Senate Blocks Buffett Rule 30% Tax Floor on Top Earners.

[Fish]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16/senate-blocks-buffett-rule-30-tax-floor-on-top-earners.html
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yM3QXVpEpVY/T2oUNY0z99I/AAAAAAAAQb8/sHWmParVYn8/s1600/voting+GOP.jpg

:D

[yubba]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16/senate-blocks-buffett-rule-30-tax-floor-on-top-earners.html
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yM3QXVpEpVY/T2oUNY0z99I/AAAAAAAAQb8/sHWmParVYn8/s1600/voting+GOP.jpg

:D well if we re- elect Obama, we'll all look like the guy with his thumbs in his pockets, and all of Obama's buddies will look like the guy on the right, a bag full of money and hookers for everybody, all in the name of redistrabution of wealth. I haven't heard one word from the Dems how they are going to limit spending or down size government, and even when they will pass a budget, government needs to it's fair share too.

[gimpy117]

And I never really heard one word from the Republicans about how they were going to reduce the spending and size of government when they made a new agency and championed 2 wars abroad either.

IMO the tax code that allows the uber rich to skate by paying so little is no accident and is shameful.

[August]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16/senate-blocks-buffett-rule-30-tax-floor-on-top-earners.html

:D

The US Senate is controlled by the Democrats. If they can't get it passed it's not the Republicans fault.

[Skybird]

42% of House and 67% of Senate are millionaires. So where is the surprise?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/21/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-congress-has-disproportionate-s/


A reader recently sent us an example from Facebook, which was an online message credited to Occupy D.C. The posting says:
"1 percent of Americans are millionaires."
"47 percent of House Reps. are millionaires."
"56 percent of Senators are millionaires."
(...)
As for members of Congress, the most recent estimate shows that 42 percent of House members and 67 percent of senators are millionaires in net worth. That means the Facebook post is a bit high in its estimate of House millionaires and a bit low in its estimate of Senate millionaires.
The numbers support the underlying point of the Facebook post -- that members of Congress are disproportionately wealthy. But not on the scale suggested. We rate the Facebook post Half True.

[yubba]

And I never really heard one word from the Republicans about how they were going to reduce the spending and size of government when they made a new agency and championed 2 wars abroad either.

IMO the tax code that allows the uber rich to skate by paying so little is no accident and is shameful.
Well vote for Obama, since you hate the rich so much, republican progressives are just as bad as the liberal dems, so tell Yubba how tax-ing the rich is going to get us out of this jam when general electric hasn't paid any taxes.. I guess you are ok with the government giving a billion dollars to the muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Oh by the way Warren Buffet owes a billion dollars in back taxes and is fighting the irs, not to pay, Hippo Critters.

[Ducimus]

Whole thing kinda reinforces the belief that we have the best government money can buy.

[nikimcbee]

But Yubba, how will the GSA have their parties? And US hookers are too expensive, so our SS:haha: agents need to buy cheap foreign labo(u)r.

Stop being a h8tr Yubba and pay up, so our agents can buy US hookers.

It's for the children.

Don't make me get Sally Struthers in here to shake you down Yubba.

[yubba]

I think some of these government hippies types need to get a haircut and get a real job, not one watt of power produced at the Dept of Energy, not one plant grown at the Dept of Agurculture, no work ever produced at the Dept of Labor, and you know there's no justice at the Dept of Justice, heck I can't afford a beer let alone hookers, these government types sure know how to live, and they have the nerve to bitch about paying in 3% into their retirement. Nikimcbee shouldn't you be workin on that pt mod, I sent Privateer that file on the Pt 109 it's all in your hands now.

[Tchocky]

I think some of these government hippies types need to get a haircut and get a real job, not one watt of power produced at the Dept of Energy, not one plant grown at the Dept of Agurculture, no work ever produced at the Dept of Labor, and you know there's no justice at the Dept of Justice,

Tell me about it! Executive branch isn't even executing nobody no more.

Sad times. Andrew Jackson wouldn't have stood for this. Pistols at dawn could do with a comeback.

[CaptainHaplo]

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the total taxes collected....

Almost 50% of the population pays no taxes....

Where is the fairness again?

Oh - and the "buffet rule" would increase the federal tax income 47 Billion over 10 years (assuming it had no negative effect on the economy). Obama's budget calls for adding a minimum of 6.7 Trillion to the debt over that same time frame (though he has already added 5 Trillion in 3.5 years..) - so his tax hike for "fairness" is going to pay for all of 0.1% of his spending.

This is the most ludicrous thing I have seen - well - other than him presenting a budget and then telling his own party to vote against it!

[yubba]

And the grand jewel of the government is the Dept of Education where our kids come out, as dumb as a bag of hammers, where 2 and 2 is 22 ,,where american history is a myth, it's a wonder that they can tie their own shoes, a Dept that has hire lunch bag inspectors, and promotes no hugging, but promotes the gay lifestyle, so if 2 and 2 is 22, I guess we deserve being, 16 trillion dollars dept .:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

[mookiemookie]

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the total taxes collected....

Almost 50% of the population pays no taxes....

Where is the fairness again?

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

So yes, where is the fairness? Why did 93% of new wealth created in 2010 go to the top 1% of earners? You're damn right they need to pay the lions share of the taxes.

[August]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.


Maybe it's my conservative leanings but I don't see anything inherently unjust about the richest 20% owning 85% of the nations wealth. That is after all what defines them as rich.

So yes, where is the fairness? Why did 93% of new wealth created in 2010 go to the top 1% of earners? You're damn right they need to pay the lions share of the taxes.They already do pay the lions share of the taxes but apparently that's still not enough, I wonder what, if anything, would be enough.

[mookiemookie]

Growing wealth inequality has historically led to the downfall of nations. Whatever happened to a rising tide lifting all boats?

[CaptainHaplo]

Growing wealth inequality has historically led to the downfall of nations.

And wealth redistribution to the masses does the same - see the bankruptcy of Rome.

And of course the fact that this attempt - if it were successful - does absolutely nothing to deal with the problems we face as a nation - just doesn't get addressed.

Its a red herring - everyone look over here and we can debate "fairness" - while either answer still leaves us entirely broke. Not real bright....

[mookiemookie]

And wealth redistribution to the masses does the same - see the bankruptcy of Rome.

Uh...ancient Rome is evidence for my side. Ancient Rome was a model of wealth inequality - still more equal than today's America though.

[the_tyrant]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577349780876117356.html?g rcc=22222Z0ZwdgtZ0Z0Z0Z0Z0&mod=WSJ_article_forwdgt

Why is it in America's interest to persuade the rich to report less income?

You know, I see a dangerous trend here.It is a global trend that affects politicians from all over the political spectrum.

And that trend, by friends, is how every politician tries to say they are "just like me".

It sounds good in a slogan, but it is :damn: when you actually sit down and think about it.

No matter what country a politician is from, what ideology he supports, what office he is running for they always claim one thing: I am just like the rest of you.

This is by far the stupidest argument I have ever heard yet.

Why would any electorate allow a politician who claims to be mediocre to rule the country?
Would you trust me to run the country?;)

No? than why should you let a politician who is "just like me" to run the country?

This is horrible. I know people who will not settle for "average". They want the best, the best car, the best technology, the best test score, the best everything. Hell, even those who are content with "second best" still try to get the best we can get. Yet with politicians, not being "the best" is a good thing?

I am always baffled with it comes to this. When I'm stuck in french class, I wish I spoke fluent french. Yet apparently you a attack your political opponent for speaking french fluently?

I will be going into university next year, and of course I would love to make it into an top tier school. Yet politicians can use the fact that his/her opponent graduated from a top school to attack him/her?


what truly weird times we live in. The dumb leading the dumber:doh:

[August]

Growing wealth inequality has historically led to the downfall of nations. Whatever happened to a rising tide lifting all boats?

Boats need to be able to actually float in order for the tide to lift them. Filling the boats that do float with water from the ones that don't only puts all of them on the bottom.

[CaptainHaplo]

Uh...ancient Rome is evidence for my side. Ancient Rome was a model of wealth inequality - still more equal than today's America though.

Ancient Rome is NOT evidence for your side Mookie.....

The corn dispersion initially was Rome buying the corn and selling it at below market rate. As time progressed - it became a giveaway - that later grew out of hand. More and more and more began taking - while the wealth of Rome was sucked away in the process.

Gee - kind of like entitlement spending does to us now - Medicare and Medicaid, along with Social Security - were 43% of total GDP last year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png)

This doesn't even count the other entitlements the government funds, like welfare, food stamps, etc. I am not saying cut it off - but when you look at entitlement spending in total - pretend for a minute we didn't have any - and we would be in the black immediately.

In 2011 we took in 2.3 Trillion. Outlays were 3.6 Trillion. If you cut the outlay by ~35% - less than total entitlement spending - we would be in the black.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Not saying that is a solution - its not. But raising taxes on those who already pay the lions share - especially spending this much time on something so inconsequential to the overall problem - is a diversionary tactic.

The fact that the left does not want to talk about the real issue - which is deficit spending (and no - "team r" isn't much better on that score) and instead wants to spend days talking about a tax hike that would fund all of 11 hours of the government - is patently absurd. It just goes to show they don't want to deal with the real issues.

[Takeda Shingen]

To be fair the Roman Empire fell due to a number of reasons; not least among them being the decay of institutions put in place during the Roman Republic that were either swept aside or allowed to decay once Caesar siezed power. The Roman Empire became a far more militaristic and shortsighted version of the Republic it replaced; making for itself far too many enemies and was ultimately unable to defend the enormous territory that it has wrested from native inhabitants. Barbarian invasions crippled agricultrural production and wrecked local economies. The Roman citizen became less inclined to rally in support of the leaders that were more interested in their own ends that those of the people. And so by the Fourth Century AD the Roman Emperors had all but abandoned the 'Western Empire' and were not even using Rome as their capital. All that remained was a slow and agonizing death that would take centuries in coming.

To that end, the fall of Rome does not support either of your arguments.

[soopaman2]

So social security is a giveaway, and caring for our elderly are entitlements?

We have been paying into SS our whole lives. It is not an entitlement.

Maybe if congress can stop stealing it to dump into wars, it will not be seen as an entitlement to be taken away by the far righties.

