Liberals and Romney's taxes

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Bull$hit...It was part of a calculated effort to paint Democrats as weak by personally exploiting 9/11.

Class warfare has been around and will be around forever.

-spence

Class WARFARE has not always been around in America.

Human nature has always been around and ENVIOUS, but that is a far cry from the diviseve class WARFARE we have seen over the past few years.

If we are honest, we both know that the warfare is being propagated by politicians
to get votes.
United we stand, divided we fall.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Class warfare has been around and will be around forever.

-spence

Spence, you say class warfare has been around forever. Even if I agree with that (which I do not), didn't Obama run on "hope and change"? So why can he defend his horrible tactics by saying "everyone else does it".

Sorry. If his entire 2008 campaign was based on some vague notion called "change", he cannot then say he's only hitting below the belt "because everyone does it". He was supposed to be different, right? Or am I remembering the 2008 campaign incorrectly?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran?

Again, the hypocrisy. Kennedy had mega bucks from his father who got them
from questionable sources.
In addition Jacquelin set the style for the day with her expensive clothes
and was an avid horeswoman that owned many horses.

While there was talk of Joe Kennedy's $ sources, I never remember any class
warfare over John's money or criticism about his wife's expensive clothes
or horses.

[Mr. Sandman]

Found this laying round my hard drive...


The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)


This is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%



*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.



The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.



As far as Romney sheltering any income, that is his right. He didn't lie about it. You can do it too, and you WOULD do it if you earned that kind of money. For example, the US government has triple tax free bonds you can buy, you can even by them in a fund so even regular people can play the game.


The fact is Obama has pissed away more money and done less with what he spent than just about all the presidents combined. Frankly I think Romney is far more fiscally responsible that obama, but don't expect free hand outs and checks just sent to people to stimulate the economy. Who in turn run to Walmart and buy something made in china. What an idiot he was with that program.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

The fact is Obama has pissed away more money and done less with what he spent than just about all the presidents combined. .

Very true, and somethiing that in a fair world, would result in Obama getting clobbered in November. No one has ever spent that kind of dough with nothing to show for it. And he's probably going to get re-elected. I don't get it. He spent a ton of money, has very little to show for it, and he's a lying, vindictive, race-baiting jerk on top of all that.

Matt Damon recently said he was disappointed in Obama's performance. Every other president lets that go. Not Obama. Obama had to say somethiing like "hey Matt, I saw your new movie, and I was disappointed in your performance too". That's presidential?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.


.

Tax increases for the rich to pay down our debt is bunk.

It's estimated the increased taxes would bring in $80-$90 Billion, chump change when it comes to a $16 Trilion debt.
If it were put to the debt, like they claim it would , how would that create jobs and improve the economy?
Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy, creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the debt.

Cutting all Govt programs by 10% ,prolly all waste anyway, is the way to go.
I can hear it now, "we can't cut entitlement programs, what will people do?"
Tighten their belt just like families do when less money is coming in.
We are broke. Libs have great intentions but lead with their emotions instead of their heads.
Again, we are broke. Our Gross national product is 1 Trillion less than our debt.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the debt.

That's certainly the conventional wisdom isn't it?

If it were true you'd think we'd see it more consistently. In the real world though there are a lot more factors that influence the economic cycles than just capital.

Wealth continues to concentrate and companies are sitting on trillions in cash. Put simply, if access to wealth was sure to drive revenue you'd think the economy should be cranking right now.

-spence

[justplugit]

Spence,
in the real world we are Broke!
In the real world the Govt can't provde evertbody with what they want.
In the real world you have to work for what you want.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence,
in the real world we are Broke!
In the real world the Govt can't provde evertbody with what they want.
In the real world you have to work for what you want.

There's a good argument for some restraint, I'll give you that.

But lowering taxes isn't going to fix the economy. The wealthy have plenty of money and they're not investing in job growth...because crushing household debt is still leaving consumers without any power to purchase.

Romney's solution for this appears to be to make the problem worse. Give the wealthy more money and raise taxes on everyone else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html

Seems sort of backwards doesn't it?

I'd wager that the effective tax rate will have little to do with the economic recovery which will follow it's own cycle.

