Teababies Protest Lowest Taxes In 60 Years
Tea Parties are protesting the horrible overreach of big government and they are Tax Enough Already, right? An analysis by USA Today found that despite what the teabaggers say, taxes are at their lowest level since 1950.
Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
…
Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.
So can we stop with the bogus argument that teabaggers are some kind of serious movement? The teabaggers say they are upset about the deficit but never noticed that Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. They say they are upset about the bailouts and TARP, both are Bush programs. They claim to be upset about government overreach but haven’t said a word about the overreach of Arizona’s law requiring brown people to show papers to the authorities.
The Tea Parties have an incoherent ideology, which really seems to be organized around the concept “if Obama is for it I’m against it.” That doesn’t translate into a governing coalition and I certainly dread getting more Republicans like this into Congress. It’s time for the teababies to grow up, or get out of the way of people who are trying to solve the problems facing the country.
Tags: taxes, Teabaggers
Unstable Isotope,
Aren’t there some problems with the analysis?
Such as:
The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.
This is a temporary reduction in taxes paid, not a permanent one. It is a rebate of the taxes paid, not a reduction in the tax rate, right?
A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.
Notice how a “drop in income” can trigger the tax breaks — again not a reduction in the tax rate for those whose income doesn’t change.
n average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007.
Tax breaks for the wealth simply reduced the progressive rate they were paying into something more reasonable.
I know that comment will generate a lot of responses but it is true.
On the other end of the scale — for the poor – we have fewer people paying taxes. 47% of all Americans effectively didn’t pay federal income taxes. When you reduce the federal income tax rate to zero for so many, it is unsurprising the “average” rate drops.
Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.
Wow, I can’t believe they even included this in here. People aren’t being taxed as much because they are saving more — great but that is hardly a reduction in the tax rates or a change for those who weren’t overspending to begin with, now is it?
The teabaggers say they are upset about the deficit but never noticed that Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit.
What a crock!!!
What do you think motivated many of the people in the Tea Party?
They noticed the irresponsible spending and out of control spending of what was supposed to be the fiscally conservative party and start taking action. The movement didn’t spring up in response to Obama’s election — it took off because Obama is continuing Bush’s out of control spending.
You are right, the TARP and bailout programs started under Bush — which really makes Obama’s campaign promises of not continuing business as usual ring a little hollow.
They claim to be upset about government overreach but haven’t said a word about the overreach of Arizona’s law requiring brown people to show papers to the authorities.
More Bushwa garbage. How is it overreach to enforce an existing law?
Let’s see; Arizona’s population is approximate 70% of hispanic descent and how many people in that start are pushing for repeal of the law?
Anywhere close to 70%????
The Tea Parties have an incoherent ideology, which really seems to be organized around the concept “if Obama is for it I’m against it.”
A little projection there, eh? That was the primary strategy against Bush. This is shown by the support for the Bailouts and continuation of the TARP program under Obama…..Bush did it — it was wrong; Obama does it and it is okay.
. It’s time for the teababies to grow up,
This is Ironic coming from one who is calling people names. Maybe the people in the Tea Party aren’t the ones who need to grow up, eh?
They are just mad that the black guy won. I think Bob’s comment is pretty good proof of that.
LOL, all these lower taxes don’t count because I say so. The highest part of the tax burden for most people comes from state and local taxes, yet we don’t see them protesting at state houses or county council meetings.
This is shown by the support for the Bailouts and continuation of the TARP program under Obama…..Bush did it — it was wrong; Obama does it and it is okay.
Uh…you do know that businesses are paying back TARP funds under Obama, don’t you?
Don’t bother Bob with facts.
Love the responses to my points.
Not a refutation of the argument, but attacking me.
Never said that the lower taxes doesn’t count — it is just how the tax burden is lower that is bupkis.
People are paying less taxes not because the rate is so much lower but because they are out of work or working less — yep that is good government isn’t it?
People are paying less taxes because they aren’t spending as much on taxable goods — yep that is good government, isn’t it?
What a crock.
The highest part of the tax burden for most people comes from state and local taxes, yet we don’t see them protesting at state houses or county council meetings.
Maybe you aren’t looking, eh?
Maybe the local and state representative are listening to people without having to have a protest on there lawn.
you do know that businesses are paying back TARP funds under Obama, don’t you?
What does that have to do with whether or not it was a good program to begin with?
Or are you trying to say that Bush wasn’t going to make the companies pay back the money but Obama has miraculously changed the economy all by himself so that the companies can pay back the money?
Obama’s stimulus is responsible for the economic recovery. I can’t respond to opinions, except to say show me some facts then we’ll talk. I won’t do your research for you.
The “47% of all Americans effectively didn’t pay federal income taxes” is one of my favorite Teapublican talking points. So which is it — are taxes too high or are they too low? Now, I know what the keejerk response will be: “WE are the 53% and THEY are the 47.” The real tax-cut crowd argument isn’t that taxes are too high, it’s that my taxes are too high. The second part being that the other guy’s are too low. I’m sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that there are not a significant number of Teapublican activists and supporters among the 47%, especially given the number of stories we’ve seen about welfare queen tea partiers. I’d even be willing to bet there are a good number of “taxes are too high” screamers who are in the 47%, but don’t even know it. All they really are are shills for the wealthy — non-rich dupes fighting for tax cuts for the rich.
I have a fact for Bob to munch on. The black guy won. So suck it loser!
Obviously the school system has failed many people to say the least. Maybe some should consider learning critical thinking skills.
The Tax has been lowered for some people, yes that is true.
Mostly it was reduced on the wealthy who are already paying a higher percentage of the total tax burden and a higher percentage on their income.
The Tax rate has also been lowered so some people who were paying very little of their income and very little of the total tax burden.
What hasn’t changed is the state and local tax rates – what is hard to understand about that?
And don’t forget that in the midst of all this; cities, counties and states are increasing user fees, amounts charged for permits, increasing the number of licenses and permits needed.
Just another form of taxation without calling it taxation.
People not spending money is a way to lower their tax burden but many people weren’t wildly spending to begin with.
Many people didn’t have to have their mortgages reduced because they bought too much house.
Many people didn’t have to have their credit card rates reduced because they weren’t buying on credit.
When the “average” tax burden falls because people aren’t spending as much — there isn’t a single way to credit the government for that. Hence, the focus on the government over reach and reducing the tax rate.
“47% of all Americans effectively didn’t pay federal income taxes”
This is because wages are too low, thanks to Republican cheap-labor policies that have stunted real wage growth and funnelled wealth upward.
If you resent a low paid worker for not owing taxes – give them a raise.
All of them would be better off earning enough money to fall into a taxpaying bracket.
What hasn’t changed is the state and local tax rates – what is hard to understand about that?
And don’t forget that in the midst of all this; cities, counties and states are increasing user fees, amounts charged for permits, increasing the number of licenses and permits needed.
Just another form of taxation without calling it taxation.
Why the focus on Obama? Why talk about government overreach. If this is really the issue you guys are killing your own credibility by repeating things that aren’t true and by coddling racists in your movement.
Remember,
It was the Republicans (Specter, Snowe & Collins) who cut the aid to state and local governments, which would have helped relieve the burden they’ve passed on to local taxpayers.
“you do know that businesses are paying back TARP funds under Obama, don’t you?
What does that have to do with whether or not it was a good program to begin with?”
oh bobby, bobby, bobby…..
“Paying back” means we get our money back…. with interest. and the companies continue to employ people. I actually think pushing the bailout through was one of the 2 good things bush ever did (the other being his quick and graceful exit from public life.)
Ya see bobby, when facts come out, conservatives ALWAYS lose the argument. You are best served just being quiet and hoping this information doesn’t get to too many people or else YIKES. you guys may not have anything left but african witch-doctor pictures of Obama with a hammer and sickle.
“47% of all Americans effectively didn’t pay federal income taxes”
When I hear this, I hear Republicans pointing out how many poor people they created.
Anon,
So, what amount of money do people have to make before they should be paying for their share of the interstate highways they use, the national defense, the court system?
What level of income should people be making before they help pay for those things?
If you resent a low paid worker for not owing taxes – give them a raise.
Maybe if people like you weren’t trying to soak the “rich”; business owners would be able to pay for raises, eh?
Unstable Isotope
It was the Republicans (Specter, Snowe & Collins) who cut the aid to state and local governments, which would have helped relieve the burden they’ve passed on to local taxpayers.
So, it is okay for the middle class and “rich people” nation wide to pay for the services used by the “poor” in cities and states?
How does this make sense in regards to reducing taxes?
By the way, same question to you — at what income level should people be paying into the system instead of taking other people’s money?
A.Price,
How about answering the question of whether or not the use of our money to subsidize corporations was a good thing to begin with?
Thought liberals were against governmental programs that helped corporations — wasn’t it called corporate welfare under the republicans?
What fact have you brought to the debate that would show that I’m wrong?
I’ve noticed that not one person here as refuted my analysis of why the burden was lower, eh?
So, what amount of money do people have to make before they should be paying for their share of the interstate highways they use, the national defense, the court system?
