Obama's class warfare on a Grand Scale

[dilloduck]

Soak the rich.

How ?

 

[Chris]

How ?

By raising taxes on those making over $250,000 per year, just as Obama has suggested. Reagan and Bush's tax cuts for the rich have left us deeply in debt and increased the wide gap between the rich and the rest of us.

Time for the rich to pay up.

 

[dilloduck]

By raising taxes on those making over $250,000 per year, just as Obama has suggested. Reagan and Bush's tax cuts for the rich have left us deeply in debt and increased the wide gap between the rich and the rest of us.

Time for the rich to pay up.

Do you actually think you would benefit from it ?

 

[Chris]

Do you actually think you would benefit from it ?

We have a $9 trillion dollar National Debt thanks to Reagan and Bush. It has to be paid for somehow. Obama's plan is a good one.

 

[jreeves]

JR
how much the top 1% pay of our income tax, which is about 1 trillion of income tax collected in a year in total, is only a little more than a THIRD of our annual budget spending of nearing 3 TRILLION.....

AND what these people pay of our total income tax is NOT important and has NOTHING to do with what i was saying above....you missed my point entirely....

IT is what these people can earn and make a year because of the laws, and regulations, and oversight of the markets or lack there of, and because of tax laws put in place for them, and bankruptcy laws put in place for them, and bailouts for them, and free leases of our land to them, and eminent domain now, being used for them, and offshore tax breaks put in to law for them and on and on and on and on jr.....

THOSE THINGS have made them wealthier....much more so than the average jo living on edge...those things are layed out in their favor to continue to prosper....while in many cases, reducing our share of the pie.....shoot, even when the wealthiest fail, we still bail them out.

the wealth the wealthiest have gained ...came thru hard work for some i am certain....BUT what our government has GIVEN THEM has MORE THAN COMPENSATED for their income tax share.....

i guess we will have to agree to disagree at this point!

care

I hardly think that the rich or middle class receive the most from government. As a matter of fact, their share of the economy is way less than their percentage of total federal income taxes paid.



As legend has it, the famous “Laffer Curve” was first drawn by economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 on a cocktail napkin at a small dinner meeting attended by the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and such high-powered policymakers as Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Laffer showed how two different rates—one high and one low—could produce the same revenues, since the higher rate would discourage work and investment. The Laffer Curve helped launch Reaganomics here at home and ignited a frenzy of tax cutting around the globe that continues to this day. It’s also one of the simplest concepts in economics: lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often produce more tax revenue rather than less. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs—more than all of Europe and Japan combined.

There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S. history. The spike in the federal deficit in the 1980s was caused by massive spending increases.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years since the tax cuts.

Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American, A Magazine of Ideas


This information is a little out of date, but I'm sure it has grown since then....

Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)

Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

The combined federal and state welfare system now includes cash aid, food, medical aid, housing aid, energy aid, jobs and training, targeted and means-tested education, social services, and urban and community development programs.2 As Table One shows, in FY2000:

Medical assistance to low income persons cost $222 billion or 51 percent of total welfare spending.
Cash, food and housing aid together cost $167 billion or 38 percent of the total.
Social Services, training, targeted education, and community development aid cost around $47 billion or 11 percent of the total.
Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth

 

[jreeves]

We have a $9 trillion dollar National Debt thanks to Reagan and Bush. It has to be paid for somehow. Obama's plan is a good one.

Again Congress controls spending but as a sidenote do you remember this?
Tax policy and the fiscal cost of disasters: NY and 9/11.
Federal Compensation to the Government of New York City

While typically the federal government does not provide general fiscal relief to governments that have been hit by natural disasters, in the case of the 9/11 attack about eight percent of the total federal reimbursement was provided to the city of New York. Of that amount, $762 million went for unrestricted budgetary relief. The other part of general relief was achieved by waiving federal rules on the one-time refinancing of municipal debt, thus allowing New York City to take advantage of lower interest rates for some of its general obligation and agency debt. The cost to the federal government of this provision is estimated at $937 billion. Estimated budget savings in FY03 are about $500 million (New York City Office of the Comptroller, 2002). (15) Using the $500 million figure, general federal budget compensation was $1.31 billion, or $162 per capita.

 

[Chris]

Bush borrowed $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to finance the occupation of Iraq. Now Iraq is costing us $10 billion dollars a month.

 

[editec]

Don't think so, the war on poverty, has made the rich, richer and the poor, poorer.

Not really.

Oh sure it keeps some people in the social services working, but basically we've done such a botched job of dealing with the root causes of poverty that it has actually made things worse.

While I am deeply commited to creating a fair and just society, a LOT of the complaints made by our fellow conservatives have been SPOT ON.

Now many of their complaints are in fact no longer valid as we've changed the whole welfare sytem so much, and apparently few of them realize that, but their complaint that we will get MORE of what we FUND is spot on.

For years we enabled poverty without REALLY enabling the poor to get the hell out of that trap.

