resembles the crony bull**** the Bush Admin. pulled on us.
 
how is that? only if you think the money the rich have belongs to the government can you spew such nonsense.

Any taxes the rich pay above what average citizens pay is clearly redistribution

Its arguably redistribution. The progressive tax system we have is designed NOT to tax gross income; but to tax discretionary income. It is also designed to do so in a way that applies equal pain across the various income groups.

Unfortunately, the progressive system is only on paper. Our efforts to roll-back the highest marginal tax rates over the past 30 years has created a de facto flat tax; which is pretty regressive. It has also created a re-distribution of wealth the favors the most wealthy (Capital is taxed at up to 50% of the tax imposed on labor; business owners, with low tax rates are incented to pay themselves rather than re-invest in their businesses)

Taxes paid by income group2.jpg
Top 1% vs. marginal tax rates.jpg
 
I notice you also forgot to include this:

taxes.jpg


and this:

tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg



So, it looks like as we slashed marginal tax rates, revenue held generally steady while the burden on the top 1% increased. Huh, odd, that. :)
 
tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg

So, it looks like as we slashed marginal tax rates, revenue held generally steady while the burden on the top 1% increased. Huh, odd, that. :)

The only way revenue stays steady is if...wait for it..taxes are gained from somewhere else-hence more burden on everyone but those in the top bracket.
 
The only way revenue stays steady is if...wait for it..taxes are gained from somewhere else-hence more burden on everyone but those in the top bracket.

That is incorrect - as is demonstrated by the increase in the portion of the federal tax burden that is paid by the top 1%

taxes.jpg




Marginal rates actually have very little direct impact on revenue.
 
Try not to respond within my quotations, Muddy Creek.



And if they price their own consumers out of the insurance pool, that's called an insurance death spiral, and the companies fold. That's a GOOD thing ultimately, because we don't want failed business models lingering on and on as people get poorer and poorer. The mandate chains us to the rails of the sinking ship.

Price their own consumers out of the insurance pool....hhhmmmm...how would that work, anyway? Examples of this happening.


Non sequitur. There is nothing necessarily relating these two things. We can expand/extend food stamps or we can end/cut back on them independently of what's going on in the labor markets. But that's not even the point. The point is that Obama appoints Big Ag / biotechnology insiders to key posts within his administration and regulatory agencies. The foxes guard the henhouses in Obama's administration. THAT is the point. Don't move the goalposts. Biotech executives do not help the middle classes, and food stamps don't either. The middle class pays for all that ****.

The ONLY reason for the increase in food stamps is people qualifying. Do you know what this program does?

HHHmmmm..Bush appointed Monsanto to head the FDA, Paulsen, the ex-CEO of Goldman/Sanchs to be his "Treasury Secretary" A cola mine owner to see after the safety regulations of mines...this has been going on for decades.


We're not talking about them. Stop moving the goalposts.

We are talking about them. YOu accuse Obama of doing what Bush did. You best believe I get to show where you are showing partisan hack points.

Who the **** was talking about eliminating basic safety provisions in this thread? Who in this thread has advocated for zero regulations by government whatsoever?

In talking about your changing your stance on what you want from Obama. You are going in circles on the right and not making any sense to a great deal of your constituents.


It doesn't, except by subtracting money from somewhere else to give people something to do.

No, how about filling in those social programs the republicans are eliminating given the republicans are refusing to help create jobs? How about lowering the unemployment levels? Bush used them. He created the BIG Homeland Security to cover all the private sector jobs he was losing in this nation.

United States Department of Homeland Security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet department of the United States federal government, created in response to the September 11 attacks, and with the primary responsibilities of protecting the United States of America and U.S. Territories (including Protectorates)[vague] from and responding to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters. Despite the Department of the Interior's name, DHS is the equivalent to the Interior ministries of other countries, not the Department of the Interior. In fiscal year 2011, DHS was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion.

. . .

With more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.[4] Homeland security policy is coordinated at the White House by the Homeland Security Council. Other agencies with significant homeland security responsibilities include the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy.

No, that is not why I criticize Obama. He doesn't need to do anything for the middle class. He needs to STOP doing so many favors for the rich and the poor and forcing the middle classes to pay for them.