I like you haplo, but you have a "screw the poor for being poor" vibe.

Not all poor are takers, some feel shame for having to do it.

On a side note, go ahead and kill SS, I want every penny back I put into it, since I started working at age 14, with inflationary interest. So does everyone else. (or is it in some Iraqi or pakistani pocket already?)

[Sailor Steve]

So social security is a giveaway, and caring for our elderly are entitlements?
I don't know a lot about Medicare, but Social Security was supposed to be a zero-sum proposition.

We have been paying into SS our whole lives. It is not an entitlement.

Maybe if congress can stop stealing it to dump into wars, it will not be seen as an entitlement to be taken away by the far righties.
And it is broke. Social Security did at one point pay for itself, and the mony you put in was there for you when you retired. Congress could not steal it. The problem has nothing to do with wars. Congress is not allowed to touch Social Security. Unfortunately, SS is allowed to "loan" the money in the provision that it be repaid with interest. SS looks good because they are helping out, and Congress looks good because the National Debt is lowered by however much money they get. At least that's how it looks on paper, and the debt never manages to get repaid. You've paid into SS your whole life and the only money available is what others are paying in now. So what's in it for them, and when does the ponzi scheme collapse? And what happens when it does?

On a side note, go ahead and kill SS, I want every penny back I put into it, since I started working at age 14, with inflationary interest. So does everyone else. (or is it in some Iraqi or pakistani pocket already?)
SS is already dead. The money you paid in is gone, and it's not the fault of "the rich", and it's not the fault of the Right, or of the Left. It's what Congress does, and we've let them get away with it for so long that it seems natural.

[August]

SS is already dead. The money you paid in is gone, and it's not the fault of "the rich", and it's not the fault of the Right, or of the Left. It's what Congress does, and we've let them get away with it for so long that it seems natural.

Be that as it may it is still a debt that the Federal Government owes the American people. If they don't pay it back then it removes any legitimacy they may have.

[Sailor Steve]

Be that as it may it is still a debt that the Federal Government owes the American people. If they don't pay it back then it removes any legitimacy they may have.
:rotfl2: Like that's ever gonna happen. :dead:

Wasn't laughing at you or your comment, just at the idea. I don't think they have any legitimacy at all, and the only reason it works is because people believe it.

Supposedly The Government owes the debt to itself, and then it owes it to the people. Unfortunately Congress will never pay SS back, and rather than even trying to pay the people, the Fed tells us it's what we owe, not them, and we believe them. Part of the problem is that back in 1935 benifits had to passed out right away, and to people who had never paid in, because there was no Social Security while they were working. The good news was that there were a lot more paying in than recieving benifits. Then in the '50s the Greatest Generation came home and started making babies, and lots of them. In the 1970 we believed in Zero Population Growth. That didn't really happen, but thanks to medicine, diet and better living there are more people on the recieving end than the paying, and funds are dwindling, not growing. Couple that with SS buying Treasury Bonds to shore up the other spending, and it's a wonderful house of cards just waiting for a big blow.

During the Big Bailout I asked where the money was coming from. Congress is so far in debt there is pretty much no hope of recovery, and SS is right there with them. Taxing the Rich at 99% wouldn't go five yards toward bailing out the Government, but it would leave them as broke as the rest of us and make a lot of people feel good about themselves. The problem isn't The Rich, it's The Congress, and the only way out of this is to take away their exorbitant salaries and benifits, and make it a public service, not a great career move. That wouldn't solve the debt either, but it might make them think of themselves as servants, not overlords, and it might make them actually do something to help the country rather than the handful of people who make them ever richer.

[soopaman2]

Be that as it may it is still a debt that the Federal Government owes the American people. If they don't pay it back then it removes any legitimacy they may have.

That is how I see it. We the people allow the government to collect that money in good faith.

In good faith, when that faith is gone, then we are gone. Everything we fought for, from independance on. Poof.

As well as our standing amongst nations.

Edit: I am not a rape the rich kind of guy, but am for elimination of loopholes that only the wealthy have access too, and a more uniform tax system based on total earnings over the course of the year, rather than on earned income (you know like fairness for blue collar guys) . Why should the trust fund baby playing with the stock market pay 15%, while I struggle with my bills and pay 30% plus?

(don't even get me started on NJs local taxes)

[August]

That is how I see it. We the people allow the government to collect that money in good faith.

In good faith, when that faith is gone, then we are gone. Everything we fought for, from independance on. Poof.

As well as our standing amongst nations.

Edit: I am not a rape the rich kind of guy, but am for elimination of loopholes that only the wealthy have access too, and a more uniform tax system based on total earnings over the course of the year, rather than on earned income (you know like fairness for blue collar guys) . Why should the trust fund baby playing with the stock market pay 15%, while I struggle with my bills and pay 30% plus?

(don't even get me started on NJs local taxes)

While I pretty much agree with you it must be noted that for every trust fund baby living the good life there are plenty of seniors living modestly on dividends too. Doubling their tax rate would screw them over pretty good.

[nikimcbee]

I want my piece of the pie.

I was gunna go with the Bamster's pie speech, then I found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6TcpfBHlbs&feature=fvwrel

:haha:

See the problem is he's taxing billions, but he's spending trillions.

They need to pick a tax, pick a percentage that EVERYBODY pays, no deductions, no exeptions, and base the budget off that. Any spending over what they are taking in gets cut.

Sure, it would make tax lawyer go extinct, but who cares, they're lawyers.:haha:

[gimpy117]

Well vote for Obama, since you hate the rich so much, republican progressives are just as bad as the liberal dems, so tell Yubba how tax-ing the rich is going to get us out of this jam when general electric hasn't paid any taxes.. I guess you are ok with the government giving a billion dollars to the muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Oh by the way Warren Buffet owes a billion dollars in back taxes and is fighting the irs, not to pay, Hippo Critters.

Okay Great: here's my take

1. I don't hate the rich, but I don't feel they need the white glove treatment they currently get from the tax code. They are the income bracket who should get the least tax breaks, because frankly it's much more easy to live on 70% of 1,000,000 vs. 80% of 30,000 or so. The rich act like when the get taxed more and can't pay for their planes and Ferraris it's a catastrophic event, when really those items ate luxuries.

2. So? two wrongs make a right now? Just because GE worked the tax code does not mean the rich get to do it and write "well GE did it so I can too" in the margins of their Itemized tax forms that put them in an effectively lower bracket than the middle class.

4. source on the Muslim brotherhood thing? as far as ive read they gave it to the new elected government that had a majority of elected officials in the brotherhood...this IMO is just pointed journalism and is WAY different than actually giving money to a group...like the difference between giving money to the USA when it is controlled by a particular political party and giving money directly to a party. I read a couple news stories and the seemed to be blogs really trying to make it seem like a direct payout to the group...which seems dubious as to reality.

4. Again, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Warren should pay his taxes if it is determined he rightfully owes this amount of money.

honestly though all of you I would spend a day with in Chicago if we could. we have different views but are good people. I kinda wanna make a mini meet happen if possible

[nikimcbee]

honestly though all of you I would spend a day with in Chicago if we could. we have different views but are good people. I kinda wanna make a mini meet happen if possible

Pick a day. The best part about the subsim meets, they are mostly apolitical. :woot:

[CaptainHaplo]

So social security is a giveaway, and caring for our elderly are entitlements?

Yes and Yes

We have been paying into SS our whole lives. It is not an entitlement.

Correct, then wrong. The fact you have been paying into it verifies it is an entitlement - it is something you are ENTITLED to - aka - something you are owed by the government. Not all entitlements are "government charity".

I like you haplo, but you have a "screw the poor for being poor" vibe.

Really? Because I even stated that just dealing with entitlements is not an answer. This was a cold hard look at facts, not a suggestion for a fix. We need a lot of changes - yes - some in entitlements - but a lot of others as well. Please don't take a hypothetical scenario as some proposal to screw the poor.

Not all poor are takers, some feel shame for having to do it.

I know. I have been there myself. I was not denigrating anyone.

On a side note, go ahead and kill SS, I want every penny back I put into it, since I started working at age 14, with inflationary interest. So does everyone else. (or is it in some Iraqi or pakistani pocket already?)

Personally - I think SS should be an "opt in" system for many - especially the younger generation. People above 50 should get their standard SS - between 35-50 should get the choice to opt in or get their money back (even withouot interest that would be substantial) and below 35 they should be pure opt in, no refund.

Yes - a little "sacrifice" - but the two younger groups both sacrifice some - and its not a perfect solution - could be tweaked - but you get the general idea.

The issue here is that the left is pushing "fairness" idea without ever defining what fairness really is. The rich pay the lions share - how much more is "fair". The amounts keep changing. So we hear for days and days about hte "buffet" rule - wasting days of time on something that pays for 11 hours of government spending.... see the inefficiency? Its a political ploy, not a serious attempt at solving the nation's fiscal problems.

I am not against getting rid of loopholes. I am not against redoing the tax code. I am against people making a political herring out of something while ignoring the problems of this country. THAT is what the buffet rule is about - distracting the populace and trying to score political points on "fairness" instead of dealing with real issues.

[mookiemookie]

Correct, then wrong. The fact you have been paying into it verifies it is an entitlement - it is something you are ENTITLED to - aka - something you are owed by the government. Not all entitlements are "government charity".

You are incorrect on the definition of "entitlement spending." The programs are entitled to the spending, not necessarily the end recipients of the program. You've fallen into the propaganda trap, either willfully or not, of using loaded words like entitlement. Entitlement spending, in government terms, is spending that's automatic unless Congress deems otherwise. Every year, Social Security isn't reauthorized, so it's an entitlement expenditure.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/03/what_is_mandato.html

Using the term "entitlement spending" the way you are is using rhetorical tricks to push your side's agenda, either willfully or not.

[CaptainHaplo]

You are incorrect on the definition of "entitlement spending." The programs are entitled to the spending, not necessarily the end recipients of the program. [

Tell that the to the end recipients of the programs. The programs exist to spend money to the benefit of the recipients. If SS had money, but refused to send it to the recipients, and instead blew it on hookers and parties in Vegas (ala the GSA), do you really think the citizenry would stand by? *Ok granted - due to accounting tactics that kinda happens - but its hidden*

Using the term "entitlement spending" the way you are is using rhetorical tricks to push your side's agenda.

