The 10 Year Tax Lie

[Erand7899]

Fair share?

How bout we start with returning to pre-Bush tax cut rates. Those tax cuts were supposed to result in jobs....how did that work out?

Answer My question. How much increase from the current tax rates do we have to go for a 'fair share'? With that knowledge, how much in revenue will it generate?

Answered

Start with returning to Pre- Bush tax rates. You know, before our deficit ran out of control.

Tax increases along with spending cuts will reduce the national debt

If we return to the pre-Bush rates for those making $250,000 or more, the treasury will receive about $300 billion per year. That doesn't make more than a small dent in our $1.5 trillion annual deficits. Consequently, this tax ploy is not a serious attempt to reduce the deficit, but is an effort to punish those rich bastards that you lefties love to hate.

BTW, when was the last time that any congress actually cut spending? They don't. They put all of their spending cuts out a couple of years, knowing that future congresses will ignore those cuts.

 

[8537]

Why? Why do "Republicans want further tax cuts for the wealthy"???

It is part of their redistribution of wealth from the working class to the wealthy

Ever hear of RomneyHood?

Robs from the poor and gives to the rich

C'mon. Is that the best you've got. Give us a REAL reason... Why would Republicans want further tax cuts for the wealthy???

Because the wealthy lead them around by their necks. The Republicans have become the party of Defend and Protect the Billionaires (Except Soros and a few others) At All Costs.

 

[Erand7899]

Honestly, I didn't care about Cindy's McCain's wealth nor John Kerry's wife's wealth. I do wonder how someone running for President has 'earned' $250,000,000 million dollars, own homes in several states, and why he invests his money in foreign banks.

Now, the standard response will be I'm envious. Well, I'm not. Romney in my opinion is an empty suit, his pockets maybe full but his stump speech is weak, without substance and emblematic of a demagogue.

He's not frustrating me at all, I expect nothing from him and that is exactly what he gives.

Why would you care how much money the guy has made or where he owns property or has bank accounts? What does that have to do with the job he's running for? Certainly, he's not in it for the money. The job only pays $400k per year. To a guy like him, that's chump change. By your stated opinion, his speeches aren't worth paying for... so what do you think is his motivation for seeking office? Certainly he's got plenty of cash, and if he was the nefarious cat y'all make him out to be, it follows he'd likely not want a whole lot of public scrutiny. So just what is it that you think he's plotting???

In a word, Ambition. That's what drives him.

I don't believe he has an agenda and I don't believe he is nefarious; I do believe he is a Plutocrat and believes in his heart and soul that when the rich do well it will trickle down to the rest. I know in my heart, my soul and my frontal lobe Voodoo Economics is a bullshit theory advanced to benefit the rich.

What you ignorantly call voodoo economics is actually nothing more than common sense. If you want an enterprise to grow, you have to put capital into that business. The more capital available to invest, the more that one can grow the enterprise. That applies to a lemonade stand, and it applies to the national economy.

Left wingers often cite the great economy that Clinton built with his 1993 tax hikes, but you ignore that when Bill Clinton left office, the economy was already moving into a recession. Yes, the dot com bust had a hand in that, but the economy had already flattened out before that happened. Those tax hikes slowly strangled small businesses by taking the capital they needed to expand. Consequently, they quit expanding, and the economy suffered. We need a steadily expanding economy just to provide work for the young people entering the work force.

 

[8537]

Romney wants to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for additional rounds of cuts for top earners and he doesn't have the decency to match the President's transparency in releasing his own tax returns?

We already know that Romney is very rich, and we already know that Romney pays all the taxes that he owes. What you left wingers want is ammo for your class war, and it pisses you all off that Romney won't play into your game.

It does not matter whether you are rich or poor, the 15% rate on dividends and capital gains applies to all taxpayers. The reason that we have a 15% rate on capital gains is because it is good for the economy to have people with capital actually invest that capital into business ventures here, and not in other countries. Dividends are taxed twice. Once as corporate profits, and then again as dividends.

The government gets their share.

Wait what?! So if I invest money in a foreign market I don't pay US capital gains?

For what it's worth, there's actually two brackets: Those in the bottom two marginal income tax rates pay 0% on capital gains while everyone else pays 15%.

