Tax Cuts? ........ Really?

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 13, 2010 10:44 AM GMT
    We're seeing the end result of the republican economic plan over the last 30 years and again we're getting "The solution to the recession is extend the Bush Tax Cuts????

    Are you KIDDING me?

    The republicans have some pair of balls
    The Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire at the end of the year
    Here are the two proposals for the republican plan ..... keep them in full
    and the democratic plan
    only keep the tax cuts for the lower tax brackets

    TAH-DAH!!

    GR2010081106717-thumb-454x592-23659.gificon_confused.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 13, 2010 11:09 AM GMT
    A little more on the subject .... Hypocrisy - Wha?

    The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
    Deductible Me
    www.thedailyshow.com
    Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/stewart-exposes-gop-hypoc_n_679694.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 11:40 AM GMT
    Especially considering that those tax cuts have been in effect for several years and they did not result in net job growth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 1:09 PM GMT
    Let´s clarify for those who are not aware what has happened on the Right in the USA over the last 30 or so years.


    A number of very different interest groups have got together such as "the Moral Right" (if you have an abortion you are killing the Baby Jesus, and if two men love each other then the Baby Jesus cries) and big business (tax cuts for the very rich help everyone). The different "buttons" have been put on the same remote control and so people feel strongly that the rich should not be taxed very much, because they believe the bible.

    You need to look at the different platforms within the GOP and work out where they come from. Most north american evangelicals have swallowed the poisoned pill whole, and thus support things which are in their own worst interest. Brilliant plan for winning elections, terrible for the country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 3:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Lostboy saidYou need to look at the different platforms within the GOP.... Brilliant plan for winning elections, terrible for the country.

    You really are dumb and so stereotypically gay in your political views.


    Au contraire, it's you who are dumb. You think that the majority of gays, who are middle or working class should vote for YOUR economic interests instead of their own. Luckily, we mostly don't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 4:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Au contraire, it's you who are dumb. You think that the majority of gays, who are middle or working class should vote for YOUR economic interests instead of their own. Luckily, we mostly don't.

    Scrap the current tax system. It's unfair, burdensome, full of carve-outs for special interest groups.

    Replace it with a national VAT tax.


    Unfair to whom?

    Burdensome to whom?

    Carve-outs for whom?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 4:59 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said.

    Unfair to whom?

    Burdensome to whom?

    Carve-outs for whom






    Unfair to whom? Everyone who pays Federal income taxes (that leaves out 48% of U.S. households)

    Burdensome to whom? Everyone who pays Federal income taxes (that leaves out 48% of U.S. households)

    Carve-outs for whom? Everyone who doesn't pay Federal income taxes (that's 48% of U.S. households).



    That's just silly. Again, those who make more money or own businesses use a larger share of public resources (roads, infrastructure, etc.) than those who make less, do not own businesses. Every one is getting what they pay for.

    It would be unfair and burdensome to expect those who do not capitalize on the various resources and services that the government provides.

    For example, if you're a pharmaceutical executive, you and your company benefit from the enormous amount of basic science research that the federal government subsidizes through grants and employing scientists. So when a drug is patented that has been discovered or refined through federal government sponsored research, Pfizer, its execs, board members, etc. all make A LOT of money. Therefore, they should be taxed at a higher rate because they have benefited at a higher level than the secretaries or security guards.

    The other option, which I would support (actually prefer) is that any private company or individual who benefits from the services or research sponsored by the federal government would pay a portion of the gross profits they make to the government. But that corporate lobbyists don't want that and actively fight against it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 6:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    That's just silly. Again, those who make more money or own businesses use a larger share of public resources (roads, infrastructure, etc.) than those who make less, do not own businesses. Every one is getting what they pay for.

    Nah.... that's silly.


    Please explain how. You might want in particular to look into the arrangement between federal funding of science and the enormous profits reaped by pharma companies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 7:31 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    That's just silly. Again, those who make more money or own businesses use a larger share of public resources (roads, infrastructure, etc.) than those who make less, do not own businesses. Every one is getting what they pay for.

    Nah.... that's silly.


    Please explain how. You might want in particular to look into the arrangement between federal funding of science and the enormous profits reaped by pharma companies.

    I make "more money" (your term) and I also own a business and I'm not using any more public resources than you are.

    In fact, compared to many on here, I am using less (i.e. I'm not getting any tax subsidies, government tax credits, welfare payments etc.).


    Patently untrue. As a pilot, you earn at least part of your income flying planes the safety of which is largely dependent on military control of airspace, the National Transportation Safety Board, Homeland Security keeping terrorists off your plane.

    Now, if we take all that away, you're not really flying anywhere.

    Now, if you told us what industry your business is in, we could see how that works out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 7:40 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidPatently untrue. As a pilot, you earn at least part of your income flying planes the safety of which is largely dependent on military control of airspace, the National Transportation Safety Board, Homeland Security keeping terrorists off your plane.

    Now, if we take all that away, you're not really flying anywhere.

    Now, if you told us what industry your business is in, we could see how that works out.

    I don't own the airline. But the company that does pays millions in Federal taxes. You or I do not pay millions in taxes.