Now see - your claiming I have a "side". I called out BOTH sides for their lack of restraint and fiscal irresponsibility. However, the topic is one that is being pushed by YOUR side - all I have done is point out that its a red herring. I distinctly made it clear I was not for killing "entitlement" spending - I think we should cut some military spending too, for example. This isn't partisan other than YOUR side is pushing something for the sole reason that they are unwilling to deal with the real problems.

Why is it that when someone just points out facts that you can't dispute - they are immediately on some "side"? The Democrats had Congress and the Presidency for 2 years, they have had half of Congress and the Presidency for a further 1.5 - how is calling them out for their utter refusal to deal with the real problems we face automatically "partisan"?

"Team R" did the same thing - and the American people held them accountable in 2008. Talking about it then wasn't partisan - but because your side is now the one catching heat, it is? Cmon.....

The buffet rule is a farce - its totally like "SQUIRREL!" from the movie up - hey everyone - look over here and don't think about the important stuff. You know it as well as I do - in fact - you have not even denied it. So lets stop the partisan attack/defend crap and agree that BOTH sides need to stop with trying to score political points and instead focus on digging the country out of the whole they have all put us in.... Can we do that?

[mookiemookie]

Just because you refuse to accept the definition of a term and prefer your own, doesn't mean that you've changed the definition of the term.

And the term "entitlement spending" is a loaded one, used mostly by those espousing the desire to cut spending on people like the "entitled," the "lazy" and the "welfare queens."

If it walks like a duck, and uses terms like "entitlement spending" like a duck...

You know it as well as I do - in fact - you have not even denied it.

Are you seriously going to use that old Glenn Beck tactic? You know Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/glenn-beck-rape-murder-hoax), don't you? Do you know why we know this? He never denied doing it!

[Onkel Neal]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of their wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of their wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.



Fixed for you. :O: Since when does owning something become the country's ? I thought that was the whole point of owning.

Anyway, I don't see how taxing the 1% more or less is going to have much impact on me. I don't receive government aid. Maybe we'll get bigger libraries...

If we are going to make the tax system really fair, it should be a straight percentage across the board for all income, no deducations, no exceptions. Everybody contributes their 20%.

[CaptainHaplo]

Just because you refuse to accept the definition of a term and prefer your own, doesn't mean that you've changed the definition of the term.

And the term "entitlement spending" is a loaded one, used mostly by those espousing the desire to cut spending on people like the "entitled," the "lazy" and the "welfare queens."

If it walks like a duck, and uses terms like "entitlement spending" like a duck...



Are you seriously going to use that old Glenn Beck tactic? You know Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/glenn-beck-rape-murder-hoax), don't you? Do you know why we know this? He never denied doing it!

More diversionary tactics....

So instead of dealing with the fact that our government spends 1/3 more than it takes in (on many things that need cutting), despite the fact that I am for cuts in lots of areas and not just "entitlements", as well as the reality that you could "fair" the rich away - just take every dime and thing they own and it still wouldn't solve the problem - much less this 11 hr pay "fairness" idea - you'd rather continue to obfuscate and ignore the real problems facing this nation.

This is why we are in the shape we are in - because some people - and you in this case mookie - are more about the partisan crap than you are about solutions that must occur if we are to fix the problems.

Why not answer the questions outright as they have been asked of you already? With the rich already paying the lion's share of taxes - how much is enough? August or Aramike asked that - you ignored it. I asked why are we spending days and days on something that pays for 11 hours of government when we are spending 1/3 more than we make as a country - you won't touch that one either.

When someone points out a position or facts you don't like - its all because they have a "side". If someone says "lets pretend" to remove all the entitlements for the sake of proving a point regarding how much we overspend - that immediately makes them be using rhetorical tools to push an agenda.... Cmon - your better than this.

I get your left and your not happy that your side is catching flak. But your not responsible for that - and you can't seriously argue that those in control of your chosen party are acting responsibly while governing. I mean - no budget from the senate in 3 years? A presidential budget he tells the party to vote against? You sure do like to make fun of the people who swallow "truth" from Glen Beck, but your not using your own brain to break ranks with those who are doing absolutely nothing useful in governing this nation. Your throwing out the fairness talking points and getting defensive instead of just looking at the facts and (likely) coming to the conclusion that most people in this nation are moving to - that those in government (regardless of "side") are more of the problem than the solution.

Seriously, stop defending the indefensible, and lets start talking solutions. And sorry, an tax increase that pays for 11 hrs of government (with untold economic consequences to boot) isn't any kind of a solution.

[mookiemookie]

Fixed for you. :O: Since when does owning something become the country's ? I thought that was the whole point of owning.

There is something systemically wrong when 93% of the wealth created goes to 1% of the population. They're not doing 93% of the work, they're not contributing 93% of the improvements in standards of living, they're not 93% smarter than everyone else. I dare say they didn't even create 93% of that wealth. It's an indictment of a system that's rigged against those without means, and is set up to prevent upward mobility. America is the land of opportunity? Not so much. Social mobility is greater in Europe now than it is in America.


Anyway, I don't see how taxing the 1% more or less is going to have much impact on me. I don't receive government aid. Maybe we'll get bigger libraries... There's a lot of people with kids in school and people who use public infrastructure that will benefit from governments who can adequately provide these things.

If we are going to make the tax system really fair, it should be a straight percentage across the board for all income, no deducations, no exceptions. Everybody contributes their 20%.

Taking 20% of the income of the guy who makes $10,000 a year is a lot different than taking 20% of the income of the guy who makes $10,000,000.


So instead of dealing with the fact that our government spends 1/3 more than it takes in (on many things that need cutting), despite the fact that I am for cuts in lots of areas and not just "entitlements", as well as the reality that you could "fair" the rich away - just take every dime and thing they own and it still wouldn't solve the problem - much less this 11 hr pay "fairness" idea - you'd rather continue to obfuscate and ignore the real problems facing this nation. Why does the government spend more than it takes in? Could it be that money coming in the door has declined? Since we're getting caught up in "your side, my side" why is it that "your side" refuses to see both sides of the equation and thinks that the answer to everything is cut, cut, cut. Cut spending on women and children, cut taxes on the rich who are paying lower rates of taxes than they have in decades.

This is why we are in the shape we are in - because some people - and you in this case mookie - are more about the partisan crap than you are about solutions that must occur if we are to fix the problems. Oh please. You're not the model of bipartisanship fairness that you'd love to make yourself out to be.

Why not answer the questions outright as they have been asked of you already? With the rich already paying the lion's share of taxes - how much is enough? August or Aramike asked that - you ignored it. I asked why are we spending days and days on something that pays for 11 hours of government when we are spending 1/3 more than we make as a country - you won't touch that one either. Do I have to address every single thing that everyone in every thread ever posts? I don't think so.

When someone points out a position or facts you don't like - its all because they have a "side". If someone says "lets pretend" to remove all the entitlements for the sake of proving a point regarding how much we overspend - that immediately makes them be using rhetorical tools to push an agenda.... Cmon - your better than this. No, they have a side when they parrot the ideas and talking points that their chosen "side" puts out, without regard to truth, fact, or depth of analysis.

I get your left and your not happy that your side is catching flak. But your not responsible for that - and you can't seriously argue that those in control of your chosen party are acting responsibly while governing. My chosen party, he says. That's rich.

I mean - no budget from the senate in 3 years? A presidential budget he tells the party to vote against? You sure do like to make fun of the people who swallow "truth" from Glen Beck, but your not using your own brain to break ranks with those who are doing absolutely nothing useful in governing this nation. Disagreeing with the Democratic Party's actions doesn't make you a Republican or amenable to their ideas. If you could think of things from a standpoint that isn't so caught up in duality, you may understand my position a bit more. Your throwing out the fairness talking points and getting defensive instead of just looking at the facts Your facts aren't facts and you're so turned around to the point that you're misunderstanding and misusing terminology.

Seriously, stop defending the indefensible, and lets start talking solutions. And sorry, an tax increase that pays for 11 hrs of government (with untold economic consequences to boot) isn't any kind of a solution. And a tax cut is the solution. Screwing over the ever increasing ranks of the poor (and they're only poor because they're lazy, doncha know) is the solution. Quit bowing at the altar of Grover Norquist.

And you want to lay the budget passing problem at my feet? Republicans throw in some of the most egregious garbage into the budget, and then complain when the other side balks and tries to pin it on them. It doesn't work that way, bubba.

Do a bit of light reading of last year's budget (http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/_files/41211SummaryFinalFY2011CR.pdf), and you may come up with some startling revelations.

"The Department of Defense is funded at $513 billion in the CR [Continuing Resolution] ***8211; approximately $5 billion above last year ***8211; providing the necessary resources for the safety of our troops and the success of our nation***8217;s military actions. The bill also includes an additional $157.8 billion for overseas contingency operations (emergency funding) to advance our missions abroad."

SUCK ON THAT, POOR PEOPLE. Spend, spend, spend, more, more, more and then complain about poor people getting healthcare. Oh yeah, if this doesn't pass it's not because Dem's found it distasteful, it's because they hate America.

"The funding level for the State Department and Foreign Operations in the CR is a total of $48.3 billion ***8211; a $504 million reduction from last year***8217;s level and an $8.4 billion reduction from the President***8217;s fiscal year 2011 request." "Got-dang right! MORE MONEY FOR GUNS, LESS FOR DIPLOMACY! YEEEEEEAAAAH! Ain't that America?"

Oh and the riders (http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/OMB_Watch-HR1_Policy_Riders.pdf)are great.

The "Screw You Michelle Obama" rider: That none of the funds made available by this division or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 19 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1769a) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act." You know, the one that would help provide fresh fruit and vegetables to school kids. Heck no, we spend too much. Screw the kids and screw the vegetables. More guns, please.

The "Make sure we cover up any evidence that anything Obama passed is doing any good for infrastructure, so we can keep using the 'omg no shovel ready projects!' line"

Prohibits Recovery Act funds for signage.