 

[8537]

Why would you care how much money the guy has made or where he owns property or has bank accounts? What does that have to do with the job he's running for? Certainly, he's not in it for the money. The job only pays $400k per year. To a guy like him, that's chump change. By your stated opinion, his speeches aren't worth paying for... so what do you think is his motivation for seeking office? Certainly he's got plenty of cash, and if he was the nefarious cat y'all make him out to be, it follows he'd likely not want a whole lot of public scrutiny. So just what is it that you think he's plotting???

In a word, Ambition. That's what drives him.

I don't believe he has an agenda and I don't believe he is nefarious; I do believe he is a Plutocrat and believes in his heart and soul that when the rich do well it will trickle down to the rest. I know in my heart, my soul and my frontal lobe Voodoo Economics is a bullshit theory advanced to benefit the rich.

What you ignorantly call voodoo economics is actually nothing more than common sense. If you want an enterprise to grow, you have to put capital into that business. The more capital available to invest, the more that one can grow the enterprise. That applies to a lemonade stand, and it applies to the national economy.

Left wingers often cite the great economy that Clinton built with his 1993 tax hikes, but you ignore that when Bill Clinton left office, the economy was already moving into a recession. Yes, the dot com bust had a hand in that, but the economy had already flattened out before that happened. Those tax hikes slowly strangled small businesses by taking the capital they needed to expand. Consequently, they quit expanding, and the economy suffered. We need a steadily expanding economy just to provide work for the young people entering the work force.

So did Reagan's 1982/3 tax hikes strangle small business, causing the 1991 recession?

 

[Vel]

It is part of their redistribution of wealth from the working class to the wealthy

Ever hear of RomneyHood?

Robs from the poor and gives to the rich

C'mon. Is that the best you've got. Give us a REAL reason... Why would Republicans want further tax cuts for the wealthy???

Because the wealthy lead them around by their necks. The Republicans have become the party of Defend and Protect the Billionaires (Except Soros and a few others) At All Costs.

It's a sad state when you have to defend and protect American citizens from the thievery of the American government.

 

[8537]

C'mon. Is that the best you've got. Give us a REAL reason... Why would Republicans want further tax cuts for the wealthy???

Because the wealthy lead them around by their necks. The Republicans have become the party of Defend and Protect the Billionaires (Except Soros and a few others) At All Costs.

It's a sad state when you have to defend and protect American citizens from the thievery of the American government.

It's an even sadder state when some of the wealthiest Americans have conned millions of average Americans into voting against their own rational self interest.

 

[Vel]

Because the wealthy lead them around by their necks. The Republicans have become the party of Defend and Protect the Billionaires (Except Soros and a few others) At All Costs.

It's a sad state when you have to defend and protect American citizens from the thievery of the American government.

It's an even sadder state when some of the wealthiest Americans have conned millions of average Americans into voting against their own rational self interest.

I find it worse that you expect people to vote for their own self interest by expecting someone else to carry their share of the load. When did self- centeredness become a virtue?

 

[8537]

It's a sad state when you have to defend and protect American citizens from the thievery of the American government.

It's an even sadder state when some of the wealthiest Americans have conned millions of average Americans into voting against their own rational self interest.

I find it worse that you expect people to vote for their own self interest by expecting someone else to carry their share of the load.

Who said anything about expecting others to carry the load?

When did self- centeredness become a virtue?

hmm... Adam Smith? Ayn Rand?

 

[francoHFW]

When one group (the top 1%) triples their wealth while the rest, and the country go to HELL, you raise their taxes ferchrissake, ya silly brainwashed MORONS!! ty

Romney I did 12 years, and Romney II is a grinning scumbag...

 

[francoHFW]

"When did self- centeredness become a virtue?"

Raygun, and attacking poor people...a disaster.

 

[Murf76]

Honestly, I didn't care about Cindy's McCain's wealth nor John Kerry's wife's wealth. I do wonder how someone running for President has 'earned' $250,000,000 million dollars, own homes in several states, and why he invests his money in foreign banks.

Now, the standard response will be I'm envious. Well, I'm not. Romney in my opinion is an empty suit, his pockets maybe full but his stump speech is weak, without substance and emblematic of a demagogue.

