Thou Shall Never Touch The Tax Cuts

[rayboyusmc]

WASHINGTON - The record $3.1 trillion budget proposed by President Bush on Monday would produce eyepopping federal deficits, despite his attempts to impose politically wrenching curbs on Medicare and eliminate scores of popular domestic programs.

Destroy medicare and medicaid. Pull the plug on sociable security. Screw the little bastards who might benefit from CHIPS. Destroy all the programs that have benefited the majority of Americans, for these are progressive evils of the leftists devils.

But thou shall never touch the tax breaks for the rich.
For these shall bestow upon them the ability to
Tinkle down on Us, and you shall be grateful
with their fukking peeing on thee.

Reagan was the beginning of the war on the middle class and poor. It wasn't his fault, however, he didn't know he was doing it. Bush and company continue it. When they have privatized everything and been as successful as they were in Iraq, will we finally reclaim our country?

 

[Paulie]

will we finally reclaim our country?

No.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Destroy medicare and medicaid. Pull the plug on sociable security. Screw the little bastards who might benefit from CHIPS. Destroy all the programs that have benefited the majority of Americans, for these are progressive evils of the leftists devils.

But thou shall never touch the tax breaks for the rich.
For these shall bestow upon them the ability to
Tinkle down on Us, and you shall be grateful
with their fukking peeing on thee.

Reagan was the beginning of the war on the middle class and poor. It wasn't his fault, however, he didn't know he was doing it. Bush and company continue it. When they have privatized everything and been as successful as they were in Iraq, will we finally reclaim our country?

I've always been curious as to just where you left-wing mush-brains draw the line for "rich". At what income level is a family of four considered "rich"?

Next question, what proportion of the tax burden is fair for the top 1% to pay. The top 5% and the top 10%?

 

[Toro]

I've always been curious why so many Republicans so blithely dismiss fiscal responsibility?

There was a time when the GOP was the party of fiscal discipline. Now they are the tax-your-children-and-spend party, recklessly and irresponsibly mismanaging the affairs of this nation.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I've always been curious as to just where you left-wing mush-brains draw the line for "rich

I've always been curious why some folks can't discuss an issue without resorting to name calling.

I seriously doubt if the rich that I am talking about converse on these threads. They can afford to have someone else do their blogging for them.


% of US Population % of Wealth Owned
==========================================================
Top 1% 38.1%
Top 96-99% 21.3%
Top 90-95% 11.5%
Top 80-89% 12.5%
Top 60-79% 11.9%
General 40-59% 4.5%
Bottom 40% 0.2%

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050

If you earned your money the old fashioned way of working for it, no big deal. If you earn your money by having other people make laws to favor you, chuck you farley.

 

[Gunny]

I've always been curious why some folks can't discuss an issue without resorting to name calling.

I seriously doubt if the rich that I am talking about converse on these threads. They can afford to have someone else do their blogging for them.


% of US Population % of Wealth Owned
==========================================================
Top 1% 38.1%
Top 96-99% 21.3%
Top 90-95% 11.5%
Top 80-89% 12.5%
Top 60-79% 11.9%
General 40-59% 4.5%
Bottom 40% 0.2%

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050

If you earned your money the old fashioned way of working for it, no big deal. If you earn your money by having other people make laws to favor you, chuck you farley.

Yeah, well 30% of what I earn the old fashioned way goes to support the bureaucracy while additional chunks go to support your pet handout programs.

Seems to me IIRC correctly, the tax system was supposed to be overhauled during CLINTON's watch, not Reagan's nor Bush's, and so it was. I pay even more now.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I've always been curious why some folks can't discuss an issue without resorting to name calling.

I seriously doubt if the rich that I am talking about converse on these threads. They can afford to have someone else do their blogging for them.


% of US Population % of Wealth Owned
==========================================================
Top 1% 38.1%
Top 96-99% 21.3%
Top 90-95% 11.5%
Top 80-89% 12.5%
Top 60-79% 11.9%
General 40-59% 4.5%
Bottom 40% 0.2%

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050

If you earned your money the old fashioned way of working for it, no big deal. If you earn your money by having other people make laws to favor you, chuck you farley.

Surprising that that that top 1% also pay roughly 37% of the entire tax burden in the US. 38% of the assets, 37% of the tax burden. Pretty close. That 5% is pretty close too. Top 5% currently pay roughly 58% of all taxes in the US. And the bottom 40%....pay about 0.25% of the taxes.

Amazing how incredibly FAIR Bush has acutally made the tax load.

I never understood why the mush-brained left comes by the notion that tax "breaks" should go to the poor....when there is nothing there to be given a break "FROM"!!!

 

[jillian]

Surprising that that that top 1% also pay roughly 37% of the entire tax burden in the US. 38% of the assets, 37% of the tax burden. Pretty close. That 5% is pretty close too. Top 5% currently pay roughly 58% of all taxes in the US. And the bottom 40%....pay about 0.25% of the taxes.

Amazing how incredibly FAIR Bush has acutally made the tax load.

