its obvious that 24-7 he is watching fixed news and right wing hate radio for his information. Its amazing how they all stay on message, they actually make the ave joe to think they are part of the GOP frat club. Truly amazing, the best spin doctors in the business. He also has no comprehension of the recent Supreme Court decision "citizens united" case that gives corporations both foreign and domestic unlimited amounts it can spend and with no disclosure where it came from.
I guess the secrets out. Republican's philosophy that all we have to do is make sure the wealthy have low taxes and that the resulting tide of economic growth will raise all boats is a lie. They've had very low taxes for more than 10 years and the yachts were raised and the boats sank. Been there - tried that - didn't work. It failed and the Republicans can't admit that the middle class also needs wealth to create jobs.
The GOP wants to extend the tax cuts and then point the finger at liberals saying they are responsible for the budget deficits. LOL, how do the GOP sleep at night.
Obama just wants to tax everybody. The rich may be wealthy and all, but they are our job creators. I dont recall one time taxes actually worked, I only remember tax cuts help get us out of near recessions. I dont understand the Democrats motive. It is just illogical
No, Obama wants tax cuts for the middle class and he can only get the tax cuts for the middle class if he gives the rich the tax cuts. The rich tax cuts have a lower multiplier in stimulating the economy than compared to the middle class or even social services like unemployment. Reason? Because the rich doenst spend the money they get back, while the middle class does spend the money to pay for education, bills, etc etc.
@wtong89 Well, if he wants tax cuts for the rich and all of the wealthy, why has he not given them tax breaks? I mean the taxes increase as he extends Bush's tax cuts. Once the tax cuts expire, the tax cuts are going to go sky high. And the taxes are so high today that the rich hoard their money. The rich invest in the private sector and that has spurred job growth in the past. You're right, the rich invest their refunds on things like business and creation of jobs
I dont mind the tax cuts, i just think its stupid how Republicans would blame liberals for spending too much when they themselves spend $. Tax Cuts has raised our national debt since Reagan, for that reason Reagan raised taxes and so did H.W Bush. If you are going to give tax cuts, dont blame Democrats for spending to much wiht your own party spends equal amount. Plus the Tax Cut philosophy hasnt been working out in America, its a nice theory but applying it to reality dont work.
@wtong89 But it is what they spend on. I mean our hard-working Americans have to pay money for a medical procedure for prisoners and the education of illegals. Worst of all, expanding government. Like it doesn't hold enough power already. Reagan raised taxes to decrease the deficit after spending money for national defense. The tax cuts stimulated job growth and the economy way after Reagan years. Bush had the two roughest terms any president could have, you have to admit, with 911 and all
@wtong89 I agree when you say that spending is out of hand with both parties, but we need a spending break between both, reguardless. The tax cut philosophy definitely works, eagan created millions as did Kennedy when they gave a atax cut. If there is one theory that works the least greatest it is communism/socialism.
bush had a hard presidency but he chose to make decisions based on what is politically popular. The fact that the United States was going into two wars + 9/11 = government spending. he should have raised taxes but he gave large tax cuts. The people who benefit from his tax cuts are the top 5%. Yes he prevented this country from another terrorist atttacks, but he also signed many bills that increase govenrmetn spending such as Medicare Part D. :/
@wtong89 I agree, but he did raise taxes later in his term to decrease our deficit, by the time Obama came in, spending increased and on what? Government. Basically he increased spending and did create this debt but Obama futhered it and put us deeper in debt, increased the deficit and pushed this recession
thats fair but Obama came into power at the shittiest time. When the economy is bad the government has to increase spending to keep the markets up. I mean consumers start cut back on spending, that is bad for a capitalist market. Now i dont agree with all of Obama's spendings but i feel that a president incresing national debt at a tim of economic downturn is fine, Bush raising hte debt is fine too but he could have icnrease taxes. Obama cant cause of the economy
@wtong89 But the last thing that you're supposed to do in a recession is raise taxes on any business that still exists. I agree, Obama did arrive at a losy time but he furthered this economic falldown. The best thing he could have done for this country was let the people make higher investments instead of paying higher taxes
@TNovaccaine Obama has not raised anyone's taxes-in fact, taxes are lower now than during Bush's admin. because Obama has given over a dozen tax breaks for small business and initiated the payroll tax cut. When Obama took office we were losing over 700k jobs a month and and had minus 9% growth and he immediately turned it around to the point where we have increased jobs for the last 13 months and have plus 2.5% growth. We had minus 9%. He definitely has not "furthered this economic falldown".
@plynth2 Bush had to raise taxes for the decrease of the deficit, but when Bush gave his cut, keep in mind, we were suffering from the global financial meltdown, the recession that Clinton handed him, 9/11 and Obama has said to cut taxes for two months. Clearly they have been high if he says these should do major changes. Two months is not enough time to fully recover. He has furthered this recession because unemployment went sky-high, his stimulus increased deficit and he has helped
@TNovaccaine "Bush had to raise taxes"??? When he took office there was a surplus and he cut taxes-he never raised them. And we were NOT"suffering from a global financial meltdown" in 2001- not even close- it was a run-of-the-mill recession.
@plynth2 AND 911, Close to the end of Bush's term, there was in-fact a meltdown, which takes some responsibility for the condition the country is in today. And, how to you expect the tax cut to work when first Bush was handed a recession, there was 911, we were funding wars, and there was a global financial meltdown.
@TNovaccaine Jobs lost per month has improved dramatically since Obama took office. The last year of Bush the jobs lost per month steadily increased and reached 700k per month in his last month. As soon as Obama took office the jobs lost per month steadily DECREASED to the point where we have ADDED jobs for the last THIRTEEN months. You can't go from losing 700k jobs per month to suddenly adding jobs the next The reversal of jobs lost per month since Obama took office was remarkable.
@plynth2 The unemployment rate increased when Obama took office because of the TARP'S, the stimulus, the taxes, etc etc. Not to mention, the jobs that have been created are all public sector jobs. Jobs not substantial enough for economic growth. We cant spend the rest of our lives working on railroads and highways. Has there been success in the private sector?
@TNovaccaine Unemployment increased during Obama on the way to adding jobs. In Bush's last year, we were losing more and more each month to the point where, in his last month we peaked - losing over 700K in Dec 2008. When Obama came in Jan. the losses immediately started going down. The next month it went down to 650K, the next month 600K, then 500k, then 400k, then 300k, etc. OBVIOUSLY, even as the number of losses steadily improved-the unemployment rate continued to go up- 650+600+500 etc.