How has he raised the taxes on the middle class? That's what the republicans platform reads. Middle class is assuming the costs of the tax cuts for the rich, which is whom the republicans support and held the budget hostage until Obama agreed to do it. It's not an Obama thing to remove monies from the budget to give to the rich. And why not care for the poor? They are the victims of the rich greedy corporations going out of this nation. And some are even incapable of taking care of themselves. YOu have a problem helping poor people but not rich?


You are impossible to debate with, NOT because you make any good points, but because you jump all over the place, bringing up past administrations and partisan irrelevancies about Republicans. My comments are about Obama and how his stated policies differ from the effects of his actual policies. You keep trying to move the target off of Obama, distract from what I'm saying, because you don't want to own up to the crony bull**** Obama is doing that so closely resembles the crony bull**** the Bush Admin. pulled on us.

You make up false accusations about Obama and try to pretend HE is doing something new, I WILL bring up the republicans and Bush. This government has three branches and Obama's branch does not control the money.
 
That is incorrect - as is demonstrated by the increase in the portion of the federal tax burden that is paid by the top 1%

taxes.jpg




Marginal rates actually have very little direct impact on revenue.



So what's your take on the money lost from the debt by cutting taxes for those in the upper 1%? Not worth getting back to the 2000 rates?
 
The only way revenue stays steady is if...wait for it..taxes are gained from somewhere else-hence more burden on everyone but those in the top bracket.


Tax the rich less and the middle class and poor more?
 
Its true because that is the factual reality

Its dishonest because its contrary to the clear intent of the constitution

No it isn't unless the law is overturned by the supreme court. Ask any good lawyer. They will tell you..;)
 
So what's your take on the money lost from the debt by cutting taxes for those in the upper 1%?

I think it is largely a chimera. When you reduce tax rates, you reduce the incentive to engage in tax-minimizing behavior, which counters the lower rates. Perfectly? :shrug: that depends on the relative rates. But the share of taxes paid by the top 1% continued to climb throughout the Bush administration.

Within the tax code, our problem is less the rates and more the complexity and compliance costs. If we can reduce that while lowering nominal rates in order to keep effective rates largely the same... that's where we will see revenue increases.

But you can't really increase revenue by hiking up marginal income tax rates. We've had wild swings in marginal rates without corresponding swings in revenue. You can increase revenue by boosting GDP and reducing the relative size of government.

runaway-spending-tax-revenue-680.jpg


As you can, see, there's a slightly delayed inverse effect. Which is to be expected, as taxes are often paid retroactively. Government doesn't tax itself quite like it taxes the private sector, so the larger the portion of the economy that government takes up, the less is proportionally available for full taxation.


Tax Code Simplification with lowered nominal rates and decreased federal spending. So easy, even the Presidents' own Bi-Partisan Debt Reduction Commission could figure it out :).
 
I think it is largely a chimera. When you reduce tax rates, you reduce the incentive to engage in tax-minimizing behavior, which counters the lower rates. Perfectly? :shrug: that depends on the relative rates. But the share of taxes paid by the top 1% continued to climb throughout the Bush administration.

Within the tax code, our problem is less the rates and more the complexity and compliance costs. If we can reduce that while lowering nominal rates in order to keep effective rates largely the same... that's where we will see revenue increases.

But you can't really increase revenue by hiking up marginal income tax rates. We've had wild swings in marginal rates without corresponding swings in revenue. You can increase revenue by boosting GDP and reducing the relative size of government.

runaway-spending-tax-revenue-680.jpg


As you can, see, there's a slightly delayed inverse effect. Which is to be expected, as taxes are often paid retroactively. Government doesn't tax itself quite like it taxes the private sector, so the larger the portion of the economy that government takes up, the less is proportionally available for full taxation.


Tax Code Simplification with lowered nominal rates and decreased federal spending. So easy, even the Presidents' own Bi-Partisan Debt Reduction Commission could figure it out :).

I am not impressed with the art work of the drawing of mountains in two different colors.
 
I think it is largely a chimera. When you reduce tax rates, you reduce the incentive to engage in tax-minimizing behavior, which counters the lower rates. Perfectly? :shrug: that depends on the relative rates. But the share of taxes paid by the top 1% continued to climb throughout the Bush administration.