-spence

[justplugit]

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence

[Mr. Sandman]

The more you impose taxes on those that earn big money, the more they will seek ways to shelter it.

The government should be creating incentives for investments in this country but they want the rich to risk it all then tax them when it works out. Well, if they risk it in areas that need investment, they need to be allowed to KEEP the earnings tax free for a significant period.


The government just creates roadblocks for business, they believe profits are a sin and anyone who makes profits are bad people and should be punished (taxed)

As sited abouve, taxing the so called rich will not solve anything, in fact it will not help anything. I do agree however that many wall street types are in a position to move all earned income to unearned income or take it as stock or some other form and pay a lot less tax and defer paying on most of it. This is within the law but if they had a very simple tax plan (ie a flat tax) no one could escape paying their fair share and there would be no deductions or shelters.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence

'No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence..."

Obama not only doubts that, he denies it.

"While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed "

Spence, if government (feds and local) would loosen the noose around our necks, confidence would grow (as you said), so businesses would take some of that money and grow, and hire many displaced federal employees. The fedweral government was not designed to be a jobs program.

"We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction."

Well, Obama's idea of "the right direction" seems to be to double-down on failed, expensive ideas. He has added to the debt, failed to curtail unemployment, and done exactly nothing to address entitlement programs (except to demonize those who propose ideas). Spence, how is that "moving the ball in the right direction"?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well, Obama's idea of "the right direction" seems to be to double-down on failed, expensive ideas. He has added to the debt, failed to curtail unemployment, and done exactly nothing to address entitlement programs (except to demonize those who propose ideas). Spence, how is that "moving the ball in the right direction"?

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly

I think they call it the "new normal"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly

Yes, it's all part of the final solution.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, it's all part of the final solution.

-spence

you have to admit...it's a hell of a lot easier to find takers for your newly create healthcare bureaucracy/benefits if they don't have jobs and if businesses are struggling with costs....along with all of your other expanding bureaucracies

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

....along with all of your other expanding bureaucracies

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/bu...arts.html?_r=1

Government Getting Smaller in the U.S.
By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: May 4, 2012

FOR the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly

I think they call it the "new normal"

An article on growing dependence on government:Harsanyi: Dependency nation

[scottw]

the federal bureaucracy, it's reach, regulations, dependants and employees has grown and will continue to...state and local losses account for the "reduction' you point to....

"By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance.

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions."

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012


"But while state and local jobs evaporated, Labor Department statistics show that the federal government , not counting the postal service, has grown by 143,000 employees during Obama’s tenure.

Looking solely at the increase in non-postal-service federal employees during Obama’s tenure, the president has overseen a 5.1 percent increase in size of the federal workforce."

Government Job Loss: President Obama’s Catch 22 - ABC News



and I don't know how much credit you want or should claim for your hero when it comes to reductions in state and local

Plan to cut 15 percent of state workforce sails through committee

Posted by: Baird Helgeson
January 19, 2011 -

Reigniting tensions between Republicans legislators and public employees, a House committee on Wednesday approved a proposal to reduce the state’s workforce by 15 percent.

“This proposal is about more than balancing the budget. It is about balancing government,” said the bill’s author, state Rep. Keith Downey, R-Edina. “For too long, state government has relied on one-time measures and looked the other way to foreboding fiscal crisis. Our state can no longer afford the status quo, and our citizens deserve better.”

Democrats blasted the measure as a ham-handed effort to cut state workers without ushering in any reform to make government work better. They called it “economic suicide” in a struggling economy to eliminate 5,000 workers.


http://www.startribune.com/politics/114219459.html

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

An article on growing dependence on government:Harsanyi: Dependency nation

life of Juia was a great flick

“The Life of Julia,” an ode to an imaginary woman who lived her entire life benefiting from government dependency and other people’s money rather than individual initiative and hard work.

Americans, the administration’s case goes, should be able to enjoy housing aid, student loan forgiveness, food stamps, free birth control, government retirement plans, universal internet service, medical insurance, and that’s just for starters.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs.

-spence

Not to worry, they can all get jobs in the new booming "Green Economy."