Tax the rich!!!!!!!!

[Votto]

If taxes had been fair for the last 40 years, we wouldn't have most of the wealth concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people and organizations and a marketplace that can't afford to buy the things leading to things like public debt and job loss.

Still not rocket science...

Would you support Marxism? If not, then how would this be done?

 

[Votto]

Apparently O has classified you as rich if you make more than 200K a year. In the end though, it's all about the left's self gratification of making someone else pay.

The number used to be $250,000 and is falling by the day.

Again, I ask Obama supporters, who are the "rich"? I've yet to get an answer.

'Cause it's a troll question posed by a master-baiter and you're smart enough to know it.

A troll question? We are engaged in class warfare demagoguery and this is the response? We can't even question who the rich are?

Why does this make people feel so uncomfortable?

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[BallsBrunswick]

...And this thread had actually had some semblance of intelligent conversation and debate.

 

[blackhawk]

For those on the left, and those in the middle and those really confused on the right, why do you want to see taxes increased, especially on the rich?

1. I am concerned with the rising debt.

2. I am concerned that entitlements may have to be cut.

3. I hate rich people.

4. I don't think we are paying our fair share.

Any others?

I find this whole tax the rich more to solve or debt problem somewhat silly it's like telling fat people if we can get the skinny people to eat a little less you will lose weight.

 

[saveliberty]

We do tax the rich and so far the only one richer is the government.

 

[Vel]

I don't want to see the rich taxed specifically. I want this country to return to a sane tax plan before the neo-cons gangraped us and before they retardedly started two wars while forcing future generations to pay for it. If we get our financial house in order by creating a better tax structure the strength of the dollar will rocket and our economy will roar. This is all pretty simple stuff.

Take a look at this article.

Cox and Archer: Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt - WSJ.com

In this Wall Street Journal article, it states that the government does not put all its debt on the books. In short, the total unfunded national debt is more like $86 trillion. Last year $7 trillion was run up just by Social Security and Medicare alone. If you took the combined wealth of all the rich folk in the US I dare say it would not come close to that number.

I don't take issue with the wars abroad, nor a sane tax code, but you can't ignore the 700 pound gorilla in the room either even though both parties in Washington do. It is akin to how Wall Street cooks the books.

As for the wars abroad, I say it is a direct result of the beast that the federal government has become. In short, they have become so large and powerful and meddlesome that they don't stop with the citizenery, it will naturally progress internationally as well. Therefore, to simply lay this at the feet of the GOP is a mistake, especially after Mr. Nobel Prize started a war all by his lonesome and escalated another.

I agree with what you're saying and honestly both parties can get fucked and die for all I care. When I voted Obama the first time it's because I thought he had a pair and we'd return to a Clinton economy. I have been strongly dissatisfied with how ball-less the Democrats have been in regards to fixing our economy. However, I think we both agree that fixing the tax structure and scaling back the federal government is the first step towards fixing things.

And where in Obama's plan is it that you see him "scaling back the federal government"? Please tell me how you expect to get a "Clinton economy" with Obama levels of spending.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Take a look at this article.

Cox and Archer: Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt - WSJ.com

In this Wall Street Journal article, it states that the government does not put all its debt on the books. In short, the total unfunded national debt is more like $86 trillion. Last year $7 trillion was run up just by Social Security and Medicare alone. If you took the combined wealth of all the rich folk in the US I dare say it would not come close to that number.

I don't take issue with the wars abroad, nor a sane tax code, but you can't ignore the 700 pound gorilla in the room either even though both parties in Washington do. It is akin to how Wall Street cooks the books.

As for the wars abroad, I say it is a direct result of the beast that the federal government has become. In short, they have become so large and powerful and meddlesome that they don't stop with the citizenery, it will naturally progress internationally as well. Therefore, to simply lay this at the feet of the GOP is a mistake, especially after Mr. Nobel Prize started a war all by his lonesome and escalated another.

I agree with what you're saying and honestly both parties can get fucked and die for all I care. When I voted Obama the first time it's because I thought he had a pair and we'd return to a Clinton economy. I have been strongly dissatisfied with how ball-less the Democrats have been in regards to fixing our economy. However, I think we both agree that fixing the tax structure and scaling back the federal government is the first step towards fixing things.

And where in Obama's plan is it that you see him "scaling back the federal government"? Please tell me how you expect to get a "Clinton economy" with Obama levels of spending.

That was in the first term. This term I voted for him because of the Democrats commitment to getting this country out of Afghanistan by 2014 and to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire which is a much better plan than the couple non-sensical paragraphs Romney came up with in between flip-flopping and lying on virtually every issue. If this country would stop doling out money on retarded things like pointless wars and would return to a sane tax structure, it's pretty simple to see that would greatly reduce our debt and improve the American dollar.