Within the tax code, our problem is less the rates and more the complexity and compliance costs. If we can reduce that while lowering nominal rates in order to keep effective rates largely the same... that's where we will see revenue increases.

But you can't really increase revenue by hiking up marginal income tax rates. We've had wild swings in marginal rates without corresponding swings in revenue. You can increase revenue by boosting GDP and reducing the relative size of government.

runaway-spending-tax-revenue-680.jpg


As you can, see, there's a slightly delayed inverse effect. Which is to be expected, as taxes are often paid retroactively. Government doesn't tax itself quite like it taxes the private sector, so the larger the portion of the economy that government takes up, the less is proportionally available for full taxation.


Tax Code Simplification with lowered nominal rates and decreased federal spending. So easy, even the Presidents' own Bi-Partisan Debt Reduction Commission could figure it out :).

You mean the gap between the rich and poor grew bigger? Sure. That would generate more money from the rich, because their income went up.

Income inequality driven by Bush tax cuts, capital gains - Jan. 4, 2012

he rich have gotten richer, thanks to the stock market and the Bush tax cuts, a recent report has found.

Growth in income from capital gains and dividends has widened the divide between the wealthy and the poor in recent years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. It supplanted wage inequality as the primary driver of the growing income gap, which helped spur the Occupy Wall Street movement last fall.

After-tax income for the top 1% of taxpayers soared 74%, on average, between 1996 and 2006. The top 0.1% benefited even more, nearly doubling their income over that decade.

By comparison, the bottom 20% of taxpayers saw their income fall by 6%, while the middle quintile experienced a meager 10% gain.

But "income" means something very different for the rich than for the poor.
6 adult decisions delayed by the economy

High-income people benefited in particular from the stock market boom in the late 1990s and from companies enjoying strong profit growth and paying out healthy dividends more recently, said Harry Holzer, professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

In 1996, the top 1% of taxpayers relied on wages for 34.4% of their income. A decade later, that number had fallen to just over a quarter, the report found. Meanwhile, income from capital gains and dividends grew by nearly 7.5 percentage points to 38.2% of earnings.

The Bush tax cuts, which lowered rates on both income and capital gains, also helped fuel the growth in income inequality, according to the report. The difference in tax rates paid by the poor and the rich narrowed, with the Top 0.1% of American taxpayers seeing their average tax rate fall by about a quarter.

"It made the tax system less progressive, one more thing favoring the wealthy," Holzer said.

Under Eisenhower, when the top 1% were taxed at 90%, we had more jobs because business could only get richer from selling goods and services.

Giving more to the rich won't work. It's voodoo Reaganomics failing this nation again and again. Only by busting monopolies and opening up the market to competition, regulating banks and separating them from investment houses again, and taxing the rich at a rate near 50% will be grow a strong economy again.

Only an insane person keeps pushing the same ideas that have failed the economy for 35 years and expecting a different result.
 
Muddy Creek, look, the way you slice up someone's post and respond to its various parts is by placing [ quote ] (but with no spaces) at the start and [ /quote ] (again without spaces) at the end. The reason to do it this way is so that when I hit "Reply with Quote," all of the things you've said show up for me to respond to. Or highlight what I've said and then click the Quote icon. Since you haven't done this, I have to manually copy/paste all your comments to be able to respond. Forums 101. Learn the tricks.

Muddy Creek said:
Price their own consumers out of the insurance pool....hhhmmmm...how would that work, anyway? Examples of this happening.

Google "insurance death spiral" and read.

The ONLY reason for the increase in food stamps is people qualifying. Do you know what this program does?

If anyone wanted to stop the corporate and social welfare food system, they'd make sure we pull back on food stamps. Federal Government should not be feeding us.

HHHmmmm..Bush appointed Monsanto to head the FDA, Paulsen, the ex-CEO of Goldman/Sanchs to be his "Treasury Secretary" A cola mine owner to see after the safety regulations of mines...this has been going on for decades.

You ****ing can't help yourself can you, but to create red herring after red herring. If you'd read my posts you'd see that I ****ing hated Bush, but this thread is not about the Bush Administration. Focus.