    I do own an internet software company.


    You may not own the airline but you make a portion of your living from it. And I never, ever hear you talk about corporations paying their fair share either. All you do is talk about how we should cut taxes for those who make more, for companies that use a disproportionate amount of government services.

    It's really YOU who wants something for nothing.

    Though I vehemently disagree with mocktwinkie on nearly everything, at least he has the temerity to come right out and say he is motivated by greed. You hide behind lies, misinformation and discredited economic theories.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 8:50 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said.

    Unfair to whom?

    Burdensome to whom?

    Carve-outs for whom






    Unfair to whom? Everyone who pays Federal income taxes (that leaves out 48% of U.S. households)

    Burdensome to whom? Everyone who pays Federal income taxes (that leaves out 48% of U.S. households)

    Carve-outs for whom? Everyone who doesn't pay Federal income taxes (that's 48% of U.S. households).



    Yeah, but that 48 percent still pay a good deal in taxes.

    southbeach1500 said
    You may not own the airline but you make a portion of your living from it. And I never, ever hear you talk about corporations paying their fair share either. All you do is talk about how we should cut taxes for those who make more, for companies that use a disproportionate amount of government services.

    Blah, blah, blah.... there's the old "lies, lies, lies" mantra again.

    OK, corporations are not paying their fair share. They are overpaying.

    The USA has the much higher corporate tax rates than our western European / industrialized nation peers.

    Corporate taxes should be lower.


    As I posted the other day, the effective corporate tax rate is much lower. In fact, the effective corporate tax rate is lower than those of most of our western European / industrialized nation peers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 9:07 PM GMT
    I'm hearing the phrase "trickle down" bandied about by KKKrazyTalk radio dickweeds these days....

    Seriously...how can they say it with out bursting out laughing?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 9:23 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    I must have missed that posting... Can you repost it here please?



    Here are some links:

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201004260006

    http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

    http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/9B96723BDBA236078525744B0060BAFA?OpenDocument

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 13, 2010 11:10 PM GMT
    Here's a well thought out response to the republicans wanting to extend the Bush Tax Cuts from Fareed Zakaria

    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2010/08/01/gps.fareed.take.8.01.cnn.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 11:12 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Au contraire, it's you who are dumb. You think that the majority of gays, who are middle or working class should vote for YOUR economic interests instead of their own. Luckily, we mostly don't.

    Scrap the current tax system. It's unfair, burdensome, full of carve-outs for special interest groups.

    Replace it with a national VAT tax.


    The ruling class loves regressive taxes.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 14, 2010 12:01 AM GMT
    Why in God's Name would I want to do THAT????

    If you haven't already read Paul Krugman's great piece on the Darkening of America you ought to .... and soon
    When Hawaii's public schools no longer meet on Fridays to save money
    When some States are digging up roads and turning them into gravel rather than maintain them
    When Colorado is turning off every third electric street lamp

    You want an across the board cut in services?
    and Pricks like Dick Cheney get to keep the slew of cash that George W Bush handed them????
    Are you out of your Cotton Pickin' Mind??

    Those Tax cuts have to GO .... No Other Way to look at it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 12:18 AM GMT
    An analogy:

    Imagine the country is a person. The richest 1% of the population is a kidney cancer. It likes to stimulate blood vessels (read: tax cuts) to grow into it so it'll grow even bigger. So it produces more erythropoieitin, which stimulates more red cells. So yes, the other noncancerous cells benefit a little, but at the expense of much more cancerous growth.
    When a person is dying from cachexia from cancer, he/she loses weight (read: curtails essential functions like eating and drinking, or education and social services like free clinics), while the cancer grows unabated.
    A good way of treating kidney cancers nowadays is to attack the blood vessels. Unfortunately, such therapies tend to extend the life of the patient only by a few months...icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 12:27 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidHere's a well thought out response to the republicans wanting to extend the Bush Tax Cuts from Fareed Zakaria

    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2010/08/01/gps.fareed.take.8.01.cnn.html

    I like his show. He brings a different perspective to many issues.

    On this one, though, he's wrong.

    His point: the easiest way to cut the deficit is to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

    Key word: easy

    We've had decades of easy. Easy has allowed the Congress to raid the "social security trust fund" and where are we today? It's full of I.O.U.s

    Easy is to keep increasing spending because the Chinese will buy our debt. We are adding trillions of dollars to the debt each year. It's a staggering amount.

    Yes Farid, the easiest way to cut the deficit is to let the Bush tax cuts expire. But the right thing to do is to cut government spending.

    Let's say... a 10% cut (not a cut in the rate of increase, but a cut as we outside the beltway define it) in all Federal government budgets.


    Again, say what you mean. You want to keep YOUR money. There is nothing principled in your stance. The shit your selling has been disproved and disavowed by every well-respected economist, including past Budget directors for Reagan and Nixon, and Alan Greenspan.

    In fact, you can't find anyone who is not a hardcore partisan hack or running for reelection in a Red state who thinks the tax cuts should be maintained.

    You constantly ramble about Social Security, despite that fact that the CBO says Obama's economic policies have improved their position. And the positions you support or have supported would have completely destroyed SS.