@plynth2 But you are thinking all infrastructure, jobs not substantial enough for economic growth, and the private sector continues to hang on to a thread, think about the problem which is less jobs that actually stimulate economy. Lower taxes and let market produce and people consume
@TNovaccaine First of all, when the tax cuts expire they will only go up to the rates we had during the 1990's when there was significant economic growth. Second, its ridiculous to think the wealthy are hoarding because of high taxes -.the wealthy are paying the lowest % of their income in taxes in the last 30 years. Taxes are VERY LOW now.
@plynth2 Well, when the republican-led congress passed the tax cut in the 90's, more and more jobs were created. But, you are still forget. Clinton's taxes could not injure the economy after the major cuts and they were not in a recession, so if the taxes were that high, it is not the same predicament as the one we have today. And, if the economy were better for the wealthy, there would be job growth. The taxes in fact have been precluding them from doing wonders with their money
@TNovaccaine The economy has been just fine for the wealthy. Their incomes have gone up about 10% in the last three years and there have been record profits. No taxes have been raised AT ALL in over twelve years and in fact, small business have been given over 16 tax releif packages in the last 3 years. Neither Boehner nor McConnell have proposed lowering taxes because they know that taxes are not too high. Taxes haven't been this low in the last 30 years or more.
@plynth2 Our wealthy may have money, but they do not spend or invest it without government interference. And, taxes have, in fact, been raised. We have the second largest corporation tax in the world, not to mentioned the top 1% wealthy pay 53% taxes. Whereas you have the careless ones that dont pay at all. And, still either way, raising taxes in a recession is a big NO-NO. You do not come into office raising taxes when America is hanging on a thread, taxes in the past could not
@TNovaccaine The top 1% pay 53% of total taxes? Yes, that is a SYMPTOM of the problem - not the problem. As the 1% increases their share of income and the middle class % goes down - the % of total taxes the wealthy pay will go up even more. Its like, ONE GUY gets ALL the income and everyone else gets zero and the one guy getting 100% of all income complains because he has to pay 100% of the taxes. Poor guy-lets tax people who earn nothing so the one guy doesn't have to pay all taxes. Hahaha
@plynth2 The only thing extending the taxes the wealthy pay is the taxes themself, government, basically. I definitely agree they should all pay their share, but they have been paying more than just a fair share. They pay more than anyone. The wealthy pay at least 70% in all, whereas a large % dont pay any. Somewhere in the 40's 47%?
@TNovaccaine Capitalism works as a system. The wealthy spend their money to provide goods and services that consumers, with their wealthy, to purchase those goods and services. When they purchase those goods and services, their money goes back to the wealthy and the system works. The system does NOT work when one of the parts is broken. When consumer wealth is so small that they can no longer purchase goods and services the system breaks down. Consumers incomes have been flat for 30 years.
@plynth2 Taxes have been going down and down. I repeat, the % of their income that the wealthy pay has not been this low since the 1960s. High taxes are NOT the problem. The problem is that the income of consumers has not sufficiently increases in the last 30 years and to make matters worse, their wages are now going down. Hiring workers at lower and lower wages makes the problem worse. How is providing the wealthy with even more money going to increase the wealth of consumers?
@plynth2 Kennedy actually gave a tax cut and job growth spurred. The taxes were in fact very high at a moment, but loopholes did exist at that time. They were not gonna pay millions of dollars because of governments jealousy of job creators. The wages of a consumer have been going down because jobs are constantly being cut and there are multiple taxes that cannot, I repeat cannot be paid. The wealthy consume as well. Investment/consumption, leads to more jobs, goods and services
@plynth2 But government still holds power because you pay taxes on what you consume, therefore preventing monopolies. And a capitalist economy is a free economy. Spending the rest of our lives wearing the same clothes, eating the same food and making the same amount of money is absolutely impossible. It is like the imagination of a drug addict, that is how truly bizarre it is. Capitalism is just freely trading and prospering for that matter.
@plynth2 And is it not better for the rich to be paying less? Because with their money they definitely can do wonders with business and flipping stocks, etc. I say a cut for everyone, all classes, is the key to the restoration of our economy
@TNovaccaine The reason you don't understand the Democrats' motive is because you are misinformed as to what they want. Obama does NOT want to tax everybody. The only ones he has proposed raising taxes on are those making over $1M a year - that's is certainly NOT EVERYBODY. The only thing that is illogical is your misunderstandings.
@plynth2 But the problem is that raising taxes is not what you do in a stagnant economy. When the rich cant invest the economy is in worse condition because they do wonders with their money and employ many people, expand many business, create jobs
@TNovaccaine The wealthy don't create jobs-they hire people to fill jobs that have been created by consumer demand. There is no consumer demand because the middle class has lost wealth and their wages are going down or they have lost their jobs. No business owner is going to hire people to make products that people don't have the money to purchase. In other words, the middle class does not have the spending power to generate any demand and create jobs.
@plynth2 Actually the wealthy can increase the success of a business by expanding them, and the decrease in taxes could lead to more consumption, which is more goods and services. And, your second assertion is because number one, the middle class do pay taxes, number two, how can there be wealth when we dont have a healthy economy. And they dont have the money because of the taxes. And, that is why I advocate allowing the rich to pay less because they earn more and can do wonders with
@TNovaccaine Why don't have a healthy economy because the middle class is shrinking. Taxes haven't been this low in 30 years and the incomes of the wealthy have gone up and up.
Businesses owners are not stupid. They won't expand when they can't even move the products they have in their warehouses now. Republicans have helped the wealthy and let the middle class wither.
I suppose the wealthy can do business selling diamonds, beach houses and yachts to each other - but that's about it.
@plynth2 But in the past you are neglecting to bring up the cuts Reagan gave and the cuts congress pushed during Clinton years. Tax cuts make the economy impervious to high taxes. By helping the wealthy invest their money, it has a more positive affect than it does when the money goes to government cuz the only thing that has stimulated is debt. And, by investing in multiple businesses, and lowering taxes on the market, you are both creating and having money to consume with. Hence goods/services
@TNovaccaine said, "...the decrease in taxes could lead to more consumption, which is more goods and services". I completely agree as long as the decrease in taxes goes to middle and low incomes earners which will increase demand and thereby create jobs. Once middle and low income earners have more money to spend, they will create jobs and businesses owners will hire people to fill the jobs that are created.
@plynth2 I believe there should be a tax for all though, just because the rich make a lot of money does not mean they should be taxed more, it is unconstitutional. I think a cut goes for everyone, therefore they can invest in economy, better the condition of it and employ the less fortunate. Just because they have large sums of money doesnt mean they should be taxed more. It means they should be taxed less because they have more than the average middle class person and can do more with millions
@TNovaccaine Taxing the higher incomes at a higher rate is unconstutional??? Where did you get that?