We are talking about them. YOu accuse Obama of doing what Bush did. You best believe I get to show where you are showing partisan hack points.

He has done what Bush did.

In talking about your changing your stance on what you want from Obama. You are going in circles on the right and not making any sense to a great deal of your constituents.

I am a member of a political forum. I don't have constituents. Except for the kind folks who "Like" my posts, I guess.

No, how about filling in those social programs the republicans are eliminating given the republicans are refusing to help create jobs?

Republicans NEVER eliminate social programs. If anything, they expand them. In other words, they SAY we need to cut back on them, but they never do. They outright lie. Exactly the same way Obama says he's supporting the Middle Classes when in fact he's doing the exact opposite. They say whatever their voters want to hear. I refuse to believe them because they never accomplish what they say they want to. You continue to believe what you're told despite all the outcomes we've seen over the past few decades.

How has he raised the taxes on the middle class?

By deficit spending and re-appointing the liberal monetary policymaker that Bush appointed in the first place. Both of these act as taxes over the long run and neither the rich nor the poor are going to feel the pain of these taxes. Those who will feel the most pain are the middle classes. This has been explained ad nauseam and you're still playing dumb to it.

It's not an Obama thing to remove monies from the budget to give to the rich.

Yes it is. I've pointed out several areas in which he promotes this. Monetary policy and banking, health care, agriculture, etc.

And why not care for the poor? They are the victims of the rich greedy corporations going out of this nation.

No, the middle classes are the victims of this. There have always been poor people, there will always be poor people, and they are victims of their own imprudence, stupidity, addictions, instant gratification-seeking, etc. Some people can't help themselves. Poverty is intergenerational, not political.

YOu have a problem helping poor people but not rich?

I have a problem with both, and Big Government helps both. Who they don't help is the middle class, because the middle class ends up paying for all their corrupt, deceitful policies.

You make up false accusations about Obama and try to pretend HE is doing something new, I WILL bring up the republicans and Bush. This government has three branches and Obama's branch does not control the money.

I hate the Republicans and Bush. I also hate Obama for the same reasons. So you keep on trying to distract from Obama by bringing up his ideological twins in the GOP, but you'll continue to look desperate to defend Obama via distraction.
 
Its arguably redistribution. The progressive tax system we have is designed NOT to tax gross income; but to tax discretionary income. It is also designed to do so in a way that applies equal pain across the various income groups.

Unfortunately, the progressive system is only on paper. Our efforts to roll-back the highest marginal tax rates over the past 30 years has created a de facto flat tax; which is pretty regressive. It has also created a re-distribution of wealth the favors the most wealthy (Capital is taxed at up to 50% of the tax imposed on labor; business owners, with low tax rates are incented to pay themselves rather than re-invest in their businesses)

where is the proof of your claims. and why should taxes be used for anything other than efficient collection of revenue. Its all this idiotic social engineering and the extra constitutional power grab engineered by congress that causes the tax code to be larger than the Manhattan phone book and it creates billions in wasted revenue from the avoidance and compliance costs

pain should not be an issue. everyone benefits from government and if you cannot pay your fair share legitimately than obviously others have to pay more. But right not its about vote buying that drives the rates which is why the indolent middle class is way under taxed based on the goodies it wants from government

Flat tax-complete BS when the top one percent pay a higher share of the FIT than at any time in the last 60+ years
 
Muddy Creek, look, the way you slice up someone's post and respond to its various parts is by placing [ quote ] (but with no spaces) at the start and [ /quote ] (again without spaces) at the end. The reason to do it this way is so that when I hit "Reply with Quote," all of the things you've said show up for me to respond to. Or highlight what I've said and then click the Quote icon. Since you haven't done this, I have to manually copy/paste all your comments to be able to respond. Forums 101. Learn the tricks.



Google "insurance death spiral" and read.

I don't provide your information. YOU Provide the information to defend your argument or admit it's indefensible.

If anyone wanted to stop the corporate and social welfare food system, they'd make sure we pull back on food stamps. Federal Government should not be feeding us.

