Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[georgephillip]

I see Bernie's proposals as a way of bankrupting the country.

Bush beat him to it.

Bush didn't add a few hundred million people to Medicare.
I suspect Bernie's proposals would make things worse.

Bernie's home state is about to find out if you're right.

"Vermont hired Harvard economist William Hsiao to come up with three alternatives to the current system. The single-payer system, Hsiao wrote, 'will produce savings of 24.3 percent of total health expenditure between 2015 and 2024.”

"An analysis by Don McCanne, M.D., of Physicians for a National Health Program, pointed out that 'these plans would cover everyone without any increase in spending since the single-payer efficiencies would be enough to pay for those currently uninsured or under-insured. So this is the really good news — single payer works.'

"Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin explained to me his intention to sign the bill into law: 'Here’s our challenge. Our premiums go up 10, 15, 20 percent a year. This is true in the rest of the country as well.

"'They are killing small business.

"'They’re killing middle-class Americans, who have been kicked in the teeth over the last several years.

"'What our plan will do is create a single pool, get the insurance company profits, the pharmaceutical company profits, the other folks that are mining the system to make a lot of money on the backs of our illnesses, and ensure that we’re using those dollars to make Vermonters healthy.'”

Single-Payer in Vermont, A State of Healthy Firsts | Common Dreams

 

[Steelplate]

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Ever notice how libturds like to publish tax rates from the 1950s, but they never talk about tax rates during the 1920s and 1930s?

1918 - 73%
1919 - 73%
1920 - 73%
1921 - 73%
1922 - 58%
1923 - 43%
1924 - 25%
1925 - 25%
1926 - 25%
1927 - 25%
1928 - 25%
1929 - 25%
1930 - 25%
1931 - 25%
1932 - 63%
1933 - 63%
1934 - 63%
1935 - 63%
1936 - 79%
1937 - 79%
1938 - 79%
1939 - 79%
1940 - 79%
1941 - 81%
1942 - 88%
1943 - 88%
1944 - 94%
1945 - 94%
1946 - 91%
1947 - 91%
1946 - 91%

Yeah, those high tax rates sure did wonders for the economy during the depression, didn't they? And notice the period when we had low tax rates. What did they call that? Oh yeah . . . . I think they called it

THE ROARING 20s!

Yeah.... then the stock market crashed in 1929... Wow... sounds like history repeating itself... The banks failed then...the banks failed now. Thanks for proving our point.

 

[Chris]

 

[Chris]

David Stockman's influence within the Reagan Administration decreased after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the famous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman",[3] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. The White House's public relations team thereafter attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan's tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate....

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Steelplate]

Don't even bother... they can't see past their own noses. Furthermore... they don't care.

 

[Chris]

In the first three months of 2011, ExxonMobil announced nearly $11 billion in profits, Shell $6.9 billion and BP $5.5 billion.

The five largest oil companies have reaped nearly $1 trillion in profits over the last 10 years. We know oil companies don’t need our hard-earned tax dollars, yet Congress gives $4 billion in tax breaks to Big Oil yearly.

Because of the divided 5-4 Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, corporations like ExxonMobil have money to burn and can now spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. In just three months, the Big Five Oil companies contributed a quarter million dollars to members of Congress. You don’t need a crystal ball to see why Big Oil is getting big tax credits.

Too many anti-environmental politicians are willing to accept money from big oil and other dirty polluters who spoil our landscape, pollute our waterways, streams and drinking water, and ignore the warnings of scientists who say time is running out to solve global warming before its effects become irreversible. They and greedy corporations mislead voters with false information by claiming measures to protect our environment are bad for the economy and job killers.

In the face of huge budget deficits, budget cuts, painful gas prices and oil company profits, voters didn’t authorize Congress to give tax dollars to Big Oil. They would rather invest in renewable energy sources, clean air and water to reduce our dangerous dependence on oil hurting our economy and harming the environment.

A February Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found 74 percent of Americans supported ending tax breaks for Big Oil. Yet, pro-polluter lawmakers led by House Speaker John Boehner voted to continue handouts for Big Oil and cut support for clean energy.

Letter: Don

 

[bripat9643]

How did lowering taxes cause the stock market to crash?

