81% agree, raise taxes

[johnrocks]

All I would like to know is one thing, why do so many support raising taxes on anyone. Shit rolls downhill and those tax increases will eventually hurt the poor,minorities,unskilled,undereducated, etc. the hardest. It seems like it hurts the very ones you would want to help.

I guess you'd need to be old-enough to have been there.....​

August 5, 1996​

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

"Taxes: The Highest in History?"

(RepubliSHIT from the Clinton Years. )​

I'll be 50 in May so I suppose I'm old enough, I was just wondering why so many want the government to take more when ultimately it get's passed to the poor anyway.

 

[Immanuel]

Every poll you dont agree with is accused of bias. Nothing is true unless you believe it so.

Every poll is biased. That doesn't mean they are not true or that some of the information is not accurate.

Immie

They aren't "fixed" if that's what you mean. Polling organizations have their reputations to protect, like any other business, and they'd soon be closing up shop if they started fixing polls to attract people to a particular agenda.

I said biased and I meant biased.

And yes, all are biased and most are fixed.

Have you ever taken one of their calls and had it go something like this? I have and I suspect most of us have.

Pollster: "Hello, Mr. __________________ (believe me my name is pronounced just as it is read, but they all screw it up) do you have approximately five minutes in order to give your very important opinion on a subject?"

Me: "Five minutes? Um, sure, I can do that.

Third question (45 seconds) into the poll:

Pollster: "Now, can you tell me if you are registered as a Democrat or a Republican."

Me: answering this as it was before I switched to having no affiliation: "Republican."

Pollster: "Thank you for you time. Good night." Click!

So we are 50 seconds into a five minute poll and they ended the call because I told them I was registered as a Republican? Hmm, do you really think those kinds of polls are not fixed?

Also, listen to how they try to wrangle you to the answers they choose by the way they word the questions. They word the questions in ways that get you to answer in a manner they want you to answer.

"Do you think it is feasible to raise taxes on everyone in order to reduce the deficit?"

"Yes".

"Do you think that raising taxes on the rich will help?"

"Yes".

What question do you think gets published?

The hell they are not fixed. Who is going to prove them wrong in such questions.

I believe this is the poll that had 806 respondents. You don't think they only called 806 people do you? How many were eliminated with a question like, "Are you a registered Democrat or Republican?"

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

All I would like to know is one thing, why do so many support raising taxes on anyone. Shit rolls downhill and those tax increases will eventually hurt the poor,minorities,unskilled,undereducated, etc. the hardest. It seems like it hurts the very ones you would want to help.

I guess you'd need to be old-enough to have been there.....​

August 5, 1996​

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

"Taxes: The Highest in History?"

(RepubliSHIT from the Clinton Years. )​

I'll be 50 in May so I suppose I'm old enough, I was just wondering why so many want the government to take more when ultimately it get's passed to the poor anyway.

well, if you believe most libs on this board
the rich are the biggest benefactors of taxes
so i guess they want to raise taxes to help them more

 

[MaggieMae]

President George HW Bush was a pragmatist and began addressing the "debt problem" early on. It probably cost him the Presidency but it was the right thing to do for the country.

I agree.

We mean the father, not the son.

 

[MaggieMae]

So I've seen a thread on here that 2/3rds of US corporations pay no income tax, I've seen threads where the rich hide their money, roll over profits, have all sorts of ways to avoid paying taxes.

If the rich and corporations don't pay taxes because of loopholes in the system, what is the point of raising these taxes that already are not being paid?

Are you getting it yet?

The rich have now become people who make 250,000 a year. Not rich enough to afford the loopholes and not poor enough to have deductions.

I call that the middle class. Not the rich. These are the people that get SCREWED by everyone democrats and republicans and the people of the US who say, make the rich pay more taxes.

The debt commission recommends lowering the tax rate and eliminating much of the loopholes that reduce their tax obligations, often to zero.

I really think for any kind of "fairness" to be deemed acceptable there will need to be at least formulas for means testing income tax obligations and payroll tax limits (and benefits).

