Obama Sends $3.7 Trillion Budget to Congress

[August]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Do you mean the "rich" or the "super-duper-duper rich".

They mean anyone who is richer than they are.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

I like your straw man. can i play too?

Do you actually know what a "straw man" argument is?

I'm pretty sure that my comment was completely relevent to the topic being discussed. Unless of course you think that any argument against your default, typical liberal position must be a straw man because there's no way that any other position could be valid...

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Do you actually know what a "straw man" argument is?

I'm pretty sure that my comment was completely relevent to the topic being discussed. Unless of course you think that any argument against your default, typical liberal position must be a straw man because there's no way that any other position could be valid...

"Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical."

oh and heres a passage that pretty much sums up what we mean by the super rich, and who the ryan plan really benefits.

The Ryan plan would cut in half the taxes of the richest 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes exceeding $633,000 (in 2009 dollars) in 2014.
The higher one goes up the income scale, the more massive the tax cuts would be. Households with incomes of more than $1 million would receive an average annual tax cut of $502,000.
The richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans — those whose incomes exceed $2.9 million a year — would receive an average tax cut of $1.7 million a year. These tax cuts would be on top of those that high-income households would get from making the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of 2010, permanent.
To offset some of the cost of these massive tax cuts, the Ryan plan would place a new consumption tax on most goods and services, a measure that would increase taxes on most low- and middle-income families. TPC finds that:
About three-quarters of Americans — those with incomes between $20,000 and $200,000 — would face tax increases. For example, households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 would face an average tax increase of $900. (These estimated changes in taxes are relative to the taxes that would be paid under a continuation of current policy — i.e., what tax liabilities would be if the President and Congress make permanent the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and relief from the alternative minimum tax.)
The plan would shift tax burdens so substantially from the wealthy to the middle class that people with incomes over $1 million would face much lower effective tax rates than middle-income families would. That is, they would pay much smaller percentages of their income in federal taxes.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

I'm not admitting anything but I do note that you don't have anything to say about the class warfare flames you liberals keep fanning...



Well you just can't imagine how happy I am for you two...

You don't think something is wrong when just 1% hold 40% of all wealth, 20% hold 80%...although more recent studies say 10% control over 90% of all wealth..compare to where we in the past and it should shock you.

I'm sure you believe Americans got lazy and we all had the same equal ability as those in power to gain mass wealth on our own. Corporations bought our congressional seats, both parties, but the GOP by far.. I'm far from liberal, I'm just not a panzy for a party. I look at facts and make up my own mind.
http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-per...f-mega-wealth/

"According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.
According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US."


You still think corporate american cares about america and probably believe in trickle down. This fiscal mess was created when Bush was in office, as were non ending wars. Corporations are now working globally minded, thinking a global future. They once worked well for america and made money, now they're only interested in a global economy, not what works for america.

I voted for Obama, not so much against McCain, but against a GOP that went totally mad under Bush. I would gladly for a Nadar, Paul, ect.. Heck, I would just vote for someone totally honest, even a King at this moment.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

There's no evidence that tax rates and employment are correlated.

Oh my. What mind-boggling economic ignorance. Most of the job creators in our nation are small business owners. They live and expand their operations based on market demands and the amount of available capital that can be used to employ more people and build more facilities to support their operations. It is established fact that the more capital seized by the government, means less available capital for business's to grow their operations or even sustain them. These small business owners are the very people we need to grow our economy and produce more jobs and real opportunity. These are real jobs that actually produce new innovations, products, and services. Not the kind of tax payer supported jobs Obama and Democrats in general envision (government paper pusher jobs)(green jobs???). Those types of jobs usually suck money out of the economy, usually produce nothing, and are usually pie in the sky (like the green jobs nonsense which show no market demand).

[Torvald Von Mansee]

OH BOY OH BOY!!!

I can hardly WAIT to read through this thread, with its evenhanded and fair analyses from all sides!!!

[Aramike]

"Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Dude, to be a straw man argument, the statement you take must actually be the argument.

Instead, you took ONE sentence that was merely another supporting reasoning behind the actual argument, quoted it, and labelled it a straw man. (This should have been obvious as it was a part of a paragraph.)

In effect, YOU created the straw man and employed the straw man fallacy. Simply brilliant! The irony is so thick.

