Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

[Article 15]

Are you willing to cut spending to Clinton levels as well because you can't have one without the other.

No.

I am willing to cut spending but not all the way down to Clinton levels. The last budget Clinton submitted was for $1.9 trillion dollars. Under our current tax rates we took in approximately $2.3 trillion last year.

Furthermore, any cutting of spending should be done incrementally over a period of time.

We weren't engaged in a war either so if you don't want to cut spending you are in favor of higher deficits and more debt.

As i said you can't have one without the other and expect to make any headway in cleaning up the financial **** fest that out lackadaisical leaders and reprehensible representatives got us into.

I didn't say I don't want to cut spending. I said I didn't want to cut spending down to Clinton levels like you suggested and I explained why. You don't need to cut spending down to Clinton levels to get it done.

 

[Article 15]

There is an UNGODLY amount of revenue.... It is a goddamn spending problem...

Tell you what. Let's start on the spending side, and let's start with the Defense Department. As was suggested above, close down most of our foreign bases, end our entangling alliances, bring our troops home, redefine the military's mission as defense of the United States rather than projecting American power abroad, and cut it to a size appropriate for that mission. Can we agree on that?

While we're at it, let's cut out the corporate subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry and other examples of corporate welfare. Can we agree there, too?

Oh, and foreign aid, especially in the form of military hardware. Can we agree to deep-six most of that spending?

Those are the only parts of the federal budget that I would agree need to be cut. Oh, wait -- legalize drugs and release nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison (and in state prisons, too). That would save money on law enforcement and the penal system.

Most other parts of the federal budget I would not agree to cut, and some I would want to actually expand, most notably spending on infrastructure repair and education. But the above are cuts I would like to see happen. The military cut alone would represent a huge savings. But would it be enough to balance the budget?

Frankly, I'm skeptical. I'm especially skeptical that it would be enough to balance the budget if we're also to expand spending in certain areas where it's really badly needed. I suspect we're eventually going to need to raise taxes, at least by putting them back to Clinton-era levels.

**** you you little socialist.. you only pick and choose things that don't contribute to your socialist agenda... **** you and your wealth redistribution entitlement programs.... THOSE should be the first things cut

You're such a jackass.

Ain't nobody gonna take a anything you say seriously, dude.

 

[Oddball]

I didn't say I don't want to cut spending. I said I didn't want to cut spending down to Clinton levels like you suggested and I explained why. You don't need to cut spending down to Clinton levels to get it done.

If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.

Better yet, let's go back to Coolidge's spending levels.

 

[Article 15]

I didn't say I don't want to cut spending. I said I didn't want to cut spending down to Clinton levels like you suggested and I explained why. You don't need to cut spending down to Clinton levels to get it done.

If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.

Better yet, let's go back to Coolidge's spending levels.

Sorry, Dude, they don't.

 

[Oddball]

I didn't say I don't want to cut spending. I said I didn't want to cut spending down to Clinton levels like you suggested and I explained why. You don't need to cut spending down to Clinton levels to get it done.

If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.

Better yet, let's go back to Coolidge's spending levels.

Sorry, Dude, they don't.

Of course they don't....No matter how much you get, it's never ever enough, izzit?

 

[Article 15]

If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.

Better yet, let's go back to Coolidge's spending levels.

Sorry, Dude, they don't.

Of course they don't....No matter how much you get, it's never ever enough, izzit?

Never said that either and you know it.

Play that game with someone else.

 

[Oddball]

Funny how you claim not to play that game, yet can still say that a bloated socialistic welfare state of the size that existed a scant dozen years ago isn't big enough.

What is big enough?...What's too big?

 

[Clementine]

What is their fair share?

The top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15% of their income in federal taxes. Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%.

Of course the top 1% pay more in taxes, but given their income, they aren't paying enough. Their tax rates are at an all time low.

Check out the graphs on pages 9-11 in my signature.

