Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

[Oddball]

So what is the fair share? I believe this answer can be solved mathematically based upon the information above. Unfortunately, I do not have the degree in economics to figure that out, but someone certainly could. They should start.

IOW, he has NFI and is willing to punt to socialist hack politicians and bureaucrats, just like a good little uncritical and unthinking prole.

 

[Billy000]

So what is the fair share? I believe this answer can be solved mathematically based upon the information above. Unfortunately, I do not have the degree in economics to figure that out, but someone certainly could. They should start.

IOW, he has NFI and is willing to punt to socialist hack politicians and bureaucrats, just like a good little uncritical and unthinking prole.

What?

 

[NYcarbineer]

President Barack Obama’s plan to make the tax code more “fair” by permanently raising taxes, on the top 1% by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Yet we have a Government that over spends more than a 1 trillion every year.

Bringing in 1.5 trillion over a 10 year period, is not going to help at all to bring down the spending in Washington.

Our Government brings in a little over 2.2 trillion every year and only 53% pay taxes.
2 trillion is more than enough for our government yet they spend 1 trillion more.

When does the growth stop? Each and every year government has gotten bigger and bigger and borrowed more and more.
Government has grown to an unsustainable amount and needs to be cut back.
They need to spend what they bring in and not borrow any more until we get our deficit down.

Raising taxes on the rich is not going to remedy the problem.

But the other reason why the deficit is so large is because there isn't enough revenue. Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point. What we need to do is stop government spending and raise taxes. Not just on the rich but the lower brackets as well.

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

It's like telling a person making 500K a year, with 5.5MIL in debt, that he is not making enough money or that he's a low earner and needs to make more... No.. The stupid ************ needs to live within his means... and this stupid motherfucking government needs to spend within it's means

Wrong. Today's revenue wouldn't balance any budget after 2004.

 

[Rozman]

This Regime will never be happy with the revenue it takes in.
When the Bush tax cuts expire,which the left have had such a hard on for happens
they will want more revenue on top of that.
The Democrat 2012 slogan should be.

We will never be happy with what government takes in for revenue.

 

[Billy000]

This Regime will never be happy with the revenue it takes inWhen the Bush tax cuts expire,which the left have had such a hard on for happens
they will want more revenue on top of that.
The Democrat 2012 slogan should be.

We will never be happy with what government takes in for revenue.

You shouldn't be happy. A lack of revenue is the other chief reason for the outrageous deficit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I certainly don't. I'd just like them to pay their fair share in taxes.

"Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?"

Dems could learn a lot from the publicity machine on the right. RW voters believe what is crammed down their throats. Lushbo has said he is paid for his lies. (Its true - look it up). Boehner, very possibly the worst Speaker in history barring the professional lizard, goes to Lushbo for orders and instructions (Its true - look it up.) Repub candidates are paid and supported by the biggest money in this country.

None of this is any big secret. They do this right out in the open and the voters know it.

There is indeed a "class war" going on and only a fool would say the poor are winning it.

One thing the libs/progressives/Dems need to understand is that ultra wealthy have never "paid their fair share" and never will.

Anybody go to casinos? Does anyone really believe that they have a "fair" chance of winning? Of course not.

Same with politics and we all need to face that reality.

Money wins and the GObP/pubs/bags/koch have the most money.

Which is not to say the Dems don't have money behind them. If you don't have big bucks, you have o chance in US politics. But, no way can the Dems compete with Kochs, big pharm, insurance, oil and the rest.

(Cracks me up when rw's say measly little union dues can compete with that.)

Like I said, Dems could learn a lot from the crooked pubs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The sooner you realize that paying taxes is a good thing, the sooner you can get away from this misguided thinking about liberalism and socialism.

The sooner you realize that paying taxes is NOT a good thing, but at best a necessary evil, the sooner you can get away from this misguided thinking about liberalism and socialism, and stop trying to force it on everyone and destroying the country in the process.

A lack of revenue is the other chief reason why the deficit is so high. Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point EVER.