Who should feed the poor? Because last this nation knew, the born again evangelical republican cults that take faith based tax dollars just want to "rehabilitate" pedophihles and gays and stop women from having the choice of abortions with their "Pregnancy Centers"

You ****ing can't help yourself can you, but to create red herring after red herring. If you'd read my posts you'd see that I ****ing hated Bush, but this thread is not about the Bush Administration. Focus.

I am focused. Stop making dead end claims about Obama as though it's the first time a decision was made by a president.

He has done what Bush did.



I am a member of a political forum. I don't have constituents. Except for the kind folks who "Like" my posts, I guess.

YOu don't talk to co-workers nor family? Just the internet? Sorry.

Republicans NEVER eliminate social programs. If anything, they expand them. In other words, they SAY we need to cut back on them, but they never do. They outright lie. Exactly the same way Obama says he's supporting the Middle Classes when in fact he's doing the exact opposite. They say whatever their voters want to hear. I refuse to believe them because they never accomplish what they say they want to. You continue to believe what you're told despite all the outcomes we've seen over the past few decades.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/us/house-bill-offers-aid-cuts-to-save-military-spending.html?_r=0

The Republican-led House this week will lay bare the choice between social programs and Pentagon spending in an age of austerity when it takes up legislation to slice $261 billion from food stamps, Medicaid, social services and other programs for struggling Americans over the next decade to stave off more than $50 billion in military spending cuts scheduled to take effect next year.
Related

Times Topic: Federal Budget

National Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

The House Budget Committee on Monday took up budget bills passed out of six different committees last month, packaged them and sent them to the full House as one bill on a party-line vote. A separate bill, also approved by the committee, would formally lift the threat of automatic Pentagon cuts next year.

Neither of the measures will pass the Senate, but the final House vote this Thursday amounts to a Republican bet that voters will reward the party for its tough-love priorities, despite Democratic attacks that will only build in intensity this week.

“We are here to meet our legal and our moral obligations to lead,” said Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Representative Kathy Castor, Democrat of Florida, accused Republicans of “socking it to children, older Americans and disabled Americans,” and going “for the jugular.”

The showdown in the House was set up by last summer’s protracted crisis over the debt ceiling, when Republicans agreed to raise the nation’s statutory borrowing limit in exchange for guaranteed deficit reduction of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, which was supposed to come out of a special select committee on the deficit. When that committee failed to reach agreement in November, the debt ceiling deal’s backup kicked in — more than $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts to military and domestic programs. Those cuts were to exempt programs for people deemed the most vulnerable.



I think it's safe to say the republicans want to eliminate all FDR social programs to make room for all these huge tax cuts they want to bring in.

By deficit spending and re-appointing the liberal monetary policymaker that Bush appointed in the first place. Both of these act as taxes over the long run and neither the rich nor the poor are going to feel the pain of these taxes. Those who will feel the most pain are the middle classes. This has been explained ad nauseam and you're still playing dumb to it.

Republicans will raise taxes on the middle class and poor.

Ryan wants to give the wealthy even bigger tax cuts than Romney does


Under Ryan’s plan, the six tiers of tax rates would be simplified to two rates: 25 percent for higher earners and 10 percent for lower-earners. But the overall impact of the Ryan budget would still disproportionately benefit the wealthy. The top 20 percent would get a $13,907 tax cut in 2015, and the top 1 percent would get a whopping $155,808 tax break, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the bottom 20 percent of Americans would pay $159 more in taxes in 2015.

That’s because the Ryan budget would get rid of tax breaks that benefit low-income Americans, including expansions of “the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit that were enacted in 2009,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. As a result, effective tax rates on those with incomes than $30,000 would actually go up, while going down for the wealthy, the CBPP concludes:

(Source: CBPP)

Ryan says that he would also eliminate tax breaks for the wealthy, among others, to order to help pay for these rate cuts, which total almost $10 trillion, according to the CBPP. But he’s declined to specify which tax breaks for the rich he’d actually get rid of. Instead, “Ryan has said the House’s tax-writing Ways and Means Committee will sort that out later,” as Businessweek pointed out earlier this year. What’s more, Ryan actually wants to expand one of the biggest tax breaks that benefit the wealthy: He wants to eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest. So it remains unclear how Ryan would ensure that $10 trillion in rate cuts wouldn’t explode the deficit.