Typical liberal thinking when they say someone has more than they need, so they should give it up. The wealthy already pay nearly twice the percent the middle class does and 4 times the percent of the lower earners. What is enough? Half? That's what Canadians paid when they had their ultra liberals in power. Maybe the government should just take all the money and dole it out equally and then they'll be the only wealthy people in the country.

Why it is that people look at wealth and say those people shouldn't make that much or should give more of it up? They earned it. I suppose in the future, liberals will start making people move out of homes that are bigger than they need. That's already happening in some socialist countries. Who in the hell are liberals to say some have no right to keep more of what they earn, even though they pay more than others already? Obama did say that at some point, people have made enough money, so I see where he's going with his agenda.

The liberals are more interested in funding their dependents rather than encouraging them to go out and create their own wealth. Wealthy people are the favorite targets of liberals, though many liberals are wealthy and they sure love those rich people when they are looking for campaign donations. Obama wants a trillion dollars for his campaign and we know damn well he isn't getting it from his average supporters.

 

[francoHFW]

If you include all taxes and fees, everyone pays about the same to the gov't %wise- FACT-, but the richest 1% have doubled to quadruped their wealth in the last 30 years while everyone else is squeezed, and the country falls apart..

EVEN IT UP!! Adding 4% for the rich is not communism or looting, ya brainwashed dupes, fer chrissake. Change the channel!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

It’s the consequence of the myth of ‘class warfare,’ a tedious and inane contrivance by the right designed to deflect criticism from the republicans’ propensity to be more concerned about the welfare of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

The most idiotic aspect of the myth is the fact that a significant number of liberals are indeed themselves wealthy.

 

[DiamondDave]

If you include all taxes and fees, everyone pays about the same to the gov't %wise- FACT-, but the richest 1% have doubled to quadruped their wealth in the last 30 years while everyone else is squeezed, and the country falls apart..

EVEN IT UP!! Adding 4% for the rich is not communism or looting, ya brainwashed dupes, fer chrissake. Change the channel!

Then I guess adding 4% to those paying nothing in federal income tax now is not looting or 'unfair' either

 

[DiamondDave]

Tell you what. Let's start on the spending side, and let's start with the Defense Department. As was suggested above, close down most of our foreign bases, end our entangling alliances, bring our troops home, redefine the military's mission as defense of the United States rather than projecting American power abroad, and cut it to a size appropriate for that mission. Can we agree on that?

While we're at it, let's cut out the corporate subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry and other examples of corporate welfare. Can we agree there, too?

Oh, and foreign aid, especially in the form of military hardware. Can we agree to deep-six most of that spending?

Those are the only parts of the federal budget that I would agree need to be cut. Oh, wait -- legalize drugs and release nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison (and in state prisons, too). That would save money on law enforcement and the penal system.

Most other parts of the federal budget I would not agree to cut, and some I would want to actually expand, most notably spending on infrastructure repair and education. But the above are cuts I would like to see happen. The military cut alone would represent a huge savings. But would it be enough to balance the budget?

Frankly, I'm skeptical. I'm especially skeptical that it would be enough to balance the budget if we're also to expand spending in certain areas where it's really badly needed. I suspect we're eventually going to need to raise taxes, at least by putting them back to Clinton-era levels.

**** you you little socialist.. you only pick and choose things that don't contribute to your socialist agenda... **** you and your wealth redistribution entitlement programs.... THOSE should be the first things cut

You're such a jackass.

Ain't nobody gonna take a anything you say seriously, dude.

No.... I am a loud and uncensored average joe... who will condemn and loudly call out any self proclaimed socialist piece of shit

 

[bripat9643]

If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.

Better yet, let's go back to Coolidge's spending levels.

Sorry, Dude, they don't.

In other words, you are a tax and spend liberal

 

[hortysir]

But it takes 2 jobs per household to do it. People in the so-called working class on working class wages aren't buying homes and raising families, etc., on 1 paycheck,

like my father, and most fathers, did years ago. Years ago as in before someone decided that cutting taxes for the Rich would make everyone's lives better.

Bullshit.

