THE Official Tea Party Thread
- Thread starter IRHari
- Start date
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/08/11/GR2010081106717.html[/QUOTE]
well the people earning the most deserve the biggest tax break because they earned it wouldn't want to punish being successful would we they could just take their money and go
well the people earning the most deserve the biggest tax break because they earned it wouldn't want to punish being successful would we they could just take their money and go
[quote name='Sporadic']well the people earning the most deserve the biggest tax break because they earned it wouldn't want to punish being successful would we they could just take their money and go [/QUOTE]
Lol, why not reverse that graph and show how much people would pay? I am so glad we are allowed to tax people at a proportion of our income, but yet we cant cut peoples taxes at a proportion of their income.
Someone can pay the proportion of their income in taxes, yet when it comes time to cut taxes, the same proportion of not taking their money is just "not right".
So in reality you are saying rich people can be taxed at a proportion to their income indefinately, but cannot be given tax breaks in that same proportion.
indeed.
[/QUOTE]Lol, why not reverse that graph and show how much people would pay? I am so glad we are allowed to tax people at a proportion of our income, but yet we cant cut peoples taxes at a proportion of their income.
Someone can pay the proportion of their income in taxes, yet when it comes time to cut taxes, the same proportion of not taking their money is just "not right".
So in reality you are saying rich people can be taxed at a proportion to their income indefinately, but cannot be given tax breaks in that same proportion.
indeed.the people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth have to shoulder a bigger burden than the people who don't?
SAY WHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
That's not fair at all. It's almost like they have to contribute back to the society that gave them the opportunity to become disgustingly rich in the first place.
that socialist bullshit, I say the lower class should pay the same dollar amount as the rich. If they can't afford it, maybe they should grab ahold of their bootstraps and work a little bit harder.
SAY WHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
That's not fair at all. It's almost like they have to contribute back to the society that gave them the opportunity to become disgustingly rich in the first place.
that socialist bullshit, I say the lower class should pay the same dollar amount as the rich. If they can't afford it, maybe they should grab ahold of their bootstraps and work a little bit harder.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
@ Knoell: Not if we want to balance the budget.
Isn't that important to you on the right? Or was it only important up until the end of the election cycle?
Isn't that important to you on the right? Or was it only important up until the end of the election cycle?
[quote name='Sporadic']the people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth have to shoulder a bigger burden than the people who don't?
SAY WHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
That's not fair at all. It's almost like they have to contribute back to the society that gave them the opportunity to become disgustingly rich in the first place.
that socialist bullshit, I say the lower class should pay the same dollar amount as the rich. If they can't afford it, maybe they should grab ahold of their bootstraps and work a little bit harder.
[/QUOTE]
That would be funny, if you didn't completely ignore the other half of your argument that people do not deserve tax cuts in proportion to their income, they only deserve to be taxed in that way.
SAY WHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
That's not fair at all. It's almost like they have to contribute back to the society that gave them the opportunity to become disgustingly rich in the first place.
that socialist bullshit, I say the lower class should pay the same dollar amount as the rich. If they can't afford it, maybe they should grab ahold of their bootstraps and work a little bit harder.
That would be funny, if you didn't completely ignore the other half of your argument that people do not deserve tax cuts in proportion to their income, they only deserve to be taxed in that way.
My argument? I don't believe I made one in this thread but here it is for you. The rich should pay more including a higher percentage because they can, the poor/middle class should be the ones getting any tax breaks because they need it more.
[quote name='mykevermin']@ Knoell: Not if we want to balance the budget.
Isn't that important to you on the right? Or was it only important up until the end of the election cycle?[/QUOTE]
no, don't you see myke? only thing we need to do to balance the budget is trim the fat. we need to cut all entitlements programs. social security, medicare, unemployment, food stamps, libraries, public education (of course privatized anything is always better and if somebody can't afford it, they obviously haven't worked hard enough and don't deserve it), etc, etc. and all non-essential government entities (NASA, NPR, FDA, basically anything not defense related)
with all of that waste eliminated, we can still maintain our awesome military and give the rich even bigger tax breaks. they will spend more and the money will trickle down to us! and when we finally get rich, the government WONT BE STEALING OUR MONEY AND PUNISHING THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE (LIKE WE WILL BE ONE DAY) WHO CLIMBED UP TO THE TOP ALL BY THEMSELVES
[quote name='mykevermin']@ Knoell: Not if we want to balance the budget.