 

[MaggieMae]

It was a classic bubble-burst that caused the economic growth and consequential recession; In this case housing, but remember credit cards in the 80s and stocks in the 90s. As to unemployment, it's a lagging indicator; last down and last back up, same as it's always been.

I'm trying to say this without sounding indignant, but I've truly not heard serious weight given to the "Taxes on the rich damage the economy" argument outside of Republican echo-chambers. I think even nearly any 1st year ECO student could tell you that throwing money out of airplanes would give more stimulus than tax cuts for the wealthy.

If you dispute the claim, tell me why and I'll look at it, but so far you've only said I'm wrong.

In the 2000's...starting early on....

We had massive layoffs due to the dot com bubble burst.

We had an increase in technology resulting in individual employee voice mail (eliminating the need for receptionists and switchboards), boolean internet searche capabilities (eliminating the need for large research departments), advanced copiers with collating even for the smaller companies (eliminating the need for large copy staffs) advanced graphics on the pc(eliminatint the need for printing firms and printing departments within companies) advanced word processing capabilities (eliminating the needs for multiple secretaries...or less secreatries per executive) teleconferecning (eliminating travel affecting employment needs with hotels, arilines, etc)....and I can continue...
AND...we had a generous growth in population.

Yet....unemployment did not increase.

Seems there was plenty of corporate growth thanks to the tax cuts.

Curious...do those stats that claim there was no net job growth explain that there was no net job growth yet there was good reason for there to be generous job loss?

Thus what I mean when I say the stats you see are left leaning.

....And, you're (obviously) too-young to (actually) remember those days.... ​

November 26, 2001​

"The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

It ruled that the long expansion ended in March and the nation's tenth recession since the end of World War II began at the same time.

At the White House, President Bush, whose father lost the White House partly as a result of the country's last recession, said the declaration added urgency to the need to get a package of economic stimulus measures approved by Congress and passed into law.

"I knew the economy was not in good shape right after I took office," he said. "We will do everything we can to enhance recovery."

The president called on Congress to move quickly to pass an economic stimulus so that he will be able to "sign it before Christmas."

Economists Call It Recession​

MAY 1 - 15, 2003​

"What caused this economic downturn goes back to when George W. Bush was merely President-elect, waiting to take office, and continued on through his first six months in office.

Repeatedly, President-elect, and then President, Bush talked about how the economy was in trouble. Arriving in office following the longest continuous economic upturn in generations, President Bush seized on a stock market that had faltered some in the uncertainty following the 2000 Presidential election.

The "bad" economy, he talked about. Again and again. The "bad" economy.

You know what happened as a result? I can tell you from my personal experience, the CFO of the corporation I was working for called a meeting and said, "The President keeps talking about the economy being 'bad.' Now, things don't seem bad, but let's just hold off on any new hires until we see how this pans out. And, let's hold off on all non-vital purchases, just for the time being."

And you can see right there how simply the words of President George W. Bush started slamming the breaks of the economy.

This, of course, all snowballed.

Why was President-elect Bush claiming the economy was bad if it wasn't?

Simply, the American people, those that voted for him and those who didn't, didn't support his enormous tax cut. So he set out to try and convince people that the economy was bad - which in Republican terms means in need of stimulation through tax cuts. If he could make everyone think things were starting to go in the crapper, he believed he could justify his larger tax cut."

COULD BUSH REALLY BE TO BLAME?​

Interesting reminders there. But someone is bound to point out that the economy tanked after 911. They're also going to forget how it immediately bounced back when President Bush encouraged everyone to "go out and spend." So we did. The attacks and subsequent wars also spurred a brand new government agency, DHS, which provided thousands of opportunities for private contractors to jump on the war train and of course employed lots of experts. But wait. Government doesn't create jobs. I forgot. After 911, "patriotism" was also capitalized on, offensive as that may seem. Even today you can find hundreds of websites hawking their patriotic wares, when those barely existed prior to 911.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[/CENTER]

So you're claiming the national DEBT went down under Clinton????



ROFL

******* liar.

 

[Uncensored2008]

....And, who knows MORE about perpetual-lies than Republicans?
​

You do.​

 

[MaggieMae]

well, all those evil corps got together and conspired to get republicans elected
if you believe maggies nonsense
LOL
forget that corps gave about equally to democrats in the last election

Then why have they begun hiring again? Some things just write themselves, so I don't even need to do any digging at all.

Who the hell has started hiring again? I think you are promoting a myth.

Immie

No myth. Although businesses remain cautious, they ARE beginning to hire. I just think people expect some sort of explosion in hiring, and that isn't going to happen.

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=17687

For the first time since the recession took hold, the jobs market is expected to show significant gains this year. In fact, small businesses accounted for more than half (97,000) of the 187,000 private sector jobs created in January, according to the payroll services company ADP. But while many small businesses have reported that they expect to add jobs in 2011, the prevailing narrative among small business owners reflects a cautious approach in a slowly recovering economy.

 

[DiveCon]

[/CENTER]

So you're claiming the national DEBT went down under Clinton????



ROFL

******* liar.

no, that graph actually is on the amount added to the debt each year
but it is used(dishonestly) to try and claim it went down

 

[MaggieMae]

They ran a study that a single mother working part time has more disposable income after all her bills are paid, by government I might add, than a family of 4 with 1 income of 60K.
This was in Cleveland.
How come Obammie has not asked her to make cuts and work a little harder and CLOSE HER LEGS?

I'd sure like to see that study, because the government did not "pay her bills," believe me. If welfare fraud is happening in Cleveland, that's Ohio's problem. In Vermont, people on welfare have to prove their income and expenses with pay stubs and receipts for utilities and medical bills. Neither the State nor Uncle Sam pays the rest of their bills. And I somehow seriously doubt Ohio does either.

 

[Uncensored2008]

no, that graph actually is on the amount added to the debt each year
but it is used(dishonestly) to try and claim it went down

Yep, that was my point.

The left is an "integrity free zone."

 

[MaggieMae]

When the proof supports the sentiments of the right, the left insists on additional proof.

They see theory as proof and facts as not worthy of consideration.

What "proof" are we talking about here? Who is "him"?? And what "entire field of economics"??

Find the quote and you'll find "Him." No one's going to go back a few pages and find it for you just because you're too lazy to do it yourself.

Also, you don't know what economics is?

All it takes is people knowing how the **** to do a simple posting, and that means copying referenced posts INTO THEIRS. Talk about lazy....

 

[MaggieMae]

Every poll is biased. That doesn't mean they are not true or that some of the information is not accurate.

Immie

They aren't "fixed" if that's what you mean. Polling organizations have their reputations to protect, like any other business, and they'd soon be closing up shop if they started fixing polls to attract people to a particular agenda.

Bias can be unintentional in polling.
It is how the questions are offered and worded.

You mean like Rasmussen?

 

[DiveCon]

They aren't "fixed" if that's what you mean. Polling organizations have their reputations to protect, like any other business, and they'd soon be closing up shop if they started fixing polls to attract people to a particular agenda.

Bias can be unintentional in polling.
It is how the questions are offered and worded.

You mean like Rasmussen?

like ALL of them

 

[Immanuel]

Then why have they begun hiring again? Some things just write themselves, so I don't even need to do any digging at all.

Who the hell has started hiring again? I think you are promoting a myth.

Immie

No myth. Although businesses remain cautious, they ARE beginning to hire. I just think people expect some sort of explosion in hiring, and that isn't going to happen.

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=17687

For the first time since the recession took hold, the jobs market is expected to show significant gains this year. In fact, small businesses accounted for more than half (97,000) of the 187,000 private sector jobs created in January, according to the payroll services company ADP. But while many small businesses have reported that they expect to add jobs in 2011, the prevailing narrative among small business owners reflects a cautious approach in a slowly recovering economy.