 

[Vel]

I agree with what you're saying and honestly both parties can get fucked and die for all I care. When I voted Obama the first time it's because I thought he had a pair and we'd return to a Clinton economy. I have been strongly dissatisfied with how ball-less the Democrats have been in regards to fixing our economy. However, I think we both agree that fixing the tax structure and scaling back the federal government is the first step towards fixing things.

And where in Obama's plan is it that you see him "scaling back the federal government"? Please tell me how you expect to get a "Clinton economy" with Obama levels of spending.

That was in the first term. This term I voted for him because of the Democrats commitment to getting this country out of Afghanistan by 2014 and to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire which is a much better plan than the couple non-sensical paragraphs Romney came up with in between flip-flopping and lying on virtually every issue. If this country would stop doling out money on retarded things like pointless wars and would return to a sane tax structure, it's pretty simple to see that would greatly reduce our debt and improve the American dollar.

Well perhaps you should have paid closer attention to the facts and what Obama was actually saying. He's not talking about letting all the tax cuts expire, just those few that he thinks will foster his class warfare. That 80 billion a year won't come close to returning to the Clinton tax rates. As to spending..I'm still waiting for you to point out where he plans to scale back.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

And where in Obama's plan is it that you see him "scaling back the federal government"? Please tell me how you expect to get a "Clinton economy" with Obama levels of spending.

That was in the first term. This term I voted for him because of the Democrats commitment to getting this country out of Afghanistan by 2014 and to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire which is a much better plan than the couple non-sensical paragraphs Romney came up with in between flip-flopping and lying on virtually every issue. If this country would stop doling out money on retarded things like pointless wars and would return to a sane tax structure, it's pretty simple to see that would greatly reduce our debt and improve the American dollar.

Well perhaps you should have paid closer attention to the facts and what Obama was actually saying. He's not talking about letting all the tax cuts expire, just those few that he thinks will foster his class warfare. That 80 billion a year won't come close to returning to the Clinton tax rates. As to spending..I'm still waiting for you to point out where he plans to scale back.

Foster class warfare? There's no point continuing this conversation with you because you're a ******* loon and anything I say will be spun regardless into your paranoid view of the world.

 

[Vel]

That was in the first term. This term I voted for him because of the Democrats commitment to getting this country out of Afghanistan by 2014 and to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire which is a much better plan than the couple non-sensical paragraphs Romney came up with in between flip-flopping and lying on virtually every issue. If this country would stop doling out money on retarded things like pointless wars and would return to a sane tax structure, it's pretty simple to see that would greatly reduce our debt and improve the American dollar.

Well perhaps you should have paid closer attention to the facts and what Obama was actually saying. He's not talking about letting all the tax cuts expire, just those few that he thinks will foster his class warfare. That 80 billion a year won't come close to returning to the Clinton tax rates. As to spending..I'm still waiting for you to point out where he plans to scale back.

Foster class warfare? There's no point continuing this conversation with you because you're a ******* loon and anything I say will be spun regardless into your paranoid view of the world.

LMAO.. You can't come up with anything that he's planning to scale back, can you?
****************************************************
In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue. Defense spending as a portion of GDP declined by 1.8 points, but non-defense spending dropped by 2.2 points. Clinton and the Republicans in Congress cut spending on domestic discretionary programs as well as entitlement spending through welfare reform.
What followed afterward is instructive to the real problem of our current trillion-dollar trajectory of deficit spending. George Bush increased federal spending as a share of GDP by 2.6 points in two terms, and it wasn’t just spent on defense; the increase was split evenly between defense and non-defense spending, a remarkable statistic considering the two wars waged in those eight years.
Barack Obama managed to hike it 3.5 points in just one term, with 3.2 points going to non-defense spending. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents.

Read more at Clinton

 

[AVG-JOE]

To be precise, small business hires up to 2/3 of the work force every year.

So again, we keep flinging the "rich" term around without assigning it value. I can promise you that many think that someone starting a small business is "rich".

It doesn't matter what kind of ideas, resources or products an entrepreneur has, without a marketplace with money, not a single job will be created.

A marketplace doesn't create a entrepreneur....a entrepreneur creates a marketplace.

An entrepreneur with no marketplace, or with a market that has no has disposable income, is as useful as tits on a dude.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If taxes had been fair for the last 40 years, we wouldn't have most of the wealth concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people and organizations and a marketplace that can't afford to buy the things leading to things like public debt and job loss.

Still not rocket science...

Would you support Marxism? If not, then how would this be done?

Marxism, Schmarxism! Can the labels and give me your IDEAS.

 

[tjvh]

Apparently O has classified you as rich if you make more than 200K a year. In the end though, it's all about the left's self gratification of making someone else pay.