    As others have said, if you want to live in a free market paradise, the Sudan and the Congo are available. You could probably even get a free ticket, given your profession.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 14, 2010 11:12 AM GMT
    Try talking to regular people who work to earn a living... but not in liberal New York... come out to "fly over country" and you'll get quite a different picture.

    Oooh ... The "Real America" like the media whore Palin said?
    These are the same working people by and large who reliably vote republican I assume
    But why would someone who works to Earn a living .... middle class vote for someone or a party who has basically waged open warfare on them
    in the last 3 decades where they ran the agenda pretty much
    The middle class has shrunk dramatically and has not gained monetarily since 1974

    Why on earth would you wanna hold people up on a pedestal like that?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 2:01 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said


    We've had decades of easy. Easy has allowed the Congress to raid the "social security trust fund" and where are we today? It's full of I.O.U.s


    This statement has repeatedly been shown to be a misrepresentation that is so gross as to be an intentional lie.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 2:36 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Social security is doomed. I guarantee that it won't be around when our 20 and 30 year old RJ friends here retire when they reach their 60s/70s.



    When the only way for you to support your positions is to outright lie, don't you think that indicates that your positions are wrong? Or do you just find things that support your candidates, your personal selfishness, and your ideology, and don't care if they're false?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 9:24 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidWhy in God's Name would I want to do THAT????

    If you haven't already read Paul Krugman's great piece on the Darkening of America you ought to .... and soon
    When Hawaii's public schools no longer meet on Fridays to save money
    When some States are digging up roads and turning them into gravel rather than maintain them
    When Colorado is turning off every third electric street lamp

    You want an across the board cut in services?
    and Pricks like Dick Cheney get to keep the slew of cash that George W Bush handed them????
    Are you out of your Cotton Pickin' Mind??

    Those Tax cuts have to GO .... No Other Way to look at it

    I was talking about a 10% cut in spending at the Federal level.

    The issues you bring up are largely the result of the states mismangement of their own financial affairs.
    Hawaii: Run by Democrats forever

    Colorado: Democrats in control

    In addition, look at California and New York... Run by Democrats forever and on the brink of bankruptcy.

    And Krugman.... Much respected (by Democrats)


    Wrong... New York has not been "run by Democrats forever". We had George Pataki for two terms and Rudy Guiliani for two terms as Mayor and Bloomberg (nominally a Republican) is on his third. The New York State Senate was run forever by Republican Joe Bruno (who, btw, is on the verge of being indicted for influence peddling).

    Further, you cannot compare California, with its ballot initiative system, with New York or Colorado. California has a particular problem in that majorities vote for expanded services or other costly measures but refuse to vote for higher taxes to pay for them. That is a statewide problem, and not the purview of a particular party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 9:32 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Lostboy saidYou need to look at the different platforms within the GOP.... Brilliant plan for winning elections, terrible for the country.

    You really are dumb and so stereotypically gay in your political views.


    Au contraire, it's you who are dumb. You think that the majority of gays, who are middle or working class should vote for YOUR economic interests instead of their own. Luckily, we mostly don't.



    that nice piece of homophobic stereotyping is another little hint that SouthBeach is a genuine troll rather than a real person who is a little controversial. . But there is not doubt that the conservative scene in the USA IS an amalgum of various interest groups. Look at the difference between the GOP and conservatives in other countries. Where is the cringing subservience to religion, the whiny rhetoric about "our freedoms" (which is a fossil of the past as though the USA were still fighting the Cold War)...

    From Christian´s citation it seems you have excluded the religious element from my analysis, which is really the most important thing for understanding the American Right (well that and shadow boxing with the ghost of communism)... was that intentional distortion or do you not understand that?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 15, 2010 5:39 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Au contraire, it's you who are dumb. You think that the majority of gays, who are middle or working class should vote for YOUR economic interests instead of their own. Luckily, we mostly don't.

    Scrap the current tax system. It's unfair, burdensome, full of carve-outs for special interest groups.

    Replace it with a national VAT tax.




    A) You know that's never going to happen because the current tax system disproportionately benefits the rich, and the rich will bribe Congress to keep things just the way they are.

    B) See "A"

    "Rich people don't pay taxes !"
    34pghht.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2010 9:40 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    I was talking about a 10% cut in spending at the Federal level.

    The issues you bring up are largely the result of the states mismangement of their own financial affairs.
    Hawaii: Run by Democrats forever

    Colorado: Democrats in control

    In addition, look at California and New York... Run by Democrats forever and on the brink of bankruptcy.

    And Krugman.... Much respected (by Democrats)


    Um, apart from what Christian73 has already said, perhaps things would be a little different if states like New York, California and Colorado weren't among the states that get a good deal less back from the federal government than they pay in taxes to the federal government, while other states get a good deal more back from the federal government than they contribute.

    This is the kind of redistribution of wealth that doesn't seem to bother you much. Those states support a lot of other states.

    http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/18/red-state-moochers-federal-taxes-favor-those-who-complain-the-most-about-federal-taxes/

    I can give you more links on this subject if you're interested. Of course, this brings up the question I've asked you several times but that you've never answered.