He's not frustrating me at all, I expect nothing from him and that is exactly what he gives.

Why would you care how much money the guy has made or where he owns property or has bank accounts? What does that have to do with the job he's running for? Certainly, he's not in it for the money. The job only pays $400k per year. To a guy like him, that's chump change. By your stated opinion, his speeches aren't worth paying for... so what do you think is his motivation for seeking office? Certainly he's got plenty of cash, and if he was the nefarious cat y'all make him out to be, it follows he'd likely not want a whole lot of public scrutiny. So just what is it that you think he's plotting???

In a word, Ambition. That's what drives him.

I don't believe he has an agenda and I don't believe he is nefarious; I do believe he is a Plutocrat and believes in his heart and soul that when the rich do well it will trickle down to the rest. I know in my heart, my soul and my frontal lobe Voodoo Economics is a bullshit theory advanced to benefit the rich.

He's plotting nothing is what you're saying. No nefarious plan to murder more housewives.

See... Republicans don't have the greed and envy that you all do. We applaud economic success. We hope to enjoy it ourselves and to see other people enjoy it. We particularly hope that our children will enjoy more of it than we ourselves. While socialists believe that there's only so much pie to go around, capitalists believe that we can allways create more pie.

Erand has the salient point above. When the economy is drained of capital, it doesn't grow. No more pie. Right now, there are trillions of dollars hoarded up in bank accounts all over the world, afraid to invest, afraid to grow. And all because we have this big economic wet blanket submersing all the confidence we ought to have in our economy in the form of Barack Obama. NOTHING gets better until we peel it off. And THAT is Romney's "ambition". The guy has 5 sons and 16 grandchildren, and you and your philosophy threaten not only their future, but all of our futures.

You people fail to understand that Republicans are NOT anarchists who believe in lassez faire. We believe in the constitutional enumerated powers, which would include appropriate regulatory law, and we believe, despite our libertarian-leaning sensibilities on the placement of it, that there should be some sort of safety net. But your ideology will destroy those things, driving legitimate businesses under with onerous and political regulation, decreasing the revenue stream, and recklessly destroying our economic ability to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Do you honestly think there's going to be any resources available for the niceties of a decent society when we're pulling a trillion dollars in cash out of our asses by the end of the decade to service the debt?
Where are the necessary reforms for our broken entitlements? Where's the budget?

You don't know, that's where. Romney does. He's got a family to think of, same as I do.

You speak with contempt of "plutocrats", all the while IGNORING the rich bitches on your side of the aisle who have FAILED to do the nation's business they were elected to do. Harry Reid was a poor man when he came to Congress. He's a rich man now. Barack Obama has made his entire fortune peddling his ridiculous political agenda, never working a real job. Nancy Pelosi could buy and sell most of us, while Maxine Waters pushes legislation to serve herself. Wealth isn't the dividing line between good and bad people... obviously.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How many of you honesty could go to your neighbors and suggest the richest family in the neighborhood should pay everyone's electric bills? Even if you could, how many neighbors do you think would agree? What are the chances the richest neighbor won't just move away, if confronted by a bunch of neighbers with a petition?

I find it interesting that you have those with such altruistic ideals about fairness as long as it's someone else they think needs to contribute more. If they were the ones being asked for the larger portion, their altruism would quickly disappear.

Gee, you must be omniscient. You know that to be true - I'm impressed.

 

[Murf76]

Because the wealthy lead them around by their necks. The Republicans have become the party of Defend and Protect the Billionaires (Except Soros and a few others) At All Costs.

It's a sad state when you have to defend and protect American citizens from the thievery of the American government.

It's an even sadder state when some of the wealthiest Americans have conned millions of average Americans into voting against their own rational self interest.

What the hell would a socialist know about self-interest??? The self-interest of freedom-loving individuals is best served by not having a jackboot on one's throat. That way, the opportunity that is our birthright is preserved.

 

[Murf76]

How many of you honesty could go to your neighbors and suggest the richest family in the neighborhood should pay everyone's electric bills? Even if you could, how many neighbors do you think would agree? What are the chances the richest neighbor won't just move away, if confronted by a bunch of neighbers with a petition?

