Shocker: Politicians getting richer; 7 out of the top 10 are democrats.

[quote name='IRHari']Just speaking for myself, I would be fine with extending all tax cuts for 99% of people.

Tax cuts for the top 1% should be rolled back, and there's nothing socialistic about that. Rolling taxes from 35% to 38.6% is not socialism.[/QUOTE]


Why though? just because they are rich? If those people actually pay 35%, then whats the point of taxing just them, a little more. They already pay a higher amount than everyone else by percentage, and they also already pay a much higher proportion than everyone else. If a rich person pays their rate of 35% why should they pay more?

If we cut spending it would work without charging up the deficit, but alas we figure rather than controlling our spending we will just charge it to those guys. This government is like a little kid with a credit card.
 
[quote name='camoor']Warren is sending it to the right place. He knows what anyone with half-a-brain knows - a majority of any money given to the US government goes right back to the rich.[/QUOTE]

So... you're for or against raising the amount of money given to the government?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Why though? just because they are rich? If those people actually pay 35%, then whats the point of taxing just them, a little more. They already pay a higher amount than everyone else by percentage, and they also already pay a much higher proportion than everyone else. If a rich person pays their rate of 35% why should they pay more?[/quote]

Do you know who Adam Smith is?

Also, I am not going to ask you to go in to specifics about spending you would like to see cut.

Because A) you are not capable of giving any sort of answer above the most glib generalities and B) even if you were you never give direct answers to even simple questions so there would be no point anyway.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Would the title have been better if it said "3 out of top ten are Republicans"?[/QUOTE]
Uh, no. Two party system, etc.

I really don't care if you two attack Democrats all damn day long. Just don't pretend that you're against 'the government' and then spend all of your time focusing on one party. It's just childish and insincere is all.

Thanks buddy.
 
[quote name='Knoell']They already pay a higher amount than everyone else by percentage [/QUOTE]
I would like proof because I believe that is wrong. Please address capital gains income and FICA in your response.

Thanks in advance.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I would like proof because I believe that is wrong. Please address capital gains income and FICA in your response.

Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]

Just because employer sends ten percent of my gross pay directly to the government doesn't mean my effective tax rate is higher than it currently is.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is hilarious to see someone argue that making a TAX CUT permanent would be GIVING money to the person receiving the tax cut. Isn't it their money to begin with? So if it is their money to begin with, wouldn't it be more like the government not taking as much, instead of the government giving them money lol.

Thats like saying the money we get back at the end of the year from paying our taxes is just extra money the government is nice enough to give us, and that we are actually gaining something from it.
[/QUOTE]


Actually... ~40% of taxpayers are given money by the government. Meaning they get back more in a "refund" than they payed in. Nearly 50% end up not owing any taxes and get everything they payed in back.
 
This last year I got back everything I paid plus more, for around $800 total. I think I only paid around $300-$400 to begin with.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Uh, no. Two party system, etc.

I really don't care if you two attack Democrats all damn day long. Just don't pretend that you're against 'the government' and then spend all of your time focusing on one party. It's just childish and insincere is all.

Thanks buddy.[/QUOTE]

One party is in control.

I've spent plenty of time complaining about what the Republicans have done.
 
Meh, tea partiers are just the militant wing of the republican party, give it time and there won't be any difference. At the end of the day, you're all conservatives, you aren't going to disagree on that much.
 
Actually, I'd say I disagree with most conservatives on things like drugs, same-sex marriage, military spending, etc., etc. Those are pretty big issues that would get me kicked out of most Republican clubs.
 
Then how can you be conservative and disagree with them on so much? I'm not talking about political parties here, libertarians for example still seem to be pretty conservative, with maybe a more hands off approach. I just mean on a political scale, conservative, moderate, or liberal.

You've always seemed pretty conservative on these boards.
 
Because no one cares when I say things like "The government should not be allowed to prevent two individuals from entering into a contract based on the gender of the individuals." Everyone on here pretty much agrees that military spending needs to be slashed. So far as the members of this forum are concerned, it's pretty universal that things like marijuana should not be illegal. So, when I make these posts, no one makes a big deal out of them because they agree with them and discussing things we all agree with isn't very "fun". Everyone remembers me for the things I say they don't agree with and they think I'm crazy/stupid for thinking.