Before owing taxes, they should make enough to cover basic living expenses. People should not have to give up food/rent/heat/childcare in order to pay taxes. This is the idea behind personal exemptions, child exemptions, home mortgage interest exemptions, etc.
This is also the same idea that makes business expenses deductible. Just as businesses are generally taxed only on profits, so individuals are taxed only on disposable income.
Anon,
You still didn’t answer the question.
Currently federal poverty level is $22,050 for a family of four but people making up to $50,000 a year don’t pay federal income taxes.
So, again what is the income level in which people should start paying their fair share? Give me a number please
“So, again what is the income level in which people should start paying their fair share?”
Depends on your deductions, Einstein. IF you want to give rich people blow jobs, go somewhere else.
One other point, Bob, you big, brave, ammo-box loving man, you: You’ve already pointed out the obvious solution: HIgher tax rates on the rich. But you’re too in love with the rich to advocate that. YOu’d rather point and shoot at the 47% than at the 0.1%. Always easier to hit something when you shoot into a crowd, right?
IF you want to give rich people blow jobs, go somewhere else.
Seconded. May I suggest rentboy.com.
Bob’s three-word plan for prosperity:
Tax The Poor!
Hey Bob… if taxes are evil, and 47% of people aren’t paying taxes, isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t that a resounding conservative success?
“paying their fair share”
What are you, some kind of socialist?
They ARE paying their fair share – fair being determined by our elected Congress, not some random teabagger.
Bob, i supported the bail-out the same way I’d support a root canal. It sucks, and you hate the person who performs it but it stops a larger problem. I… as a thinking person understand that the people who were REALLY BEING HELPED where the employees who’s jobs were being saved.
Sure i would have much rather seen all the personal wealth of the scum who crashed the market be used FIRST to fix everything, THEN our money go to finnish the job, but that isn’t how it works here and it is something I, as a Socialist have to live with.
You think Vicrem Effing Pandit would suffer ANY lifestyle change AT ALL if Citi went under? NOOOOOOOO he’d get a golden enema and be on his way to his next executive job to sink THAT company.
SO there IS not answer to your argument. It is so off the mark and void of fact or even a base in reality, all there is to do is mock you.
Sure i would have much rather seen all the personal wealth of the scum who crashed the market be used FIRST to fix everything, THEN our money go to finnish the job,
If Bush, Carper, Castle, and Biden had “reformed” corporate bankruptcy the same way they “reformed” personal bankruptcy – you would have gotten your wish.
But they didn’t, so corporate bankruptcy is still a “get out of debt free” card for executives.
Very well put, Bob. I find it amazing how many people are spoon fed from the major media outlets and cannot think for themselves. Just look at the responses on here. Bob gave an in depth response to the article that obviously took some personal thought and insight. Like always, the response from the other side is personal attacks and ignorant comments.
While the Tea Party is more aligned with Republicans because of their traditional values of limited government, the Tea Party is not an extension of the Republican party. For some reason, the predominantly liberal media likes to portray the Tea Party as a right wing extremist group.
The ignorance continues to flow from people like jason330 who have no personal insight to the matter so they try to attach racist labels to people. How can this country have legitimate debate on serious issues when there are so many childish people involved?
As far as Delaware Dem, I don’t see you offering any facts to the discussion. Do you mean to tell me that you accept a poorly written analysis from a generic news source as facts? This day and age, a monkey with a typewriter can provide information to the public. It doesn’t mean that it’s the definitive source. Everyone has an agenda and most publishers use data in a manner that suites their cause. I would encourage you to check out more than one or two sources for your information and then formulate an opinion instead of letting one person tell you how to think.
And in case your wondering what label to attach to me, I consider myself to be a compassionate conservative. I’m primarily for limited government but I also believe there are issues that require government involvement. Being able to think for myself and by seeking out information from several different resources (including the IRS government website), it is clear that the responsibility for the overall tax burden continues to be shifted to the shoulders of a select few. I’m at the edge of that line. What is my motivation to apply myself to be more successful when I know I’ll be penalized disproportionately to those that do not? I have a decision to make. Maybe I should slack off and let the poor schmucks that work hard to provide a better life for themselves and their families help improve my family’s life, as well. Everyone needs help sometime in their lives and we have a responsibility to society to offer that. But when you have not only the lower class but now the middle class (which I’m a part of) wanting more and more from the government, you eventually run out of gooses laying golden eggs.
Wake up people. Your elected officials are buying your votes with your own money. If you disagree with me, that’s fine. At least join the debate with healthy contributions. I’ll respect your opinions a lot more and you may even open my eyes to something that I haven’t considered yet. Unfortunately, that will take consideration on your part and, as it seems on here, this country is lacking people with that ability.
For some reason, the predominantly liberal media likes to portray the Tea Party as a right wing extremist group.
Who the hell is to the right of the teababies?
They are just mad that the black guy won. I think Bob’s comment is pretty good proof of that.
You feel that way even when his comment had absolutely nothing to do with being black. It often seems that racial status is all that many liberals care about. Racial status is actually as undefined as everything else in the minds of imbeciles so it’s not clear how race is defined and which races are to be “affirmed” or favored.
Closer1616’s racist crybaby tears make me happy. Also, the quote anon picked out is an instant classic of the genre.
Mynym, bob makes no sense. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by attributing his stupidity to racism. I guess he could be in the minority of tea baggers who are not racist but merely mentally retarded.
Here is my standing challenge to loser racist tebaggers. if America sucks so much, if your complaint is not that the black guy won, name one country that America should be more like in terms of tax fairness. What country should we emulate?
Go ahead dipshits. Make my day.
IF you want to give rich people blow jobs, go somewhere else.
This is merely more vague imagery. When it gets down to details liberals typically will not define who the “rich people” that they hate are, anymore than they’ll define the races that they think need to be affirmed or favored. Rich is a subjective term which changes from place to place, changes through history and changes through a person’s life-span. All Americans are rich compared to the majority of the rest of the world, so according to liberal feeelings about the rich we may as well hate ourselves. The majority of people living now are rich compared to people living at any other time in history, so one might as well long for a romanticized past of “noble savages.” The majority of people who are older are richer than those who are younger, so one might as well idolize youth. And so on. This is all the vague imagery typical to liberals and yet it’s often not clear what actual or specific rich people need to be hated.
The country they want to emulate is 19th century America.
Lol. Yeah. Let’s all push ox carts down muddy lanes to get our produce to market or maybe get an African slave so we can kick back like God intended.
This is merely more vague imagery.
I found it disturbingly clear.
Another well thought out comment, mynym. You can’t win a debate with people like this on here because they won’t join the debate. They use childish tactics that were learned on the school playground.
By the way guys, how to you think most people got rich? I’ll agree that some were born into it but that is a very small minority. Our society worships the rich and says the American dream is that anyone can be successful. Oh by the way, once you become successful, we’re all going to hate you. Are you kidding me? A poor man never gave me a job. Most of the rich people in this country became that way providing goods and services that the American public wanted.
By the way, Jason, that’s another problem with people in this country. American didn’t become the greatest country by emulating other countries. Your question about which country we should be like clearly shows your lack of critical thinking. Why must someone else always give you the solution? If you can’t some up with a solution on your own, please get out of the way and let the other people debate the issue seriously so we can come up with the best solution for our country, not some other country.
if America sucks so much, if your complaint is not that the black guy won, name one country that America should be more like in terms of tax fairness. What country should we emulate?
It seems to me that the reason that the “Tea Party” exists as distinct from the Republican Party is because it’s mainly about fiscal responsibility. Glenn Beck is tied to the Tea Party and he said:
I’m tired. I am tired, and I know you are. I’m tired of common sense not applying anymore. We all know what the problems are. It’s tax and spend. One party will tax and spend, the other party won’t tax but will spend. It’s both of them.Link
Obama promised change but all he has done is accelerate the process by refusing to be honest with us. If he wants more entitlements than he needs to raise taxes to very high levels to pay for them, yet he hasn’t. You’re right that taxes are still relatively low yet spending has accelerated. So it’s still the same old thing, more dishonesty from politicians. It’s really not that complicated and all the tribalism* in the world isn’t going to change basic economic facts.
*Something along the lines of: “Racist rubes are over there but I have my black people that I loooove over here, so that must mean that we won’t go bankrupt!”
It will be interesting to see how it turns out when it collapses, which is what many on the Left say that they want. All the imbeciles of that sort probably won’t like it when they finally get their “revolution” because fascists have a habit of emerging among socialists. For all their talk of racism it is liberals who have promoted Darwinian creation myths for years and it is the religion and Christianity typical to rubes that stands in the way of reducing people to a supposed biological history.
A poor man never gave me a job.
And a rich man never fixed my car or dug me a ditch.
Money has value only to the extent it can compel another person to do work for you. Without labor money is worthless. Actually money is a token to be exchanged for work.
Wealth does not belong a priori to the wealthy, nor does it spontaneously reproduce.
All wealth comes from labor. The share of wealth kept by labor and capital is a political decision.
No answer then huh? just as I thought. Go jump in a lake your racist loser. you’ve been exposed.
Anon,
A rich man probably never fixed your car but he employed the mechanic who did at his shop or dealership.
A rich man probably never fixed your car but he built the factory that made the backhoe or he started the company that employs people who digs ditches.
The problem with the current system is that it is taking money — disproportionately– from those people who builds the factories, who hires the people and giving it to people who don’t.
And again — what level of income do we say is sufficient for people to start paying for their portion of the national defense, for the highways that the goods they buy travel over?
I see people like Anon and Jason330 as advocating equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.
Just because someone has worked hard, has taken the time to get an education or learn a trade (plumbing, medicine, etc) — that doesn’t mean that they should make more then the person who didn’t do those things…does that sum it up guys?
You can’t win a debate with people like this on here because they won’t join the debate.
It seems like they believe themselves to be debating, in their own way, mainly based on vague imagery having to do with “black people,” “rich people,” etc. In their minds imagery of this sort is just a given, the equivalent of an empirical fact. And it seems to give them a good little feeling as well, so they probably feel like they’ve won a “debate.”
And that’s fine with me.
It’s still not clear which rich people we are supposed to be hating. I can think of some worth hating if that would help.
anon, you are absolutely correct. I’ve dug that ditch before and the reason that I did was to get money. I was able to receive money because the other person had it and needed my services. Again, people obtain wealth by providing good and services to other people that are willing to give them money for those services. The wealthy still spend money. They just spend it on different things. Is that what bothers you about the rich? That they get to spend money on private jets and yachts while people like us have to fly commercial? It’s all relative. I can’t take extravagant vacations but I can afford to take my family on a decent trip every year or two. There are plenty of people that would love to have my “luxuries”. I’m also willing to bet that the people employed by the private jet industry, yacht industry, etc. are very happy that the rich have money to purchase the products that provides for their families. We’re all part of the system and we all have our part to play. What drives me every day is that if I work harder than the next guy, I can improve on the part I play in the system.
47% of people don’t earn enough to pay federal taxes. That is because our politics have tilted the playing field so money runs uphill. Equality of opportunity? We have a long way to go to tilt the field back.
Money has value only to the extent it can compel another person to do work for you.
Money is a statement of value, it is merely language and it applies to many things which have little to do with labor. It applies to anything that has value, money is merely the subjective statement: “I value that.” So it is likely that we will lose our capacity for speech thanks to the corruption of politicians who will manipulate money and therefore manipulate our speech by manipulating the forum in which we speak.
Wealth does not belong a priori to the wealthy, nor does it spontaneously reproduce.
All wealth comes from labor. The share of wealth kept by labor and capital is a political decision.
Wealth is created by both physical and metaphysical labor, look at patent law and its role in generating wealth. This was the pattern of the Founders who treated metaphysical realities of the mind as the equivalent of and complementary to physical reality. You seem to be assuming a conflict between labor and capital or body and mind, an assumption which tends to create conflict.
anon, are you kidding me? You really believe that because the elected officials choose to not tax 47% of the people, that means they don’t earn enough to be taxed? With your philosophy, let’s all get together and tax only the 1% that everyone hates so much. Then we can say we don’t make enough to pay federal taxes. This is insane. That’s like a few months back when Obama was having meetings with “experts” to see how we can get employment back up. Then a week later he’s talking about raising taxes on small businesses and corporations. Where do you think the jobs are going to come from? Why is it so hard to see the flaws in this system? And by the way, I’m not just picking on Obama. I think Bush was absolutely horrible in this matter, as well.
Thank you for confirming that the whole Tea Party movement is based on resentment of the fabulous lives of poor people.
The people I resent are the ones who put us in this mess. The powerful politicians who decided that businesses could regulate themselves and the robber-barons who made money transferring money from poor and middle class people to themselves. They have benefitted hugely from the system. I think they should pay more to clean up the mess they made of the whole world’s financial system.
I find it funny that conservatives long for Reagan (taxes on the rich were at 50% and there was an inheritance tax) or the 1950s (taxes on the rich were even higher, around 75%). The “great” America they long for had a more progressive tax system than today. Funny, that.
I find it amusing that teababies want to go back to 19th century tax levels. I’d love to see that fight with the bed-wetting conservatives when they try to mostly eliminate the defense budget.
The idiot right protects the wealthy. Even these Teabaggers who, themselves probably end up getting a tax refund support the super rich because they live with the false hope that, they too can one day be as rich as Vicrem Pandit and when that day comes, they don’t want to have to in ANY way give back to the people and labor that elevated them.
This will never happen however, because the wealthiest people prevent others from getting rich
closer, bob.. et all. you are all pawns in their game. you defend their right to exploit workers and customers under the pathetic belief that it will one day pay off for you. If you hate people controlling your lives (like the government) i mean are REALLY opposed to that notion and it isn’t about race, or class, or native/vs foreign..or Saint Sarah noticing your Nazi-Obama sign. or party or anything other motive you are accused (and proven) of having…. than WHY ON EARTH do you support the right of NON ELECTED people to stay in power and ruin our country.
They have ruined our financial system because they were left unchecked. They have smothered eco-systems with oil because they were deregulated and allowed to “breath” and STILL the Teabags defend them.
“one day I might get an oil executive making billions and i dont want Obama taxing ME” Grow a brain.
You have no argument other than what talking points come in the package of Snake oil you buy from idiots like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck.
Unstable Isotope,
Nicely done in knocking down the straw man arguments you set up for yourself.
No one but you liberals are talking about 19th Century Tax levels or even Reagan era tax levels.
I think they should pay more to clean up the mess they made of the whole world’s financial system.
Since you won’t answer the question about when the “poor” should start paying for the services they use, maybe you’ll answer these questions.
How much more do you want to tax the “rich”? What percentage of their income should be transferred?
How do you define “rich”?
UI, they get their “understanding” of tax law from people who’s job it is to lie and get ratings. It is like claiming you understand football from being an XFL fan…. or understand sports because you watch pro-wrestling. This movement is the result of what happens when opinionated entertainment is confused for fact. .. the sad part is “facts” are regarded as “intelligent elite” and intelligent is the enemy to the right wing.
“Since you won’t answer the question about when the “poor” should start paying for the services they use, maybe you’ll answer these questions.”
At least you arent also a Christian Teabagger. I mean you arent Christian right? because that thought right there goes against a core teaching of Jesus.
You really believe that because the elected officials choose to not tax 47% of the people, that means they don’t earn enough to be taxed?
That is exactly what I am saying. Welcome to the consequences of your cheap-labor policies, and your shrinkage of the middle class. Own it proudly, it’s what you wanted.
I don’t hate rich people. I make the supremely logical decision that, in a country that has repeatedly dropped tax rates on the rich and on capital gains and finds itself deep in debt as a result, we should raise the tax rates on the rich.
Speaking of rich, I’m not putting up with lectures from someone who makes up motives, or who refuses to realize that cutting spending is only one of our choices; raising taxes is the other. What are the points you two are making except the received wisdom of the right? You show no capacity for critical thinking, and the proof is your blind acceptance of the notion that we’re overtaxed.
The reason so many pay no income tax is various tax cuts and tax credits over the years. This would normally be called “success.” What part of that don’t you understand?
Are you playing dumb, Bob, or does it come naturally? For purposes of taxation under Obama, the level currently used is $250,000.
I must assume, based on your arguments, that you think the poor are undertaxed, but not so the rich. True or not?
I would think for anti-tax teabaggers, eliminating taxes for half the country would be something to celebrate.
I guess some people just don’t know how to win gracefully.
Isotope, I’m torn on your last comment because I actually agree with some of it even though it’s full of snide comments. First, I agree with the fact that the problem rests with the politicians. What people don’t seem to understand though is that Washington doesn’t help the poor or the middle class buy just giving us stuff. Again, there will always be a minority of people that need help because of unfortunate circumstances and we owe it to them to help them through that difficult time. We’ve all been there at some point in our lives. However, we’ve crossed the line and the politicians are creating class warfare by pretending to be Robin Hood. They know that the poor and middle class outnumber the rich. If they take from the rich and give it to us, we’ll keep them in office. We’ve all seen the reality shows where these kids that just happen to have rich parents run around and act like brats. We are becoming those brats that feel like we’re entitled to something because we deserve a certain lifestyle. We are creating a welfare state that looks to the government to make our lives better instead of looking at ourselves and taking responsibility for our own actions. And again, I’m not talking about the people in this country that are truly poor. I’m talking about the lower middle class all the way up through the upper middle class that doesn’t have what their neighbor has and feels like the government should step in. The Tea Party movement doesn’t resent anyone’s lifestyle. They just want the government to quit making it so hard for them to take care of their own lives. It is painfully clear by looking at these comments which side spends most of their time worrying about someone else’s lifestyle.
It’s just that it’s the wrong half of the country that isn’t paying…
a.price – I actually agree with most of your comment. There two points that I don’t agree with though is that the rich never give back and the Tea Party was unbridled corporate reign over society. There are plenty of rich people that give back and most of them are usually the Christian or religious men and women that you are so quick to vilify. The Tea Party Movements is about taxation, not regulation. I absolutely agree that corporations shouldn’t be given fee reign to do whatever they want. But at the same time, I feel that everyone (well, almost everyone) should share equally in the tax burden. Why are we so worried about what the other person has? And by the way, I think Glenn Beck is an idiot. I don’t really know enough about Ron Paul to have an official opinion.
Geezer – If I have a problem spending more money than I make, then I go get a part time job to pay some of the bills, does that really solve the problem? Unfortunately, you are correct in the fact that reducing spending is not the only answer. But until we address our runaway spending problems, more income will never be enough. The only solution at this point, may be a combination of both but what history shows us is that lowering taxes actually raises revenue to the government because of the increase in personal spending, not government spending.
Closer: I still don’t understand your position. We have repeatedly cut taxes on the rich. We have cut taxes on capital gains, to the point where we now pay lower taxes on the work someone else does for our profit than on our own labor. Yet you repeatedly trace the problem not to rising tax iniquities but to people who depend on the social safety net. Please explain.
Sorry for the crosspost. But you are wrong about this statement: “what history shows us is that lowering taxes actually raises revenue to the government because of the increase in personal spending, not government spending.” Our most recent history shows precisely the opposite.
Closer, I dont think the government owes me a better car, or a better apartment, or extra beer money and you would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who actually thinks the government owes them that. OH Fox News and the Right wing media will have you think that the urban areas are FILLED with people (mostly non white) who live by the notion that money should be taken from you and given to them in the form of luxuries. THAT is what is creating the class warfare.
The role of government is to protect The People from large scale harm so they can be free and productive. Number one, you need money to do that (national defense) and the way to get that money is through taxes. Following the logic of “some people deserve to be healthier than others” it isn’t a far leap to think that the wealthy should get better police protection…. they DO it just isn’t the law. or that you should have to show pay stubs before fire fighters will put out your house. This insane libertarian vein in the teaparty forgets where roads and power grids (which are failing because taxes are so low) comes from. Add to that the OBVIOUS racism and you have a very dangerous mix of people in this country who see a large group of their fellow countrymen as a threat to their wealth and way of life.
“if they REALLY wanted a better life they would work harder” is the battle cry of the “Real America” and I am ashamed to be their fellow citizen.
If they take from the rich and give it to us, we’ll keep them in office.
Actually we have been seeing the opposite. Politicians have been cutting taxes for the rich, borrowing money, and giving the borrowed money to the rich. Meanwhile they have been juicing the rules in favor of corporations to insure continuously rising prices for things like food, housing, energy, credit, education, health care, communication.
Reagan’s tax cuts and deregulation were a useful jolt for about two years. Now we have reached a tipping point where tax cuts damage the economy instead of stimulating it. You don’t get any further benefit from lowering a tax that is already too low.
Remember, as it stands now the major entitlements are mostly funded by the people who receive the benefits. Those 47% you claim aren’t paying taxes? You forgot about the wage taxes they certainly do pay, which fund Medicare and Social Security.
“If I have a problem spending more money than I make, then I go get a part time job to pay some of the bills, does that really solve the problem?”
Uh… I’m tempted to answer yes. In what way does it not solve the problem?
My other objection to your position is that you seem to believe that the social safety net is our greatest expense. The military is a much greater spending problem.
Closer, as far for “sharing equally in the tax burden” would you recognize that some people.. even though they work 40 hours a week for no benefits. simply do not make enough moey to afford basic costs of living AND pay taxes. The other side of the coin is that some people make so much money, they would have to by a new house every year just to keep a balanced ledger. THOSE people generally make their wealth from the patronage and labor of the first group. Therefore it is their DUTY to give back and ensure those people can have the most basic of lives.
I happen to think that all Americans and (here is the e word) entitled to protection from an invading force.. foreign or domestic, basic human needs, and access to health care should they become ill.
I know the argument on the Right is that some people “deserve” their health problems, but if my car breaks down and I have to take the bus and someone on that bus has the flu…. I know it sounds like a wild scenario, but in a city… where now most Americans live, it is more common than suburbanites or “real Americans” think.
The fact is this country is NOT equal. all people ARENT born with the same chance for success or failure. If that is ok with you, fine. But it is not what the founders intended.
“If I have a problem spending more money than I make, then I go get a part time job to pay some of the bills, does that really solve the problem?”
closer – You are arguing that while real wages are dropping, Americans should reduce their expenses to adjust to their newly reduced circumstances.
That is a fine strategy for an individual to get out of a financial hole. But in the aggregate, what you are actually arguing for is a perpetual decline in the American standard of living – a race to the bottom. All to finance tax cuts, business monopolies, and ever-expanding portfolios for the wealthy.
I don’t think any patriot should be calling for the end of the American Dream.
Geezer – A couple of points here. You refer to capital gains as though they are made solely from the front line people working for minimum wage. Capital gains affect everything and everyone. It affects me while trying to save for retirement. It effects the amount of capital being put back into the system which allows business to grow and more jobs to be created. Also, I apologize if I wasn’t clear about the social safety net. My issue is not that we have a so-called safety net but that it keeps expanding larger and larger every day. Like I mentioned earlier, there are plenty of people that truly need help and we owe it to those people. The problems come into play as that group grows larger and larger, not because more people are actually becoming poor but because we keep raising the bar on what poor is in our country. It has gotten way beyond covering someone’s basic living necessities.
a.price – You make some very valid arguments but it seems that while you despise the far right (as do I), you find yourself joining the far left just to bash the other extreme. I absolutely agree that the government plays an extremely important role in public services but the question is where do you draw the line? If you feel we should all have equal health care, what else should be equal? The public services that you mentioned are critical to the protection of the people as you mentioned. But I find the big leap is when we start thinking everyone should have the same health care coverage. While very noble, I just think it’s a slippery slope that continues to blur the line on what we are entitled to by birth and what we just simply feel entitled to.
But in the aggregate, what you are actually arguing for is a perpetual decline in the American standard of living – a race to the bottom. All to finance tax cuts, business monopolies, and ever-expanding portfolios for the wealthy.
Exactly anon. The teababies are arguing that Americans should be willing to accept lower wages and less benefits and that the government shouldn’t provide them either.
“If I have a problem spending more money than I make, then I go get a part time job to pay some of the bills, does that really solve the problem?”
Uh… I’m tempted to answer yes. In what way does it not solve the problem?
My other objection to your position is that you seem to believe that the social safety net is our greatest expense. The military is a much greater spending problem.”
Not only does it solve the problem, but it is good for the over all economy. More payroll taxes, less people with debt… I happen to have 2 jobs and work about 60 hours a week and have no problem living well under my means.
Geezer – If the problem is that you always spend more money than you have, you can never work hard enough or make enough money to satisfy the need to spend money. The first step has got to be to learn how to spend less than you make. And as far as the military being way more than social programs, you obviously have not seen our federal budgets recently. There’s a great chart at the bottom of TheSmartVoter.com that shows where all of the money goes. I thought the same as you and was shocked when I saw how much money we spend on social programs.
a.price – While I think your intentions are very noble, I think it’s ludicrous to think that we are ever going to create a Utopian society. You’re right, some people are born into some very unfortunate circumstances at no fault to their own. But again, the line keeps getting drawing farther and farther out so that everyone can be included.
anon – You missed the point completely. I was talking about our federal government. Not individuals.
Alright Closer. I take back any rhetorical attack i leveled at you. You are clearly NOT a Teabag or a Glenn Beck dittohead. I have to disagree with the notion however that we should “be careful we don’t help too much”. The “Slippery Slope” argument in itself is a “Slipper Slope” to never doing ANYTHING and never changing anything for fear of “doing too much” Let me explain with a metaphor. If you see stack of money halfway down a hill, at the bottom of which there is a drop to jagged rocks and it is raining…. a REAL slippery slope, would you
a) deem it too risky and leave .. (what I consider to be the position of the Right whenever it pertains to social justice and equality reform)
b) slide on down, try to grab the money and hope there is also a root for you to grab on to until the government chopper arrives to rescue you and the money free of charge (the extreme left’s arguments)
or
c) go to EMS and buy some block and tackle gear so you can anchor yourself to safe ground should the worst happen. Carefully move toward your goal and get it back up the hill in a safe and responsible way……
I honestly dont know what level of health care, or financial safety net everyone should “deserve”. What I DO know is that it is NOT what we have today. By slowly adding measures like preventing non elected powerful people (insurance companies) from profiting off of the deaths of others (the Americans they refuse to cover) we can allow the nation to become accustom to the new rules and see if it works.
Closer, i dont think we will have a utopian society either. While I know my positions on many things fall into the “socialist” genre (and i wear that moniker with pride) I like to keep the money I make. I recently rewarded myself for working hard and getting a good job with a BEAUTIFUL new Schecter C-1 Custom guitar. Do I think everyone deserves one? no way. I also think that my job is easier than some people and until I, through my own hard work advance, I dont get to covet a new car, or that 1959 Gibson LP Ive had my eye on.
What I don’t think is that a healthy society is Utopian. And my definition of “healthy” is not “no one gets sick and everyone can go to the best docs in the world when they get the sniffles”
My view of “victory” is where elderly don’t have to pick pills or food. Where middle class families don’t have to declare bankrupcy because someone gets sick….. writing those cases off as “that’s just how life is” is something I hope only a very small minority of heartless bastards actually do.
I will also say that while i appreciate you calling my “noble” i feel like the word “naive” may have also been intended (mostly because i have heard from non-crazy right leaning people “you are very noble, but naive”) To that i would say, Most of the best advances in human history were accomplished by people who didn’t know it “was impossible”
a.price – I understand your argument and that’s the issue. Where is the line and who do we trust to know where that line is? I’m sorry but I just don’t trust our elected officials (most of them anyway) to take care of us. For way too long, they have been more concerned with getting re-elected instead of what is the best interest of the country. The government isn’t efficient at anything they do. Look at social security. While the intentions are wonderful, I would do anything in the world keep my money and plan for my own retirement. That’s because I’m willing to take the responsibility to educate myself and be prudent in preparing for retirement. While I can already see the response from the group bringing up Enron, WorldCom, etc., the responsibility still lies with the individual to make educated decisions. We have become a society that wants the government to make all of our decisions for us.
The first step has got to be to learn how to spend less than you make.
It might seem counter-intuitive to you, but on the macro-economic level, for a society to spend less than it makes means it is contracting economically. Again you are calling for the end to the American Dream.
We have a debt-backed currency. That sounds evil to people, because individuals who have debt are in trouble. Individuals would rather have cash on hand, or gold – something they can understand.
But at the governmental level, having a debt-backed currency is what has allowed the developed nations to develop, and vault to world power status.
Debt gives money its value because at its core, debt is a commitment to perform more work in order to pay your debt. Some debt is required for growth.
For the US, the question is, has our debt outstripped out ability to do the work needed to repay it. At this time, probably yes. But conditions change over time, and correct policy can change them dramatically. At the beginning of the 1990s we had a structural deficit, and the lament was “deficits as far as the eye can see.”
a.price – It’s nice to have a real debate from someone finally. Again, I agree with your points but the problem that I had with the health care reform, specifically, is how it was pushed through so quickly because of partisan politics instead of serious debate. I will agree, however, that the Republicans have been completely stubborn in not giving any ground on Obama’s ideas but, at the same time, the Democrats rushed to push something through without knowing all of the details simply for political victory. Speaking of naive, I think we are all naive if we think the majority of our elected officials actually have our best interest at heart. While we certainly do have some true public servants, most are simply trying to protect the career paths they chose.
closer, the reality is that SOMEONE is going to make decisions that effect your life. whether you like it or not you are not in control of a lot of things that happen to you. The choice we have is…. are those people going to be rich corporate executives who’s only job is to make money, cannot be voted out by the people the end up screwing and are not held truly accountable should they take down the whole system…… or elected officials who WILL fail… but at least when THEY do something bad, they can be fired, sent home and have their pay eliminated. It is really a choice between the lesser of 2 evils and a government OF the people and BY the people is MUCH preferable to one “Of the dollar and FOR the dollar”
We just completed an experiment with a mostly employer-based health care system and it was a failure. We ended paying at least 2X more for healthcare than the rest of the world and had poorer outcomes, mainly because so many people had very little access to medical care.
Our country was becoming non-competitive because of the high burden health care costs were putting on Americans. That’s why we had to change the system. We already see other countries have set up cheaper and better systems than ours. I don’t understand why some people still cling to the old one.
anon – You argument is very common in the business world. Many “experts” talk about how to use debt to leverage expansion. In most cases it works like a charm. However, there is always a tipping point. Many companies have failed because of growing too quick at the hands of debt leveraging then the smallest hiccup causes the house of cards to come crashing down (I’m sure we all have examples). Still all of the “experts” still talk about how to leverage debt to be successful yet the most successful business mind of all times, Warren Buffet, operates in complete contradiction to what the experts say you’re supposed to do.
the problem that I had with the health care reform, specifically, is how it was pushed through so quickly because of partisan politics instead of serious debate.
We’ve been talking about health care reform since Obama took office. 16 months was long enough. The GOP was determined to do nothing, so how could a bill get bipartisan. It incorporated many Republican ideas, and was very similar to Romney’s MA plan and a plan pushed by the Heritage Foundation in the 1990s.
Warren Buffet, as rich and smart as he is, is simply moving money around. Private investors are playing with money that has already acquired its value.
Buffet does not worry about why or how a dollar has value, because that value is determined by US monetary policy. Buffet is playing one level above the root level where the debt-backed currency acquires value.
Many “experts” talk about how to use debt to leverage expansion.
And companies that would rather not use debt to survive, always have the option of going out of business. The US does not have that option.
a.price – What I think people fail to realize is that the dollar speaks louder than your vote at the ballot box. These “fat-cat” executives still have to answer to someone, whether it’s the board of directors or the consumer. Personally, I’m very pro-business but I don’t agree with Wal-Mart’s operations. So I take my dollar somewhere else. If more people let their money speak the same way, you will quickly see more environmentally and socially conscious business operations. At this point, I’m not sure which is group has more job protection, lawmakers or corporate executives.
Isotope – I don’t think you’ll find many people that don’t believe health care needs to be reformed. The issue becomes how do you do it? There are many ways to skin this cat, as well. The Republicans screwed up by doing absolutely nothing while they had control and the Democrats screwed up by rushing something through without serious input from the nation. Not only is the American public still confused about everything, I believe half of the lawmakers don’t know what’s really in the bill. As far as talking about health care for 16 months, that’s a lot different than seeing the actual bill and having time to understand it and discuss it.
anon – I have to disagree about just moving money around. Those dollars still have full value in driving the economy. A company that gets a $10 million investment from an investor can then buy equipment, create additional jobs, etc. I understand your position on how our currency is valued. Ever since we got off the gold standard, our money is only worth what the world thinks it’s worth. The issue though is that it can be taken too far. I’ll admit that I can’t remember the numbers but I’ve seen several reports (including from the Congressional Budget Office) that the interest on our debt alone will out pace GDP within the next decade or two.
Closer: I’m well aware of where federal money is spent — about 20% on defense (that’s actually low, as many other expenses are billed to agencies other than DoD, such as all nuclear weapons under the Energy Dept.); the same on SS, the same on health care. Your choice would be to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid rather than defense? Then you must know why people like me oppose people like you.
“If the problem is that you always spend more money than you have, you can never work hard enough or make enough money to satisfy the need to spend money.”
That’s a straw man. You’re speaking in generalities and absolutes, and still not a word accepting that taxes on the rich have been higher than they are today without wrecking the economy.
“The first step has got to be to learn how to spend less than you make.”
The whole idea of equating individual household economics with governmental economics is exactly the sort of unsophisticated foolishness I expect from Tea Partiers. Why is this the “first step”? Because you say so? OK, then we should have figured out how to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq before we invaded them. The traditional way America has paid for wars is with higher taxes. Not this time.
This is hopeless. Closer, you’re just parroting back right-wing horseshit now. I’m done.
Guys (or gals), I guess I have to get back to work since all of you want me to pay your bills for you. 🙂 Anyway, I enjoyed the spirited debate once it became civilized. If anyone has any parting shots or name calling, now’s the time to get them in. If not, I certainly respect some of your points and I encourage you to listen to opposing points of view without the childish name calling and defamation. That’s one of the best things about this this country but it has to be done right for us to move forward as a group.
That “one dollar one vote” dream is false. all that money funnels up to only a few end points and often…. as is the case with health insurance, you dont HAVE a better choice. They are allowed to form monopolies where the free market is a joke. You can be pro business and pro free market all you want. What the robber barons have created is NOT a true Adam Smith capitalistic free market. It is a closed oligarchy where we have very little real choice.
Geezer – At what point in any of my comments did I say anything about our defense budget? You’re the one that brought that up and all I said was that we spend more on social programs (all of them combined) than we do on defense. I never said whether that was good or not. You have clearly shown your intelligence here today by offering nothing more than categorizations and name calling. You are just as offensive as the right-wing extreme idiots like Limbaugh and Beck. People like you make radio and t.v. great for ratings but these type of comments have no place in real political discussions. I’m glad to hear that you’re done.
a.price – That is just one point that we’ll have to disagree on. I believe that was certainly the case many years ago but in this day and age, people have many options on where to spend their money (with some very limited exceptions, maybe). However, I believe your opinions are well thought out and make sense depending on how you look at it. In this case, I just think we’re looking at it through different lenses. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas.
fair enough Closer. I have to say i hope you are right. because that would be a brighter scenario. My evidence is all the mergers and corporate deals that take place. A few men get rich while many others get pink slips…. that isn’t a free market IMO. Thanks for the back and forth anyway. Not often i can disagree with someone and not have it be disagreeable
a.price – I agree. I try to think for myself but that can only happen by truly listening to both sides of every story. You never know who you can influence or who can influence you but it requires two open minds (or at least semi-open). It’s the closed-minded people of both sides that polarize our country because they are so narcissistic that they think they have all of the answers and anyone who disagrees is either an idiot or a racist. I’ll be the first to admit that I certainly don’t know everything but I try to learn something new everyday. That is what has continued to shape my opinions and beliefs over the years. I’m certainly more left leaning today than I was five, ten or fifteen years ago but it’s really hard to listen with so much baseless name calling. Maybe one day, we’ll figure it all out but until then, everyone, at least respect your fellow Americans enough to truly listen before passing judgement.
you’re not bad, Closer. Not bad at all. I think the number of conservatives who are like you FAR outnumber the ones like Palin and her followers. They are just so much louder. I wish the sane, rational ones were in charge of the message.
Bullshit, closer. I made lots of points you chose not to address. Sorry you can’t take the harsh language, but get used to it — lots of people like to call a dick a dick.
Pretty much all I got out of closer is that someone needs to reduce spending because it’s bad. That’s the problem – who and by how much? What about raising taxes, especially on the rich since their taxes are out of balance from what they’ve been in the past. Somebody else cut spending is not a policy proposal. We’ve shown in previous posts that these anti-tax folks can’t find anything they really want to cut, except “foreign aid” which only makes up 1% of the budget. What I see people arguing here is that they don’t want their taxes going to people they don’t like.
Alright guys, I couldn’t help but come back and check out what was going on.
Geezer – I went back and checked your comments. I can’t find any points that you made that I didn’t address. Most of your points were childish name calling and I’m certainly not going to address that. But to address a couple of points that I may have given specific attention to: I don’t claim to be proficient in micro and macro economics. I’m willing to bet that most of us on here are not experts in this field. My point, simply, is that common sense has to come into play sooner or later. For the past twenty years (and probably more), we have spent significantly more than we have taken in. The only years the budget was balanced was in ’98 to ’00 when Clinton was in office. I’ll have to say that he did a good job of getting our financial house back in order.
To use my “unsophisticated” economics as an example again, if we continue to borrow money to the point where just the interest owed is more than the national GDP, there’s no way we’ll ever pay anyone back. At that point (just like your credit card company), people quit lending you money or charge exorbitant rates to do so. We’ve already seen a decline in the U.S. dollar. Why do you think that is happening? As we clearly discussed earlier, we’re not on the gold standard anymore so the value of the dollar is based on the world’s confidence level in the U.S. (I know it’s a little bit more complicated than that but I believe this is the simplest and most accurate answer without getting into a full blown economic discussion). And by the way, I fully agree with you about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have spent way too much money on both wars with no plan on how to pay for them.
Also, you keep bringing up the defense budget compared to social services. Obama’s 2011 budget (which isn’t too far off of where the past few budgets have been so I’m not just picking on him) includes $717 billion for the Defense Dept. How much for Social Security, you ask? $792 billion Let’s don’t forget about Health & Human Services. It’s budget is $915 billion (the largest). With the Treasury receiving $561 billion, these four departments make up the vast majority of the budget. To put that in comparison, it costs a lot of money to go to the moon (or Mars now), right? The 2011 budget for NASA is only $19 billion. Not once in my comments today did I specifically target one department over another. Yet, while grasping at straws, you assume that I believe the Defense Department should have all of the money and everyone else should get none. My solution… reduce ’em all (more specifically, the big four). Working in an industry where I have interacted with many government agencies, I see government waste almost every day. For some reason, people like to think that more money is the solution. The problem is that our government doesn’t know how to spend the money effectively! How do you not see that? We spend way more per student in the U.S. than any other country but we still don’t even rank in the top ten academically. I’m sure you’re answer is spend more money. I’m sure you will also say that I hate our children because I don’t want to give them all the money in the world. Wake up people. Throwing more money at our problems won’t make them go away.
Finally, you guys keep bringing up the fact that we need to tax the rich. And the fact that your argument is that their taxes used to be higher so we should raise them again is appalling. What you fail to understand with your narrow mind is that I personally don’t care whether the rich are taxed to within one dollar of being bankrupt. What I do have a problem with is people like you and Isotope that distract everyone from the real discussion by believing taxing the rich is the best solution. The top 1% of earners in the country (which I am certainly not a part of) already carry 95% of the tax burden. How much more money do you think you are going to get out of them? People like you are perpetuating a class war that distracts everyone from the main problem. Our elected officials love to portray the rich as the bad guys. If we didn’t have them as the bad guys, who else would we have? The elected officials (both Republican and Democrat) that got us in this mess to begin with.
Guys, at least I was willing to visit a site like this to learn about how the other side feels about an issue but you have clearly shown that you’re not willing to do the same. Both of you have continued to sling insult after insult instead of engaging in intelligent debate. You just lost a great opportunity to possibly have an affect on someone that was actually willing to consider your arguments.
Good night.
Hey Idiot,
Can you name a country that does a better job at tax fairness than the Unite States? Okay then.
There you go again wanting to compare us to other countries, jason. When have we every cared about modeling ourselves after other countries? I also find it amusing that so far today, all I’ve heard from you are one line insults instead of any real insights. Who’s the idiot, jason? The guy who calls someone an idiot just because they disagree with them or the guy that can’t provide a single contribution to the discussion? Oh wait, both of those are you.
every reporter needs to ask the next teabagger they run into if they know this. I’m sure the response will be *fart*
btw – just saw that DB frunkie luntz hamming it up with snyder after the flyers win. must be part of that soon-to-be-failed comedy network or something.
And jason, I usually don’t engage such simple minded people like yourself but since you are so concerned with other countries, Switzerland has the lowest marginal tax rate at 20% and the 7th highest per capita GDP. The United States has the 6th highest per capita GDP while having a marginal tax rate around 27%. Now that you have your information do whatever you will with it. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t really care what Switzerland or any other country does but I hope this helps you sleep tonight.
Wow. Switzerland. Yes let’s be like them!! Maybe we should take a closer look retard. What do you say?
Switzerland has a “classical” corporate tax system in which a corporation and its owners or shareholders are taxed individually, causing economic double taxation.
This is sad, guys. Closer wasnt trying to antagonize like the Anonny Mooses, RWR, whatever regular right wing teabag. At the worst he/she is differently informed. Many of us… including me.. would say “misinformed”. But a few of you have sunken to the teabagger’s level in your approach to disagreement. It’s fine to have stinging flashy insults for the morons who spew hateful Fox News soundbite…. i work on mine in the shower. But if we lose our ability to speak as a mature person to people who are of an opposing view point, but at least are being cordial… we are the left wing version of the guy with the Obama-hitler poster. And a LEFT wing tea bag is worse than a right wing teabag, because they hurt the cause from within.
Closer, I disagree with you on a few of the “means” to the similar “end” we seem to share. At least you thoughtfully believe in your arguments and you seem to have put some time into forming them. I urge you to look more into the “Leftist” view point somewhere other than any blog… where the rhetoric is basically sport.
and i know i do it all the time, so save your A.Price venom-filled insulting comment” reposts. Ive been trying to do it less lately to people who don’t really deserve it. (there arent many 🙂 )
A. Price: Take a look at this statement by Closer:
“The top 1% of earners in the country (which I am certainly not a part of) already carry 95% of the tax burden. How much more money do you think you are going to get out of them? People like you are perpetuating a class war that distracts everyone from the main problem.”
This is exactly what you claim this person wasn’t using — a horseshit argument straight out of the Fox News playbook. For one thing, it’s not true. For another, so what? He’s deflecting facts with opinions. In a real debate, you might as well try to deflect machine-gun bullets with opinions.
The main point is that it’s useless to debate these people — they are not open-minded enough to change their minds. They are here only to try to change yours. They are not going to even do you the courtesy of looking up the facts you point them to — they have gotten theirs from news sources that aren’t even trying to be objective, and they don’t read anything from the other side.
Your argument boils down to “But he’s too polite to be a rapist!” Fuck him and the right-wing horse he rode in on.
These “discussions” with “reasonable” conservatives are a total waste of time and electrons. Nobody is here to try to educate the unteachable — or are they?
Let me add something else on Closer: Folks like him seem like they want to truly engage in discussion. But look at his arguments: “Sooner or later common sense has to come into play” is the hallmark of a — let’s call them sincere Tea Partiers. What you should notice is that, rather than truly educate himself, he has latched onto a bunch of emotional talking points and context-free statistics. Boil all his bullshit away and you find a person who believes:
1) We shouldn’t tax the rich any more because they pay enough already.
2) It’s not fair that 47% of the people paid no federal income tax in 2009.
3) The complicated problems facing the country must be solved with “common sense”
4) We have nothing to learn from any other country in the world.
I could go on, but this gives you some idea.
If this person is sincere about understanding the world, he’s going to have to put his biases away and come at questions with a truly open mind. In other words, this person needs exposure to real education, not what he gleans from right-wing media. Do you really want to spend your time educating someone who resists new data and has no accountability to learn the material? Really?
Agree with Geezer. Closer has some minimal skill at faking sanity (a. price bought it). Closer is a poser.
This line by Closer keeps jumping out at me:
The only years the budget was balanced was in ‘98 to ‘00 when Clinton was in office. I’ll have to say that he did a good job of getting our financial house back in order.
And how did Clinton balance the budget? And what were Republicans saying at the time? And how many Republicans voted for Clinton’s plan?
even if that’s what he was saying.. and im not totally convinced that is the case… you still have to excuse for acting like a teabagger.
What a right wing tactic it is to lump all one group of people together and say “i dont care if they are polite, fuck them”
You’re right geezer.. the “oh, those burdened rich people” argument IS a fake argument dreamed up by the rich people and fed to gullible folks. But there is a difference between the ones who know nothing at dont care to learn who use those arguments, and people who actually buy it but are willing to accept there is another explanation. If the alternte explanation is “fuck you, idiot” i have a pretty good idea what argument they will be sticking with, and my association who they will vote for and support. Noticed i stopped going to the Blog-speak slam win as soon as i realized Closer was not they wing-nut type…. just, at worst misinformed.
And yes you can be cynical and say “oh he is faking it, he really pleasures himself to Sarah Palin writings and wants Rush to be King of Christmerica” and that is fine. It just means you are a quitter who has given up on changing people’s minds and that you only care about getting 50+1 for your cause…… Just like Republicans.
Guys, here’s my parting comment. You say that I need exposure to real education yet you offer none. You say that I get all of my information from right-wing media (because there is so much of that these days, right?). Yet, I chose to engage in discussions on a blog that is called Delaware Liberal. If I just so blindly consume right wing media, why would I have ever taken the time to not only stay on the site to read anything at all but also join the discussion? Ask yourself this, how many sites or news sources do you normally visit that have a different view point from your own? You say that I “don’t read anything from the other side” on a blog where I’m the only one with a point of view that differs from everyone else’s. Am I missing something here?
You say that I’m deflecting facts with opinions yet I seem to provide more facts on here than anyone. Whether they are the facts that you care to hear may be another story. Your typical response? Opinions (mainly insults) without offering any “exposure to real education” that you say I so desperately need. And by the way, the fact that the top 1% pay over 95% of the tax burden is true whether you want to believe it as a fact or not. One place you can find the information is with The Tax Foundation but there are many others if care to do the research.
Jason, there’s no reason to even engaging you anymore. Like most people from the left, you choose to derail the entire discussion with a useless point. Why are tax models from other countries so critical to you? You guys have been trained extremely well in deflecting any serious discussions with childish arguing, distractions and name-calling. What really amazes me is how many times throughout these comments almost everyone resorts to branding and pigeonholing me as some right wing extremist that has been drinking too much of the Kool Aid. I guess it’s either Right or Left with you guys. You have to pick a side and go along blindly with everything they say? Well, I guess your side already has too many people since you do everything in your power to push people farther to the right. Unfortunately, it’s people like you that create the other kind of extremist people that I despise.
Geezer, you win. I admit that I am an idiot. You’ve made several references to the fact that I won’t address your specific points and that I won’t even “do you the courtesy of looking up the facts you point me to”. I have gone back and looked and I just can’t find these facts that you were trying to point me to. You seemed to be extremely worried about he Defense budget so I went and got some facts directly from the 2011 budget to support that discussion. I’m not sure what you were trying to direct me to. So, I apologize for not looking up these facts. Let’s all just blame it on my stupidity. Agreed? Also, you mentioned that I have to put my biases away and come at questions with a truly open mind. Compare my comments to everyone else’s on here. How many times did I actually agree with others on here? (there were plenty of times) How many times did anyone try to see any type of legitimacy in my arguments? (not many) So again, who is displaying the open mind here? The problem, however, stems from people like you that go out of their way to completely shut any open mind that doesn’t 100% agree with your divine enlightenment.
Finally, a.price, you are a gentleman (or gentlewoman) and a scholar. Of all of the back and forth on here, your points have resonated the loudest. I will certainly reflect on your insights. You are definitely correct about one thing… a blog like this (or any other really) is not the place where we are going to solve the world’s problems. But it does illustrate the culture of our society and it looks like we have a long way to go before our problems will ever be solved. Hopefully, there are more people like you and me that are at least willing to listen to the other side so we can at least agree on the “end”. We can begin working on the means once we at least have a common goal of achieving the same end.
Everyone. I won’t disturb your community anymore. It’s obviously time to move on. No matter what, we’re all brothers and sisters of this great country so, please, have a great day and I wish all of you many blessings in life.
Closer – Some folks lack the intellectual capacity to engage in discussion. Jason330 is one of those people. Baseless insults and accusations of racism are all he knows.
I’ll make one concession to the right – I think Democrats should come up with an agenda of spending cuts designed by Democrats, not Republicans. An agenda that results in a small but real net cut in spending. (I’m not including things like stimulus and relief programs).
Just as one example, I think if Corzine had done this he might have been re-elected (not that I’m much of a Corzine fan, but you get the idea).
Without an agenda of Democratic spending cuts, Democrats will always be seen as swallowing spending cuts forced upon them by Republicans, and will eventually be defeated over the issue.
careful, anon. making any concessions to the Right is showing weakness and you’ll have to turn in your “Liberal” card. 🙂
The sad part is, every time there is ANY spending cut by Dems…. like deciding to stop spending millions on fighter jets we dont need anymore…. it is portrayed by the R’s as “a horrible affront to our security and will SURELY get us taken over by a small band of cave-dwelling thugs” (that wasn’t racist terrorist groups do indeed hide out in caves.)
Obama has already cut some spending but he hasn’t gotten any credit for it. Republicans proposed spending cuts that were less than Obama had already cut. Guess who’s considered the party of fiscal restraint.
Mike, please stop pretending that consrvatives are interested in anything like debate, compromise or decency. I’ve been at this for eight years and anyone who thinks that there is any point in engaging consrvatives is a fool.
it really is disappointing you feel that way, Jason.
Speaking of naive, I think we are all naive if we think the majority of our elected officials actually have our best interest at heart.
Apparently they care more about your health than you do, as is proven when they pass healthcare bills and so on. They’re like the liberals here who shows how compassionate, empathetic and caring they are by which politicians they elect to be compassionate for them. That’s the Christian thing to do and Jesus will probably cry a little tear if compassionate people like Barney Frank are not elected.
It’s obviously time to move on.
Indeed, I was wondering what you were doing here. Here’s a local blog from the other side. She’s radical sometimes but at least a little more intellectual and less political (“But the Republicans this and that!” Etc…fun, fun) than this blog. You have to wonder if some people even know what sort of philosophy or worldview they are supporting when all they seem to care about is winning a political game.
(that wasn’t racist terrorist groups do indeed hide out in caves.)
It’s ironic that racism is one of the few sins that the liberal mind is intolerant of when its worldview is based on mythologies of Progress, including the old racist icon of cave men. There is actually little evidence that “cave men” were necessarily any less intelligent than the average person today and there is little evidence that they actually lived in caves despite bones being found there. If there was a nuclear holocaust and people were reduced to living in caves that would not make them more or less intelligent, nor would it make them a separate or primitive race. Ironically it may be that the main reason that the “cave man” icon exists and is woven into modern mythologies of progress is because ancient people often buried their dead in caves, which should be counted as evidence against ancient people or races necessarily having a lower form of sentience than modern people.
I know myn…. but i can see a liberal extremist getting their organic fair trade knickers in a twist because I am propagating the notion that all terrorists are “Arabic cave dwellers”. I actually think people who can live without all our modern technologies and conveniences are more useful and have a better skill set.
Obama has already cut some spending but he hasn’t gotten any credit for it.
Probably because his little “scalpel” is lost at the bottom of an ocean of spending:
WSJ
Yet taxes have not been raised. The statement “Our children will pay for the wealth we want now.” has less credibility thanks to Obama and the majority of our politicians. That’s all that they should get credit for.
mynym – Would you have proposed that the government cut spending during one of the worst recessions in our history? Does that sound responsible?
And out of curiosity, how would the equation have changed, do you think, if McCain had been elected? More tax cuts? If so, don’t we end up at a similar bottom line? If not, does he let the economy go into the ditch?
i can see a liberal extremist getting their organic fair trade knickers in a twist because I am propagating the notion that all terrorists are “Arabic cave dwellers”. I actually think people who can live without all our modern technologies and conveniences are more useful and have a better skill set.
One thing that people who live without the benefits of civilization have to do is engage in basic forms of pattern recognition but they can do so reasonably. I was debating a Phd psychologist from New York online when September 11th happened. Before 9/11 they were against any pattern recognition with respect to Islamic terrorism and thought that the Jews generally victimized Arabs. It was generally all the equivalent of racism and so on, yet after 9/11 they became a racist and I and liberals began disagreeing with them. It seems to me that it was because their concern with racism was purely political and had no foundation in their actual worldview. And despite their disagreement I don’t believe that the other liberals actually had any principled foundation for their views other than that they hadn’t experienced 9/11 and they still liked to run with the Herd.