After reading that list of riders, you're going to seriously criticize the Dems for not passing that? That's not a document outlining principles of responsible and even handed bipartisanship and compromise, that's what Rush uses instead of Viagra.

[Bilge_Rat]

There is something systemically wrong when 93% of the wealth created goes to 1% of the population. They're not doing 93% of the work, they're not contributing 93% of the improvements in standards of living, they're not 93% smarter than everyone else. I dare say they didn't even create 93% of that wealth. It's an indictment of a system that's rigged against those without means, and is set up to prevent upward mobility. America is the land of opportunity? Not so much. Social mobility is greater in Europe now than it is in America.



That is the "free market" or Capitalist system at work, far from perfect, creates systemic inequality, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill: "It is the worst economic system, but better than all the alternatives" .

Trying to increase tax rates on the rich up past a certain point is useless since it is too easy to shift income and taxes to offshore tax havens/low tax jurisdictions so you actually wind up losing tax revenues.

Raising taxes on capital gains (which is what the Buffett rule in fact proposes) also does not make sense (past a certain point) since it would cause capital to again flee to no/low tax jurisdictions. The federal long term capital gains tax rate in the U.S.A. which has hovered between 15-20% is actually within international norms, in Canada it is between 19-25% depending on the province.

A flat tax of 20%, which many people see as an ideal, is actually no simpler than the current system (sorry Neal), since you still have to define what is the "income" subject to the tax. For example what do you do about business expenses, business losses, charitable donations, etc. Sharp tax lawyers/accountants would quickly drive this down to a much lower effective rate. :D

Having said all that, there would be room to increase overall tax rates by a few points which can be done by either raising rates or closing loopholes. You guys will have to do something eventually about your deficit.

[Skybird]

If we are going to make the tax system really fair, it should be a straight percentage across the board for all income, no deducations, no exceptions. Everybody contributes their 20%.

20% for somebody having less than 1000 dollars per month, and a family, is much.

20% for a multi-millionaire is something he does not even feel. You cannot drive more than one Ferrari at a time, you cannot live in more than one villa at a time.

For the same reason I argue in favour of financial penalties for offences no longer being set as total numbers, but in percentages from the offenders income. You ride your car, and exceed the speed limit. You're an ordinary man with a usual income, and you have family - those 200 dollar (or whatever your fees are :) ) are just this: 200 dollars, and might hurt him. The millionaire driving a Ferrari and while sleeping earning 100,000 per month just from his stocks - for him 200 dollars mean nothing. The punishing value, the aversive stimulus or pain from the penalty, is not the same for both men. The one may cry in financial agony - the other is just laughing, and just jumps the traffic light after the cops let him go, just to show them how little he cares for their little papers leaflets.

However, there are limits to taxation, of course, there must be. Some British known name - forgot who it was, some film actor I think - said that once you need to give away more than 49% of your incomes to taxes, SS and such things, it is time to leave the country. I would agree with what direction he aims at. I see a limit somewhere in the low 40%-range for non-average high incomes. I simply feel like that if you work, the majoirty of your income should be yours, that'S why I see those 50% indeed as the adamant barrier.

The socialist candidate in France, Hollande, who seems to be able to defeat Sarkozy so far, wants a 75% tax on the wealthy. That is insane. (He also means plenty of finacial misery for Germany, over his ideas on how to run the Euro crisis.) Hollande already has ruined French economy once, under Mitterand. Obviously the French have forgotten that.

In Germany, real net loans for employees - by real buying power - have dropped over the past 20 years, while the overall total costs Germans had to pay to the state and social wellfare, have reached an all-time high last year. Never has Germany earned so much in taxes. And never has it made so many debts, I think.

The European social wellfare state model has failed. It has become unaffordable. Politicians try to hide that from the public - at the price of delaying action and thus increasing the damage. Ifd there is any action left that would help.

[Ducimus]

Zakaria: America needs a 2-page tax code (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/24/zakaria-america-needs-a-2-page-tax-code/)

[yubba]

The lord and the church only ask for 10%, so what makes the government think it is mightier than the lord, thinking it needs more than 30%, if 10% is good enough for the lord it should be good enough for the government, the dept of energy spent 60 million dollars on their fleet of cars now they don't know how many they have, it's around 15,000, but who's counting it's not like it's their money, I get link later.

[Tribesman]

The lord and the church only ask for 10%, so what makes the government think it is mightier than the lord, thinking it needs more than 30%, if 10% is good enough for the lord it should be good enough for the government, the dept of energy spent 60 million dollars on their fleet of cars now they don't know how many they have, it's around 15,000, but who's counting it's not like it's their money, I get link later.

Forget the link get yourself a bible:doh:
The first 10% is only one portion of one of the taxes for the "Lord".

Besides which if you want to leave out the old scripture which you got completely wrong and go with the new covenant then just pay up in cash to the government what they ask 'cos that carpenter fella said it don't matter none.:yeah:

[Bilge_Rat]

Zakaria: America needs a 2-page tax code (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/24/zakaria-america-needs-a-2-page-tax-code/)

on that, I found the part on a national sales tax a bit ironic. Canada adopted a european style value added tax in 1991 known as the "Goods and Services Tax" or GST that was supposed to lead to a simpler tax code and eliminate tax evasion...

...20 years later the Canadian GST Code is as large and complex as the Income Tax Act so we now have TWO huge tax codes to deal with and tax evasion is at an all time high.... :timeout:

There is no such thing as a "simple" solution when it comes to taxes.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1047/img00099201204191454.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

Taking 20% of the income of the guy who makes $10,000 a year is a lot different than taking 20% of the income of the guy who makes $10,000,000.


20% for somebody having less than 1000 dollars per month, and a family, is much.

20% for a multi-millionaire is something he does not even feel. You cannot drive more than one Ferrari at a time, you cannot live in more than one villa at a time.





20% is 20%. It's the same for everyone. While the guy making $10,000 a year will not like seeing his $2000 go to the government, the guy making $10 million will not like seeing his $2 million go either. And $2 million is a whole lot more than $2000. That rich guy is contributing the same total as 1000 poor guys.


People seem to think rich people don't deserve their money and property. As long as they did not get it by illegal means, it's not your business. If you don't like making $10,000 a year, America gives you ample opportunity to do something about it. No one is stopping you from doing better.

[mookiemookie]

20% is 20%. It's the same for everyone. While the guy making $10,000 a year will not like seeing his $2000 go to the government, the guy making $10 million will not like seeing his $2 million go either. No, the man making $10,000 is going to miss that 20% a heck of a lot more than the man making $10,000,000 will. If you take $2,000 from a man making $10,000, he may not be able to afford the bus fare to get to work. If you took $2mm from someone making $10mm, he's still got enough to drive a different luxury car to work every day.

And $2 million is a whole lot more than $2000. That rich guy is contributing the same total as 1000 poor guys.

And then there's also the flip side of your argument, which is actually an argument for my side. How much economic activity will 1000 people generate versus one person? A rich man may go out and spend $2000 a year on clothes. How much will 1000 less well off people spend if they spent...oh let's say $200 a year? $200,000. A thousand people spending $200,000 stimulates an economy a lot more, and more broadly, than one person spending $2000. We can lessen the tax burden on 1000 poor guys by increasing it slightly on one rich guy.

And to continue our example - your 20% tax rate on a guy making $10,000 a year may mean that he only spends $100 on clothes because he still has to buy food and pay rent, and have transportation to his job. If you increased the tax rate to 25% or 30% on the rich guy, he's still going to have the ability to spend $2000 on clothes without seriously impacting his lifestyle.

Like Skybird said, there's only so many cars and houses one person can consume. You get more economic bang for your buck by stimulating the middle class (if you believe that lower taxes are stimulative, which is another whole post in itself.) than the fractionally smaller upper class.


People seem to think rich people don't deserve their money and property. That's a mischaracterization of the argument.

As long as they did not get it by illegal means, it's not your business. Ah, but then there's the question of legality. Are laws automatically good based on the fact that they're a law? Is it right for the rich to use their wealth lobby Congress to enact laws that favor them at the expense of everyone else? Is it right for B of A or Citigroup or JP Morgan to use their influence to have Congress remove consumer protection laws and oversight? Is it right for them to avoid criminal penalty for outright fraud (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bank-foreclosure-fraud-settlement-said-near/2012/02/08/gIQAXHAA0Q_story.html)? Is it right for rich donors in Texas to lobby the state legislature to enact a tax break for a yacht purchase (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Critics-decry-yacht-tax-break-bill-sailing-in-1691382.php), at the same time we're cutting school bus service and teachers have to use half the light switches in a room to save on electric bills? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/us/for-texas-schools-a-year-of-doing-without.html?pagewanted=all)

If you don't like making $10,000 a year, America gives you ample opportunity to do something about it. No one is stopping you from doing better. If only it were that easy.

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents' educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling. And that's just scratching the surface.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all

[Bilge_Rat]

Differences in upward mobility and class barriers exist in all societies, not just the U.S.A. It is a fact of life and playing with tax rates is not going to solve the problem. Even in countries where education is free or heavily subsidized as in Canada, you still see the same phenomenon.

The best example of upward mobility is President Obama himself, look at his background. He comes from a broken home, lower middle class family and now he is ... President.

[Tribesman]

20% is 20%. It's the same for everyone.
It would be if that was so, but it isn't.
20% or any% can always be worked down if you have the time money and inclination no matter how stringent the authorities make the "No deductions and no write offs" rules.

on that, I found the part on a national sales tax a bit ironic. Canada adopted a european style value added tax in 1991 known as the "Goods and Services Tax" or GST that was supposed to lead to a simpler tax code and eliminate tax evasion...
Full circle, income tax was seen as a way to simplify taxes the eliminate the evasion on the old goods taxes.

[Skybird]

20% is 20%. It's the same for everyone. While the guy making $10,000 a year will not like seeing his $2000 go to the government, the guy making $10 million will not like seeing his $2 million go either. And $2 million is a whole lot more than $2000. That rich guy is contributing the same total as 1000 poor guys.


People seem to think rich people don't deserve their money and property. As long as they did not get it by illegal means, it's not your business. If you don't like making $10,000 a year, America gives you ample opportunity to do something about it. No one is stopping you from doing better.
Nonsense.