When I say that bank bailout programs create the illusion of a safety net so that banks will take dangerous risks with investments that they otherwise wouldn't take, the response is "duh".

When I say that individual bailout programs (Food stamps, welfare, etc) create this same type of illusion, causing people to be more risky (obviously on a smaller scale) everyone thinks I'm insane.
 
[quote name='nasum']Instead of the guy that's mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore running for office and putting his regular life and job on the line, we now have a politcal class that is mostly graduates of the Kennedy school of politics that go into "Civil Service" as a career choice instead of going into politics in an effort to really try and make anything better.[/QUOTE]

You shouldn't reference movies you don't understand. One of the effective parodies of that movie was making fun of people like you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... you're for or against raising the amount of money given to the government?[/QUOTE]

I am for the rich paying their fair share of taxes.

I am against extending the Bush tax cuts on the rich.

And for the record, I don't think you're insane for opposing food stamps and welfare. Ignorant, doltish, heartless, and easily duped, but not insane.
 
Camoor - it was used for humourus effect, not as any type of direct quote. Been years since i've seen the movie but i'm fairly sure that the news guy had no intention of running for office.
Also, not quite sure what you mean by people like me...
 
[quote name='camoor']I am for the rich paying their fair share of taxes.

I am against extending the Bush tax cuts on the rich.

And for the record, I don't think you're insane for opposing food stamps and welfare. Ignorant, doltish, heartless, and easily duped, but not insane.[/QUOTE]

A.) Good job with the insults.

B.) Find anything I've said that shows I'm against food stamps and welfare. You won't. I'm against the programs in their current forms - yes. But not completely against them.

C.) Guess that means your insults, based on your faulty premise, weren't that good after all. Surprise.

If I bring a cake into a classroom of 25 students and I want to divide it evenly between the students so that each one gets a fair share of the cake, how should I go about doing it?
 
I'm not saying you condone what Rush says. But conservatives revere Ronald Reagan:

Indeed, in 1992, following Clinton's election, according to National Review, Ronald Reagan sent Limbaugh a personal note thanking him for "all" he was "doing to promote Republican and conservative principles" and proclaiming him the "Number One voice for conservatism in our Country."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

When I say that individual bailout programs (Food stamps, welfare, etc) create this same type of illusion, causing people to be more risky (obviously on a smaller scale) everyone thinks I'm insane.[/QUOTE]
You have to admit bob, when you say things like the above, people are going to assume you're against welfare programs. I mean it doesn't exactly sound like you're for them, but just not in their current form.
 
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/inequality_back_at_record_high.html

The basic story here is that assets have recovered so much more quickly than the broader economy that in 2009, "the millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country's wealth than it did in 2007." In other words, inequality has actually gotten worse. If you want to see why that's unexpected, check out the chart I cadged from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: After the Great Depression, inequality fell and didn't recover until 2007. That's about 80 years. After the Great Recession, inequality fell and didn't recover until ... 2009? That's one year.
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/inequality_back_at_record_high.html

The basic story here is that assets have recovered so much more quickly than the broader economy that in 2009, "the millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country's wealth than it did in 2007." In other words, inequality has actually gotten worse. If you want to see why that's unexpected, check out the chart I cadged from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: After the Great Depression, inequality fell and didn't recover until 2007. That's about 80 years. After the Great Recession, inequality fell and didn't recover until ... 2009? That's one year.[/QUOTE]
I was thinking about that last night. My mind is completely blown at the ability of capital to withstand and even rake more as a result of the financial shitstorm.

The big picture of capital flow of the last 10 years is bordering on my ability to believe it. If you would have told me in 2000 that capital as a whole would need to be saved by the government and then would not only balk at paying for their own salvation but actually have politicians run on an anti-tax platform, I would have looked at you like you were insane. Here we are.

There's this dark part of my psyche telling me that the first George Bush might be one of the most courageous politicians America has seen in a long time.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I was thinking about that last night. My mind is completely blown at the ability of capital to withstand and even rake more as a result of the financial shitstorm.

The big picture of capital flow of the last 10 years is bordering on my ability to believe it. If you would have told me in 2000 that capital as a whole would need to be saved by the government and then would not only balk at paying for their own salvation but actually have politicians run on an anti-tax platform, I would have looked at you like you were insane. Here we are.