Not to belabor the point, but I have no interest in educating people like Closer, nor any obligation to do so, either. But I will note that self-pity is the first refuge of Tea Party scoundrels.
AS for who in this “debate” is relying on facts, the conservative-leaning Americans for Tax REform reports that the top 1% now pay more taxes than the bottom 95% — not that they pay 95%. They actually pay about 40% of the taxes. That’s not surprising, as they control about 42% of all the wealth in the country. Indeed, if you believe in progressive taxation — that the wealthy have a greater stake in social stability and therefore should pay a greater percentage of the taxes — these statistics argue strongly that the rich are undertaxed.
“Of the 15 million income-earning households that do not file a tax return, some 98.9 percent earn less than $30,000, while roughly 99.5 percent earn less than $40,000.” So much for the loosely bandied about $50,000 canard from earlier in the thread.
I bumped into this statistic in trying to verify the 1%-95% claim. It wasn’t hard. It’s telling that our conservative “friends” on this thread couldn’t find it.
I stand by all my previous comments. For obvious reasons.
Would you have proposed that the government cut spending during one of the worst recessions in our history?
No, the stimulus was needed, even if poorly designed.
But even with a massive temporary spending increase caused by stimulus, there should still be a long-term reengineering focused on containing spending on non-stimulus programs. If you need more stimulus, then pass a bigger stimulus.
Just as Republicans shouldn’t confuse the temporary stimulus with long-term spending increases, Democrats should not point to program bloat and call it stimulus.
Obama hasn’t exactly been asleep at the wheel on spending though; there’s an AP story out today:
myn, I have NO idea what your comment had ANYTHING to do with mine you reposted…. non at all. It is an interesting story but *over the head* i would welcome an explanation.
“Not to belabor the point, but I have no interest in educating people like Closer, nor any obligation to do so, either. But I will note that self-pity is the first refuge of Tea Party scoundrels.”
You’re right. You have no obligation to educate or agree or even be nice to them. Just know that an abrasive attitude towards everyone with a differing view point hurts the cause. second EVERYONE is guilty of self-pity. That statement is no different than Bernie Goldberg saying of Liberals and special needs children “they would NEVER let that happen”
Would you have proposed that the government cut spending during one of the worst recessions in our history? Does that sound responsible?
Before answering any questions I would first point out that this is all a house of cards. The government could be perfect and there could be a natural disaster tomorrow anyway or people could all begin to be moral degenerates anyway. We can’t control everything, the government could spend money and the economy could still collapse, not spend it and the same result. It can’t necessarily be managed and controlled to keep us all safe and happy, that’s why you’re supposed to keep yourself safe, care for your own health and pursue happiness on your own.
It depends on what you’re spending it on. I think the government should provide public services and protect our rights. Yet the way they are spending money does the opposite because our money/language is being manipulated. When Obama passed the stimulus bill I heard talk of shovel ready jobs and infrastructure, so what happened? It seems to me it should go to states like Arizona so that they can secure their border, etc. If you’re going to spend it, then spend it on things that have value and then raise taxes to pay for it. Instead most of the money seems to be going to bailouts (and entitlements) and it’s not clear why they are too big to fail or why another entitlement is necessary now before we have the money to pay for it.
And out of curiosity, how would the equation have changed, do you think, if McCain had been elected?
Well, he talked about a spending freeze and I’m not sure what he would do on. Sometimes he’s so crazy that he just might have gotten mad and actually done something. I thought that might be the case with Obama, that he might be some sort of socialist radical who would actually do something different but he’s actually little different than Bush or any other established politician.
More tax cuts? If so, don’t we end up at a similar bottom line?
Actually you wouldn’t because the economy would grow, although it probably couldn’t grow enough to keep up with the spending of politicians no matter what happened. Perhaps the invention of a new energy source? They’d probably figure out a way to squander that wealth too.
If not, does he let the economy go into the ditch?
He’s a senator. If I had to guess it would be that he would many of the same things that Obama is doing, except he might actually secure the border in Arizona instead of being a politician about it like Obama is. He also might get mad one day and actually veto spending bills, etc. Overall the government would probably be better balanced with a Republican in the White House and Democrats in Congress so that they would fight with each other more, spend less and generally leave us alone so that the economy can recover on its own. (Providing no natural catastrophes, less corruption and greed among people, parents raising their kids right, etc.etc.)
I don’t know who Unstable Isotope is, but I can tell you without any hesitation he is a moron.
First he takes this USA Today article verbatim, not applying any simple logic or scale of economics to its conclusions.
Does he actually believe that tax rates are the measure of government spending??
The true cost of government is its expenditures.
Politicians know idiots like Unstable Isotope only pay attention to tax rates if they are paying more or less in taxes. Politicians have perfected the art of hiding fees in goods and services we use every day. Your phone bill, 15% to 29% in taxes depending of the services you use. That brand new Ford in your driveway, 20% in federal taxes is hidden in that sticker price.
Lets look at our own State of Delaware.
Individual tax rates have not increased; yet spending has increased 28% from 2003 to 2008. http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Delaware_state_budget
(State spending has increased 3x the rate of inflation since 1988, accounting for population increases)
Here are just some of the recently added or increased fee’s you have paid in Delaware:
Gross Receipts Tax
Bank Franchise Tax
Reality Transfer Tax
Death and Gift Tax
Wine Tax
Gasoline Tax
Spirits Tax
Hunting and fishing Tax
Insurance Premium Tax
Public Utility Tax
Cigarette Tax
Document Transfer Tax
Stock Transfer Tax
Amusement Tax
Abandon Property Tax
Not to mention if you go to the Recorder of Deeds office it will cost you $5.00 to get a copy of your 5 page deed. It would cost you $0.50 at Staples.
The teababies protest Obama. The main tax burden is from state and local taxes, not from federal taxes. So why are the teababies crying about Obama?
I don’t know who Unstable Isotope is, but I can tell you without any hesitation he is a moron.
Can we take a vote on who’s the moron? And I trust John Galt has gone Galt.
And, UI, it’s not about where the tax burden is, it’s about Obama.
Most people with lots of money started rich. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
Maybe they’re personally industrious, maybe not. Maybe they have good educations and opportunities. But the number one way to have money in this country is to choose your parents carefully.
Even my father, long-time Republican, knew that. He used to say, “Honey, you should have picked parents with money, instead of charm. That was your first mistake.”
And, seriously. I was personally inspired as a teen by Atlas Shrugged. I think Ayn Rand wouldn’t recognize any of these people. I guarantee you Hank Rearden wouldn’t hire any of them to sweep slag.
Exactly pandora. They can claim all they want that it’s about taxes and government but they keep making themselves look like fools that way.
Your dad sounds awesome, Brooke.
Brooke,
I’m not as rich as the Rockefeller’s or the Kennedy’s, but I’m ok with that. I have no class envey and I certianly don’t want the goverment taking their money and giving it to me. That is the differcen between you and me.
As for your comment concerning Rand’s character Hand Readon. If you actually read the book you would know that Readon started as a factory worker and worked his way up and made it the most important Steel company in the country.
It was the people who were envy of his success that used the goverment to dismantle Readon Steel.
Kind of like Wendell Willkie and Commonwealth & Southern.
I don’t have class envy, John. I’m Galting in my own way, if you choose to look at it like that. Just pointing out the facts. Most rich people come from money. There are more Jim Taggarts than Hank Reardens.
Rearden worked his way up. People in silly hats and misspelled signs wouldn’t be hired by him. For anything. Because he hired people who were competent, and these people clearly are NOT competent.
I teach. And not for the government, so you can relax about that. And I observe that you’ve misspelled envy, used it incorrectly in your 3rd paragraph, and don’t know the name of one of 4 main characters in the book you chose to name yourself after. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, and, although this is the internet, and we all approach our grammar and spelling casually here, the general impression you give is that you’re not really on your game, dialectically. I make that judgement as an alum of Mike Castle’s prep school.
Thanks, UI. 🙂 He was basically sound.
Brooke,
I’m so embarrassed that I incorrectly typed a couple of words and I’m so impressed that you are alum of Tower Hill, nice name drop with Mike Castle.
I typed that post in between gardening and barbecuing. My mind was going faster than my hands.
I’ll put my Salesianum, Villanova and Saint Johns’ education up against yours any day.
Funny how you didn’t find any misspellings to point out in my first post, or comment on the Willkie – and Commonwealth & Southern reference in my second post. Read up on that and get back to me.
It’s been several years since my debating days, but I believe that was a Ramsberger pivot. Ignore my main point and reply to some mundane part to offset my main topic.
You most certainly have class envy. It was the main topic of your original post.
What’s embarrassing is the serious discussion of Rand’s bad writing.
It is a conceit to pretend class envy is the reason for regulation and taxation of businesses and the wealthy. I don’t accept the premise.