Discussion in 'Politics' started by expat_panama, Apr 26, 2011.
More at Investor's Business Daily, includes graphic:
lol 4 trillion over 12 years, LOLz!
This was my favorite lie from your radical extremist Right Wing site:
The liar starts with an extremely accurate stat quoted by Obama, then changes its meaning by saying it "suggests" something it doesn't suggest!!! This is a standard lying technique of CON$.
The quote is accurately pointing out the fact that the effective tax rate on the top one percent is DOWN from 50 years ago. Using the same range as the deliberately deceptive graph, in 1980 the effective income tax rate on the top 1% was 22.3% and in 2008 it was down to 19%. The reason the graph deceptively shows them paying more is because they had more income. Their income went up more than their rates went down.
To give you an idea just how F***ed up they are, their income went up and their tax rate on that increased income went down and they are still whining and crying that it is still not enough!!!!!
These people suffer from a sickness that can never be cured. No matter how much they have, they always will want MORE!!!!!!!!!!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTA0aelnyzw&feature=related]YouTube - The Rolling Stones - Satisfaction[/ame]
The only reason that they're paying more income taxes is because they're raking in money hand over fist.
The rich are richer than they ever have been before. Reagan told us that they would trickle that wealth on down. But they haven't been. The last expansion (under Bush II) was the first expansion in US history in which the real income of the middle and lower classes declined. And then we hit the worst recession since the Great Depression.
In the 1920's, America's income inequality was at its second highest level ever. Second only to right now. Coincidence that the Great Depression followed? I think not.
Supply-side economics leaves out one big problem. Investors can't start businesses and create jobs if they have no customers. In order to have customers, you need to have poor and middle class people with money to spend. If you suck all the money out of the economy, and give it to the investment class, they'll have nothing to invest it in. In fact, they'll take the money off shore and invest it somewhere else.
The solution is clear. Soak the rich. Take the money that we gave them over the last 30 years. The money that they have failed to use to create jobs. Take it back.
obama is getting taxes and on its high rates.
There is not enough wealth among the rich (whoever they are) to reduce the deficit. If we taxed the top 5% at 100% we still would be running a huge deficit. Also, Obama's plan envisions debt reduction in years 10 and 11. That isn't a serious proposal. It is even less serious than his proposed budget back in Feb.
Ryan has proposed the only serious plan. We know it's serious because the Dems have trotted out all the old chestnuts about grandma eating dog food etc. The louder they scream, the more they're stuck.
You know it's right because the Democrats disagree with it? Wow. That's impressive reasoning.
It's right because it's right. The Dums disagree with it because it's right.
I wonder. When you watched that video, did you think that you came away with a deeper understanding of the issues at hand? I mean, he tossed so much information at you. That must increase your knowledge, right?
That video was the most misleading piece of crap I've seen in a while. A more realistic view of the budget would have put current government revenue up on the board. And not just income tax, but all of the regressive taxes that poor people pay more for too. Put all the government revenue up on the board, and then show the deficit. And then describe how various plans effect the deficit. For instance, show how Obama plans to cut spending by $3 T and raise taxes on the rich by $1 T, while Ryan wants to cut spending by $5 T and lower taxes on the rich by $1 T. It would probably make the most sense to expand Ryan's budget out to 12 years and compare it to Obama's plan on the same time frame, in order to get the clearest understanding possible of the differences.
Since the plans are at year 10 and year 12, and neither of them actually get rid of the deficit entirely ever, the model of examining what we would have to do to entirely balance the budget next year is just not relevant. All that video is describing is what happens if we tax the rich for everything they own all in one year. And I'm afraid that's not on the table. So this video doesn't really do anything to advance the discussion of the plans that are actually on the table.
I don't understand how Republicans can claim we're broke, but think we have enough money to give $1 T to the rich.
I really dislike that he called protesting a barrier to the working of government, rather than part of the bedrock of a democracy. When people disagree with others, sometimes they express the view that those people are somehow damaging the process of government by exercising their right to peaceful assembly. Very unamerican.
Walker, by the way, also cutting taxes on the wealthy. While claiming the state can't afford to honor its contracts.
The question is whether YOU came away with anything. I'd doubt it. You're probably sitting there thinking "does not compute, does not compute."
Why don't you do what you suggest, since that wasn't really the point of the video.
But let's ask the bonus question here: Do you think increasing taxes on the "rich" (whoever they are) will close the budget deficit? Yes or No.
Separate names with a comma.