Yeah.... then the stock market crashed in 1929... Wow... sounds like history repeating itself... The banks failed then...the banks failed now. Thanks for proving our point.

 

[georgephillip]

It's pretty easy, just watch FoxLies.

400 individuals control HALF the wealth in this country.

The top 1% got 80% of the income increase in the last 40 years for the entire country.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, said that the Reagan tax cuts were a "Trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich. This effectively transferred $13 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the rich.

Now the Republicans want to shut the government down and ruin the economy rather than cut Big Oil company subsidies and raise taxes on the top 1%. They also want to kill Medicare and Social Security.

There is a special place in hell for Republicans. It's waiting for them.

The country doesn't have income, how can the country's income increase?
Lowering the top rate from 70% to 28% was a Trojan Horse to lower taxes for the rich?
Someone sounds confused about what the Trojan Horse was.
Allowing the rich to keep more of their own money transfers money from the middle class to the rich how exactly? Please run thru the steps if you could?
What oil company subsidies are you talking about? Be specific.

The Left views in their radical approach, that all money belongs to the gov't.
Therefore, any money you keep that you earn is out of the "kindness" of the gov't's heart

I am surprised the Left is pulling out the Class warfare card so soon. Before you know it the race card is bound to come out....

One has to wonder why they just can run on Papa Obama's record to convince the American people he knows what he is doing on the budget

The richest 2% are happy, and they play the Class warfare card daily.

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago.

"The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising.

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

 

[Neotrotsky]

Mother Jones is your source
Now we know why you did not link it


Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes - Journal of the American Enterprise Institute
The top 5 percent pay well over half the income taxes.

----------------------------------------------


You do know that even if we took all the money from the rich and the Fortune 500,
we could still NOT cover our debt

link

*If we were to tax every household in the US making over $250,000 a year at a rate of 100% on the amount exceeding that $250,000, we would bring in $1.4 trillion. (Better yet, if we were to take 100% of everything those greedy bastards earn, it would bring in $1.97 trillion – that’s what you get for being more productive than the solid citizen making $249,999!)
*If we were to take the profits of every Fortune 500 company, that would amount to another $400 billion.
*If we were to confiscate the entire net worth of all 400 billionaires in the US (who do they think they are owning businesses, homes, and jewelry anyway? Those things should only be owned by the poor; oh yeah, that home thing for the poor didn’t work out so well . . . ), that would equal $1.3 trillion.

The grand total we will have raised would be $3.67 trillion, which will run our government for a whopping 9 months or so! Now that we have all the money of the rich our debt problem will surely be solved, won’t it? Oh, we still will have a debt of $14.26 trillion and no way to fund anymore government programs because those who know how to run businesses efficiently and productively would have just been forcefully dissuaded from doing so, in the US anyway? Uh oh. Any better suggestions out there?​

You and your radical leftist friends at Mother Jones can keep playing class warfare and denying the truth, it worked so well before



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKH4GHiihg]YouTube - ‪Socialist World Republic - Sozialistische Weltrepublik‬‏[/ame]

 

[georgephillip]

Other countries don't have innovation in drugs because they have socialized medicine.Liberals are too fucking stupid to put two and two together, however. They're always proposing one correlation is causation idiocy after another, but they can't figure out that their socialist schemes for medicine are the end of innovation in the industry.

I know one of the gripes about it is innovation. But maybe it's time that our Med/Tech and Pharma people start getting other countries to help pay for that innovation... not just us. A new drug comes out and we pay for all that R&D, while people across the border and across the globe get the name brand or generics for that same new med at a small fraction of the cost.

If you really want to say "why should I have to pay?" Like so many people do because there is some of our population that will always be low income workers. Ask it in that regard. Now... do I want a 3rd world country like Ethiopia to pay the exact same amount? No. But just about every country in Europe can...China Can... Japan Can... Russia Can... and a host of other countries.

We can't afford this shit anymore.

How many medical innovations in the US have come from government funded sources?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Gasoline Taxes Per Gallon Are Almost 7 Times ExxonMobil's Profit: 48 cents vs. 7 cents for QI

 

[bripat9643]

How many medical innovations in the US have come from government funded sources?

What is the ratio of U.S. medical innovations to those from foreign sources?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Why does Canadian Premier Comes to U.S. For Health Care?