My wife and I have been married for 18 years.
She hasn't held a job since the day she said "I do".
We've all but raised 6 of our 10 grandkids.

And, no, I don't make six figures.

If we can't afford it on my income, we just don't get it.
Thing is, though, we have it all.

 

[bripat9643]

Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

It’s the consequence of the myth of ‘class warfare,’ a tedious and inane contrivance by the right designed to deflect criticism from the republicans’ propensity to be more concerned about the welfare of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

In the same sentence that he calls class warfare a myth, he engages in class warfare.

Liberals kill me!

The most idiotic aspect of the myth is the fact that a significant number of liberals are indeed themselves wealthy.

Yes, that is idiotic. It's idiotic to watch Nazi Pelosi calling wealthy people evil right before she jets off for a $10,000/day hotel suite in Hawaii.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm all for cutting spending but I also believe that cutting spending too much and too quickly would seriously hurt the economy and possibly could lead to another recession.

In the UK spending was cut too deeply which in turn slowed growth and led to a good sized drop in their GNP projections and realization. Many economist are predicting a recession in the UK as soon as 2012 as the result of slowing the economy too much.

IMF: UK Should Slow Spending Cuts If Growth Disappoints
https://mninews.deutsche-boerse.com...ould-slow-spending-cuts-if-growth-disappoints


Economy watch: Is Britain heading back into recession?
Economy watch: Is Britain heading back into recession? | This is Money

 

[Article 15]

Funny how you claim not to play that game, yet can still say that a bloated socialistic welfare state of the size that existed a scant dozen years ago isn't big enough.

What is big enough?...What's too big?

I don't have an answer to that. I'm looking to balance a budget not get government to a size that is acceptable to me. Like I said, go play that game with somebody else.

 

[Oddball]

I'm all for cutting spending but I also believe that cutting spending too much and too quickly would seriously hurt the economy and possibly could lead to another recession.

In the UK spending was cut too deeply which in turn slowed growth and led to a good sized drop in their GNP projections and realization. Many economist are predicting a recession in the UK as soon as 2012 as the result of slowing the economy too much.

Oh, so bureaucrats shouldn't be exposed to the same negative effects of artificially pumped up bubble economies, as have those participating out in the real world.

Glad to know whose side you stand on, tovarich.

 

[auditor0007]

What is their fair share?

The top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15% of their income in federal taxes. Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%.

Actually, they pay a comparable amount in taxes as they earn, and that is based on the numbers you just stated, which in fact are good numbers. They are not paying more than their fair share currently. In fact they are paying just about exactly the amount they should if everything was meant to be exactly fair to everyone, that you pay an equal amount based on what you earn.

The real question is whether or not they should actually pay more than that amount. The funny thing is that for years, or even decades, we have agreed to a progressive tax system, yet based on the numbers you just stated, the system is closer to a flat tax system rather than a progressive system. Based on that alone, I think they should pay more. I have no problem with the super wealthy, and even the just kinda wealthy, paying a little more than everyone else, especially if not doing so is allowing them to create massive long term wealth at the expense of everyone else. If the middle and lower income earners had seen the same or even close to the same rate of growth in their income as the top ten percent has over the last forty years, then there would be no problem. However, what has happened is that the top income earners have seen their wealth explode while the rest of America has seen only small increases if any, and healthcare costs alone have outpaced any of those gains, so in the end, it has turned into a net negative.

The fact is, no matter how you want to spin it, we are losing people from the middle class and it's going to have a terrible long term effect on our economy if we don't find a way to change this.

 

[Oddball]

Funny how you claim not to play that game, yet can still say that a bloated socialistic welfare state of the size that existed a scant dozen years ago isn't big enough.

What is big enough?...What's too big?

I don't have an answer to that. I'm looking to balance a budget not get government to a size that is acceptable to me. Like I said, go play that game with somebody else.

Of course you don't have an answer to that...That's the point.

You claim to want balance, without any definition as to how it manifests itself...Then you accuse those of wanting clear and unambiguous answers as to what constitutes "balance" of playing games.

Nut up or shut up.