Besides, your definition of a straw man fallacy is, well, quite lacking.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Oh my. What mind-boggling economic ignorance. Most of the job creators in our nation are small business owners. They live and expand their operations based on market demands and the amount of available capital that can be used to employ more people and build more facilities to support their operations. It is established fact that the more capital seized by the government, means less available capital for business's to grow their operations or even sustain them. These small business owners are the very people we need to grow our economy and produce more jobs and real opportunity. These are real jobs that actually produce new innovations, products, and services. Not the kind of tax payer supported jobs Obama and Democrats in general envision (government paper pusher jobs)(green jobs???). Those types of jobs usually suck money out of the economy, usually produce nothing, and are usually pie in the sky (like the green jobs nonsense which show no market demand).

most small business owners don't make it into high enough brackets to matter...so it's pretty much a moot point.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Dude, to be a straw man argument, the statement you take must actually be the argument.

Instead, you took ONE sentence that was merely another supporting reasoning behind the actual argument, quoted it, and labelled it a straw man. (This should have been obvious as it was a part of a paragraph.)

In effect, YOU created the straw man and employed the straw man fallacy. Simply brilliant! The irony is so thick.

Besides, your definition of a straw man fallacy is, well, quite lacking.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

ha ha ha! Lets split hairs here. You used a that statement to make an argument against paying taxes for social programs, by inventing some persona of the poor in america as some kind of leech on the system. I'd say if it looks like a duck...and walks like a duck....

[Aramike]

oh and heres a passage that pretty much sums up what we mean by the super rich, and who the ryan plan really benefits.

Please link this passage. I'd like to see citations.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Oh my. What mind-boggling economic ignorance. Most of the job creators in our nation are small business owners. They live and expand their operations based on market demands and the amount of available capital that can be used to employ more people and build more facilities to support their operations. It is established fact that the more capital seized by the government, means less available capital for business's to grow their operations or even sustain them. These small business owners are the very people we need to grow our economy and produce more jobs and real opportunity. These are real jobs that actually produce new innovations, products, and services. Not the kind of tax payer supported jobs Obama and Democrats in general envision (government paper pusher jobs)(green jobs???). Those types of jobs usually suck money out of the economy, usually produce nothing, and are usually pie in the sky (like the green jobs nonsense which show no market demand).

Prove it. With data and charts, please. (Hint: don't spend too much time on it - you can't.)

Actually, let me do the work for you, as it illustrates how your fantasy world narrative is not born out by reality:

Corporate rates:



Personal rates:



What was that about economic ignorance?

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Please link this passage. I'd like to see citations.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

ha ha ha! Lets split hairs here. You used a that statement to make an argument against paying taxes for social programs, by inventing some persona of the poor in america as some kind of leech on the system. I'd say if it looks like a duck...and walks like a duck....

Umm, no, I used that statement, along with MANY OTHER statements, in SUPPORT of an argument.

Keep arguing your straw man, though. It's kinda funny.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Umm, no, I used that statement, along with MANY OTHER statements, in SUPPORT of an argument.

Keep arguing your straw man, though. It's kinda funny.

oh my. so you are saying that that passage was not a straw man...because you placed it in with other arguments?

so if i write a swear word in between two other words am i not swearing?

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Pardon me while I cry for the poor oppressed country club and yacht set. Can they ever overcome the burden of luxury and success and having to pay an grand or two in taxes? I sure hope so.

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental concept in the US.

The burden of proof lies on YOU to describe how different amounts of tax, and different rates of tax are "equal protection." The current tax codes (federal AND state) are arbitrary. Some economic activity at a certain income level is taxed one way, and OTHER economic activity at the same income level is taxed a different way. The tax code is based on this, which is why it is so huge, and impossible to understand.

There is no reason why the US income tax code should not fit on 1-2 pages, single spaced. All of it.

A flat income tax with no loopholes for any reason would at least meet the "equal protection" threshold of "fairness."

All the people defending confiscatory tax policies here love to trot out people who are "super rich" or some other adjective in front of "rich." The reality is that the bulk of the people in the top tax bracket make enough that the bracket is meaningful, and not enough so that they don't notice.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a meaningful extra tax bill to me. Thousands of dollars... is a big deal I bet for 90% of the people in the top tax bracket. All that money, what happens if I keep it? Apparently according to the left here, I stuff it in a mattress. FYI, every penny would be SPENT, the vast majority locally.

Again, the % of wealth controlled is a meaningless statistic unless somehow weighted to lifestyle, since "wealth" as an abstract doesn't mean anything. A lower middle-class wage earner in the US right now likely has a far better life that an upper middle class, or even upper class person from 100 years ago. % owned is only meaningful if the world economy has a zero sum. It does not.