Liberalism has won(part 2)

[Powerman]

A few months ago I started a thread about how liberalism has won.

Of course everyone laughed at me since rebublicans control the senate, the house, and the executive branch.

The problem of course is that republicans have become progressively more liberal than they once were.

Every politician in Washington is a big spending big govt. piece of trash. The question is no long should we grow govt. but how much should we grow it. It's no longer should we spend, but how much we should spend. It's getting out of control.

Stupid nanny state laws are being passed all over the country. Hardcore smoking bans, stupid seatbelt laws etc...

Our republican controlled federal govt. has taken a lax approach to the border situation. This latest nonsense with the national guard is just window dressing and they know it. They just signed a bill that will give social security benefits to illegal aliens. Talk about a stupid concept. "Hey! It's illegal to come here! But you're guaranteed to get great benefits if you make it!"

Stupid stupid stupid...they take one step forward and 3 steps back with legislation like that.


OK since you all think I'm some anti-republican liberal let the flaming commence now.

 

[Annie]

A few months ago I started a thread about how liberalism has won.

Of course everyone laughed at me since rebublicans control the senate, the house, and the executive branch.

The problem of course is that republicans have become progressively more liberal than they once were.

Every politician in Washington is a big spending big govt. piece of trash. The question is no long should we grow govt. but how much should we grow it. It's no longer should we spend, but how much we should spend. It's getting out of control.

Stupid nanny state laws are being passed all over the country. Hardcore smoking bans, stupid seatbelt laws etc...

Our republican controlled federal govt. has taken a lax approach to the border situation. This latest nonsense with the national guard is just window dressing and they know it. They just signed a bill that will give social security benefits to illegal aliens. Talk about a stupid concept. "Hey! It's illegal to come here! But you're guaranteed to get great benefits if you make it!"

Stupid stupid stupid...they take one step forward and 3 steps back with legislation like that.


OK since you all think I'm some anti-republican liberal let the flaming commence now.

Where is part 1?

 

[Powerman]

I told you it was a few months ago...

I don't know where it is. Probably off in internet oblivion by now.

Back on topic. There is a reason Bush can't get his tax cuts made permanent. It's simply not feasible. You all can expect massive tax increases within the next 10 years.

Maybe you should ask yourself some questions. If republicans are for lower taxes and they are holding all the cards then why aren't these cuts already permanent?

 

[dilloduck]

I told you it was a few months ago...

I don't know where it is. Probably off in internet oblivion by now.

Back on topic. There is a reason Bush can't get his tax cuts made permanent. It's simply not feasible. You all can expect massive tax increases within the next 10 years.

Maybe you should ask yourself some questions. If republicans are for lower taxes and they are holding all the cards then why aren't these cuts already permanent?

Maybe they don't all think the same way as often accused.

 

[Powerman]

Maybe they don't all think the same way as often accused.

No...they certainly don't.

But why would conservatives be against tax cuts?

Maybe because they aren't actually conservative anymore. Maybe the joke is on people who support the republican party.

Bottom line: the sooner conservatives in this country wake up and acknowledge that the republican party is no longer fiscally conservative the better. They need to be called to task.

 

[jillian]

I told you it was a few months ago...

I don't know where it is. Probably off in internet oblivion by now.

Back on topic. There is a reason Bush can't get his tax cuts made permanent. It's simply not feasible. You all can expect massive tax increases within the next 10 years.

Maybe you should ask yourself some questions. If republicans are for lower taxes and they are holding all the cards then why aren't these cuts already permanent?

How about because they aren't feasible when the unchecked Repubs spend money like drunken sailors on their war of choice? Kids who need Pell Grants and Student Loans and people on Medicare/Medicaid shouldn't be the target.... particularly when AARP is the single largest voting block in the country and pork like the "bridge to nowhere" fill the Congressional budget.

Or maybe it's because people have figured out that the so-called "cuts" only benefit the top 1% of the population and doing away with the inheritance tax only gives a gift to the wealthiest among us since there is already an exemption of about a million dollars anyway.

 

[Powerman]

The tax cuts benefit more than just the top 1% so you can retract that stupid lie anytime you like.

The problem is sooner or later the spending is going to catch up with us.