You have said the same thing repeatedly, i.e. if the rich had even MORE money than they already have and their taxes were even LOWER than the already are, then everything would be fine. What you haven't said is any kind of response to any of the points I have been making.
@plynth2 Not in a recession! I have been doing nothing but addressing your points. Problem is the rich dont have more money, the taxes are not low, there should not be taxes in a recession because...well its a recession, common sense. Clinton said it himself and he is one of the biggest libs you can find. And I do seem to recall you have been neglecting to respond to a few of my comments. Point is, if you pay 15% taxes and the rich pay 2% taxes, that is much more money than you are payi
@TNovaccaine The facts are that the wealthy have not paid as small a % of their income to taxes in the last thirty years as they do now. Their taxes are very low. And the disparity of income has not been this great since before the Great Depression. Their wealthy now is very high. Those are the facts.
Where in the constitution does it prohibit progressive tax rates? You haven't answered a single question I have asked you so I don't expect you to answer this one either.
@plynth2 Even though a rate may say 2%, that is still a lot of money. You cannot just rely on a rate or percentage... 2% taxes paid by them is more than we pay at a 10% rate. And we are not against taxes, we do however, disagree that taxes should be high because investing in the private sector brings more money into economy and government, believe it or not, because investments made to the private sector spurs growth. And all of your questions have been answered, perhaps you just dont
@plynth2 understand. The wealthy have paid taxes, the government has taxed and the worst part is idiots are advocating being taxed in a recession with an 8.6% unemployment and jobs in America being put in China and jobs are leaving the country. And you condone this ?
@plynth2 Actually middle class incomes have been stable for a while, when Bush gave a cut for everyone, ya hear, everyone? We need a cut for everyone, but the libs dont seem to have a single clue to how the world works. The top wealthy are actually wealthy because they work, not saying the middle class dont work, but the wealthy own their money. A cut for everyone helps everyone to have more freedom with it, that in fact brings more money into the government than taxation does.
@TNovaccaine Adam Smith, himself, wrote, "It is NOT very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
IRS facts show that the tax rates of the richest 400 Americans declined from 29.9 percent in 1995 to 18.1 percent in 2008, largely because that exclusive group derives two-thirds of its income from capital gains.
@plynth2 More money is, in fact, contributed to the public sector with a cut than there is with a tax. They have stopped paying because taxes are simply too high when in this condition and we need to start saving. They are conveying a message to the ones that dont know a damn thing about economy.
@TNovaccaine 60% of the top earners income comes from capital gains which is taxed at 15% which is less than half of what I pay for much of my income. I don't want to hear from you any more how taxes are too high.
The incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent have increased by 278% since 1979. Incomes of The 81-99% has gone up 65%
Middle and low incomes have gone up less than 50%.
Your opinions are not based on facts-they are based on fantasy.
@plynth2 If middle income earners went up as much as the wealthy has gone up, I would be earning about $200K more than I'm making now. Cutting mhy taxes is not going to make any where near that kind of difference. And I know that cutting taxes is not going to make any difference in anone's "freedom".
@plynth2 Hahah their 10% compared to your 15% is much more than you make. They have the constant burden of taxation on their back and in a recession? If you dont wanna hear from me how taxes are to high, aka the truth, that is your problem, dont commit the crime if ya cant take the time. Incomes have increased because they work at good-paying jobs and the middle class pay jobs that simply are not as well-paying. I think the problem here is you're so blinded by socialism, it is hurting
@plynth2 your head. I understand what the problem is here. You think they should all have the same amount of pay, and its not fair that the rich make their hard-earned money, I am sick of it. My opinion is based on what is right, not some Utopian/communist fantasy... Blame the rich because they work good-paying jobs. GTFOH
@TNovaccaine Don't tell what I think. If you have to assume that I think that "all have the same amount of pay" in order to justify your lunacy, you have already lost this argument.
@plynth2 I am simply pointing this out because all idiotic liberals like yourself have beliefs that suggest we should all share the same amount of money, and live in a Utopian fantasy where the rich's money is constantly redistributed.... I am a lunatic? Buddy, you need to search for mental help, because one that believes a rich person should be punished for being wealthy, is clearly a person that makes less than them. It would not surprise me if you live off of a government program
@TNovaccaine There are a lot of stupid, fact ignoring Republicans like you who think that liberals think "we should all share the same amount of money." Your statement shows how stupid you really are. No obviously have no idea what liberals believe.
@plynth2 Is that why people the protestors on wall street, all left-winged yutz's, much like yourself, are all bitching and yelling they dont make enough money and want the rich's money? The rich want to get by in life, but scum like you are whining that they should receive punishment just because they are wealthy. They did something with their life and the libbie communists just want to redistribute their money to people on government programs that receive money from government and
@TNovaccaine The Republican's 30 year war on the middle class that makes sure that all the wealth that is generated by economic growth only goes to the wealthy has got to be stopped. The Republicans have successfully redistributed wealth from the middle class to the pockets of the wealthiest. And the Republicans have convinced fools like you that, because you don't work hard and the wealthy do, you should be happy with your miniscule yearly raises for the rest of your worthless working life.
@plynth2 Actually the republicans have successfully encouraged the wealthy to place more money into the economy to better the working environment for the middle class, and bring more money into the hands of government. At least dont allow government to put me down and make it look like I need the money of a hard-working person to survive. God you are absolutely pathetic, it frightens me that loons like you are not in a cell where they belong
@TNovaccaine You're hell bent on ideology its as simple as that. Its doesnt work, never has never will Reagan's own cabinet member Bruce Bartlett - He was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. He recently came out said trickle down economics is a dismal failure! He gets it, he actually has a conscience and knows it wrong, period! The trolls you get your information from are just greedy sociopaths..
@scottsway Look up Dick Morris, who worked in Clinton's cabinet, Clinton, just incase, cuz you seem pretty stupid, has actually said that taxes should not be raised in a recession. And that is a hardcore lib right there. Taxes can be raised in a time of prosperity when taxes are to be collected but in a recession, even your role model, Clinton said raising taxes should not be done in a recession on David Letterman, now I never thought I would say it, but he is a smart lib
@TNovaccaine Dick Morris a liberal you say? More stupid delusional statements coming from you - you're a bigger moron than I ever thought. Dick Morris is a fixed news contributor and a right wing loon you babbling idiot! He's a whore and will sell his soul for a buck you nit wit. So spare me about good ole dick I'm well aware he worked with Clinton as a political adviser NOT an economic adviser! Hold old are you 10? Obliviously I'm talking to an ignorant kid.