There's this dark part of my psyche telling me that the first George Bush might be one of the most courageous politicians America has seen in a long time.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever wondered why inflation fearmongering takes precedence over actual high unemployment?

Because a bit of inflation can actually be pretty good for indebted wage slaves, but it might mean less ROI for the investor class.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) Good job with the insults.

B.) Find anything I've said that shows I'm against food stamps and welfare. You won't. I'm against the programs in their current forms - yes. But not completely against them.

C.) Guess that means your insults, based on your faulty premise, weren't that good after all. Surprise.

If I bring a cake into a classroom of 25 students and I want to divide it evenly between the students so that each one gets a fair share of the cake, how should I go about doing it?[/QUOTE]

I don't care.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Have you ever wondered why inflation fearmongering takes precedence over actual high unemployment?

Because a bit of inflation can actually be pretty good for indebted wage slaves, but it might mean less ROI for the investor class.[/QUOTE]
I'm enjoying watching them crap the bed over the fear of deflation. Note to idiots: when you up productivity per head by orders of magnitude while simultaneously systematically destroying your buyer base, you just might find a deflation issue in your future.

I can't stop laughing at the "printing money will kill us all" naysayers. O rly? It made sense to worry about that for five minutes two years ago.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't care.[/QUOTE]

Then don't reply. Your standard "change someone's statement into something it isn't, then insult him based on what I changed it to" is getting old.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I was thinking about that last night. My mind is completely blown at the ability of capital to withstand and even rake more as a result of the financial shitstorm. [/QUOTE]
How is this surprising? Those at the top tend to have inside information, or at least the means to manipulate the markets to their will. Goldman was betting against the housing market, while telling their customers everything was fine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/24/AR2010042401049.html
Then, there's high-frequency trading, which allows those with the systems to make large amounts of money off of large volumes of trade.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/01/fast-loose-and-out-of-control.html
By trading vast amounts of stock at warp speed, as many as a billion shares a day, high-frequency traders gobble up fractions of cents at a time. The more volatile the market, the easier it is for them to make money jumping in and out of stocks across exchanges.
Click to expand...
[quote name='Msut77']Have you ever wondered why inflation fearmongering takes precedence over actual high unemployment?

Because a bit of inflation can actually be pretty good for indebted wage slaves, but it might mean less ROI for the investor class.[/QUOTE]This isn't 1896. Now we have huge numbers of adjustable rate loans and lines of credit, so that isn't going to help many people. Also, I doubt many employers actually care about their workers enough to raise wages to match a bout of inflation.

Crude oil, has gone from $15-20 a barrel in the 90's to $60-70 a barrel now, and yet there has been little change in income in the US since the 90's. Two other commodities that have also at least tripled in price since the 90's are gold and silver, with gold going from ~$300-400 an oz in the 90's to ~$1200-$1250 today, and silver going from ~$4-5 an oz in the 90's to ~$16-19 an oz today. While the price of those commodities don't affect nearly as many people as oil, still there has been no large increase in income since the 90's that can compare.

The stock market has actually went down since 10 years ago, once inflation is factored in, and yet, as has been pointed out, there are larger income inequalities than we have seen since the Great Depression. Another stimulus isn't going to work, as the root cause of the problem is the looting of the middle and working classes through the transformation into a "service economy." The only thing we can do to fix the problem is fundamentally change the system to one that works again.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Another stimulus isn't going to work[/quote]

Not having this "argument" again with you.

You don't strike as a bad person fullmetal, but you have this comfort zone when it comes to your "arguments" and you flail about and can barely construct a sentence when outside it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Not having this "argument" again with you.

You don't strike as a bad person fullmetal, but you have this comfort zone when it comes to your "arguments" and you flail about and can barely construct a sentence when outside it.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go pray to the Magic Flying Spag Money Monster.
magicmoneyhat1.jpg
.
Oh please Magical Flying Money Monster, I have $100,000 in debt from college, and all I have is a job at Sports Authority paying $9 an hour. Wont you please give me some money?

...

Ah, fuck it. I guess I should probably try praying to the ghost of William Jennings Bryan next. It sure is a better waste of time than actually hoping for.........
protective tariffs, an industry, and an end to the "service economy"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top