If you have 1000 dollars and taxes bring you down to 800, you suffer more from that loss than if you have 1 million dollars and are brought down to 800,000. For by those 800 you still need to pay SS, flat, electricty, water, heating, plus food and cloathing. That makes you run extremely low on money. If you have 800,000, and live by ten times as high living costs than the guy in the first exmaple, you still would consume just 8000 dollars on electricity, flat, water, etc etc. That means you are still having 792,000 dollars by the end of the month.

The first guy gets hit extremely hard. The second one does not feel much, if anything at all.

Stronger shoulders can carry slightly more than weaker shoulders, I would say. I hate to use a scoialsit slogan (at least they use it over here), but in principle there is some truth in it. They just exaggerate it with their conclusions.

Progressive tax rates are meant to adress this. The higher somebody's income, the more he pays in. Where to mark the possible maximum tax rate, is subject of debate.

Below a certain minimum income per month, you even do not need to pay income tax at all, at least over here. That mark is called the breadline.

[Skybird]

20% is 20%. It's the same for everyone.
But not everyone is in the same boat. Nor does everone have similiar starting conditions.

While the guy making $10,000 a year will not like seeing his $2000 go to the government, the guy making $10 million will not like seeing his $2 million go either.
And here I can counter with established social psychology. Social psychology and motivation psychology know that if people have more than enough of something, for exmaple cars, the intrinsic motivation to get more of that is dropping, and the appetite for more of the same and the satisfaction from getting more of the same is declining, too. Same is true regarding losses. The easier you can afford losses, the less you care to suffer them, for since you can afford themn, you do not feel them as losses.

If you must count every dime, you think twice about buying an item with a certain expeisnive price tag, even more if you know where to get it cheaper. If you must not think about your fiances, you tend to buy the item more easily, not caring for that you pay more for it than at the other buying opportunity. The difference you can save - is of no real concern to you.

Okay, you know that it is not alway slike this, so do I. But you get the generla line, and you know that it is like this for the vast majority of cases and people - maniacs and passionate collectors intentionally excluded.

That is known since research and experiments done in the early or mid 60s, I think it was.

[Skybird]

Just read that the congress statistics bureau said that every seventh US citizen needed food stamps last year, that is 70% more than 2007, before the crisis broke out. They calculate that the number of people needing food stamps will grow steeply until 2014 at least.

More people will need even more stamps when needing to pay the same tax rate like the middle class, and the ultra rich.

[Diopos]

Totally agree with Sky on this one.
Tax is a burden. Burden must be shared equally amonf citizens. The percent of tax on income is NOT a measure of burden.

.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ah, but then there's the question of legality. Are laws automatically good based on the fact that they're a law?

So screw the laws you dont agree with huh? Everyone can do what they want, because if you don't think a law is "good", then it shouldn't exist?


Why does the government spend more than it takes in? Could it be that money coming in the door has declined?

Yes it has - but we have been spending more than we brought in for decades - its not a left/right issue - both have failed this test and we the PEOPLE need to be about solving it.

Since we're getting caught up in "your side, my side" why is it that "your side" refuses to see both sides of the equation and thinks that the answer to everything is cut, cut, cut. Cut spending on women and children, cut taxes on the rich who are paying lower rates of taxes than they have in decades.

Now your just ignoring many of the positions I have espoused and assigning me ones based on the fact that your talking points are good against them. I never suggested we cut spending on women or children - nor did I suggest a tax cut for the "rich".

Your backing an action that is specific to a party platform and defending it - while refusing to answer any questions or deal with any realities abouto it - that is partisan. Then your trying to claim I have a "side" with people who supposedly want to do things I have never suggested. Its easy to debate someone when you can tell them what they think - but that isn't the case here. What a strawman....

Do I have to address every single thing that everyone in every thread ever posts? I don't think so.

No - but if you want to have an actual discussion instead of just parroting bullet points that sound good, when your asked directly a question then yes you should. Refusing to do so in any form shows your not willing to have a discussion. Ask me a question and I answer it - because I am about the discussion - not repeating points and misinformation ad naseum.

Disagreeing with the Democratic Party's actions doesn't make you a Republican or amenable to their ideas.

Never said it did. But every time I ask you about a solution - or point out why this won't work and ask for a discussion - you instead go off on tangents and refuse to deal with the topic.

And a tax cut is the solution. Screwing over the ever increasing ranks of the poor (and they're only poor because they're lazy, doncha know) is the solution. Quit bowing at the altar of Grover Norquist.

Again - strawman. I have not taken the positions you are claiming I have, and challenge you to show me where I have. You can't.

And you want to lay the budget passing problem at my feet?

No - I specifically said that was NOT your fault... are you just reacting without even paying attention?????

Republicans throw in some of the most egregious garbage into the budget, and then complain when the other side balks and tries to pin it on them. It doesn't work that way, bubba.

And I even made a point to state that both sides were wrong - you continue only to point to the mud on the side opposite yourself...

Seriously - at this point your just making crap up about supposed stances you want to blame on me when my own words show that I have different positions. I talked about cuts in places other than entitlements. You never asked my view on tax cuts vs reforms, etc. I have tried to open the door for you to come up with ideas for solutions. Instead you rant about stuff I have not suggested.

Really - making stuff up is the best you have at this point?

I have always had a lot of respect for you Mookie - regardless of our disagreements. Usually your willing to discuss stuff - I don't know why your not this time.

[Platapus]

The nice thing about being rich and paying high taxes is that afterwards, you are still rich.
:D

[Skybird]

The nice thing about being rich and paying high taxes is that afterwards, you are still rich.
:D
Yep. And if you are rich enough, you must not even work! Your stock papers just catch up the cream from other people's work! The money you have, is the money they have not! Then they must lend money, from you. Which gives you interests! Giving you more share of the overall wealth! Wealth that you have, but they have bot. So they must make more debts! Which gives you more interests! That'S why there is the so-called great divergence since the 70s - you know, those 70s that saw the end of the gold standard.

I said it in another thread some days ago. Problem became explosive when money no longer was seen as a calculation unit for real value and material properties, but became a good, an item itself, that can be bought and sold, and can grow in availability although not being covered by material value anymore. When that happened, the snowballing system - which due to the interest system always was there - really accelerated in pace by several factors. The real economy and its real materially existing value, gets overrolled by this madness.

The idea behind it is as idiotic as it is revealing: the idea that seriousl out of nothing can come something, and that paper by modern finance markets' alchemy can be turned into solid gold. :har:

[CaptainHaplo]

Yep. And if you are rich enough, you must not even work! Your stock papers just catch up the cream from other people's work! The money you have, is the money they have not! Then they must lend money, from you. Which gives you interests! Giving you more share of the overall wealth! Welath that loyu have, but they have bot. So they must make more debts! Which gives you more interests!

Of course. And there is never a risk in loaning money - its ALWAYS paid back with that interest don'tcha know. And the borrowers - they are always honest about their ability to repay. Let's not forget that massive interest charge that they take on - well that is as high as possible because the rich are out to extort money from the poor. Heck, most of those loans are made because the rich guy loaning the money has a gun to the head of the poor person forcing them to borrow it!

Look - someone is starting a new business - they want a rich person to invest. Rich person invests - business fails - rich person is now out of of the investment. But if the business succeeds - the rich person gets a dividend (a reward) for his sound investment. People get jobs and paychecks from that...

How horrible! Someone should make a law against the rich - or them profiting off of risking their wealth.........

[August]

20% is 20%. It's the same for everyone. While the guy making $10,000 a year will not like seeing his $2000 go to the government, the guy making $10 million will not like seeing his $2 million go either. And $2 million is a whole lot more than $2000. That rich guy is contributing the same total as 1000 poor guys.


People seem to think rich people don't deserve their money and property. As long as they did not get it by illegal means, it's not your business. If you don't like making $10,000 a year, America gives you ample opportunity to do something about it. No one is stopping you from doing better.

Exactly.

I believe progressive tax rates are nothing more than a way for government to increase it's power.

The amount they want to get is so trifle compared to the amount they keep spending that I have to believe that it's only real usefulness is as a vehicle to set the poor against the rich and divide the middle class. Divide and conquer.

But beyond the class warfare aspect I am against giving the Feds any more money in general. They have repeatedly demonstrated they can't manage it efficiently and if we had just half of what they've wasted or boondoggled away over the years we wouldn't be even having this debate.

At some point a line must be drawn or they will just continue to put us deeper into debt. Letting them do that while also letting them increase our tax burden is just crazy.

[mookiemookie]

The nice thing about being rich and paying high taxes is that afterwards, you are still rich.
:D

One of the guys I work with said it best - "I hope I make enough money that I'm in the position to have to worry about Obama's plan to tax the ultra rich."

[mookiemookie]

How horrible! Someone should make a law against the rich - or them profiting off of risking their wealth.........

What happens when they risk their own wealth, lose, blow up the world economy, and then hold everyone over a barrel looking for a bailout, and then get it and then fight against every bit of regulation in response to the crisis, telling everyone they're entitled to the amount of profit they made by doing precisely what they did to blow up the world economy?

Usually your willing to discuss stuff - I don't know why your not this time. Because it's the same old blah blah..someone floats the idea of a flat tax, as if 20% of a poor person's income is even remotely similar to 20% of a person who could never spend all their money's 20%, and then someone else says we need to cut back on spending on kids and women, but god forbid we ever recognize the fact that Americans are some of the least taxed developed nation citizens in the world or that defense spending is out of hand, and blah buh-blah-buh-blah...the same old song and dance, and at the end of the day, the Democrats and Republicans go to the same cocktail party, and prove everyone who believes there's a damn bit of difference between them to be a fool and a rube.

I get bored with it.

[August]

Because it's the same old blah blah..someone floats the idea of a flat tax, as if 20% of a poor person's income is even remotely similar to 20% of a person who could never spend all their money's 20%, and then someone else says we need to cut back on spending on kids and women, but god forbid we ever recognize the fact that Americans are some of the least taxed developed nation citizens in the world or that defense spending is out of hand, and blah buh-blah-buh-blah...the same old song and dance, and at the end of the day, the Democrats and Republicans go to the same cocktail party, and prove everyone who believes there's a damn bit of difference between them to be a fool and a rube.

I get bored with it.