@scottsway Hahah who worked in the Clinton administration...yeah Clinton is a lib you dope. Morris was an adviser to Clinton, sad you dont even know the facts, you moronic individual. He was a big liberal at the time working for Clinton, God you poor moron, I pray for idiots like you. And ignorant kid? You are most likely some freak loon off the street that abuses welfare and you sit there going on and on about how the rich dont deserve their own money? Im ignorant? Friggin scalawag
@plynth2 dont even get out of bed half the time. I know four of those people, so don try and cover that up. People like you need a grip on reality, it is really sad
@TNovaccaine the right wing is completely invested in attacking the middle class and create a permanent underclass. They have dumb ass working class whites, yourself, as pawns for their chess game. They are brazenly stripping the rights of hard working Americans and you laugh. They have brainwashed you to identify with the heartless elite, when those people could care less about you.
@scottsway They have actually encouraged investment and advocated cuts for not only the rich, but also the middle class. The real ones depriving our hard working Americans of their jobs, is Obama...you are just too blind to see it.
@TNovaccaine You're doing exactly what the Republicans, the paid agents of the wealthy, want you to do - you're willing to sacrifice your own economic gain while advocating for miniscule taxes on the wealthy. The wealthy wins and you lose, but that's ok with you. You're a loser and you want to stay that way.
@plynth2 Cuts help the economy, clearly if I am advocating cuts I am advocating economic gain...dopey. And, the wealthy actually helps the economy that I care about, i know you could care less, cuz ur a greedy blind ass lib, but some people care about the country you thick-skulled commie
@TNovaccaine You don't care about the economy - you only care about the wealthy. The middle class should get a fair share of US economic growth instead of the next to nothing they've gotten for the last 30 years. I know that's commie talk to you because its good for the middle class. If the wealthy wants to earn more that's good. If the middle class wants more you call them greedy. Why do you insist that wealth must never go to the middle class-only to the wealthy?
@plynth2 Actually I have said that the middle class should have a proper environment along with the poor at the rich's expense. I actually never once said the middle class are greedy, if ur gonna argue here, dont think twice bout puttin words in my mouth. And to your last assertion, they call them wealthy for a reason, if the middle class want all of the kind of money the wealthy get, get a better-paying job like the wealthy has. But punish them for being wealthy? Sad man
@TNovaccaine Republicans want a flat tax because they say its fair. I wonder if they would go for flat income increases because its fair. NO WAY. They only want fairness when it benefits the wealthy - but never if will benefit anyone else. That's commie.
@plynth2 Commie is when you expect everyone having the same pay and the rich should not earn the money they do because they make too much and the middle class just dont make as much. Not to mention the fantasies you live in with wearing the same clothes, eating the same food, etc etc We just simply want the rich to invest to better the economy for the lower classes. Historically it has worked and will, if idiots like you did not advocate more and more taxes for the rich
@TNovaccaine Watch Youtube video named, "Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy". In it, Buffet and Bill Gates discuss how little they pay in taxes. They both agree that their taxes are too low. Lowering taxes will not improve the economy at all.
@plynth2 Lowering taxes encourages investment. Buffet has to realize raising the rich's taxes to 100%, even, is not going to close the gap in our budget. Of course, he is a lib so it might be hard for him to comprehend that but it is important that you must know, raising taxes to 100% only rounds near to 940 billion dollars, meanwhile we are in debt by trillion and government continues shoving debt down our throat...and you wanna know with who's money? THE RICH! Jackoff
@TNovaccaine I don't know any of those people. Goes to show what a low-grade environment you live in.
I'm not a liberal, I'm just a middle class guy who is more interested in seeing a healthy middle class by fighting people like you who want to punish the middle class by neglect and want to heap more rewards on those who are already receiving all the rewards. I'm willing to fight for the hard working job creators in middle class - unlike the saps of the wealthy like you.
@plynth2 Well I wasnt asking if you know them. I know multiple people that are on welfare and each abuse the system, they have been collecting money from hard-working people, and I live in a sluggish environment? I dont know why ur mouth is running with that liberal crap you prattle on about. You still refuse to realize by investing in the private sector it encourages growth and production which is for the middle class. We want our rich to invest our money, but we want middle class
@TNovaccaine The wealthy are not going to invest in the private sector because the middle class has not recovered from their recent loss of wealth and workers who are being re-hired are taking a cut in pay so middle class wages are being driven down. Businesses are not going to hire workers to provide goods and services for a middle class that does not have the wealth to buy.
@plynth2 Actually the wealthy want nothing more than to invest in the private sector. They just need low taxes to do it. And I already know the next couple excuses coming out of your mouth. The wealthy will just pocket the money and hoard it and blah blah blah cry me a river... they dont actually have the ability because the moment they invest their money, or God forbid, put it to good use, you jump right on the idea of taxation...and then blame unemployment on republicans? Get therapy
@plynth2 And businesses actually will hire workers once there is investment in production, lower taxes on the middle class and the wealthy so they could consume, and even throughout that process the wealthy puts more money into hands of government, if you need explaining, which would not surprise me, I will explain that process too
@TNovaccaine You want things to keep going the way they have been for 30 years. The wealthy have no plans to eliminate the middle class but you do. Its as simple as that.
@plynth2 So while I sit here telling you about how my plan brings more money into government and MC I simultaneously dont care for the middle class? Hahah I dont know rather to call you inattentive or retarded, but I am pretty sure both. It helps a lot when you use your ears instead of allowing your fantasies to distort reality
@TNovaccaine I have never advocated taxing the wealthy and put the money into the pockets of the poor. You just like to think that is what I'm saying because you find that easy to discredit. You constantly put words in my mouth because you find it less brainwork to argue with some cartoon character you have invented instead of what I am actually saying.
Money from the wealthy can be used to give OPPORTUNITIES (not money) to the middle class so they are able to increase their wealth. Get it?
@plynth2 No, because you do believe that taking money from the rich is going to benefit middle class, yeah same difference MC/poor... dont matter. There is a difference of what the money the wealthy's money can be used for and what it is used for. Under president Bush's cuts more money came into federal government. Investing in the private sector actually, now listen close, it brings more money into government, and it betters the working environment for MC/poor. Investing in the economy
@TNovaccaine And just how does increasing the wealth of the wealthy and more tax revenues for the government mean a better working environment for you? You are assured to have a job paying $12 an hour? You're not gonna get ahead that way. Besides, you want to end OSHA regulations which will make the job environment more dangerous for many workers-not better.
