Tax cut question for the resident Republitards

[The T]

Considering that most people in the country are well within this range why are Republitards for tax cuts that will benefit a minority of people that control most of the wealth anyways?

When 100% of Americans pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX we'll talk. Til then the 50% of you leeches will just have to keep drooling over the rich man's money. Makes you nothing less than a thief.

Among that percentage that aren't paying are rich people who get out of taxes, the poor can't pay taxes with money they don't have.

Then they should improve thier situation by working harder versus whining to the gubmint to make it all better for them by stealing from others' sweat equity.

 

[Full-Auto]

Considering that most people in the country are well within this range why are Republitards for tax cuts that will benefit a minority of people that control most of the wealth anyways?

How do you intend to pay for it?

If it was up to me me I'd tax crap like cigarettes, alcohol and fast food, and pornographic materials.

So you have not a clue. Just give me mine, I am a democrat F you.

Yes a common theme for your type.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

When 100% of Americans pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX we'll talk. Til then the 50% of you leeches will just have to keep drooling over the rich man's money. Makes you nothing less than a thief.

Among that percentage that aren't paying are rich people who get out of taxes, the poor can't pay taxes with money they don't have.

Then they should improve thier situation by working harder versus whining to the gubmint to make it all better for them by stealing from others' sweat equity.

They are working hard, some are working more than one job you idiot, you have no way of proving they're not working hard enough, more retarded speculation.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

How do you intend to pay for it?

If it was up to me me I'd tax crap like cigarettes, alcohol and fast food, and pornographic materials.

So you have not a clue. Just give me mine, I am a democrat F you.

Yes a common theme for your type.

I answered your question and I don't give a damn what party you belong to since I support no political party.

 

[WillowTree]

Considering that most people in the country are well within this range why are Republitards for tax cuts that will benefit a minority of people that control most of the wealth anyways?

When 100% of Americans pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX we'll talk. Til then the 50% of you leeches will just have to keep drooling over the rich man's money. Makes you nothing less than a thief.

Among that percentage that aren't paying are rich people who get out of taxes, the poor can't pay taxes with money they don't have.

The rich people in the top teirs pay 40% of the income tax paid in the USA. So they do their share. It's the other 50% of you leeches who pay zero who don't do their share. All you wanna do is yell gimmmie gimmmie gimmmie more. You suck the hind tit.

 

[The T]

Among that percentage that aren't paying are rich people who get out of taxes, the poor can't pay taxes with money they don't have.

Then they should improve thier situation by working harder versus whining to the gubmint to make it all better for them by stealing from others' sweat equity.

They are working hard, some are working more than one job you idiot, you have no way of proving they're not working hard enough, more retarded speculation.

So maybe they need a change of job, eh? But seriously? The problem extends from the Imperial FED and the roadblocks they've placed in thier way.

And the whole crux of this is to get the FED the Hell out of our way. They are the ones erecting the barriers to real liberty.

 

[Full-Auto]

If it was up to me me I'd tax crap like cigarettes, alcohol and fast food, and pornographic materials.

So you have not a clue. Just give me mine, I am a democrat F you.

Yes a common theme for your type.

I answered your question and I don't give a damn what party you belong to since I support no political party.

LOL I dont support a political party. Just a liberal philosophy.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Good. It needs to get rough as hell for the government. They can do without. No, they don't need to be paid back for anything. Maybe we'll talk when they start acting responsibly, quit forcing unjust acts and legislating unconstitutional laws down our throats. Better yet, they can shrivel up to pre 1800's levels for all I care.

 

[The T]

Good. It needs to get rough as hell for the government. They can do without. No, they don't need to be paid back for anything. Maybe we'll talk when they start acting responsibly, quit forcing unjust acts and legislating unconstitutional laws down our throats. Better yet, they can shrivel up to pre 1800's levels for all I care.

And they should if this Republic is to survive and not becoe an EU-Style failed exercise in Socialism.

 

[The Rabbi]

You idiots keep arguing for tax cuts for the rich, my question is how do you want to pay for them and with what? If you answer is to cut social programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich please provide justification for it, otherwise shut up with your ridiculous circular arguments you keep making ad naseum.