I find it interesting that you have those with such altruistic ideals about fairness as long as it's someone else they think needs to contribute more. If they were the ones being asked for the larger portion, their altruism would quickly disappear.

Gee, you must be omniscient. You know that to be true - I'm impressed.

It doesn't take Miss Cleo's crystal ball to see that Democrats aren't falling all over themselves filling out that extra line on their tax form to DONATE their dollars to The Cause.

 

[francoHFW]

Dems aren't selfish a-holes...and thanks for the cronyism and corruption depression, and now un-American obstruction and BS propaganda.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why would you care how much money the guy has made or where he owns property or has bank accounts? What does that have to do with the job he's running for? Certainly, he's not in it for the money. The job only pays $400k per year. To a guy like him, that's chump change. By your stated opinion, his speeches aren't worth paying for... so what do you think is his motivation for seeking office? Certainly he's got plenty of cash, and if he was the nefarious cat y'all make him out to be, it follows he'd likely not want a whole lot of public scrutiny. So just what is it that you think he's plotting???

In a word, Ambition. That's what drives him.

I don't believe he has an agenda and I don't believe he is nefarious; I do believe he is a Plutocrat and believes in his heart and soul that when the rich do well it will trickle down to the rest. I know in my heart, my soul and my frontal lobe Voodoo Economics is a bullshit theory advanced to benefit the rich.

He's plotting nothing is what you're saying. No nefarious plan to murder more housewives.

See... Republicans don't have the greed and envy that you all do. We applaud economic success. We hope to enjoy it ourselves and to see other people enjoy it. We particularly hope that our children will enjoy more of it than we ourselves. While socialists believe that there's only so much pie to go around, capitalists believe that we can allways create more pie.

Erand has the salient point above. When the economy is drained of capital, it doesn't grow. No more pie. Right now, there are trillions of dollars hoarded up in bank accounts all over the world, afraid to invest, afraid to grow. And all because we have this big economic wet blanket submersing all the confidence we ought to have in our economy in the form of Barack Obama. NOTHING gets better until we peel it off. And THAT is Romney's "ambition". The guy has 5 sons and 16 grandchildren, and you and your philosophy threaten not only their future, but all of our futures.

You people fail to understand that Republicans are NOT anarchists who believe in lassez faire. We believe in the constitutional enumerated powers, which would include appropriate regulatory law, and we believe, despite our libertarian-leaning sensibilities on the placement of it, that there should be some sort of safety net. But your ideology will destroy those things, driving legitimate businesses under with onerous and political regulation, decreasing the revenue stream, and recklessly destroying our economic ability to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Do you honestly think there's going to be any resources available for the niceties of a decent society when we're pulling a trillion dollars in cash out of our asses by the end of the decade to service the debt?
Where are the necessary reforms for our broken entitlements? Where's the budget?

You don't know, that's where. Romney does. He's got a family to think of, same as I do.

You speak with contempt of "plutocrats", all the while IGNORING the rich bitches on your side of the aisle who have FAILED to do the nation's business they were elected to do. Harry Reid was a poor man when he came to Congress. He's a rich man now. Barack Obama has made his entire fortune peddling his ridiculous political agenda, never working a real job. Nancy Pelosi could buy and sell most of us, while Maxine Waters pushes legislation to serve herself. Wealth isn't the dividing line between good and bad people... obviously.

I said Romney is a plutocrat, you made the inference I suggested all Republicans are Plutocrats and no Democrats are Plutocrats. I don't feel any need to defend a position I did not assert and do not hold.

That said, plutocracy is what we have become, the rich make the laws, Congress is filled with wealthy men and women - both D's and R's. The Supreme Court drove the final nail into the coffin of democracy with their ruling in CU v. FEC and now the super rich are able to buy the rich men and women who make the laws which the hoi polloi must obey.

The irony of this is people like you aspire to be rich but are nothing like them. The type of government you hope for - I assume by your words - is one where R's are the majority in the House, in the Senate and hold the White House. Me, I prefer the mixed bag, the type of government where the R's and D's put the country first, and the country is the people - rich and poor, sick and healthy, gay and straight, black, white and every shade in between, catholic and Jew, Muslim and Jane, Hindi and Buddhist.

 

[Murf76]

In a word, Ambition. That's what drives him.