End OSHA regulations so the wealthy can increase their profits, make the job place more dangerous, and keep you making $24K. You loser.
@plynth2 Well, think of it this way. The cuts that were given under Bush placed more money into the hands of the federal government than they have ever received. More money for the economy means more job opportunities, that poor head of yours, I can never imagine being that dumb. And $12 an hour? Increasing minimum wage can be detrimental. Check government spending before you come around here crying bout the rich being more successful than a prick like you. Get outta your hole and live
@TNovaccaine Give me that statistics that say the Bush tax cuts increased revenues. It's a fallacy. There aren't any statistics.that support it.
"More money for the economy means more job opportunities" How do you then explain why the US was losing 750,000 jobs in Bush's month even after years and years of tax cuts. We got fewer job opportunities.
I never said anything about a $12 minimum wage nor increasing the minimum wage. Did you not understand anything I said about earning $12 /hour?
@plynth2 Besides the fact that he provided cuts for the rich and created private/public sector jobs that went to nearly billions of jobs. More money puts towards consumption leads to more money put into the hands of government, cuz you're paying taxes on what you purchase, catching on?
We began losing these jobs because were funding different wars, we suffered financial problems after 911, and just to add on to the mayhem, we decided to grant failing businesses with TARP'S. Brilliant
@plynth2 It sounded like you were implying $12 is not enough to make an hour, I dont know about you, but that sounded a bit like you were saying to increase minimum wage. Otherwise, it was just a general statement I suppose
@TNovaccaine A $1500 tax cut does add enough wealth to the middle class to cause businesses to hire - it only allows the MC to continue to scrape by. Because so much wealth has been redistributed to the top for the last 30 years - they are trying to get blood from a stone. Hey Republicans, the wealthy already have all the money. You want us to sell our children so we can buy products from the wealthy?
@plynth2 Wealthy have all the money, but can they use it for what it is supposed to be used for? Investment/consumption? Nah! You need to wake up from your communist Utopian fantasy pal.. They simply invest in productivity, create inventory for businesses, and once the libs lower taxes on all the classes, there can be consumption too. But, the wealthy are evil because they put their money to good use and did something with their life right? What a great American you are
@TNovaccaine Your simplistic little trickle down plan hasn't worked for the last 30 and you want to increase your silly plan even more. You've repeatedly said that taking action to increase the wealth of the middle class is communist. I say its the only thing that is going to save our capitalist system. I suppose its to your credit that you have never claimed that you little plan is going to do anything to avert the shrinking wealth of the MC - because it won't.
@plynth2 Increasing taxes on the wealthy to distribute their money and place it in the pockets of middle class people, who actually have jobs and do not need that money is commie. Things that morons like you support. We have always been a capitalist society, America become great through business...not government and debt like what you obviously believe got us here. And my plan actually does help the middle class, you just simply have knowledge to how stupid you are and cant even support
@scottsway I am very near to poor and by the sounds of it so are you. Except I dont sit there and bitch and moan like you do "Wahhhhh!!! The rich make too much money! They should not be successful! I should be because I am poor and on welfare" much like the way you do. There is something called individual responsibility, something you need to educate yourself on
@TNovaccaine said to scottsway, "I am very near to poor and by the sounds of it so are you". You say you're poor and yet you favor a plan that guarantees that you will remain poor for the rest of your life. If your income had increase for the last 17 years at the same percentage as the wealthy you would not be poor. You are not in a position to get education for yourself or your children and never will. You may be content in your poverty but others want to work and get ahead. But not you.
@plynth2 Poor for the rest of my life? Well, under the regulations we suffer from today, of course, a lifetime of poverty can be expected. Investments in the economy, help it, it does not damage it, I mean I do not see how a person can be this stupid. I want to work and get ahead without the government taking money out of my hands, taking money out of the wealthy's hands, it is freakin idiot morons like you that piss me off because of how mentally moronic they are.
@TNovaccaine If anything, regulations by the FDA are keeping you from going bankrupt as a result of medical bills incurred from taking unregulated dangerous drugs or from toxic air and water. Just what regulations are keeping you in poverty? (I know this will be just another question you won't have an answer for).
@plynth2 More like keeping small businesses to compete with large businesses. Regulation stifles a businesses capabilities.....and I have answered all of your questions, I can tell you will just hate being wrong again
@TNovaccaine You're very funny. I ask you a question about what regulation is keeing you in poverty, you don't state a single regulation., then you claim you answer all my questions. I'll ask you that same question and we'll see if you can formulate an answer - Can you name a single regulation that stifles a businesses capabilities which keeps you in poverty? The wealthy are getting richer even with all those regulations and YOU"RE being kept in poverty? Hahaha
@plynth2 You mean regulations on businesses that have been preventing progress in their competition stifling the exact way an economy works. Funny you evade intelligence. I see taxes as of being a a disability. I see government preventing businesses from making investments and hiring people as a regulation bcuz government hates any kind of business. The wealthy getting richer? Hahahah God Bless your liberal-screwed head
@plynth2 I have listed regulations, regulations have been impeding on the progress of business. I gave you taxes as an example but you just to condone that and make it as though I did not list a fact. It is because all of you libs only think that government should have the ability to run everything, simply government should have complete control, and our four fathers came here to avoid being controlled, did government make us great? Is that what made us wealthy and prosperous as a
@TNovaccaine I have reviewed you previous posts and found no reference to a single fact on taxes from the IRS website or anywhere else. Or is the fact that you are citing is that we pay taxes? That's the fact that you have stated? Or that there is an IRS website is another fact? Or that there are tax tables is the fact you offered?
@plynth2 Simply go on an official IRS site where you will find tax tables and you will see that the rich pay the most taxes, according to their brackets, mainly.
@TNovaccaine If you're looking at the tax tables and concluding that that is the % the the wealthy actually pay, you couldn't more wrong.
Hedge fund managers don't pay rate that is on the tables. They pay a rate that is less than half of the rate that I pay. Let's test YOUR tax rate knowledge by you coming back with the reason why that is so. Here's a hint: it is the same reason that Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary.
@plynth2 Is that why the wealthiest 1% are ordered to pay around 37%? The bottom 50% earn 13% of taxes and only pay 3%. Oh, and that little cry for the middle class, according to actual quotes from April, if I am not mistake of '11, most of them agreed that it was fair. Nobody complained about their taxes. You need t be a little more educated on things like this. With Bush's cut, there was more investment in both sectors, including hiring and years back around Reagan's time. Admittedly,
@plynth2 Lower taxes rates have made the tax system more progressive. Think of it this way, years back when Carter left office, the top 5% were only paying 37%. Today, the top 1% pay that, and the top 5% pay near to 57%.