Isn't that important to you on the right? Or was it only important up until the end of the election cycle?[/QUOTE]
no, don't you see myke? only thing we need to do to balance the budget is trim the fat. we need to cut all entitlements programs. social security, medicare, unemployment, food stamps, libraries, public education (of course privatized anything is always better and if somebody can't afford it, they obviously haven't worked hard enough and don't deserve it), etc, etc. and all non-essential government entities (NASA, NPR, FDA, basically anything not defense related)
with all of that waste eliminated, we can still maintain our awesome military and give the rich even bigger tax breaks. they will spend more and the money will trickle down to us! and when we finally get rich, the government WONT BE STEALING OUR MONEY AND PUNISHING THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE (LIKE WE WILL BE ONE DAY) WHO CLIMBED UP TO THE TOP ALL BY THEMSELVES
[quote name='Sporadic']My argument? I don't believe I made one in this thread but here it is for you. The rich should pay more including a higher percentage because they can, the poor/middle class should be the ones getting any tax breaks because they need it more.
[/QUOTE]
So someone should be taxed at 38% compared to 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, or 35% because they have a higher income, but when tax cuts are in order, they should receive tax cuts equal to all.
Makes sense to me..
Edit: I would like to add that my criticism is based upon Sporadics comment at the top of this page, not the link that was quoted. Some people will attempt to combine the two.
This would be true if the Democrats in power were going to balance the budget with this money. But as Speedracer so "competently" argues, they need to, and will spend MORE, and cutting ANYTHING will lead to economic disaster.
As most people will agree raising any taxes right now would be the wrong way to go. Democrats want to continue spending, plus cut taxes, but only raise some. Republicans want to cut spending, and cut everyones taxes. I am curious how you find the democrats solution to be the better way to balance the budget. But lets be honest, you don't care to balance the budget. It is one big credit card to you people. Our children thank you.
[/QUOTE]
So someone should be taxed at 38% compared to 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, or 35% because they have a higher income, but when tax cuts are in order, they should receive tax cuts equal to all.
Makes sense to me.
.Edit: I would like to add that my criticism is based upon Sporadics comment at the top of this page, not the link that was quoted. Some people will attempt to combine the two.
This would be true if the Democrats in power were going to balance the budget with this money. But as Speedracer so "competently" argues, they need to, and will spend MORE, and cutting ANYTHING will lead to economic disaster.
As most people will agree raising any taxes right now would be the wrong way to go. Democrats want to continue spending, plus cut taxes, but only raise some. Republicans want to cut spending, and cut everyones taxes. I am curious how you find the democrats solution to be the better way to balance the budget. But lets be honest, you don't care to balance the budget. It is one big credit card to you people. Our children thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
1) What do the GOP/Tea Party plan on cutting? Find me a policy proposal - what's on the table, what's being suggested? The closest I've seen/heard/read is Eric Cantor saying that discretionary spending would be reduced to 2008 levels. Which is so weak, so vaccuous, so poor an excuse for someone who represents the economic arm of a party elected to federal positions to help the economy and jobs that...it reflects only the sheer blind ideology of Republican faithful.
2) Your treatment of "Republicans want to cut spending, and cut everyones taxes" as somehow sensible and related is deeply insincere. The taxes you want to cut are not going to be offset by any reduction in spending (not the least of reasons being a lack of any sincere policies proposed by the GOP). The cuts to the top 2% add $3 *trillion* to the deficit over 10 years, according to the CBO. And yet you think that is sensible.
This credit card metaphor is laughable. If this were an apt barb, I'd accept it. But it's not - who balanced the budget, who brought us surpluses?
(source stinks, but numbers match CBO, so they're reliable). Stop being an ideologue. If you want to return to a balanced budget, you want to return to Clinton.
2) Your treatment of "Republicans want to cut spending, and cut everyones taxes" as somehow sensible and related is deeply insincere. The taxes you want to cut are not going to be offset by any reduction in spending (not the least of reasons being a lack of any sincere policies proposed by the GOP). The cuts to the top 2% add $3 *trillion* to the deficit over 10 years, according to the CBO. And yet you think that is sensible.