Expected! Um, expected means hoped for not attained.

And, I am not finding your quote in the article you linked.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Bias can be unintentional in polling.
It is how the questions are offered and worded.

That Wiscoinsin Recall poll was a true misleading farce...and I found the truth buried in it.
Bottom line....all those polled were democrats...and it actually demonstrated that the deomcreatic governor would actually LOSE 1/3 of his votes if there was a recall and only those that voted were allowed to vote.

It was a polling organization that admits it does polling for porgressive candidates and unions...and so despite the results it presented it as a positive...by saying 1 million people would petition for a recall.

Intentioanlly very misleading.

And intentional as well. I agree.
Both sides do it.

Valid polling companies tell you exactly how they do it, by stating the number of people polled, whether by phone (landline, cell, or both), demographics by area if appropriate, although usually randomly across all area codes. It would be damned difficult to skew reactions based on their methods. Frankly, if I got a call from, say Gallup, and the question was too vague or seemed skewed, I would say so and refuse to answer, so my vote would probably go into "Don't Know." You can pick any category from this polling reporting organization to see how the questions are framed.

PollingReport.com

 

[MaggieMae]

I'll be 50 in May so I suppose I'm old enough, I was just wondering why so many want the government to take more when ultimately it get's passed to the poor anyway.

Ya think?

 

[MaggieMae]

Every poll is biased. That doesn't mean they are not true or that some of the information is not accurate.

Immie

They aren't "fixed" if that's what you mean. Polling organizations have their reputations to protect, like any other business, and they'd soon be closing up shop if they started fixing polls to attract people to a particular agenda.

I said biased and I meant biased.

And yes, all are biased and most are fixed.

Have you ever taken one of their calls and had it go something like this? I have and I suspect most of us have.

Pollster: "Hello, Mr. __________________ (believe me my name is pronounced just as it is read, but they all screw it up) do you have approximately five minutes in order to give your very important opinion on a subject?"

Me: "Five minutes? Um, sure, I can do that.

Third question (45 seconds) into the poll:

Pollster: "Now, can you tell me if you are registered as a Democrat or a Republican."

Me: answering this as it was before I switched to having no affiliation: "Republican."

Pollster: "Thank you for you time. Good night." Click!

So we are 50 seconds into a five minute poll and they ended the call because I told them I was registered as a Republican? Hmm, do you really think those kinds of polls are not fixed?

Also, listen to how they try to wrangle you to the answers they choose by the way they word the questions. They word the questions in ways that get you to answer in a manner they want you to answer.

"Do you think it is feasible to raise taxes on everyone in order to reduce the deficit?"

"Yes".

"Do you think that raising taxes on the rich will help?"

"Yes".

What question do you think gets published?

The hell they are not fixed. Who is going to prove them wrong in such questions.

I believe this is the poll that had 806 respondents. You don't think they only called 806 people do you? How many were eliminated with a question like, "Are you a registered Democrat or Republican?"

Immie

Since you're the one making the allegation, Immie, I think it's up to you to prove it. I stand by my assertion that they would be foolish to blatantly fix a poll to get desired results. Who is going to prove them wrong? If a lot of people questioned the outcome as being completely distorted from other public opinions found elsewhere, such a polling group would definitely at the very least get a whole lot of publicity and it wouldn't bode well for confidence in them ever again. This is why Rasmussen gets called on all the time. Their methodology appears to be skewed toward Republicans. On the other hand, an NBC/WSJ poll would appear to almost anyone to be credible and fair because those are two [allegedly] opposing political animals.

 

[MaggieMae]

I guess you'd need to be old-enough to have been there.....​

I'll be 50 in May so I suppose I'm old enough, I was just wondering why so many want the government to take more when ultimately it get's passed to the poor anyway.

well, if you believe most libs on this board
the rich are the biggest benefactors of taxes
so i guess they want to raise taxes to help them more

Huh? They're the biggest benefactors of tax CUTS.