I don't believe he has an agenda and I don't believe he is nefarious; I do believe he is a Plutocrat and believes in his heart and soul that when the rich do well it will trickle down to the rest. I know in my heart, my soul and my frontal lobe Voodoo Economics is a bullshit theory advanced to benefit the rich.

He's plotting nothing is what you're saying. No nefarious plan to murder more housewives.

See... Republicans don't have the greed and envy that you all do. We applaud economic success. We hope to enjoy it ourselves and to see other people enjoy it. We particularly hope that our children will enjoy more of it than we ourselves. While socialists believe that there's only so much pie to go around, capitalists believe that we can allways create more pie.

Erand has the salient point above. When the economy is drained of capital, it doesn't grow. No more pie. Right now, there are trillions of dollars hoarded up in bank accounts all over the world, afraid to invest, afraid to grow. And all because we have this big economic wet blanket submersing all the confidence we ought to have in our economy in the form of Barack Obama. NOTHING gets better until we peel it off. And THAT is Romney's "ambition". The guy has 5 sons and 16 grandchildren, and you and your philosophy threaten not only their future, but all of our futures.

You people fail to understand that Republicans are NOT anarchists who believe in lassez faire. We believe in the constitutional enumerated powers, which would include appropriate regulatory law, and we believe, despite our libertarian-leaning sensibilities on the placement of it, that there should be some sort of safety net. But your ideology will destroy those things, driving legitimate businesses under with onerous and political regulation, decreasing the revenue stream, and recklessly destroying our economic ability to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Do you honestly think there's going to be any resources available for the niceties of a decent society when we're pulling a trillion dollars in cash out of our asses by the end of the decade to service the debt?
Where are the necessary reforms for our broken entitlements? Where's the budget?

You don't know, that's where. Romney does. He's got a family to think of, same as I do.

You speak with contempt of "plutocrats", all the while IGNORING the rich bitches on your side of the aisle who have FAILED to do the nation's business they were elected to do. Harry Reid was a poor man when he came to Congress. He's a rich man now. Barack Obama has made his entire fortune peddling his ridiculous political agenda, never working a real job. Nancy Pelosi could buy and sell most of us, while Maxine Waters pushes legislation to serve herself. Wealth isn't the dividing line between good and bad people... obviously.

I said Romney is a plutocrat, you made the inference I suggested all Republicans are Plutocrats and no Democrats are Plutocrats. I don't feel any need to defend a position I did not assert and do not hold.

That said, plutocracy is what we have become, the rich make the laws, Congress is filled with wealthy men and women - both D's and R's. The Supreme Court drove the final nail into the coffin of democracy with their ruling in CU v. FEC and now the super rich are able to buy the rich men and women who make the laws which the hoi polloi must obey.

The irony of this is people like you aspire to be rich but are nothing like them. The type of government you hope for - I assume by your words - is one where R's are the majority in the House, in the Senate and hold the White House. Me, I prefer the mixed bag, the type of government where the R's and D's put the country first, and the country is the people - rich and poor, sick and healthy, gay and straight, black, white and every shade in between, catholic and Jew, Muslim and Jane, Hindi and Buddhist.

I see no value in D's after this administration. My eyes have been opened on that score. The "progressive" (read socialist) wing of the party has overtaken it and the Blue Dogs are all but destroyed by it. But yeah, I would agree that legislation was not meant to be easy. It was meant to be measured, debated, and difficult.. as every new law limits liberty and comes inherently with unintended consequences.

That said, you have ZERO credible reasons for referring to Mitt Romney as a "plutocrat". There's literally nothing in his resume to support your assertion.


Edited to add... People aren't sheep. We've got a higher brain function. Personally, I believe that you can throw all the money you want at political ads and it won't make a hill of beans in the end if the people who are watching it are interested in the truth. Never before have we had such ready access to verifying the information which is fed to us through the media. And personally, I do believe more and more are shaking off their apathy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

He's plotting nothing is what you're saying. No nefarious plan to murder more housewives.

See... Republicans don't have the greed and envy that you all do. We applaud economic success. We hope to enjoy it ourselves and to see other people enjoy it. We particularly hope that our children will enjoy more of it than we ourselves. While socialists believe that there's only so much pie to go around, capitalists believe that we can allways create more pie.