And now that we're busy making the middle class poor, so that our rich can be rich rich richer!we really don't have the time or resources to deal with the poor.

 

[jreeves]

Bush borrowed $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to finance the occupation of Iraq. Now Iraq is costing us $10 billion dollars a month.

The war on the classes cost us over 500 billion dollars a year.

 

[jreeves]

Not really.

Oh sure it keeps some people in the social services working, but basically we've done such a botched job of dealing with the root causes of poverty that it has actually made things worse.

While I am deeply commited to creating a fair and just society, a LOT of the complaints made by our fellow conservatives have been SPOT ON.

Now many of their complaints are in fact no longer valid as we've changed the whole welfare sytem so much, and apparently few of them realize that, but their complaint that we will get MORE of what we FUND is spot on.

For years we enabled poverty without REALLY enabling the poor to get the hell out of that trap.

And now that we're busy making the middle class poor, so that our rich can be rich rich richer!we really don't have the time or resources to deal with the poor.

If the welfare system has changed so much, why hasn't the number of people in poverty changed dramatically?

We need to reinstill personal responsibility into America. We need to give people a helping hand, not a handout.

By the way did you ever refute any of the facts or figures in my previous post? If not you would have to agree that massive handouts isn't what this country needs at this point and time.

Fact: Mccain's tax plan gives more money back to the people who actually pay federal income taxes. While a large portion of Obama's tax plan consists of handouts for people who pay no federal income taxes.

 

[del]

How ?

i recommend buttermilk and then rolling in panko.
fry lightly in olive oil with a little garlic; that's good eating.

 

[Chris]

If the welfare system has changed so much, why hasn't the number of people in poverty changed dramatically?

We need to reinstill personal responsibility into America. We need to give people a helping hand, not a handout.

By the way did you ever refute any of the facts or figures in my previous post? If not you would have to agree that massive handouts isn't what this country needs at this point and time.

Fact: Mccain's tax plan gives more money back to the people who actually pay federal income taxes. While a large portion of Obama's tax plan consists of handouts for people who pay no federal income taxes.

Corporate welfare is the problem not helping a few poor people.

I can tell by your tone that you have never been poor and have no idea what it is like. Championing the rich and powerful is what Republicans like you do. That is why you are so evil.

 

[WillowTree]

We have a $9 trillion dollar National Debt thanks to Reagan and Bush. It has to be paid for somehow. Obama's plan is a good one.

someday when you grow up you will realize that "tax the rich" has never worked. Did you ever ask yourself why? Do you think Obamalama is the first person to ever suggest "tax the rich"?

 

[jreeves]

Corporate welfare is the problem not helping a few poor people.
I can tell by your tone that you have never been poor and have no idea what it is like. Championing the rich and powerful is what Republicans like you do. That is why you are so evil.

BS...the bailout not only helps out corporate america, its main purpose remember was to help out the people on Main Street.

I have been poor dumbass, that shows how much you know. I am by no means rich now, I provide for my family and for myself. Income redistribution strips a free market of personal responsibility and incentatives. Income redistribution creates a mass of people dependent on the government.

 

[WillowTree]

Bush borrowed $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to finance the occupation of Iraq. Now Iraq is costing us $10 billion dollars a month.

hhhhmmmmm? I wonder if that is what this 700 Billion dollar bailout is really all about. Paying off China?

 

[WillowTree]

BS...the bailout not only helps out corporate america, its main purpose remember was to help out the people on Main Street.

I have been poor dumbass, that shows how much you know. I am by no means rich now, I provide for my family and for myself. Income redistribution strips a free market of personal responsibility and incentatives. Income redistribution creates a mass of people dependent on the government.

no, it won't. The corporations will just move overseas. This is a global economy now. The corporations don't have to take any bullshit from Obamalama. Same with the rich. They have options. Wonder what Obalamalams's backup plan is?

 

[Chris]

no, it won't. The corporations will just move overseas. This is a global economy now. The corporations don't have to take any bullshit from Obamalama. Same with the rich. They have options. Wonder what Obalamalams's backup plan is?

God, are you stupid.

Corporations are already moving overseas. One of the reasons they are is because employers in other countries don't have to pay for healthcare. Toyota just located a plant in Canada for that reason.

 

[WillowTree]

God, are you stupid.

Corporations are already moving overseas. One of the reasons they are is because employers in other countries don't have to pay for healthcare. Toyota just located a plant in Canada for that reason.

and you are even stupider.. expect more to move if Obamalama is President. No corp. no job no job no money no money no rich. what's yer backup plan?

 

[Chris]

and you are even stupider.. expect more to move if Obamalama is President. No corp. no job no job no money no money no rich. what's yer backup plan?

Obama's plan is excellent.

Get out of Iraq, universal healthcare, and American energy independence.......this is exactly what we should be doing.

Go Obama!

 

[WillowTree]

Obama's plan is excellent.

Get out of Iraq, universal healthcare, and American energy independence.......this is exactly what we should be doing.

Go Obama!

what happened to tax the rich??