The number used to be $250,000 and is falling by the day.

Again, I ask Obama supporters, who are the "rich"? I've yet to get an answer.

John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and everyone who attended Obama's $35,000/ plate fundraiser are pretty well off... Of course they undoubtedly get a pass based upon their party affiliation.

 

[Votto]

Foster class warfare? There's no point continuing this conversation with you because you're a ******* loon and anything I say will be spun regardless into your paranoid view of the world.

Vel has a point. The money generated to government from letting the Bush tax cuts expire are less than a drop in the bucket in relation to the mounting debt. So if the goal is not to come close to balancing the books, why punish the "rich" in the process? It's not like they need to make the money before the spend it. Considering these facts, I can only deduce that all this talk is nothing more than political gesturing and demagoguery that the masses are soaking up like sponges.

 

[Votto]

If taxes had been fair for the last 40 years, we wouldn't have most of the wealth concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people and organizations and a marketplace that can't afford to buy the things leading to things like public debt and job loss.

Still not rocket science...

Would you support Marxism? If not, then how would this be done?

Marxism, Schmarxism! Can the labels and give me your IDEAS.

My quesiton was, what is your idea?

My ideas are for limited government and would be scoffed at as extremist. I'm simply trying to see what the sane "moderates" wish to do.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Vel has a point. The money generated to government from letting the Bush tax cuts expire are less than a drop in the bucket in relation to the mounting debt. So if the goal is not to come close to balancing the books, why punish the "rich" in the process? It's not like they need to make the money before the spend it. Considering these facts, I can only deduce that all this talk is nothing more than political gesturing and demagoguery that the masses are soaking up like sponges.

The Bush Tax Cuts expiring is just one piece of the puzzle as well as ending the wars, curtailing military spending, closing tax loopholes and re-examining social programs all of which Obama ran on for re-election. It actually would be pretty easy to balance the budget, it's just a question of who has the balls to do it.

And there's no point talking to Vel.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The number used to be $250,000 and is falling by the day.

Again, I ask Obama supporters, who are the "rich"? I've yet to get an answer.

'Cause it's a troll question posed by a master-baiter and you're smart enough to know it.

A troll question? We are engaged in class warfare demagoguery and this is the response? We can't even question who the rich are?

Why does this make people feel so uncomfortable?

Of course it's a troll question! You already know that the 'official' answer is $250k per year and up and you already know that that's bullshit depending on what's relative.

In other words, there is as many answers as there are opinions. Let's move on to solutions, shall we?

Taxes that are fair through their simplicity, public budgets that are balanced by law*, transparency in all things politics, and then, build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

*And don't tell me it can't be done. PAYGO in the 90's was the best ******* leash ever applied to congress and is what gave Clinton his surplus.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Votto]

Apparently O has classified you as rich if you make more than 200K a year. In the end though, it's all about the left's self gratification of making someone else pay.

The number used to be $250,000 and is falling by the day.

Again, I ask Obama supporters, who are the "rich"? I've yet to get an answer.

John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and everyone who attended Obama's $35,000/ plate fundraiser are pretty well off... Of course they undoubtedly get a pass based upon their party affiliation.

You are wasting your time. Those who voted for Obama are convinced that the GOP favors the "rich" more than the Democrats. I know, because I've talked to many of them.

First of all, who are the "rich"? Without assessing that the charge is pure demagoguery. Secondly, the question has to be asked, what is to be gained from taking their wealth? Is it to balance the books? I don't think so, so if not, what is the goal? My only assumption is to punish them for being rich.

 

[Votto]

'Cause it's a troll question posed by a master-baiter and you're smart enough to know it.

A troll question? We are engaged in class warfare demagoguery and this is the response? We can't even question who the rich are?

Why does this make people feel so uncomfortable?

Of course it's a troll question! You already know that the 'official' answer is $250k per year and up and you already know that that's bullshit depending on what's relative.

In other words, there is as many answers as there are opinions. Let's move on to solutions, shall we?

Taxes that are fair through their simplicity, public budgets that are balanced by law*, transparency in all things politics, and then, build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

*And don't tell me it can't be done. PAYGO in the 90's was the best ******* leash ever applied to congress and is what gave Clinton his surplus.

PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, so we are to focus on those making over $250,000 a year. Great! So how much do we take from them and how much revenue would that generate?

Now lets compare that to the deficit. Would that cover the current deficit? If memory serves, the Obama suggestion of letting the Bush tax cuts expire would come no where close to that.

So what tax increase would come close to covering a trillion plus deficit and about $5 trillion more in unfunded entitlements last year? I'll give you a clue, there are none.

Again, the Clinton surpluss was an illusion. Things like unfunded Medicare and Social Security debt is not accounted for in the budget. What part of this don't you understand?