 

[georgephillip]

Other countries don't have innovation in drugs because they have socialized medicine.Liberals are too fucking stupid to put two and two together, however. They're always proposing one correlation is causation idiocy after another, but they can't figure out that their socialist schemes for medicine are the end of innovation in the industry.

I know one of the gripes about it is innovation. But maybe it's time that our Med/Tech and Pharma people start getting other countries to help pay for that innovation... not just us. A new drug comes out and we pay for all that R&D, while people across the border and across the globe get the name brand or generics for that same new med at a small fraction of the cost.

If you really want to say "why should I have to pay?" Like so many people do because there is some of our population that will always be low income workers. Ask it in that regard. Now... do I want a 3rd world country like Ethiopia to pay the exact same amount? No. But just about every country in Europe can...China Can... Japan Can... Russia Can... and a host of other countries.

We can't afford this shit anymore.

How many medical innovations in the US have come from government funded sources?

Many medical innovations in the US are the result of socialized medicine since they come from government funded research.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Other countries don't have innovation in drugs because they have socialized medicine.Liberals are too fucking stupid to put two and two together, however. They're always proposing one correlation is causation idiocy after another, but they can't figure out that their socialist schemes for medicine are the end of innovation in the industry.

How many medical innovations in the US have come from government funded sources?

Many medical innovations in the US are the result of socialized medicine since they come from government funded research.

Your definition of "socialized" medicine is incorrect

Of course using your logic,
Hey if you like the job the Post Office, DMV and Public schools are doing then
you should love what "socialized" medicine can do for you

 

[georgephillip]

Why does Canadian Premier Comes to U.S. For Health Care?

He's rich.

 

[georgephillip]

How many medical innovations in the US have come from government funded sources?

Many medical innovations in the US are the result of socialized medicine since they come from government funded research.

Your definition of "socialized" medicine is incorrect

Of course using your logic,
Hey if you like the job the Post Office, DMV and Public schools are doing then
you should love what "socialized" medicine can do for you

Are you a big fan of Enron?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Why does Canadian Premier Comes to U.S. For Health Care?

He's rich.

Exactly, expect the same under Papa Obama care with the rich and politicians
Of course, you may believe that the President will use the same doctor as everyone else.

Who knows?They may even create things like "health credits" to provide cover for themselves


We will all be equal (some just more equal than others)

A true competitive market is the best system to provide the best health care for the most people.

Socialism will only succeed in spreading misery equally, except for inner party members

 

[Neotrotsky]

Many medical innovations in the US are the result of socialized medicine since they come from government funded research.

Your definition of "socialized" medicine is incorrect

Of course using your logic,
Hey if you like the job the Post Office, DMV and Public schools are doing then
you should love what "socialized" medicine can do for you

Are you a big fan of Enron?

Are you a big fan of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

 

[oreo]

It's SCARY to think we have people in this country who FEEL THIS WAY.

You couldn't get MORE DISGUSTING for calling to STEAL other people's money by TAXATION to use it for your own use.

but then again, this piece of crap posting came from the so called, "PROGRESSIVE (pretty name for COMMIE)" website, common dreams..

common dreams my ass..

What part of equal scares you most?

In 1979 when the richest 1% of Americans controlled 9% of US income they paid taxes at a rate of 70%. Today they pay taxes at half that rate EXCEPT when they pay at a 15% capital gains rate.

It's REALLY scary that slaves like you don't see how the rich have bribed government to lower their tax rates over the last 40 years.

Get some guts.
Fight back.
Fascist.

There simply isn't enough wealth in this entire country for the Federal Government to confiscate to pay this tab.

There are currently 18,000 baby boomers entering social security/medicare DAILY and this will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in another 64 TRILLION in unfunded liabilites on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink now. This results in $534,000.00 per household in America owed to the Federal Government to pay this tab.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY BORROWING .43 CENTS ON EVERY DOLLAR IT SPENDS.



1 BILLION DOLLARS --$100.00 BILLS STACKED ON PALLETS.



1 TRILLION DOLLARS--$100.00 BILLS STACKED ON PALLETS--Note: How small the man is in this chart.

Now when you big taxers and spenders--can tell me how and who you plan to tax the crap out of to get 74 of the above trillion dollar chart--let us know.