I've yet to hear any flat tax proponent advocate taxing the poor at any percentage, let alone 20% Mookie. Obviously there is a minimum to what can be taxed. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. If the 20% income tax only kicked in once someone cleared say $25 grand a year would you support it then?

As for being the least taxed developed nation you say that like it's a bad thing. How will you feel if we become the most taxed developed nation without any meaningful decrease in the poverty level? That's what I see happening if we keep giving in to these demands for ever more of our money.

[Onkel Neal]

No, the man making $10,000 is going to miss that 20% a heck of a lot more than the man making $10,000,000 will. If you take $2,000 from a man making $10,000, he may not be able to afford the bus fare to get to work. If you took $2mm from someone making $10mm, he's still got enough to drive a different luxury car to work every day.


Still, it's the same percentage as the rich man, seems fair is fair.



If only it were that easy.


I think that's one of the big problems of this last 30 years, people expect things to be easy. They're not. People need to deal with it.
Anyway, we disagree but we're still friends, right?

[Fr8monkey]

The US Senate is controlled by the Democrats. If they can't get it passed it's not the Republicans fault.
Oh., so I guess the record number of filibusters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html) have nothing to do with it.... The Dems. have a majority but not a super-majority. Republicans use it so Obama will fail so they can get re-elected.

[CaptainHaplo]

Anyway, we disagree but we're still friends, right?

I hope we all still are.

I've yet to hear any flat tax proponent advocate taxing the poor at any percentage, let alone 20% Mookie. Obviously there is a minimum to what can be taxed. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. If the 20% income tax only kicked in once someone cleared say $25 grand a year would you support it then?

While I like SOME of the merits of a flat tax - I struggle with the above. A person making 24,700 pays no tax - a person paying 25k does? My idea of this is the following - you owe taxes the moment you earn an amount over the federal poverty line + whatever your taxes would be. This would insure that no one gets pushd below the poverty line due to taxation, and would also make sure that anyone making over that amount then would be contributing.

Thus - no one defined as "poor" by federal guidelines would pay taxes - everyone else would.

As for being the least taxed developed nation you say that like it's a bad thing. How will you feel if we become the most taxed developed nation without any meaningful decrease in the poverty level? That's what I see happening if we keep giving in to these demands for ever more of our money.

We have seen what taxes do - Before Reagan, Capital Gains taxes were about 70% - you know - that investment rich person tax.... Anyone remember how great the economy was doing under Carter? Granted - part of that was his failed energy policy as well - but the point still stands. Reagan cut taxes - but yes - he also "raised" them. He eliminated a lot of loopholes - something we should be doing now instead of raising taxes.

Seriously - you raise the tax on a rich person they are just going to hire another accountant to find and use more loopholes. But if you keep the tax rate the same, and eliminate the loopholes - you get more revenue without raising taxes.

Why is this not one part of a solution?

[yubba]

These folks in DC. need to come up with a plan too cut spending and the size of government before they even consider raising taxes at all, they are not even trying. Tax more spend more, crush the system, and expect paradise to come out the other end, what a joke. I don't think Mittens is any better than Obama, at least he ain't a communist and he doesn't eat dog. So what was Obama eat-ing when he was a kid, German shepard pot pie, a slab of lab with a dash of hound, grilled greyhound that runs right through you, or something like noodles and poodles, or a creamed sharpai, does that go with red or white wine ????? MMMMMMMMmmmm honey this lobster tastes just like a jack russell on a stick, praise alluh

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh., so I guess the record number of filibusters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html) have nothing to do with it.... The Dems. have a majority but not a super-majority. Republicans use it so Obama will fail so they can get re-elected.

Fr8monkey - Harry Reid won't even let the House budget be voted on. He and the rest of his cronies (who honestly do NOT represent the average democrat) have failed to come up with a budget proposal of their own in 3.5 years.....

So its the Republican's fault that the Senate hasn't even created a budget plan????

[LoBlo]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16/senate-blocks-buffett-rule-30-tax-floor-on-top-earners.html
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yM3QXVpEpVY/T2oUNY0z99I/AAAAAAAAQb8/sHWmParVYn8/s1600/voting+GOP.jpg

:D

Much truth here

[Fr8monkey]

The Republican plan is easy... Return to the failed policies of the Great God Reagan: Give all the money to the rich and let it trickle down to the dregs that make less than a million a year.

@ yubba (http://subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=249320): Still reading the racist talking points of the right wing? Most of what you posted was very distasteful!

[August]

The Republican plan is easy... Return to the failed policies of the Great God Reagan: Give all the money to the rich and let it trickle down to the dregs that make less than a million a year.

You know that's a huge exaggeration but in any event it set us up pretty good for the following decade.

[Sailor Steve]

The Republican plan is easy... Return to the failed policies of the Great God Reagan: Give all the money to the rich and let it trickle down to the dregs that make less than a million a year.
Let's take one example. Bill Gates employs 93,000 people. They are all payed out of the company's obscene profits. You see, for all your claims, trickle-down does indeed work.

The United States Government employs nearly three million people. They are all payed by tax revenues, since the Government generates no revenues and makes no profits. Utah's senior Senator, Orrin Hatch, has a staff of 64 people who are paid a total of about $2 million dollars per year. If we take that as average, then two hundred million dollars are spent every year just paying the staff for the Senators. When John Adams moved the Federal Government to Washington D.C. in 1800 there were 125 Federal employees listed.

It's easy to swing this thread back to the one-sided hate-the-rich theme. What bothers me is that most people who jump on that bandwagon think that taking away the money from "The Rich" will solve the problem, and tend to believe the Government is the Good Guy who can save us all. As I said earlier, the problem isn't with the rich, it's with the Government, and you need to clean that up first.

As the song says: "Tax the rich, feed the poor 'til there are no rich no more." Once you've accomplished that, Fr8monkey, what will your next step be?

[Tribesman]

I've yet to hear any flat tax proponent advocate taxing the poor at any percentage, let alone 20% Mookie.

Interesting
So when someone writes....
20% is 20%. It's the same for everyone.
20% is not 20% and everyone does not mean everyone.
Thats nice and clear.

So when someone takes the above quote and replies....
Exactly.

.....and then goes on about the evils of progressive tax and how seperating the poor in terms of taxation is class warfare, they are definately not saying 20% is 20% across the board and there shall be no special lower tax rates for those on very low incomes.

Nice to see August insisting that things that were writtten were not written and things he calls for have not being called for at all.:yeah:


You know that's a huge exaggeration but in any event it set us up pretty good for the following decade.
The reality is that it set you up for a big fall, which is not "pretty good" by any positive standard

[Skybird]

In reply to Haplo, and the thread in general, I copy over some passages from the Soros-thread, since they are relevant here, too: it is the drama from money turning into a traded item as if it were a material good, and that intersts increase the ammount of absrtact money that is not covered by real value and real economy. This forms a mechanism by which more and more money exists, but not more and more real value (leading to bubbles, inflation), and a mechnaism of a massive global as well as inner-national income redistribution from poor to wealthy.


What is money? Money was a tool to exchange goods more easily without needing to carry said goods in reality with you. But then somethign bad happened, money turned from being a tool for trading to being the object of trade itself. It was taken out of the business cycle where it needs to flow to keep business-making alive, it got instead now saved and stockpiled and became the target of the trading intention, not just a tool to ease trading. It became an item, a good. And that was bad. The poorer ones need to lend money, for which they need to pay interests. The interests represent money that has no real value in goods, items or commodities. It started to became abstract value only. The rich started to accumulate this abstract value, and traded it as if it were real, material items and goods. The poor needed to serve their interests more and more, since the credit they took to serve the former credit, accumulated to their existing debts. In other words: the poors' debts rise, due to rising interest obligations, and the rich with their stockpiled money become wealthier over nothing.

Even more - more and more money is in circulation that is "uncovered" by real material asset, value, goods. It is abstract value, that is leased away, produces real interest and thus sucks material wealth from the poor to those having had abstract wealth, but by this afflux become wealthier in real value as well.

Today we have the pohenomenon that natiponal states are almost unable to act anymore, since they have so many debts that they have no money left to form, to create, to cast an inbfluence. The debts' service obligations consume most of the money there is. And with every new load of debts taken, the share of the budget needed to serve interests become bigger:


Take Germany. From 1970 to 2009, Germany trook debts in the range of 1596 billion Euro. In the same time, it had to pay interests for old credits and credits taken during this time, totalling 1562 billion euros. There is a difefrence - only 34 billion of these ammounts of mony were spend on general public purposes and circulated in the general financial economy. The remaing 1500+ billion ended up in the hand of creditors who lend these moneys and earned interests for doing so, they gained a profit for - doing nothing. The public debts meanwhile skyrocketed, which means guarantee for future profits of creditors.


The same mechanism works in the relation between first and third world. The developem ent aid being payed, was sufficient for serving the interests from debts for just a couple of days - the rest of the year the receiving nations needed to increase their debts to get along. That is what made Wetsern develoepemnt aid jjust an alibi lasting for not even 2 weeks of the year:

Helmut Creutz wrote in the mid-90s, that the 4000 million dollar in developing aid that were collected in the industrial nations at that time, were enough only for serving the interest obligations of the third world for a meager 12 days. In oher words: since the poor states need to finance themselves all by themselves for the remaining 353 days of the year, including making new debts, the developement aid that the industrial nations payed, was back with them after 12 days.

Assume you have a system with real values and properties of "1000" material value units. People then get tired to carry around real material items for trading and exchange, and intruduce money - a smuch money as there is real value. So you have money in circulation that also is worth "1000" calculation units. Then there are 100 people who earn too little by their jobs so that they cannot make a living for themselves or their families. They need to take a credit, and pa yinterest. Somebody lends them 100 calculation units for 1% interest. The credit gets payed back, plus interest: + 1 calculaiton units. The overall real material value in that system has not increased, and still is 1000 matwerial value units. But the money in circulation has incrased, there are 1001 caluclation units in circulation now. The dysbalance between real and abstract value has started, and from here on will increase.

