Obama and Hillary vote to raise taxes on the middle class

pjalive21

SilverSeed wrote:

Sorry was this a response? It didn't address anything I said... But yes, tax the fuck out of the rich, thank you.

Since your response doesn't seem to hold, well anything, I'll try to respond a bit. You seem to be for supply side economics. You do understand this doesn't work right? You can't pump more money to the rich and hope that it trickles down to the poor. Likewise you can't just cut taxes to corporations and hope they'll hire more Americans. They're not leaving due to taxes, though those come in a little, it's because of wages.

And yes, the economy did fantastically during the Clinton years. That's not a debate. I'm not one to say the president is necessarily responsible for the performance of the economy, but the strength of ours during that time is undeniable.

you would be singing a different tune if you were making over 70k and small business owner...i think thats the number where Obama wants to start taxing your butt off ( i know its under 100k)...and you assume that anyone "rich" works for big corporations...small business people can be well off and employ a dozen people but you could care less as long as they are taxed, taxed, taxed right? what about that small business man that has to shut his doors because he cant afford to pay those dozen people or his taxes? you wouldnt care right?

this is the attitude all around...punish the rich because they have more money...i think its an all around envy of people who are rich, many who did it the right way

Cosmo

jeffbr wrote:

Obviously the 1st one, but that isn't what government does when it raises taxes to spend more money. The better analogy would be a crack head. He needs a bigger fix so he has to go steal more money from working people.

...
Actually.. it's the spending. The basic rule as it stands:
Democrats are 'Tax and Spend'... Republicans are 'Don't Tax and Spend'. Both spend.... on different things... but, both spend.
A very simple example; Democrats will want to spend on Healthcare... Republicans want to spend on Military programs. Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for the Health care... Republicans want to defer payment for military programs for 'Future Generations' (i.e. Your kids) to pay.
That's whay I cannot and do not believe all that 'Personal responsibility' crap I heard from conservatives. Passing the Buck is not taking personal responsibility in my book.
...
Curb the spending... cut the bullshit projects that are political rewards for large campaign contributions and focus on what is needed to make America strong... both socially and militarily. If we need money for newer missile guidence systems and/or baseline health care for all Americans... then, raise the taxes accordingly.

jeffbr

Cosmo wrote:

...
Actually.. it's the spending. The basic rule as it stands:
Democrats are 'Tax and Spend'... Republicans are 'Don't Tax and Spend'. Both spend.... on different things... but, both spend.
A very simple example; Democrats will want to spend on Healthcare... Republicans want to spend on Military programs. Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for the Health care... Republicans want to defer payment for military programs for 'Future Generations' (i.e. Your kids) to pay.
That's whay I cannot and do not believe all that 'Personal responsibility' crap I heard from conservatives. Passing the Buck is not taking personal responsibility in my book.
...
Curb the spending... cut the bullshit projects that are political rewards for large campaign contributions and focus on what is needed to make America strong... both socially and militarily. If we need money for newer missile guidence systems and/or baseline health care for all Americans... then, raise the taxes accordingly.

I agree with almost all of your post. If we did what you suggest we shouldn't need your last line where you include the option to raise taxes. The government has more than enough money to spend on meaningless projects and giveaways. Let's cut the Robert Byrd type bullshit. Let's stop prosecuting wars and police actions. Let's stop subsidizing industries and paying them to not produce things. Let's clean up all the dreck and use that money to fund needed projects. No new taxes should ever be necessary. If something is really important, and becomes a priority, stack rank it against the other priorities, and the bottom ones drop off to make room in the budget.

SilverSeed

pjalive21 wrote:

you would be singing a different tune if you were making over 70k and small business owner...i think thats the number where Obama wants to start taxing your butt off ( i know its under 100k)...and you assume that anyone "rich" works for big corporations...small business people can be well off and employ a dozen people but you could care less as long as they are taxed, taxed, taxed right? what about that small business man that has to shut his doors because he cant afford to pay those dozen people or his taxes? you wouldnt care right?

this is the attitude all around...punish the rich because they have more money...i think its an all around envy of people who are rich, many who did it the right way

If you're talking about a business and specifically small business, I would tax the PROFIT. I don't think you have a good understanding of economics or taxation. When a business files taxes they get to deduct all their operating costs. The net that a business shows on a schedule C (tax form) is profit.

Your second paragraph is more important in my eyes. You talk about the rich who "did it the right way". What I see is a country that allows people to get rich but still suffers from institutional prejudice and oppression. In addition, capitalism necessitates unemployment (and to me, therefore suffering). So even if you were the cleanest, most moral do-gooder in the history of the world, chances are you got there at the expense of someone else. So I say yes, tax the rich. Tax the shit out of corporations. Take it easier on the little guy (I'm with you here, we need to foster small business) but every entity needs to pay their part.

And yes, when I'm rich, I expect to be taxed out the ass.

Smellyman2

Republicans are spend like mad and let the democrats figure it out later.....


meanwhile Americans who vote republican remain duped.

Cosmo

jeffbr wrote:

I agree with almost all of your post. If we did what you suggest we shouldn't need your last line where you include the option to raise taxes. The government has more than enough money to spend on meaningless projects and giveaways. Let's cut the Robert Byrd type bullshit. Let's stop prosecuting wars and police actions. Let's stop subsidizing industries and paying them to not produce things. Let's clean up all the dreck and use that money to fund needed projects. No new taxes should ever be necessary. If something is really important, and becomes a priority, stack rank it against the other priorities, and the bottom ones drop off to make room in the budget.

...
I believe there are going to be certain projects that will require additional funding. An example is alternative, renewable fuel resources and/or desalinization plants. We don't have either one right now. But, if we want to end our heroin like addiction to oil from the Middle East... or remove the salt from the oceans to irrigate our farms... we will need more money. New projects will require new taxes.

unsung

MrFadedGlory wrote:

Your right to vote should be revoked, along with your right to post. He said, she said is not going to cut it in a political forum...permission has been given - to fly...head on over there where you may be cut a little slack.

Great reply. I'm glad I don't have your political approval to vote for who the media wants me to. You are just so smart voting for one of these two clowns. When you pay the amount of taxes that I do come talk to me. Until then don't try to insult me with your permissions.

floyd1975

Cosmo wrote:

New projects will require new taxes.

I don't believe they will require new taxes as much as a shifting of money from some of the less worthwhile programs. Even the ones like public television where the spending is very small, once all of those are combined, there are a few billion dollars that can be spent on more needed programs.

slightofjeff

SilverSeed wrote:

Because it's not simple, it's retarded. If anyone thinks Bush Jr., Bush Sr. or Reagan spent any less than Clinton did or Obama will then they're completely out of the loop. Now the question comes up, should we tax enough to cover that spending (Clinton, surplus, booming economy) or not enough (Bush, DEFICIT in caps to note size, recession)? Some of this is cyclical but a lot has to do with taxation/spending policy.

I get it, do you?

You don't raise taxes, especially with the economy already in the shitter. You curb spending. It IS pretty simple.

Cosmo

slightofjeff wrote:

You don't raise taxes, especially with the economy already in the shitter. You curb spending. It IS pretty simple.

...
I know. It's such a simple concept... why is it so difficult to understand, right?
...
In simplest terms.. you don't go out and buy a new BMW if you just got laid off from your job.