@TNovaccaine WOW. You actually provided a fact. Congrats. Republicans LOVE to cite the fact that the top 5% contribution has gone from 37% to 57% of total taxes paid and that that is unfair to the top 5%. BULLSHIT. Its a symptom of fact that their incomes have gone way up and the bottom 95% incomes have not.
Essentially the Republicans are saying, " OK,Mr. Avg Guy, not only are you hurting because your income has not gone up, we're gonna hurt you some more by having you pay additional taxes.
@plynth2 It is a symptom that jackasses like you only want to attack the wealthy people in today's society when we are piss-poor. You need to pull you liberal-screwed head out of Obama's ass. Once again forgetting, the republicans advocate cuts not higher taxes. God, you are starting to forget your own ideology, you bafoon
@TNovaccaine What the facts indicate is that the income of the wealthy has gone up at a far greater rate than that of the bottom 95%. If the incomes of the bottom 95% rose at the same rate as the top 5%, the top 5% would still be paying 37% of total taxes - not 57%
Thank you for supporting my point.
Think of it this way: If I made 100% of all income and everyone else in the US earned nothin', I would be paying 100% of the taxes. Is that unfair to me or unfair to the rest of you?
@plynth2 Yeah, they create the jobs with their money! Lower their taxes and they can put more into productivity, consume more and eventually bring the middle classes earnings up, its just that simple! WE'RE LEARNING!
If you made 100%, you earn that 100%, now you're demonstration is a little extreme. Think of it as, multiple people make 37% of all income, why should they have to pay more money so government can throw us deeper in debt, while we can make investments in productivity
@TNovaccaine The wealthy will never hire as long as the middle class continues to lose wealth and their incomes are stagnant or are dropping like they are now. It doesn't matter how much you cut their taxes or shovel more money into their pockets, they are not going to hire anyone just to have them sit around with nothing to do. THE REPUBLICAN'S GRAND EXPERIMENT HAS FAILED AND WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL
@plynth2 Once again, with a cut, wealthy invests their money or consumes and that gives the middle class a kick and gets things started. It aint shoveling more money into their pockets, it is shoveling more money into the economy. Sit around and do nothing? Clearly you need a bit more information on what people actually do in businesses. And what grand experiment? The cuts have always worked in the past, they add onto the deficit though.
@plynth2 I will reveal my own circumstances, not to pat myself on the back, but to try to get you to recognize that people that have the opinions that I have are not the cartoon character lliberals that you need us to be, and depend on, in order to justify your opinions.
30 years ago I woud agree with most of the things you do. For 35 years I was a registered Republican who CONTRIBUTED to the NRC. As a result, I have many Republican logo pins and signed photos from Republican presidents.
@plynth2@plynth2 I received more phone calls from the NRC than I can count, and I sent them the cash that they requested. I have never been a liberal and I am not a liberal now. I believed in trickle down economics, as you do, and thought that if only the wealthy had lower taxes the circumstances of the middle class would improve. Now I am 57 years old, and after 30 years of believing in the Republican philsophy, I am here to report that trickle down economics has failed.
@TNovaccaine Before I call you an out and out liar, direct me to this "list" of regulations you mentioned. You say you gave me taxes as an example. AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT? Yes, taxes exist. Is that you "example" ?
You say, "you libs only think that gov't shoud have the ability to run everything". If you think libs think that then I can assume that you believe that gov't should run nothing and should not exist. You are an anarchist who hates the constitution and business should run the country.
@plynth2 I have mentioned others and the site in which they were found, look at the previous comments it is there. I believe gov't should run their programs, not businesses, not private sector jobs, not health care, because businesses end up having to fire people from their jobs, the private sector becomes extremely weak when government decides to put forward their regulations, and should officials in Washington D.C have the ability to decide the what a person is to do with their health
@plynth2 In what way am I an anarchist? If anything that would be you. You constantly imply that government should have complete control over the country, which it does now, and they spend every little dime left and tax productive businesses to dust. And I hate the constitution? You mental? The constitution protects us from your messiah, government, but you commie's wanna eradicate the constitution because government is great, right?
@TNovaccaine You're an anarchist because you want businesses to be able to do anything they want without any regulations and leave it to us taxpayers to pay to clean up their pollution, hospital bills when they sell us a substances that are dangerous to our heatlh, allow the workplace to contain dangerous working conditions, etc. The constitution is the basis for our government and you hate government and you support corporate greed and the draining of the wealth of the middle class.
@plynth2 We want taxpayer dollars to pay for pollution? If you werent such a moron you could understand I have already stated I think everything should be funded and paid for by the business, once again, like a typical lib, you're putting words in my mouth. If I didn't say something, dont make it look like I did, moron. If you are forgetting, it is your party that wants high taxes. The constitution protects the citizens of the US from government. That second amendment, right to bear arm
@TNovaccaine Frankly, I'm sick of your assumptions of who I am and what want. You repeatedly state that I want high taxes, that I'm a liberal, that I want to eliminate competition, that I hate business, etc. You make a lot of assumptions about me in order to justify your own naive postition. My only goal is to examine ways to fix a progressively breaking economic situation.
@TNovaccaine I put myself through college, worked full tiime while going to school full time (yes, that may sound impossble but its true), got a professional college degree and now make over $100k a year. I raised two children and put them both through college. Both my parents were Republicans, one of my brother earned a PhD, the other graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Business School and my sister's husband also graduated from Harvard Business School.
@TNovaccaine All my siblings have been highly successful and I am happy for them. I bear no grudge whatsoever against anyone who is wealthy.
After 30 years of this trickle down economics experiment, I realize that my two college educated children now earn only slightly more than I earned when I was their age and their standard of living is lower than mine was at their age. I had a three bedroom apartments when I was rasing them. My son is raising my grandson in a one bedroom apartment.
@plynth2 But, still you imply the wealthy do not deserve their money and it should be redistributed, while making high investments can lead to economic growth.
@TNovaccaine I bought a home 5 years ago for $435,000 and my wife and I have about $500,000 saved in 401ks and IRAs.
I have never expected and never got any handouts from the government or anyone else. My children never have either. I look at my grandson and I wonder if my son will ever have the means to send him to college. With all the wealth going to the top 5%, and the middle class losing wealth, I fear my grandson will end poor like where the rest of middle class is heading.
@plynth2 The middle class have hit this stage because there is no investments being made in the economy and government continues to abuse tax privileges, the rich are people too. Their investments have greater affects for both classes and government more than taxing does.