I never understood why the mush-brained left comes by the notion that tax "breaks" should go to the poor....when there is nothing there to be given a break "FROM"!!!

Where are you getting those tax numbers? They don't parallel anything I've heard.

And what about all the corporate tax breaks?

 

[Ninja]

Yeah, well 30% of what I earn the old fashioned way goes to support the bureaucracy while additional chunks go to support your pet handout programs.

Yep. I'd kick 10,000 people out of public housing if it meant I'd pay $0.01 less in taxes every year.

 

[jillian]

And there's the big issue. What defense budget do we need to defend us? I agree we have to have a strong military. But to my mind that doesn't include 200 billion a year for Iraq which does nothing to protect us... never did. And it certainly doesn't include money being paid to firms like Blackwater which are nothing more than private armies like some banana republic. Do you know that Haliburton employees got about $1,000 a day for working in Iraq. How much would someone in the military be paid to do that same job?

And that doesn't include the truckloads of cash that disappeared in Iraq.

So, before you cut things that have value to our society, I'd say one has to look at the Iraq expenditures first.

 

[manu1959]

And there's teh big issue. What defense budget do we need to defend us? I agree we have to have a strong military. But to my mind that doesn't include 200 billion a year for Iraq which does nothing to protect us... never did. And it certainly doesn't include money being paid to firms like Blackwater which are nothing more than private armies like some banana republic. Do you know that Haliburton employees got about $1,000 a day for working in Iraq. How much would someone in the military be paid to do that same job?

And that doesn't include the truckloads of cash that disappeared in Iraq.

So, before you cut things that have value to society, I'd say one has to look at the Iraq expenditures first.

i am curious cuz i missed it .... what programs got cut.....ie less dollars than last year....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

i am curious cuz i missed it .... what programs got cut.....ie less dollars than last year....

Wait for it, the response will most likely be that the INCREASES that ACTUALLY are in the budget just are not as BIG as the Left wants.

Or haven't you been paying attention? To the left if you increase a program by 20 percent but they wanted 50 percent that is a 30 percent cut.

 

[onedomino]

We need to spend less. We are spending at a rate that a balanced budget would imply that we have a $16 trillion GDP. In fact we have a $13.3 trillion economy. Bush's 3.11 trillion budget should be about $2.6 trillion. We simply cannot keep spending what we do not have. We must preserve the Defense budget necessary to protect us (including a program for energy independence) and everything else has got to be cut by $500 billion. If there are states and localities that cannot live with that, then they must raise the money locally. It is fundamentally wrong and ultimately maladaptive to redistribute wealth via the tax code. Everyone should be taxed an equal percentage. There should be no financial punishment for succeeding in America. Those who are not satisfied with their income must get themselves educated and work harder. In the form of low or zero interest loans, there is nothing wrong with providing government assistance to those who seek the education necessary to improve their incomes. We want a reasonably level playing field where everyone has a shot at improving their income, if that is what they want. Beyond that, it is up to them. Of course we must take care of the mentally ill and physically disabled. But those who are not impaired should get on the playing field, educate themselves, and work hard enough to achieve the level of income that makes them satisfied. If someone is wealthy, good for them. If someone wants more wealth, then do not expect to get it through the redistributed wealth of someone else. Get out there and earn it.

 

[Ninja]

I say abolish Head Start and reallocate the money to the Pentagon's budget

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I've always been curious why some folks can't discuss an issue without resorting to name calling.

Says the guy that starts the thread by accusing Republicans of cutting everything for the poor of the country.

 

[Bern80]

Yep. I'd kick 10,000 people out of public housing if it meant I'd pay $0.01 less in taxes every year.

Except it wouldn't mean that so your point is, well, pointless.

 

[Bern80]

Where are you getting those tax numbers? They don't parallel anything I've heard.

And what about all the corporate tax breaks?

What do you suggest? That the rich and corporate america - who pay the bulk of the tax burden for services they in large part don't use, for a group of people who don't pay for them - pay even more?

 

[hjmick]

i am curious cuz i missed it .... what programs got cut.....ie less dollars than last year....

Wait for it, the response will most likely be that the INCREASES that ACTUALLY are in the budget just are not as BIG as the Left wants.

Or haven't you been paying attention? To the left if you increase a program by 20 percent but they wanted 50 percent that is a 30 percent cut.

There will be no response. To acknowledge that there are no real cuts and that instead the increases are not what they want would effectively negate the discussin. It would be counter intuitive for some folks to recognize the real facts over bashin Bush.

 

[Shogun]

Says the guy that starts the thread by accusing Republicans of cutting everything for the poor of the country.

Did he call anyone a name, dickhead?

 

[midcan5]

I cannot get to the site right now but the idea that rich people somehow earn their riches all on their lonesome is an absurdity that right wingnuts must believe as someday they too may hit the lottery, or more likely daddy and mommy will help them. But does anyone think the rich exist in a vacuum, they exist in a social network that provides for those riches and their use of the infrastructure that provides for them is immense. Think for a moment on that and then read Simon's idea noted below.

"The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer