Why Do Liberals In Washington Really Love Tax Increases?

[rdean]

Elitist scum, Marxist, the "New World Order"?

Yea, Republicans have gone over the edge.

When you look at Republican Administrations and Democratic Administrations, you see deficit explosions during the RA. But, Republicans have repeated the talking points so many times, they actually and truly believe them.

No introspection. No self study. No shame. Just delusions and lies. It is really so sad that such a large group of people should be so pathetic.

When much more than 50% of a 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut goes only to a very few people, then indeed, that was a "tax cut"for "Bush's Friends". Probably everyone he knows in the "white only" gated community he lives in now.

And Republicans still can't explain how you can have a tax cut and two wars. 2.4 trillion tax cut, 3 trillion dollar war, the taxes could have paid for the war. Instead, you've introduced nearly 6 trillion in deficit. And you ALL KNOW that Bush didn't include the cost of the wars or the effects of his tax cuts in his budgets. You know that to be true. And still you lie and lie. What kind of people are you?

 

[Madeline]

It is a control issue, not a money issue. If it were a money issue, we wouldn't have a capital gains tax

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

Jillian, the only reason we have a separate schedule for capital gains is so they can be taxed at lower rates. Sell a stock and make $100, you'll pay $15 in tax. Earn $100 digging ditches, you'll pay as much as $35 in tax. Some folks think if income is taxable, the same rate should apply across the board.

The older I get, the more I tend to agree with the "flat tax" folks.

 

[onecut39]

It's not that liberals love tax increases, it's that they understand the reality that you would have to be either hopelessly insane or stupid to the point of "drooling idiot" to believe that you could cut taxes during a time a war.

Know anyone who did that? Yes, two presidents. But for entirely different reasons.

The first one did it to give his friends money.

The second one did it to get enough support to save the economy.

The first one is unforgivable.

The second one is understandable.

Isn' tit odd that conservatives claim to be ""fiscally conservative"...............and yet.

Of our approximately 13 trillion dollar debt about 9 trillion of it was run up on consevative watch.

Ronald Reagan increased the size of government and almost tripled the national debt'
Ronnie cut taxes by a record amount, but then increased them until the result was basically a wash.

Bush the first managed to spend almost as much money..........in only four years. Of course the government got bigger.

Then we had Bush 2. King of the big bucks. He managed to double the debt. Remember, his two conservative predecessors had, themselves, managed to almost quadruple it.

Bush 2 ran up over 5 trillion in debt. Leaving over a trillion dollar deficit to Obama.
And of course the government had expanded.

I cannot understand why, when they speak of being "fiscally conservative" the Republicans are not met with hysterical laughter.

I am finding it hard not to crack up at this moment.

 

[Ava]

It seems like everything they do eventually ends up leading to possible tax increases.

Overweight kids may even lead to it. I'm not kidding!!!

They've spent us into so much debt...on purpose....just so they can pass more tax increases.

But why do they always seem to do this?

They've been dreaming up ways of increasing our taxes for decades and all it ends up doing is pissing people off. So they've made it popular in some circles to raise our taxes to pay for all of the wonderful things they've implemented.


Truth is Democrats can't help it. The only way they know how to gain power is by making us beholding to them.

So if you think about it logically they really don't want us to be able to live without them.

What better way to do this then to take away our independence....or in other words...take away most of our income.

Discuss.

Because taxes are hard on the tax payer and the economy and further enslaves the citizens to dependecy on the government who has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

[mudwhistle]

It is a control issue, not a money issue. If it were a money issue, we wouldn't have a capital gains tax

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

It's one of the biggest barriers to job growth in the economy.

It also in the short term reduces revenue....because wealth production in the states is stifled...so investors move their money out of the country.

It is a massive tax that makes the rich want to live and do business elsewhere.

 

[onecut39]

Money is moved out of the country because slave wages are available elsewhere. Even our minimum wage cannot compete with workers who are separated from slavery by a few dollars a day.

Couple that with the fact that you can incorporate in the cayman islands and pay no taxes at all and you have the business man's wet dream.

Not so good for the US. Seems that is none of their concern.

 

[boedicca]

Immaturity.

It's always tempting for kids to ask for a raise in allowance instead of getting a job to earn money.

Congress is filled with people who have never really worked in the private sector and have relied on the allowance concept their entire lives.

This is very true. I would ask Mud whether we should really be singling out 'Liberals' (and to be honest, there are very, very few genuine Liberals in Congress - more's the pity)... or should we just say 'Congress'. It appears to me that the love of other people's money is a bipartisan disease and one that prevents intelligent people from voting from any of these insects.

Both parties are guilty. To say it is limited to people with a Democrat or Liberal label is incorrect. The problem with having Power Over Other People's Money is that it's Very Tempting. One earmark here, one earmark there, a bit more pork here, a bit more pork there, and voila: massive spending, deficits, and debt.

This is why the Tea Party Movement has risen.

Enough.

 

[boedicca]

It is a control issue, not a money issue. If it were a money issue, we wouldn't have a capital gains tax

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

It's simple.

Capital gains will largely be reinvested, leading to job creation.

Taxes on capital gains will be controlled by The Government, which will largely waste the money.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It seems like everything they do eventually ends up leading to possible tax increases.

....Especially after a BUSH was in the Oval Office!!!!​

"In fact Clinton admitted that he had no idea of the size of the fraud and malfeasance committed against the American people during the previous 12 years of the Bushonian Cabal.

When Bush left the White House, the last debt numbers published by the Bush Regime was $5.66 trillion, when, in fact, the actual size of the debt was about $14 trillion. In other words, the national debt was about three times the stated numbers.

Clinton got very nervous because one of the things he had done very early in the regime was try to get his people to figure out how much the nation was in debt and what the actual size of the then current budget deficit was. Nobody in the Clinton Administration knew. They knew they were inheriting a federal budget deficit.

The Bush Administration had publicly stated that the federal budget deficit for fiscal 1992 was $360 billion. As it turned out, the fiscal budget deficit for 1992 going into calendar year 1993 was over $700 billion."

 

[onecut39]

Prove it. What data supports that?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's not that liberals love tax increases, it's that they understand the reality that you would have to be either hopelessly insane or stupid to the point of "drooling idiot" to believe that you could cut taxes during a time a war.

Know anyone who did that? Yes, two presidents. But for entirely different reasons.

The first one did it to give his friends money.

The second one did it to get enough support to save the economy.

The first one is unforgivable.

The second one is understandable.

Nobody ever cut taxes to give their friends money.

It's called..."Letting everyone keep their own money."

.....Spoken by someone who could (always) count on Mommy & Daddy to cover any exce$$ive-$pending!!!!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

It is a control issue, not a money issue. If it were a money issue, we wouldn't have a capital gains tax

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

Jillian, the only reason we have a separate schedule for capital gains is so they can be taxed at lower rates. Sell a stock and make $100, you'll pay $15 in tax. Earn $100 digging ditches, you'll pay as much as $35 in tax. Some folks think if income is taxable, the same rate should apply across the board.

The older I get, the more I tend to agree with the "flat tax" folks.

That's a fallacy. Ditch-diggers usually don't pay any taxes...because of their deductions.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The answer to why liberals in Washington love tax increases comes down to a simple matter of jobs. Their own. I look at it as their abuse of a progressive tax system for their own empowerment. This system allows for them to parade one "feel good" social program after another to the voters, the vast majority of which will give little consideration to their costs.

It's called Fiscal Responsibility (No.....not the "conservative"-version).

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

Jillian, the only reason we have a separate schedule for capital gains is so they can be taxed at lower rates. Sell a stock and make $100, you'll pay $15 in tax. Earn $100 digging ditches, you'll pay as much as $35 in tax. Some folks think if income is taxable, the same rate should apply across the board.

The older I get, the more I tend to agree with the "flat tax" folks.

That's a fallacy. Ditch-diggers usually don't pay any taxes...because of their deductions.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....great numbers you showed everyone, there!!

​

 

[mudwhistle]

It's not that liberals love tax increases, it's that they understand the reality that you would have to be either hopelessly insane or stupid to the point of "drooling idiot" to believe that you could cut taxes during a time a war.

Know anyone who did that? Yes, two presidents. But for entirely different reasons.

The first one did it to give his friends money.

The second one did it to get enough support to save the economy.

The first one is unforgivable.

The second one is understandable.

Nobody ever cut taxes to give their friends money.

It's called..."Letting everyone keep their own money."

.....Spoken by someone who could (always) count on Mommy & Daddy to cover any exce$$ive-$pending!!!!!!