This credit card metaphor is laughable. If this were an apt barb, I'd accept it. But it's not - who balanced the budget, who brought us surpluses?
(source stinks, but numbers match CBO, so they're reliable). Stop being an ideologue. If you want to return to a balanced budget, you want to return to Clinton.
http://traxel.com/deficit/
Yep this looks healthy alright. I don't care about your partison politics, I don't want my children living poorly so we can live comfortably.
Do current policies look anything like Clintons policies?
Yep this looks healthy alright. I don't care about your partison politics, I don't want my children living poorly so we can live comfortably.
Do current policies look anything like Clintons policies?
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='SpazX']but not Bush + a republican congress, or Reagan + a republican senate (I guess the house is the real thing here...)[/QUOTE]
Reagan was fighting the Cold War while Clinton was riding the Dot Com bubble. I think its clear to see that just surplus/deficit isn't enough. It has to be in consideration with % of GDP. That seems fair, right?
show us a graph for that myke.
Reagan was fighting the Cold War while Clinton was riding the Dot Com bubble. I think its clear to see that just surplus/deficit isn't enough. It has to be in consideration with % of GDP. That seems fair, right?
show us a graph for that myke.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Got that right 'chere: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']Got that right 'chere: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/[/QUOTE]
???? Basically that's a long winded article which could be summed up as, "The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge."
Anyway, Graph of Deficit/Surplus as % of GDP
Edit: In comparison to Myke's graph, it isn't all that different except it shows that the future G.W. deficit projections were higher from reality. Also it shows Obama's first 2 years. I don't see how the deficit to % GDP ratio would reduce so drastically in '11 and '12. Seriously, what policies will reduce it like that? Obamacare!??!? (I would like to hear the reasoning behind that) /edit
Also, I think now would be a good time to bring up the growing entitlement spending.
???? Basically that's a long winded article which could be summed up as, "The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge."
Anyway, Graph of Deficit/Surplus as % of GDP
Edit: In comparison to Myke's graph, it isn't all that different except it shows that the future G.W. deficit projections were higher from reality. Also it shows Obama's first 2 years. I don't see how the deficit to % GDP ratio would reduce so drastically in '11 and '12. Seriously, what policies will reduce it like that? Obamacare!??!? (I would like to hear the reasoning behind that) /edit
Also, I think now would be a good time to bring up the growing entitlement spending.
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy shit are you trying to tell me our children will have it as bad as we had it in the 90s tivo? Surely you jest. That's a future I can't tolerate.
Also, I'd like to add that I'm really glad you cleared that up as that graph does not resemble the one myke put up at all.
Also, I'd like to add that I'm really glad you cleared that up as that graph does not resemble the one myke put up at all.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='tivo']???? Basically that's a long winded article which could be summed up as, "The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge." [/QUOTE]
Nah, I linked that article because reading you hemming and hawing about how Reagan had it so bad because of the Cold War as a means of discrediting the Clinton surplus years reminded me of the research: when confronted with facts, most people tend to double down on their ideology instead of change their mind. that's what you're engaging in right now, and will engage in again when you respond to this post.
And then you...link to a chart that shows the Clinton surplus years.
If you want to get contextual and apologetic about the different things each president has to deal with, where does "being handed over the worst economic crisis since the greating depression" rank on a scale of "1" to "ending the largely imaginary-by-that-point-cold-war"?
Here's what you're afraid of confronting: the most economically practical and sensible results-getting president of the past 40 years was William Jefferson By-Gum-A-Democrat Clinton. By a HUGE margin.
Nah, I linked that article because reading you hemming and hawing about how Reagan had it so bad because of the Cold War as a means of discrediting the Clinton surplus years reminded me of the research: when confronted with facts, most people tend to double down on their ideology instead of change their mind. that's what you're engaging in right now, and will engage in again when you respond to this post.
And then you...link to a chart that shows the Clinton surplus years.