Im not a "Republitard" but I'll answer anyway.
There is no "paying for" extending the current tax rates because they are the current tax rates. That is like saying we need to pay for the new higher rates because they are short of total confiscation.
The extension of UE OTOH does have to be paid for since the government is actually writing checks and sending money, money they don't have. The GOP was happy to extend the benefits btw as long as the Dems lived up to their rhetoric and paid for them. They didn't.
Looks like you're the only 'tard around here, bASS.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here are 10 commission suggestions where agreement remains possible:

1. Reduce the budgets for Congress and the White House by 15 percent.

Yes, it's largely symbolic. But there's no better place for Congress to start saving money. That would save $800 million by 2015 - not big money by congressional standards but not chicken salad, either. "In order to tackle our impending fiscal crisis, everyone must sacrifice - especially Washington," the report stated. If Congress, which upped its own spending by 4 percent last year, doesn't do an immediate turnaround, there's not much hope for getting lawmakers to make the tough decisions.

Yes, it's largely symbolic. But there's no better place for Congress to start saving money. That would save $800 million by 2015 - not big money by congressional standards but not chicken salad, either. "In order to tackle our impending fiscal crisis, everyone must sacrifice - especially Washington," the report stated. If Congress, which upped its own spending by 4 percent last year, doesn't do an immediate turnaround, there's not much hope for getting lawmakers to make the tough decisions.

2. Cap discretionary spending through 2020.

This is the commission's first recommendation and one that could find its way into law as long as the operative word is "cap" spending, and not "freeze" or "reduce" it. As they say in business school, bending the cost curve and reducing the rate of government growth could cut the deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years.

This is the commission's first recommendation and one that could find its way into law as long as the operative word is "cap" spending, and not "freeze" or "reduce" it. As they say in business school, bending the cost curve and reducing the rate of government growth could cut the deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years.

3. Reduce the size of the federal workforce.

We can argue about how big a cut is justified, but it would be easy to continue to shrink the federal workforce, which actually is smaller now than it was in the late 1960s (if you don't count the military). Whether it's through attrition or buyouts, it could save $13 billion within five years, according to the commission.

4. Eliminate military weapons systems and programs that the Pentagon does not want.

Congress might not be able to muster a majority vote to cut Pentagon spending as sharply as it does social safety-net programs for the middle class and poor - but it may be able to hold the line on military programs the Pentagon says it doesn't want or need. The military-industrial complex has supporters (and jobs) spread around the country in numerous congressional districts, but it should be easier to cut unwanted military projects than those the Pentagon views as vital to national security.

Congress might not be able to muster a majority vote to cut Pentagon spending as sharply as it does social safety-net programs for the middle class and poor - but it may be able to hold the line on military programs the Pentagon says it doesn't want or need. The military-industrial complex has supporters (and jobs) spread around the country in numerous congressional districts, but it should be easier to cut unwanted military projects than those the Pentagon views as vital to national security.

5. Reduce duplicate government programs.

The commission reported that Washington "funds more than 44 job-training programs across nine different federal agencies, at least 20 programs at 12 agencies dedicated to the study of invasive species, and 105 programs meant to encourage participation in science, technology, education, and math." By reducing duplication, the government could save $100 billion over 10 years, the commission concluded. Seems like a no-brainer.

6. Force government agencies to make their own cuts.

Instead of the current top-down budget process, the commission recommends that all federal agency heads "should be required to identify a share of their budget recommended for cancellation and to identify ways to shift from inefficient, unproductive spending to productive, results-based investment." Sounds like a good start.

7. Budget honestly for natural disasters.

It's one of Washington's dirty secrets. Congress doesn't budget properly for federal costs of dealing with catastrophic events. Instead, lawmakers send what seems to be unlimited assistance to states and local governments that feel entitled to have Uncle Sam cover their costs. The commission recommended creating an explicit disaster relief fund with "stricter parameters for the use of these funds." States might complain - then again, aren't they asking Washington to give them more responsibilities?

8. Create a mechanism to enforce deficit-reduction targets.

If you're old enough to remember the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction law, you might recall that it required across-the-board spending cuts if Congress did not meet agreed-upon deficit targets with specific spending reductions or tax increases. The new report says that some mandatory enforcement mechanism is needed. It could be on its way.

9. Enact medical malpractice reform.

Another oldie-but-goodie. Economists say that doctors spend huge amounts of money on both malpractice insurance and costly "defensive medicine" procedures designed primarily to reduce their liability. There is at least modest bipartisan support for malpractice reform, and with Republicans gaining control of the House, it seems likely to happen in 2011. This would reduce government health-care expenses by $17 billion over the decade.