Three trillion dollars is a lack of revenue? Really? In what Bizarro universe would that be? We only have a "lack of revenue" if you happen to think it's the federal government's job to fund every ******* financial transaction the people of the United States ever conduct.

Furthermore, no matter how many times you parrot, "Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point EVER", it is not going to make "tax increase" and "revenue increase" mean the same thing. You might as well give up clinging to your pig-ignorance like a whining child clinging to his security blanket, because reality is NOT going to change itself to suit your half-assed, two-brain-cell conceptions. Raising taxes is not how one increases revenue. Never has been, never will be. Deal with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I certainly don't. I'd just like them to pay their fair share in taxes.

I hope before I die someone form the left here
will explain just exactly what that term means.
Pay their fair share....
Aren't they paying it now?
Aren't they filing tax returns and doing so
according to the Tax code.
Are you upset that they aren't taxed 100% of their wealth.

I really wish just one left brain person on here would
stand up just once and explain just what they mean by fair share.



Aren't you guys happy that the Bush tax cut will end.
Are you guys gonna be satisfied then?I doubt it.
How much do you want people to pay in taxes?
When is it enough ?

It's a good question, and I will answer it.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

So what is the fair share? I believe this answer can be solved mathematically based upon the information above. Unfortunately, I do not have the degree in economics to figure that out, but someone certainly could. They should start.

Oh, and I personally would not mind paying more in taxes if I knew it was going to benefit the country as a whole.

I'm pretty sure no one asked for a dissertation on "My Inane, Puerile Ideas About How the World Works by Zero", so I am at a loss to figure out why you included it, instead of just giving the simple answer you already provided: "fair share" means "whatever it takes to make those fuckers as poor as everyone else".

It's not like any amount of justification is ever going to make us believe that you're right or that you're not a dumbass, so why bother pretending? Or is it just that you want to pretend you're a decent human being instead of a lazy, thieving asswipe?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Today's revenue wouldn't balance any budget after 2004.

So? We were spending too much then.

 

[Billy000]

The sooner you realize that paying taxes is NOT a good thing, but at best a necessary evil, the sooner you can get away from this misguided thinking about liberalism and socialism, and stop trying to force it on everyone and destroying the country in the process.

A lack of revenue is the other chief reason why the deficit is so high. Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point EVER.

Three trillion dollars is a lack of revenue? Really? In what Bizarro universe would that be? We only have a "lack of revenue" if you happen to think it's the federal government's job to fund every ******* financial transaction the people of the United States ever conduct.

Furthermore, no matter how many times you parrot, "Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point EVER", it is not going to make "tax increase" and "revenue increase" mean the same thing. You might as well give up clinging to your pig-ignorance like a whining child clinging to his security blanket, because reality is NOT going to change itself to suit your half-assed, two-brain-cell conceptions. Raising taxes is not how one increases revenue. Never has been, never will be. Deal with it.

I actually find it kind of funny you are so hostile for little reason. You must have a shitty social life.

Yikes.

 

[Billy000]

I hope before I die someone form the left here
will explain just exactly what that term means.
Pay their fair share....
Aren't they paying it now?
Aren't they filing tax returns and doing so
according to the Tax code.
Are you upset that they aren't taxed 100% of their wealth.

I really wish just one left brain person on here would
stand up just once and explain just what they mean by fair share.



Aren't you guys happy that the Bush tax cut will end.
Are you guys gonna be satisfied then?I doubt it.
How much do you want people to pay in taxes?
When is it enough ?

It's a good question, and I will answer it.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

So what is the fair share? I believe this answer can be solved mathematically based upon the information above. Unfortunately, I do not have the degree in economics to figure that out, but someone certainly could. They should start.

Oh, and I personally would not mind paying more in taxes if I knew it was going to benefit the country as a whole.

I'm pretty sure no one asked for a dissertation on "My Inane, Puerile Ideas About How the World Works by Zero", so I am at a loss to figure out why you included it, instead of just giving the simple answer you already provided: "fair share" means "whatever it takes to make those fuckers as poor as everyone else".

It's not like any amount of justification is ever going to make us believe that you're right or that you're not a dumbass, so why bother pretending? Or is it just that you want to pretend you're a decent human being instead of a lazy, thieving asswipe?

Oh, come on you're pathetic. You don't have an argument whatsoever, so what do you do? You call me a lazy asswipe. I think you just can't accept that I am right. Is the cognitive dissonance just too much for you?

It must be.

 

[editec]

Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

Because it fits with their childish narrative about the world generally.

 

[Cowman]

Well, conservatives love the trickle down.

Soothes the back of their throat and calms their stomach down.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGg2UdzLM4E]Soothing Action[/ame]

 

[Billy000]

Well, conservatives love the trickle down.

Soothes the back of their throat and calms their stomach down.

Soothing Action

Oh.

 

[Oddball]

A lack of revenue is the other chief reason why the deficit is so high. Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point EVER.

Three trillion dollars is a lack of revenue? Really? In what Bizarro universe would that be? We only have a "lack of revenue" if you happen to think it's the federal government's job to fund every ******* financial transaction the people of the United States ever conduct.

Furthermore, no matter how many times you parrot, "Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point EVER", it is not going to make "tax increase" and "revenue increase" mean the same thing. You might as well give up clinging to your pig-ignorance like a whining child clinging to his security blanket, because reality is NOT going to change itself to suit your half-assed, two-brain-cell conceptions. Raising taxes is not how one increases revenue. Never has been, never will be. Deal with it.

I actually find it kind of funny you are so hostile for little reason. You must have a shitty social life.

Yikes.

For a little dweeb who demands that people stay on the subject, you sure went personal pretty quickly.

Then again, it's nigh impossible to defend the claim that a gubmint taking in in excess of $2.5 trillion a year and still can't make ends meet doesn't have a profound spending problem, so it's easy to see where a neo-Marxist plebeian such as yourself would need to misdirect and change the subject.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A lack of revenue is the other chief reason why the deficit is so high. Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point EVER.

Three trillion dollars is a lack of revenue? Really? In what Bizarro universe would that be? We only have a "lack of revenue" if you happen to think it's the federal government's job to fund every ******* financial transaction the people of the United States ever conduct.

Furthermore, no matter how many times you parrot, "Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point EVER", it is not going to make "tax increase" and "revenue increase" mean the same thing. You might as well give up clinging to your pig-ignorance like a whining child clinging to his security blanket, because reality is NOT going to change itself to suit your half-assed, two-brain-cell conceptions. Raising taxes is not how one increases revenue. Never has been, never will be. Deal with it.

I actually find it kind of funny you are so hostile for little reason. You must have a shitty social life.

Yikes.

Awwww. Did wittle Billy get his feelings hurt? It's a pain when there's no teacher to run to and tattle about the naughty words, huh?

I'll take this as a "I can't argue your points, so I'm going to sulk about how mean you were." Run along, Junior. There are some really nice knitting boards out there. That's probably more your speed.

 

[Dragon]

For a little dweeb who demands that people stay on the subject, you sure went personal pretty quickly.

He was talking to Cecilie. She's the one who went personal, as she invariably does. He responded by going personal back. I respond by putting her on ignore.

Then again, it's nigh impossible to defend the claim that a gubmint taking in in excess of $2.5 trillion a year and still can't make ends meet doesn't have a profound spending problem

You know, that business about "it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem" says to me that the people saying it -- if they are saying it honestly -- never understood a basic principle of algebra, the addition property of equations: whatever is added to or subtracted from one side of the equation must be added to or subtracted from the other side as well.

So in order to have a balanced budget (which is basically an equation, while an unbalanced budget is an inequality), if you have an increase in spending you must also have an equal increase in revenue, and if you have a decrease in revenue you must also have a decrease in spending. There is no inherent validity of one side of the equation over the other. The idea that reductions in revenue don't produce deficits is just mathematical nonsense. Of course they do, and that's the main thing happening now: a reduction in revenue caused by the Great Recession.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a good question, and I will answer it.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

So what is the fair share? I believe this answer can be solved mathematically based upon the information above. Unfortunately, I do not have the degree in economics to figure that out, but someone certainly could. They should start.