If you want to get contextual and apologetic about the different things each president has to deal with, where does "being handed over the worst economic crisis since the great
ing depression" rank on a scale of "1" to "ending the largely imaginary-by-that-point-cold-war"?Here's what you're afraid of confronting: the most economically practical and sensible results-getting president of the past 40 years was William Jefferson By-Gum-A-Democrat Clinton. By a HUGE margin.
[quote name='SpazX']Holy shit are you trying to tell me our children will have it as bad as we had it in the 90s tivo? Surely you jest. That's a future I can't tolerate.
Also, I'd like to add that I'm really glad you cleared that up as that graph does not resemble the one myke put up at all.[/QUOTE]
According to most people on your side, people had it good because of the clinton tax increases of '93. I guess you didn't get the memo.
Then taxes were decreased in '97 and everything went to shit. Oh....it didn't? It easily outpaced the growth that occurred the '93 increases? No kidding. And we still had a surplus? No Way!
^^^^^
Also what results are Obama getting?
Also, I'd like to add that I'm really glad you cleared that up as that graph does not resemble the one myke put up at all.[/QUOTE]
According to most people on your side, people had it good because of the clinton tax increases of '93. I guess you didn't get the memo.
Then taxes were decreased in '97 and everything went to shit. Oh....it didn't? It easily outpaced the growth that occurred the '93 increases? No kidding. And we still had a surplus? No Way!
^^^^^
Also what results are Obama getting?
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's what you're afraid of confronting: the most economically practical and sensible results-getting president of the past 40 years was William Jefferson By-Gum-A-Democrat Clinton. By a HUGE margin.[/QUOTE]
but...but...but he didn't cut entitlement programs. how did he get a surplus without cutting programs for thelazy poor?!?
but...but...but he didn't cut entitlement programs. how did he get a surplus without cutting programs for the
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
"You are comparing apples to a dump truck. There is no meaningful conclusion to be drawn from comparing debt, unemployment rate, spending, etc. between Clinton and Obama's terms."
From the comments on that blog.
From the comments on that blog.
[quote name='mykevermin']"You are comparing apples to a dump truck. There is no meaningful conclusion to be drawn from comparing debt, unemployment rate, spending, etc. between Clinton and Obama's terms."
From the comments on that blog.[/QUOTE]
If you are going to claim Obama is a return to Clintons fiscal policy there is.
All I am saying is Obama rejecting the highest income earners tax cuts is not reminiscent of Clintons fiscal policy in any way.
From the comments on that blog.[/QUOTE]
If you are going to claim Obama is a return to Clintons fiscal policy there is.
All I am saying is Obama rejecting the highest income earners tax cuts is not reminiscent of Clintons fiscal policy in any way.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
How would you know if it is a return to Clinton or not?
Why would Hennessy fail to break up Clinton into first and second terms? The data's available - hell, it's in the charts he built. He's just neglected to disaggregate them.
Why would Hennessy fail to break up Clinton into first and second terms? The data's available - hell, it's in the charts he built. He's just neglected to disaggregate them.
If health care reform hadn't been defeated in the 90s spending probably would have been higher. The thing is, many of us don't mind spending, so long as it's on something positive. in the 90s Clinton wanted to spend money on health care, early 21st century, war was what Bush wanted to spend money on. It's just a difference in priorities.
[quote name='Clak']If health care reform hadn't been defeated in the 90s spending probably would have been higher. The thing is, many of us don't mind spending, so long as it's on something positive. in the 90s Clinton wanted to spend money on health care, early 21st century, war was what Bush wanted to spend money on. It's just a difference in priorities.[/QUOTE]
The Clinton's proposed health care plan came no where near the cost of Obama's.
The Clinton's proposed health care plan came no where near the cost of Obama's.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
You have proof of that?
[quote name='cindersphere']You have proof of that?[/QUOTE]
Well I found a shaky source that says the states would be given a certain amount of money that would fund the program, closer to $500 billion, but I am finding republican opponents of the plan were quoting the plans price at $1 trillion, so ill retract that statement until I can find more proof.
Well I found a shaky source that says the states would be given a certain amount of money that would fund the program, closer to $500 billion, but I am finding republican opponents of the plan were quoting the plans price at $1 trillion, so ill retract that statement until I can find more proof.
bread's done