 

[Gunny]

How about because they aren't feasible when the unchecked Repubs spend money like drunken sailors on their war of choice? Kids who need Pell Grants and Student Loans and people on Medicare/Medicaid shouldn't be the target.... particularly when AARP is the single largest voting block in the country and pork like the "bridge to nowhere" fill the Congressional budget.

Or maybe it's because people have figured out that the so-called "cuts" only benefit the top 1% of the population and doing away with the inheritance tax only gives a gift to the wealthiest among us since there is already an exemption of about a million dollars anyway.

:blah2:

Are you paying the tax rate the "top 1%" are? No. Is it fair to tax them at a higher rate on money they earned just to support underachievers and kids that don't want to *gasp* get a job and work their way through school? No.

And what powerman said .... the cuts benefit more than the top 1% anyway.

 

[jillian]

The tax cuts benefit more than just the top 1% so you can retract that stupid lie anytime you like.

The problem is sooner or later the spending is going to catch up with us.

I'm talking about significant benefit. You wanna disagree with me...go right ahead. But I don't lie....

A few hundred dollars is not a significant benefit.

Gee...you must've reaped a great benefit from the cut in capital gains taxes, huh?

 

[Powerman]

The top 1% pays a third of the taxes in the country.

They're already unfairly overtaxed.

And the tax rates benefit everyone. At least in the short term.

 

[jillian]

The top 1% pays a third of the taxes in the country.

They're already unfairly overtaxed.

And the tax rates benefit everyone. At least in the short term.

I don't have any idea if that number is accurate. But even assuming it's correct, the top 1% have about 90% of the wealth, so it's disproportionate. And remembering that people earning under the poverty line don't pay income taxes, that means the *burden* of the tax cuts is falling on the middle class.

 

[Powerman]

I don't have any idea if that number is accurate. But even assuming it's correct, the top 1% have about 90% of the wealth, so it's disproportionate. And remembering that people earning under the poverty line don't pay income taxes, that means the *burden* of the tax cuts is falling on the middle class.

No it's not. The top 50% pay 96% of the taxes. And it's progressively scaled more toward the top wage earners.

The middle class is paying much less tax because the rich pay disproportionally higher than the middle class.

The top 10% have 90% of the wealth, not the top 1%

You don't know what you are talking about. Leave and don't come back until you've been educated on the subject.

If you aren't even remotely interested in the truth then you shouldn't be here.

If you are foolish enough to think that the super rich pay lower tax rates than the middle class then perhaps you're more foolish than I thought.

 

[jillian]

No it's not. The top 50% pay 96% of the taxes. And it's progressively scaled more toward the top wage earners.

The middle class is paying much less tax because the rich pay disproportionally higher than the middle class.

The top 10% have 90% of the wealth, not the top 1%

You don't know what you are talking about. Leave and don't come back until you've been educated on the subject.

If you aren't even remotely interested in the truth then you shouldn't be here.

If you are foolish enough to think that the super rich pay lower tax rates than the middle class then perhaps you're more foolish than I thought.

And if someone hands me the party line on a lot of garbage and thinks I should buy his line, then perhaps he'd better have credible links...instead of no links at all and a bunch of insults.

Cheers...

 

[Annie]

And if someone hands me the party line on a lot of garbage and thinks I should buy his line, then perhaps he'd better have credible links...instead of no links at all and a bunch of insults.

Cheers...

Try this:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...ome&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a

 

[Powerman]

And if someone hands me the party line on a lot of garbage and thinks I should buy his line, then perhaps he'd better have credible links...instead of no links at all and a bunch of insults.

Cheers...

Look it's clear that I'm not toeing the republican party line.

It's simple math.

If the top wage earners have a larger percentage of their income taxed than the middle class then they are paying disproportionally larger sums of money.

The fact that you even bothered to show your face on a political forum without knowing this is laughable.

Here is your link

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

 

[Said1]

What is considered poverty line, on average?

And dont give me the $1 a day stat, I'm not talking about the third world.

 

[Annie]

What is considered poverty line, on average?

Whatever I make?

 

[Annie]

Whatever I make?

Just under $20k for a family of 4 in 2004.

Whoops, forgot the link:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...004&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

 

[Said1]

Whatever I make?

No, what I make. I win - weeeeee! :funnyface

 

[Said1]

Just under $20k for a family of 4 in 2004.

I thought that stat was based on the public dole?