Erand has the salient point above. When the economy is drained of capital, it doesn't grow. No more pie. Right now, there are trillions of dollars hoarded up in bank accounts all over the world, afraid to invest, afraid to grow. And all because we have this big economic wet blanket submersing all the confidence we ought to have in our economy in the form of Barack Obama. NOTHING gets better until we peel it off. And THAT is Romney's "ambition". The guy has 5 sons and 16 grandchildren, and you and your philosophy threaten not only their future, but all of our futures.

You people fail to understand that Republicans are NOT anarchists who believe in lassez faire. We believe in the constitutional enumerated powers, which would include appropriate regulatory law, and we believe, despite our libertarian-leaning sensibilities on the placement of it, that there should be some sort of safety net. But your ideology will destroy those things, driving legitimate businesses under with onerous and political regulation, decreasing the revenue stream, and recklessly destroying our economic ability to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Do you honestly think there's going to be any resources available for the niceties of a decent society when we're pulling a trillion dollars in cash out of our asses by the end of the decade to service the debt?
Where are the necessary reforms for our broken entitlements? Where's the budget?

You don't know, that's where. Romney does. He's got a family to think of, same as I do.

You speak with contempt of "plutocrats", all the while IGNORING the rich bitches on your side of the aisle who have FAILED to do the nation's business they were elected to do. Harry Reid was a poor man when he came to Congress. He's a rich man now. Barack Obama has made his entire fortune peddling his ridiculous political agenda, never working a real job. Nancy Pelosi could buy and sell most of us, while Maxine Waters pushes legislation to serve herself. Wealth isn't the dividing line between good and bad people... obviously.

I said Romney is a plutocrat, you made the inference I suggested all Republicans are Plutocrats and no Democrats are Plutocrats. I don't feel any need to defend a position I did not assert and do not hold.

That said, plutocracy is what we have become, the rich make the laws, Congress is filled with wealthy men and women - both D's and R's. The Supreme Court drove the final nail into the coffin of democracy with their ruling in CU v. FEC and now the super rich are able to buy the rich men and women who make the laws which the hoi polloi must obey.

The irony of this is people like you aspire to be rich but are nothing like them. The type of government you hope for - I assume by your words - is one where R's are the majority in the House, in the Senate and hold the White House. Me, I prefer the mixed bag, the type of government where the R's and D's put the country first, and the country is the people - rich and poor, sick and healthy, gay and straight, black, white and every shade in between, catholic and Jew, Muslim and Jane, Hindi and Buddhist.

I see no value in D's after this administration. My eyes have been opened on that score. The "progressive" (read socialist) wing of the party has overtaken it and the Blue Dogs are all but destroyed by it. But yeah, I would agree that legislation was not meant to be easy. It was meant to be measured, debated, and difficult.. as every new law limits liberty and comes inherently with unintended consequences.

That said, you have ZERO credible reasons for referring to Mitt Romney as a "plutocrat". There's literally nothing in his resume to support your assertion.

Since Gov. Romney is quite reticent on the source of his compensation, how do you know he is not a plutocrat? How do we know anything about his politics? Look to his time as Governor of MA? He's disavowed much of what he did. However, if you listen carefully to the Gov. and his wife, their comments are telling.

Your use of the term "socialist" is also telling, it tells me you have no understanding of Socialism and are only parroting the propaganda of right wing media.

 

[Darkwind]

Because the wealthy lead them around by their necks. The Republicans have become the party of Defend and Protect the Billionaires (Except Soros and a few others) At All Costs.

It's a sad state when you have to defend and protect American citizens from the thievery of the American government.

It's an even sadder state when some of the wealthiest Americans have conned millions of average Americans into voting against their own rational self interest.

My rational self-interest is not in keeping or getting handouts from government, but in keeping government from becoming so monsterous and abusive, I no longer have any freedom.

If the government, through the advocacy of its acolytes like you, succeed in making class warfare a useful weapon, and can use it against the most powerful people in this country, the ordinary, middle class, citizen does not stand a chance.

Our self interest lays in keeping government caged and severely restricted in power.

Fear mongers who cannot cut apron strings and live on their own two feet like adult men and women do not interest Me in the slightest.