10. Close business tax loopholes.

Republicans may agree to eliminate certain tax incentives used by American corporations as part of a deal for extending Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The energy industry might be among the businesses getting nicked. Domestic drilling incentives are among those proposed for the chopping block.

10 deficit panel proposals with best chances of becoming law | National | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

But but no one can reduce the Federal deficit!

 

[theHawk]

You idiots keep arguing for tax cuts for the rich, my question is how do you want to pay for them and with what? If you answer is to cut social programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich please provide justification for it, otherwise shut up with your ridiculous circular arguments you keep making ad naseum.

Typical lib idiot. Funny how you libs always ask how we're going to "pay" for a tax cut of any kind. Its like you libs believe that every penny of every American's paycheck belongs to the government and is already being spent, so to give some of that back means we have to "pay" for what the government wanted to spend that money on.

And by the way no one is talking about any "tax cuts", its simply keeping the current tax rate thats been in effect for years. Only in the mind of a liberal idiot would keeping the same tax rate be called a "tax cut".

 

[Intense]

Bass hates everyone without prejudice, except Marxists.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwk7DWq_E3s&feature=related[/ame]

 

[mudwhistle]

You idiots keep arguing for tax cuts for the rich, my question is how do you want to pay for them and with what? If you answer is to cut social programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich please provide justification for it, otherwise shut up with your ridiculous circular arguments you keep making ad naseum.

I think the best answer is cut all of the new spending. Oh....and quit lending our borrowed money to everyone under the Sun.

 

[The T]

You idiots keep arguing for tax cuts for the rich, my question is how do you want to pay for them and with what? If you answer is to cut social programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich please provide justification for it, otherwise shut up with your ridiculous circular arguments you keep making ad naseum.

I think the best answer is cut all of the new spending. Oh....and quit lending our borrowed money to everyone under the Sun.

Our bankers [China] don't seem to appreciate it.

 

[rdean]

Republicans only care about rich people. Forget America. Forget the Middle Class.

Even when you point out that very, very few rich people join the military and it's the middle class and poor that protect this nation, they say, "So what?" Republicans would rather give rich people money to piss away in some foreign bank than build roads and bridges in this country. It's the party of "insane" ideologues.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4[/ame]

 

[Cuyo]

You idiots keep arguing for tax cuts for the rich, my question is how do you want to pay for them and with what? If you answer is to cut social programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich please provide justification for it, otherwise shut up with your ridiculous circular arguments you keep making ad naseum.

You want to pay for illegals, for the education, for their food for their medical care and for their college. You stfu.

Is that what he said?

 

[Cuyo]

the tax cuts up to 250,000 is for ALL people.

If you make 3billion this year you still get the first 250,000 at the same rate as everyone else.

Considering that most people in the country are well within this range why are Republitards for tax cuts that will benefit a minority of people that control most of the wealth anyways?

When 100% of Americans pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX we'll talk. Til then the 50% of you leeches will just have to keep drooling over the rich man's money. Makes you nothing less than a thief.

That argument is a setup. While I agree that EITC needs to be discontinued (and all child tax credits IMO), every wage earner pays payroll taxes... That's 15.3% of wages (including employer contribution) on every dollar up to $106,800, whether you make minimum wage or a billion dollars. Nobody rides free. Payroll taxes in turn pay for Social Security, and the borrowed surplus pays for continued government operation.

 

[Cuyo]

When 100% of Americans pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX we'll talk. Til then the 50% of you leeches will just have to keep drooling over the rich man's money. Makes you nothing less than a thief.

Among that percentage that aren't paying are rich people who get out of taxes, the poor can't pay taxes with money they don't have.

The rich people in the top teirs pay 40% of the income tax paid in the USA. So they do their share. It's the other 50% of you leeches who pay zero who don't do their share. All you wanna do is yell gimmmie gimmmie gimmmie more. You suck the hind tit.

Another MEME. Statistics are infinitely pliable. They pay a disproportionately high percentage of total tax collected because the earn a disproportionately high percentage of wages. Under a flat tax or even a regressive tax, this would still be true.

 

[Cuyo]

Then they should improve thier situation by working harder versus whining to the gubmint to make it all better for them by stealing from others' sweat equity.

They are working hard, some are working more than one job you idiot, you have no way of proving they're not working hard enough, more retarded speculation.

So maybe they need a change of job, eh? But seriously? The problem extends from the Imperial FED and the roadblocks they've placed in thier way.

And the whole crux of this is to get the FED the Hell out of our way. They are the ones erecting the barriers to real liberty.

T - You're an idiot.