In fact, Romney’s tax plan suffers from exactly the same policy gap: He has also refused to specify which tax breaks he’d get rid of to pay for big rate cuts that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. When the Tax Policy Center tried to fill in the gaps, they found that Romney’s plan still gave big tax breaks to the wealthy while raising taxes on lower- and middle-income families. Both Romney and Ryan would also cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, also offset by getting rid of corporate tax breaks that neither will specify.


Austerity, cutting for the middle class and poor to give to the rich has proven to be a failed economic policy in Europe. Some nations are now ratcheting up the money for the middle class and poor and taxing the rich...and coming out of the recession far better than we are.

Yes it is. I've pointed out several areas in which he promotes this. Monetary policy and banking, health care, agriculture, etc.

How about a little less "pointing" and a lot more facts?

No, the middle classes are the victims of this. There have always been poor people, there will always be poor people, and they are victims of their own imprudence, stupidity, addictions, instant gratification-seeking, etc. Some people can't help themselves. Poverty is intergenerational, not political.


Again, how about a little less drama and bigotry and alot more facts to "prove"this?


I have a problem with both, and Big Government helps both. Who they don't help is the middle class, because the middle class ends up paying for all their corrupt, deceitful policies.

Social SEcurity is corrupt? When the median income in this nation is $50,000 for a family of four, a lot of social programs help the middle class. What does NOT help the middle class is to raise the taxes on them like the republicans want. What does NOT Help the middle class is abolishing unions which fight for safe working conditions, liveable wages and affordable health care.

I hate the Republicans and Bush. I also hate Obama for the same reasons. So you keep on trying to distract from Obama by bringing up his ideological twins in the GOP, but you'll continue to look desperate to defend Obama via distraction.

No distraction, just rebutting your accusations that Obama did this first, chant. There are many things about Obama I don't agree with. But if you think he's not doing his best to help the middle class, then you're far too republican for me, despite your protests.


You have a lot of opinions, but without facts, not many that have been based on reality, IMHO.
 
You have a lot of opinions, but without facts, not many that have been based on reality, IMHO.

And you've made your responses so labor-intensive to respond to with your repeated refusals to pay attention to my recommendations about multi-quoting that I'm not going to put in more time addressing all of your tangential distractions.

In short, I am not accusing Obama of starting this bull****. I'm accusing him of perpetuating or accelerating it. He's not putting an end to any of the ****ty Bush policies, or the policies that started well before Bush II, he's extending them. He's the same breed of everything liberals think they're "fixing" about Republican policies. It's all continuing or worsening.

I've given examples and encouragement to read up on it. Your choice to actually do so, vs. continue to toot your partisan horn.
 
And you've made your responses so labor-intensive to respond to with your repeated refusals to pay attention to my recommendations about multi-quoting that I'm not going to put in more time addressing all of your tangential distractions.

In short, I am not accusing Obama of starting this bull****. I'm accusing him of perpetuating or accelerating it. He's not putting an end to any of the ****ty Bush policies, or the policies that started well before Bush II, he's extending them. He's the same breed of everything liberals think they're "fixing" about Republican policies. It's all continuing or worsening.

I've given examples and encouragement to read up on it. Your choice to actually do so, vs. continue to toot your partisan horn.

In some areas, I agree. And while that may be true in those areas, to deny the fact the republicans are stopping any progress to make on the economy is equally misrepresenting on your part.

I don't deny Obama is a neoliberal. But you haven't proven your point in this thread.
 
no. that has literally nothing to do with the post you quoted.

It truly does. And it demonstrates your misrepresentation about the rich paying MORE In taxes by leaving out their INCOME grew considerably more than anyone else's in this economy.

The gap created the ability to lower taxes for the rich and they paid MORE in taxes...that's a whole lot more money given from tax cuts than the rest of us got.
 
It truly does. And it demonstrates your misrepresentation about the rich paying MORE In taxes by leaving out their INCOME grew considerably more than anyone else's in this economy.

:doh never mind. If you lack the reading comprehension (or willingness) to actually respond to what people post, then you aren't worth it.
 
Back
Top Bottom