Yeah...I'm one rich SOB.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is a control issue, not a money issue. If it were a money issue, we wouldn't have a capital gains tax

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

Jillian, the only reason we have a separate schedule for capital gains is so they can be taxed at lower rates. Sell a stock and make $100, you'll pay $15 in tax. Earn $100 digging ditches, you'll pay as much as $35 in tax. Some folks think if income is taxable, the same rate should apply across the board.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Madeline]

It seems like everything they do eventually ends up leading to possible tax increases.

Overweight kids may even lead to it. I'm not kidding!!!

They've spent us into so much debt...on purpose....just so they can pass more tax increases.

But why do they always seem to do this?

They've been dreaming up ways of increasing our taxes for decades and all it ends up doing is pissing people off. So they've made it popular in some circles to raise our taxes to pay for all of the wonderful things they've implemented.


Truth is Democrats can't help it. The only way they know how to gain power is by making us beholding to them.

So if you think about it logically they really don't want us to be able to live without them.

What better way to do this then to take away our independence....or in other words...take away most of our income.

Discuss.

Because taxes are hard on the tax payer and the economy and further enslaves the citizens to dependecy on the government who has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

AquaAthena, it is disingenuous to speak of "the government" and "the taxpayer" as if they were separate and distinct group of people. There has been such a radical shift in government in this country, MORE people today work for a federal, state of local government than work in the private sector.

The public sector pays better. That's one reason for the migration from private to public employment, but the main reason is the bloating of the public trough and ALL adminstrations since the turn of the century have enlarged government.

These government jobs obviously do not contribute directly to the US's GDP. The guy who regulates me does not "produce" anything...he just controls my production. And not only must I endure his rules and sometimes pay his costs, I have to underwrite the whole shooting match's payroll with my taxes, earned on what I was allowed to produce. A system as top-heavy as ours is unsustainable.

Nonetheless, all humanoids in the US are taxpayers, both private and public sector employees. Even Huge International Conglomerate Inc. pays taxes occasionally. Not often, but sometimes.

You seem like a bright lady. Look into the facts, miss. I think you'll change your mind.

 

[mudwhistle]

Jillian, the only reason we have a separate schedule for capital gains is so they can be taxed at lower rates. Sell a stock and make $100, you'll pay $15 in tax. Earn $100 digging ditches, you'll pay as much as $35 in tax. Some folks think if income is taxable, the same rate should apply across the board.

The older I get, the more I tend to agree with the "flat tax" folks.

That's a fallacy. Ditch-diggers usually don't pay any taxes...because of their deductions.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....great numbers you showed everyone, there!!

​

How long have you been a taxpayer??

You must not be aware of that tax scale in the back of your IRS booklet or if you're using Turbotax it tells you what your tax is.

You know....the one that tells you after you figure out your taxable income how much taxes you owe.

You are aware of that right?

Usually Ditch-diggers don't make a whole heck of alot....and then their standard deduction cancels out half of their earned income...then add Earned Income deductions for children and so-forth....by the time they figure out their taxable income it doesn't amount to much or anything.

 

[MaggieMae]

Republican voters refuse to accept cuts to Social Security, Medicare or defense. They make up the lion's share of the budget. How do you intend to pay for those things? More debt? At some point you have to face the fact that these things are widely demanded by Republicans.

Has any voice representing these "New" conservatives who want to take the reins next January on Capital Hill actually said which areas of the budget they would cut? We constantly hear about those evil earmarks, which only represent 2% or less of annual spending. We also hear about those folks (about 40%) who pay zero income taxes, and that corporations are over-taxed, but where's all the hoopla from the right that mega corporations like General Electric also paid zero in corporate taxes last year and neither did Exxon-Mobil?

GE, Exxon Paid No U.S. Income Taxes in 2009 - ABC News

 

[MaggieMae]

I am a child of the 50's. I am lucky to be the son of a very wealthy liberal democrat attorney. The tax rates that HE paid in the Eisenhower years were more than twice as high as they are today.

He never once complained about paying higher taxes because he knew that he lived very well in our society and that he could afford to pay high taxes and still provide for his family in fine fashion.

Liberal democrats know that our nation can and has prospered with much higher tax rates than we have today and that we can certainly afford to increase the marginal tax rate a few measley percentage points without causing any traumatic effects.

When the Bush tax cuts end, the tax rate will be boosted to about 39% where it was during the 90's, the last time the economy was booming and it was an employEE's market (good paying jobs), not an employER's market (job losses, stagnant wages, minimum if any benefits).