@TNovaccaine With so much wealth concentrated in the top 5% over 30 years and their tax cuts under Bush , we saw business cutting jobs in 2007 and 2008 by as many as 750.000 jobs per month in Bush's last month in office. I left the Republican party and became an independent in 2007. CONCENTRATING WEALTH AND TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS HAS FAILED. You are advocating for more of the same. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WON'T CONTINUE TO FAIL
@plynth2 Bush's term was not simple though. He was handed a recession, six months into presidency attacked by Bin Laden, funded the wars, us going into Afghanistan, then Iraq, then there was the housing bubble which started this mess. There was advanced knowledge to it but everyone kept quiet. But, I do not dispute the fact that Bush spent like a drunken sailor, he most certainly did. Tax cuts for the wealthy and across-the-board cuts has worked in the past and it will again. Guarenteed
@plynth2 Reagan passed one of the largest cuts that went on for years, Clinton ended up agreeing with Congress and passed a cut which stimulated growth. Bush made multiple cuts and there were over 100 million jobs in both sectors, and Bush's cut brought massive amounts into government as well.
@TNovaccaine You say you are poor. I have no contempt for those who are poor. I hope you are able to improve your circumstances. I hope my son can improve his circumstances and those of my grandson. After seeing how this failed Republican trickle dlown theory has played out after the last 30 years, I am not optimistic. More wealth for the wealthy only means more wealth for the wealthy and less wealth for everyone else.
@plynth2 Thank you, and I am not literally out on the streets poor, but I am more suffering middle class. And I wish you all the best with your family issues. But it is not the republicans who got us into this mess, it is the idea for the liberals to attack the only wealthy ones that still exist in today's society and hand it to government so they could throw it to the deficit, I am not very optimistic about that. More wealth for the wealthy means HIGHER INVESTMENT. Thats positive
@TNovaccaine says"Tax cuts for the wealthy and across-the-board cuts has worked in the past and it will again. Guarenteed." Well I know it hasn't worked in my lifetime. The middle class has steadily lost wealth because too little trickled down. It hasn't worked for 30 years. It doesn't work.
@TNovaccaine says"Tax cuts for the wealthy and across-the-board cuts has worked in the past and it will again. Guarenteed." Well I know it hasn't worked in my lifetime. The middle class has steadily lost wealth because too little trickled down. It hasn't worked for 30 years. It doesn't work.
@TNovaccaine We can pass more tax cuts for the wealthy, increase their profits more by eliminating regulations and putting that cost on taxpayers instead, put more of a financial burden on the elderly by reducing their social security and medicare. We can continue to direct the money to the top, almost nothing trickles down, and the middle class continues its steady decline. And the decline has not stopped even through the years when unemployment was very low.
@plynth2 What cost on taxpayers? An across-the-board cut leads to cuts for ALL classes, meaning less of a burden to basically survive for the three classes. Except we do not pay the wealthy with the middle class's money, we ALLOW the wealthy to keep THEIR money. If anything, it is the wealthy's money that is given away to others that abuse government programs. A cut inspires more working. Because you know you are actually keeping the money you earn
@TNovaccaine You want to keep doing the same things, i.e, cut taxes for the wealthy and increase wealth at the top, and you expect it to magically start to work even after seeing that it hasn't worked for the last 30 years.
Since you view any attempt to direct wealth to the MC and poor as an attack on the wealthy, I must conclude that any suggestion by you that we direct more money to the wealthy is an attack on the middle class and poor. The Republicans have taught you to suffer in silence.
@plynth2 When, in reality, across-the-board cuts are cuts for all classes. I dont think you fully comprehend what an across-the-board cut actually does. I am not advocating cuts for the wealthy, but I do not agree that they should be attacked because they make good money. I can clearly tell you dont listen to half the things I say, you completely procrastinate reality and hope your fantasies will be a worthy substitute for it. You just want every single person to earn the same amount
@TNovaccaine Look, don't keep giving me your bullshit about my wanting everyone to make the same amount and that I am attacking the wealthy. When YOU assign extreme postions to ME it means you are looking for a lazy way to defend a weak position that you canot defend any other way.
It sad that you think that any effort to provide opportunities for the middle class to raise their incomes and create more wealth for themselves is a fantasy.
@plynth2 Or I am trying to make you confront the truth because I know how well you are at trying to ignore what is real and what is apart of your fantasies. And, I have given multiple methods of raising the earnings of middle class by investments in the private sector, more business, more production, it is weird that you seem to ignore that though
@plynth2 of money. That is your problem. You cannot take the fact that the rich make good money and they just try to get along, but cant because idiots like yourself want to eliminate the wealthy in today's society and keep us on the verge of bankruptcy. In what way is it logical to take the wealthy's money and attack the prosperous people left in our failing economy? Are you just one of them government worshipers or what?
@plynth2 Allow me to clear something up, earlier when I mentioned "I am not advocating cuts for the wealthy, I meant not advocating cuts for ONLY the wealthy" just so you dont misconstrue that like you do everything else
@TNovaccaine I have understood everything that have said, except for the occasional strange comments like "procrastinate reality".
Your postion is that if taxes are lower for everyone, the wealthy will accumulate more wealth which they will invest, businesses will then have the capital to hire workers, and the middle class will have more after tax income which assure them a comfortable middle class lifestyle.
@plynth2 Except I am not advocating a tax for only the wealthy. I am advocating a break for all of the classes. Rich, middle class, poor... but I am simply saying the rich's investments have the largest and best affect being that they make much more money
@plynth2 But as I have said, you have a tenancy to make it seem like I advocate cuts for the wealthy only, when I am advocating a cut for all classes.
@TNovaccaine I seem to have been able to correctly summarize what you positions and issues are. If there is something that I have misunderstood or if there is more, let me know.
Now, let's see if you can correctly summarize what my points are regarding tax rates and levels, income levels, income disparity, middle class wealth.
Start with tax rates and tax levels . Based on my past comments, what are my points and positions tax rates and tax levels?
@plynth2 I have so many arguments I go to a day on here, if you cant rebut I am certainly willing to hear you say it. I dont exactly see how this is relevant, you are just another pet of the liberals who avoid legitimate concerns and place irrelevant comments such as this one on here. Allow me to sum up what i think...your opinion is "THE RICH ARE NO GOOD, MONEY MAKING PEOPLE! HOW COME I DONT MAKE THAT MONEY? WHY DO THEY GET SUCH GOOD PLACES AND NOT ME? WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ABUSE
@plynth2 PROGRAMS THAT DESERVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF WHAT THE RICH MAKE FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO SIT ON THEIR ASSES ALL DAY!" That is your viewpoint and you could care less about the wealthy's position because you believe they should be punished for doing something with their lives. TRUE AMERICAN YOU ARE, YOU YUTZ!