The creditors increasingly are wealthy enough to give credits not on the basis of money representing real value, but is abstract value only. In other words: worthless money. They do not face real risk from that. But the dependency of the debtor is increasing, since the constant raise of abstract money increases the money in circulation: that is what inflation is about. Inflation also devalues money that represents material value, so to speak. In other words, the debtor needs to take higher debts.

A vicious circle starts, income inequality starts rising its ugly head. The redistribution from poor to wealthy takes up speed. But there are still two more climaxes ahead:

First, at some time the poor has reached a point where he needs to take debt snot to make a living, but just to service the interest from his old debts. From this point on, things turn cataclysmic. More and more he works for an income not to imporve his situation, but to service his debts - and from some point on not to pay them back, but kjust to keep the intersts in check. Since the ammount of money in circulation is growing and growing, this is a hopeless case, almost. Deeper and deeper he sinks into the swamp.

Obviously, this is where the nations are now.

Second, those who have stockpiled abstract money units as if it were items and trading goods in itself, form a new item category to trade: debts. Debts get collected, packed into sortiments, and get sold as "financial products". A giant bubble builds up, and everybody depends on it to never burst but always grow.

Problem is there is no such thing as eternal processes and constant growth without limits. The bubble represents all the money that has no representation in real material values, assets, properties.

BUMM!

Just a question of time.


The problem of today'S financial misery are people like Soros himself: the wealth of the one, needs the debt of the other - and also needs somebody (except the wealthy of course) to bail the debtor out if he cannot serve his interests anymore. The whole current financial system guarantees a financial redistribution on a massive scale.

Interests is the price you have to pay in order to buy money. Again: money has become a trading item itself today, which is part of the explanation why things went so terribly wrong recently.

In a book from 2011 ("Geld - Der vetrackte Kern des Kapitalismus"), financial journalist Lucas Zeise gave this nice anecdote:

There was a village, that lived by tourism until the financial breakdown 2008. Suddenly, tourists stayed away, and the people living in that vilage had to lend money from each other to survive. But then, one foreigner entered the localo hotel, and demanded a room. He payed in advance with a 100 Euro note. The hotel owner took the note to the butcher becasue he owed him 100 Euros. The butcher took the 100 Euro to the farmer whose cattle he still needed to pay. The farmer took the money to the whore in the village, whom he still did owe 100 Euros. The whore took the 100 Euros to the hotel owner, because she occassionally rented a room in his hotel, and still owed him 100 Euros. When she put the note on the table, the tourist came down the stairs, fetched the 100 Euros off the table, said he had changed his mind, and left. - Well, nobody in the village had won money, nobody had lost money, there were no gains and no losses for anyone. But for some reason everybody was suddenly free of debts.

The big ammounts of mony owned by the few, are a big problem for the money not having money, because the money stockpiled by the rich is missing in the financial cycle. We see it in every richer nation in the West: more and more welath gets accumulated in fewer and fewer hands, more and more parts of the population own smaller and smaller ammounts of the available wealth. The spread between decreasing rich and increasing poor is widening, and with growing pace. That is true inside nations, but on a global stage as well.

The richest 10% of the German people own 60% of all national properties and wealth. The richest 20% own over 80% of the wealth, while the remaining 80% of the Germans share the remaining 20% of wealth. The poorest 50% of the population even need to share just 2% of the German welath.

On a global scale, these relations are even worse: by numbers from 2006, the richest 2% of the world'S population own more than 50% of the global wealth, the richest 10% of the world's population own 85% of the global wealth, the poorer half of the world population (50%), owns only 1% (World Institute for Developement Economics Research, Decembre 2006)

And lets face it, the rich elites cannot compensate the lack of buying power in the huge majority of the population. Stockpiling this money and excluding it from the economic cycle, does damage to the whole, also it devalues the money in circulation by inflation that is the inevitable consequence of borrowing money to pay old interests, paying interests for the new debts, and by this incrasing the ammount of money without increasing real values to compensate and to balance the monetarian increase. This is what especially in America is not being understood, and is underestimated in danger. The damage done by this, is structural, and thus much, much harder to be adressed in the future. The Fed without doubt is one of the most stupid or most desperate institutions on this planet. Look at the numbers for 1st quarter, propagandists said there is a rise in Us economy and jobs. But that Amwrica for the I think 42nd month in sequence had to increase its debtsa and increaing its budget deficit, and that these proclaimed gains were "acchieved" at the cost of making more debts and milking the tax payer - this they forgot to mention.

The situation is such that nations are in a state where it does not make a difference anymore who is in control: his limits are so tight that he cannot form and create politically anyway, debts and costs are strangling any freedom and space for action - this could only be had at the price of: increasiong debts. And that is what parties do. Yesterday I read a piece in Der Tagesspoiegel where the aughtor argued the call for more EU and giving respjnsibilities from nations to the central committee inBrussel is not a sign of strength, but desparation and weakness. More Europe will not solve issues, but increase them, since what is being tried by this shift in responsibilkities, is simply this: to escape responsibility on the national level by handing it over to Brussel instead. It's a big Getaway. What do government mean anymore, if in Belgium they have had no government for more than half a year, Greece being told from outside what to do, and German parties being so indifefrentiated and so arbitrarily in their daily shifting focusses on how to cling to power so that no identity and no responsibility can be perceived anywhere anymore? I think this is the reason why it is common in politics no to just appeal to the emotions of the crowd, to stir up sentiments, where everybody has run out of arguments and sense of reasonbility. Prime example is the hate-filled emotional trench warfare in the US, but in principle it is present everywhere.

And somebody mentioned how filibusters precent congress and senate from deciding. What puts the US aside from the West is that there a minority can delay and even prevent a basic democratic principle: that is that the decision gets formed my majority vote. That is what democracy is about: majority votes. Filibustering is the way to bypass this unwelcomed little detail. If by this the minority has the same power as the majority, then it makes no sense anymore to speak of minorities and majorities. You must not hold a vote in a parliament anymore, if filibustering can prevent it beyond the point where everybopdy is dozing off or votes differently due to shere despair and desiore to escape this masterful exmaple of lacking argument being rpalced by 100% rethorical abuse. Even more, a regime where the many are subject to the power of the few, usually is called a form of a tyrannic or dictatorial regime. You could as well claim that an election result of 40% and 20% fro two parties gives the latter party as many seats as the first. In other words the minority is twice as powerful as the first, by election results.

[CaptainHaplo]

Prime example is the hate-filled emotional trench warfare in the US, but in principle it is present everywhere.

Like this thread.....:damn:

And somebody mentioned how filibusters precent congress and senate from deciding. What puts the US aside from the West is that there a minority can delay and even prevent a basic democratic principle: that is that the decision gets formed my majority vote. That is what democracy is about: majority votes. Filibustering is the way to bypass this unwelcomed little detail.

No Sky, you misunderstand our government. We are - as was discussed - a representative republic - where the representatives are elected by a democratic process. The House operates more as a "democracy" while the Senate has rules in place that prevent a pure "majority rule". This is - much to the chagrin of some - on both sides depending on who has a majority - by design. It protects the people and make it harder for the government to rule by 51% telling the other 49% how to live.

The design helps insure that one party must have a strong mandate from the people - as demonstrated by the # of elected representatives in congress - to enact legislation. The difference between "majority rule" and a filibuster proof majority is a mere 10% - if a party cannot meet that threshold, then it has no strong mandate.

[mookiemookie]

Still, it's the same percentage as the rich man, seems fair is fair.




I think that's one of the big problems of this last 30 years, people expect things to be easy. They're not. People need to deal with it.
Anyway, we disagree but we're still friends, right?

Of course, man! :salute:

[Fr8monkey]

Like this thread.....:damn:



No Sky, you misunderstand our government. We are - as was discussed - a representative republic - where the representatives are elected by a democratic process. The House operates more as a "democracy" while the Senate has rules in place that prevent a pure "majority rule". This is - much to the chagrin of some - on both sides depending on who has a majority - by design. It protects the people and make it harder for the government to rule by 51% telling the other 49% how to live.

The design helps insure that one party must have a strong mandate from the people - as demonstrated by the # of elected representatives in congress - to enact legislation. The difference between "majority rule" and a filibuster proof majority is a mere 10% - if a party cannot meet that threshold, then it has no strong mandate.

Now it is set so just 1 person along with 40 others.... 41 senators in all can prevent any progress in the government that represents 300,000,000. That is how a filibuster works.

[CaptainHaplo]

Now it is set so just 1 person along with 40 others.... 41 senators in all can prevent any progress in the government that represents 300,000,000. That is how a filibuster works.

A government that represents 300 Million?

Lets see - you mean a government that refuses to represent the 300 Million don't you?

After all - 60% of the country wants to open up offshore drilling - up from 50% last year - yet the government refuses to represent the wishes of the citizenry....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146615/oil-drilling-gains-favor-americans.aspx

56% of people want Obamacare repealed - and the government instead is fighting as hard as it can to force it upon the people...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

66% of Americans believe that the U.S. "should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens" (CNN, April 2010).
http://www.fairus.org/facts/public-opinion

73% of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track - and its government that has us going down that track....
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

Oh - and the clincher....
Nearly two-thirds of U.S. voters feel the federal government has lost touch with the people it represents. Only 20% say the government now has the consent of the governed...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2011/20_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_governed

The only thing PROTECTING the people from an out of control government is the safeguards that require more than mere mob rule.....

[mookiemookie]

Rasmussen polls are notoriously biased and inaccurate.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

[August]

Rasmussen polls are notoriously biased and inaccurate.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

At least according to the New York Times, official propaganda organ of the Democratic party. :yep:

[CaptainHaplo]

Rasmussen polls are notoriously biased and inaccurate.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

And how many times have you fussed about someone else using a BLOG as a source of fact, Mookie..

Not to mention - is Gallup and CNN also biased to the right?

Perhaps you'd like a Zogby poll better? Their latest has 58% saying the nations is going the wrong way....

(This link won't last - its their "latest" poll - so you may have to search the site for it soon)
http://www.ibopezogby.com/polls/latest/
I could go on and on ....

Got any polls that show Americans overwhelmingly love the healthcare debacle, soaring debt, amnesty, or high gas prices due to a lack of domestic energy production????