Oh, and I personally would not mind paying more in taxes if I knew it was going to benefit the country as a whole.

I'm pretty sure no one asked for a dissertation on "My Inane, Puerile Ideas About How the World Works by Zero", so I am at a loss to figure out why you included it, instead of just giving the simple answer you already provided: "fair share" means "whatever it takes to make those fuckers as poor as everyone else".

It's not like any amount of justification is ever going to make us believe that you're right or that you're not a dumbass, so why bother pretending? Or is it just that you want to pretend you're a decent human being instead of a lazy, thieving asswipe?

Oh, come on you're pathetic. You don't have an argument whatsoever, so what do you do? You call me a lazy asswipe. I think you just can't accept that I am right. Is the cognitive dissonance just too much for you?

It must be.

You're the one who said it, loser. Just because you're hoping it'll be buried under a mass of posts and no one will remember it doesn't mean that's what's going to happen. And don't blame me if you don't like hearing it stated more clearly.

Post #7 of this thread:

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.

Translated: They pay most of the taxes, but they still have too much money left, so tax 'em until they don't.

I don't need any more argument than your own frigging words, little boy. And anyone who says, "Other people should carry all the burden for the rest of us" is a lazy asswipe, so if the shoe fits . . .

 

[RDD_1210]

Three trillion dollars is a lack of revenue? Really? In what Bizarro universe would that be? We only have a "lack of revenue" if you happen to think it's the federal government's job to fund every ******* financial transaction the people of the United States ever conduct.

Furthermore, no matter how many times you parrot, "Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point EVER", it is not going to make "tax increase" and "revenue increase" mean the same thing. You might as well give up clinging to your pig-ignorance like a whining child clinging to his security blanket, because reality is NOT going to change itself to suit your half-assed, two-brain-cell conceptions. Raising taxes is not how one increases revenue. Never has been, never will be. Deal with it.

I actually find it kind of funny you are so hostile for little reason. You must have a shitty social life.

Yikes.

Awwww. Did wittle Billy get his feelings hurt? It's a pain when there's no teacher to run to and tattle about the naughty words, huh?

I'll take this as a "I can't argue your points, so I'm going to sulk about how mean you were." Run along, Junior. There are some really nice knitting boards out there. That's probably more your speed.

Id just like to add that I love every time you post something. I can just see you getting all worked up at your computer as you type out your message which I know you think is brilliant each time, with your multiple insults. You're not to be taken seriously, you're a cartoon character. Thank you for the steady stream of laughs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For a little dweeb who demands that people stay on the subject, you sure went personal pretty quickly.

He was talking to Cecilie. She's the one who went personal, as she invariably does. He responded by going personal back. I respond by putting her on ignore.

Then again, it's nigh impossible to defend the claim that a gubmint taking in in excess of $2.5 trillion a year and still can't make ends meet doesn't have a profound spending problem

You know, that business about "it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem" says to me that the people saying it -- if they are saying it honestly -- never understood a basic principle of algebra, the addition property of equations: whatever is added to or subtracted from one side of the equation must be added to or subtracted from the other side as well.

So in order to have a balanced budget (which is basically an equation, while an unbalanced budget is an inequality), if you have an increase in spending you must also have an equal increase in revenue, and if you have a decrease in revenue you must also have a decrease in spending. There is no inherent validity of one side of the equation over the other. The idea that reductions in revenue don't produce deficits is just mathematical nonsense. Of course they do, and that's the main thing happening now: a reduction in revenue caused by the Great Recession.

Yeah, ALGEBRA tells us that THREE TRILLION DOLLARS isn't enough revenue for the government, and we need to tax people more.

Actually, given the state of our public schools, Dragon's algebra teacher probably DID tell him/her/it this.

And running through all of this is the continued pigheaded, "Lalalala, tax increases are revenue increases, Obama says so, so I'm not going to hear anyone telling me they aren't the same thing, Lalala, my fingers are in my ears, everyone agrees with the lies Obama tells me".