Yea... I thouht not...
Well, you can probably find a blogger or two that might like it... that has to count, right?:rotfl2:

[mookiemookie]

At least according to the New York Times, official propaganda organ of the Democratic party. :yep:

If you can find fault with Mr. Silver's analysis, which is based on the notoriously liberal lie that is....uh...comparing pre-election polls with actual observed election results....then your argument basically boils down to "NUH UH, THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID IT SO NUH UH!"

And how many times have you fussed about someone else using a BLOG as a source of fact, Mookie..

Not to mention - is Gallup and CNN also biased to the right?

Perhaps you'd like a Zogby poll better? Their latest has 58% saying the nations is going the wrong way....

(This link won't last - its their "latest" poll - so you may have to search the site for it soon)
http://www.ibopezogby.com/polls/latest/
I could go on and on ....

Got any polls that show Americans overwhelmingly love the healthcare debacle, soaring debt, amnesty, or high gas prices due to a lack of domestic energy production????

Yea... I thouht not...
Well, you can probably find a blogger or two that might like it... that has to count, right?:rotfl2:

Whine and snark all you want, so long as you strive to use accurate sources to back up your statements. Rasmussen polls are not that source.

Also, you can pull the same knee jerk argument that is "NUH UH THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID IT, SO NUH UH!" as August did, but realize it only makes you look intellectually lazy. If you can find the partisan spin in "hey Rasumussen said the election would be this way, but it actually turned out to be this way, so Rasmussen was off by X%" then I'd love to hear it.

As you said - Yeah, I thought not.

In conclusion, if you use Rasmussen to back up your statements, then your evidence is not evidence at all.

[Armistead]

One thing for sure we have a dying middle class, just compare it to the middle class of the 60's-80's, that's why our nation is headed for the dumps. Almost every study shows that our next generation will face a nation where 10% hold over 80% of total wealth. The sad thing will be when the 20% face retirement at probably age 75 by then when SS and medicare in the tank.

[August]

In conclusion, if you use Rasmussen to back up your statements, then your evidence is not evidence at all.

Except that he also provided links to several other polling organizations with similar results that also back up the point he was making to Fr8monkey.

And yes nothing the NYT says can be trusted. Their bias to Team D is greater than Fox's bias to Team R and you can bet that the article you quoted is only there because it's conclusions agree with that bias.

[Tribesman]

Except that he also provided links to several other polling organizations with similar results that also back up the point he was making to Fr8monkey
Which coupled with his complaints about the current system does raise a big question.
Does Haplo want to rip up the constitution and start afresh with a system of direct democracy where national policies and laws are changed every time a poll shows a swing in peoples views on a subject?

I do like the poll in that gallup link he posted where 58% of the population are in favour of some quantative easing where the government will flood the market to try and temporarily lower prices.......seems like the exact opposite of what the population is normally calling for when it actually does happen.

Then again the piece also takes that and another example and says the 15-20% differences don't really amount to a consensus of opinion and the fluctuating of opinions don't suggest it would be wise to go with those opinions.
And the best of all is about opinion on prices as it says it is rather silly since it is one for an approach that not only doesn't work but would do the opposite of what people say they wanted it to do.

[Skybird]

Their bias to Team D is greater than Fox's bias to Team R

Now that is debatable. Fox' lacking objectivity has become proverbial even outside the US for no reason. They make German Bild-Zeitung look like a academical thesis paper.

[August]

Now that is debatable. Fox' lacking objectivity has become proverbial even outside the US for no reason.

Of course there's no reason, except perhaps maybe that Fox doesn't say what "outside the US" want's to hear. But hasn't that always been the case?

[Skybird]

If "Fox doesn't say what "outside the US" want's to hear" is an euphemism for lacking journalistic quality, moral codes and professional standards, then you probably have a point somewhere, deep below, well hidden, most likely.

Keep digging.

[Tribesman]

Of course there's no reason, except perhaps maybe that Fox doesn't say what "outside the US" want's to hear. But hasn't that always been the case?
You seem to forget that Fox is just one arm of a global media empire and that empire has a serious credibility problem everywhere so "outside the US" doesn't come into it, Murdoch peddles populist trash aimed at the lowest common denominator, it is good business to peddle simplistic rubbish on the mass market.
It doesn't in any way give credibility to itself anywhere and certainly cannot stand to the claim that it is less crap than the NYT or less biased in that national market.
A decent claim might be that it is just as crap as the NYT, but that would require a lack of partisanship and a level of honesty by those making the claim.

[August]

If "Fox doesn't say what "outside the US" want's to hear" is an euphemism for lacking journalistic quality, moral codes and professional standards, then you probably have a point somewhere, deep below, well hidden, most likely.

Keep digging.

Digging? This started being about the US Senate obeying the wishes of a majority of Americans so don't try to misdirect it into a Fox foreign popularity contest.

[Skybird]

I did not start making it a media issue between the NYT and FOX. ;)

[August]

I did not start making it a media issue between the NYT and FOX. ;)

And I didn't make one about Rasmussen. We're all just Victims of Coircumstances! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Personally I blame Mookie. He's just one lab accident away from supervillan status. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

Personally I blame Mookie. He's just one lab accident away from supervillan status. :yep:

That....would be awesome.

http://images.wikia.com/cartooncharacters/images/5/54/1269029192_re-actor-net_mega_mind_screen_4.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

Sorry Mookie - as cool as it would be, I just can't see you as a villian. Your heart's in the right place, even if (I think) your head isn't on straight sometimes!

Ok @everybody- back to the topic.

Everyone wants to debate the issue of "fair". Some say a certain % across the board is fair. Others say if you make more, you should pay more.

One of the things I have not heard defined by proponents of the tax scale is - how much is "too much" taxes to take from someone? Right now, the top 1% percent pays roughly 38% of the taxes. About 45% pay no taxes at all (and a large portion of that group actually "pay" negative taxes - they get money back that they never even pay in).

On that note - how is it "fair" that people get something out of a system like that - getting more than they ever put it? Especially at the cost of the other 55% of the people? Where is the "fairness" there?

[Takeda Shingen]

That....would be awesome.

http://images.wikia.com/cartooncharacters/images/5/54/1269029192_re-actor-net_mega_mind_screen_4.jpg

There's only room for one supervillain on this forum, and I've got that job locked up securely. You can still wear the cape, though.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Simply put, the government strives for domination, and in the process, blow trillions they dont have. ESPECIALLY in our military. Until we curb (if we ever curb) the deficit, we should return to isolationism. Our military is so grossly overpowered because of our trillions spent in the futility of being the word policeman that we've seen the debt rise over 5 trillion from one single two term president and another 5 trillion from another. WE need to stop trying to be the best in the world and instead focus on being the best we have the ability to ACTUALLY be, not borrow ourselves into something we cant afford.

Military needs to be cut immensely, taxes needs to be enforced for ALL, Illegal immigration laws need to be enforced, Corporations need to be reviewed with the utmost thoroughness and NOT be allowed to price gouge, and monopolies need to be eliminated.

The biggest threat in any free market economy is corporations getting so powerful that their collapse from dangerously catastrophic investments would take everyone affiliated with them down with it. The workers, the investors, stock players, partners, (assuming they sold goods) market price gouging.

I believe that us trying to borrow our way into being a world leader is absolutely impossible and destructive.

[CaptainHaplo]

I would agree except for the "ESPECIALLY' part....

Defense spending could be 0 and we still would be spending more than we bring in.....

To make Defense the "main" target for cuts ignores the realities of how we spend our money.

I don't have a problem with cutting defense spending - nor with stopping all the overseas conflicts (which could be done without jeopardizing our national security if we really wanted to...). But making Defense your main target just isn't going to fix things.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I would agree except for the "ESPECIALLY' part....

Defense spending could be 0 and we still would be spending more than we bring in.....

To make Defense the "main" target for cuts ignores the realities of how we spend our money.

I don't have a problem with cutting defense spending - nor with stopping all the overseas conflicts (which could be done without jeopardizing our national security if we really wanted to...). But making Defense your main target just isn't going to fix things.
No, but it is a big source of overspending. It is a priority to stop spending trillions on being the world policeman.

[Bilge_Rat]

meanwhile, back on topic? :D

Depending on whether you choose the Democratic or Republican analysis, adopting the Buffett rule would raise between $ 5-8 Billion in 2013 or enough to fund 11 to 18 hours of government spending.

So raising taxes on the rich alone will not solve the budget problems, you have to raise taxes on everyone and cut spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-correct-stat-on-the-buffett-rule/2012/04/23/gIQAJ4NzcT_blog.html

[Skybird]

meanwhile, back on topic? :D

Depending on whether you choose the Democratic or Republican analysis, adopting the Buffett rule would raise between $ 5-8 Billion in 2013 or enough to fund 11 to 18 hours of government spending.

So raising taxes on the rich alone will not solve the budget problems, you have to raise taxes on everyone and cut spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-correct-stat-on-the-buffett-rule/2012/04/23/gIQAJ4NzcT_blog.html
Also this:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/23/rob-portman/rob-portman-says-buffett-rule-would-raise-just-eno/ (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/23/rob-portman/rob-portman-says-buffett-rule-would-raise-just-eno/)

[soopaman2]

I got an easy solution, but unpopular.

How about we decrease our military spending.
Stop hiring mercenaries for stuff our soldiers are capible of doing at a fraction of the cost.
Stop building planes that are so expensive and high tech, that they are unusable in mass quantities.
Stop funding Israel, Pakistan, and the UN. That includes our troops we provide. All 3 organizations dislike us, yet use us for our wealth and power.

Why do I have to pay for an Israeli tank, or an Afghani assault rifle (that will be used to shoot us 10 years from now)?

(when I catch crap about trying to own an assault rifle myself)

I bet that can free up more money for the people of the united States, who actually contribute to the efforts of bettering our nation.

We seem to want to cater to those who hate us (Food aid to n Korea, free cash for Afghans, Iraquis, Saudis. etc)

Rather than the people of the nation, most of whom pay for these international adventures with tax money.

Europe is strong, it don't need us... Withdrawl from the UN, and end all wars and occupations. Yes you too s korea, time to stand on your own after 60 years.

Japan too, we can let them have an army again, not a defense force. I do not think they will bomb Pearl Harbor or retaliate for Nagasaki or Hiroshima...


Is America first so bad?