@TNovaccaine First of all, I have never said any of the things that you wrote in caps. You insist on dismissing everything I actually say and assign a string of opinions to me that are not mine at all. You didn't mention anything that addresses my question. I'm suggesting that we start with one aspect of our discussion that involves you summarizing and understanding what I have actually said.
Based on my past comments, what are my points and positions tax rates and tax levels?
Turkish people are fit :/ xx
blippett123 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its obvious that 24-7 he is watching fixed news and right wing hate radio for his information. Its amazing how they all stay on message, they actually make the ave joe to think they are part of the GOP frat club. Truly amazing, the best spin doctors in the business. He also has no comprehension of the recent Supreme Court decision "citizens united" case that gives corporations both foreign and domestic unlimited amounts it can spend and with no disclosure where it came from.
scottsway 1 month ago
everybody,in politics,are maniacs,
Absolute Power currupts absolutely!
mell8519 2 months ago
I guess the secrets out. Republican's philosophy that all we have to do is make sure the wealthy have low taxes and that the resulting tide of economic growth will raise all boats is a lie. They've had very low taxes for more than 10 years and the yachts were raised and the boats sank. Been there - tried that - didn't work. It failed and the Republicans can't admit that the middle class also needs wealth to create jobs.
plynth2 2 months ago
The GOP wants to extend the tax cuts and then point the finger at liberals saying they are responsible for the budget deficits. LOL, how do the GOP sleep at night.
wtong89 3 months ago
Obama just wants to tax everybody. The rich may be wealthy and all, but they are our job creators. I dont recall one time taxes actually worked, I only remember tax cuts help get us out of near recessions. I dont understand the Democrats motive. It is just illogical
TNovaccaine 4 months ago
@TNovaccaine
No, Obama wants tax cuts for the middle class and he can only get the tax cuts for the middle class if he gives the rich the tax cuts. The rich tax cuts have a lower multiplier in stimulating the economy than compared to the middle class or even social services like unemployment. Reason? Because the rich doenst spend the money they get back, while the middle class does spend the money to pay for education, bills, etc etc.
wtong89 3 months ago
@wtong89 Well, if he wants tax cuts for the rich and all of the wealthy, why has he not given them tax breaks? I mean the taxes increase as he extends Bush's tax cuts. Once the tax cuts expire, the tax cuts are going to go sky high. And the taxes are so high today that the rich hoard their money. The rich invest in the private sector and that has spurred job growth in the past. You're right, the rich invest their refunds on things like business and creation of jobs
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine
I dont mind the tax cuts, i just think its stupid how Republicans would blame liberals for spending too much when they themselves spend $. Tax Cuts has raised our national debt since Reagan, for that reason Reagan raised taxes and so did H.W Bush. If you are going to give tax cuts, dont blame Democrats for spending to much wiht your own party spends equal amount. Plus the Tax Cut philosophy hasnt been working out in America, its a nice theory but applying it to reality dont work.
wtong89 2 months ago
@wtong89 But it is what they spend on. I mean our hard-working Americans have to pay money for a medical procedure for prisoners and the education of illegals. Worst of all, expanding government. Like it doesn't hold enough power already. Reagan raised taxes to decrease the deficit after spending money for national defense. The tax cuts stimulated job growth and the economy way after Reagan years. Bush had the two roughest terms any president could have, you have to admit, with 911 and all
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@wtong89 I agree when you say that spending is out of hand with both parties, but we need a spending break between both, reguardless. The tax cut philosophy definitely works, eagan created millions as did Kennedy when they gave a atax cut. If there is one theory that works the least greatest it is communism/socialism.
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine
bush had a hard presidency but he chose to make decisions based on what is politically popular. The fact that the United States was going into two wars + 9/11 = government spending. he should have raised taxes but he gave large tax cuts. The people who benefit from his tax cuts are the top 5%. Yes he prevented this country from another terrorist atttacks, but he also signed many bills that increase govenrmetn spending such as Medicare Part D. :/
wtong89 2 months ago
@wtong89 I agree, but he did raise taxes later in his term to decrease our deficit, by the time Obama came in, spending increased and on what? Government. Basically he increased spending and did create this debt but Obama futhered it and put us deeper in debt, increased the deficit and pushed this recession
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine
thats fair but Obama came into power at the shittiest time. When the economy is bad the government has to increase spending to keep the markets up. I mean consumers start cut back on spending, that is bad for a capitalist market. Now i dont agree with all of Obama's spendings but i feel that a president incresing national debt at a tim of economic downturn is fine, Bush raising hte debt is fine too but he could have icnrease taxes. Obama cant cause of the economy
wtong89 2 months ago
@wtong89 But the last thing that you're supposed to do in a recession is raise taxes on any business that still exists. I agree, Obama did arrive at a losy time but he furthered this economic falldown. The best thing he could have done for this country was let the people make higher investments instead of paying higher taxes
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine Obama has not raised anyone's taxes-in fact, taxes are lower now than during Bush's admin. because Obama has given over a dozen tax breaks for small business and initiated the payroll tax cut. When Obama took office we were losing over 700k jobs a month and and had minus 9% growth and he immediately turned it around to the point where we have increased jobs for the last 13 months and have plus 2.5% growth. We had minus 9%. He definitely has not "furthered this economic falldown".
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 Bush had to raise taxes for the decrease of the deficit, but when Bush gave his cut, keep in mind, we were suffering from the global financial meltdown, the recession that Clinton handed him, 9/11 and Obama has said to cut taxes for two months. Clearly they have been high if he says these should do major changes. Two months is not enough time to fully recover. He has furthered this recession because unemployment went sky-high, his stimulus increased deficit and he has helped
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine "Bush had to raise taxes"??? When he took office there was a surplus and he cut taxes-he never raised them. And we were NOT"suffering from a global financial meltdown" in 2001- not even close- it was a run-of-the-mill recession.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 AND 911, Close to the end of Bush's term, there was in-fact a meltdown, which takes some responsibility for the condition the country is in today. And, how to you expect the tax cut to work when first Bush was handed a recession, there was 911, we were funding wars, and there was a global financial meltdown.
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine Jobs lost per month has improved dramatically since Obama took office. The last year of Bush the jobs lost per month steadily increased and reached 700k per month in his last month. As soon as Obama took office the jobs lost per month steadily DECREASED to the point where we have ADDED jobs for the last THIRTEEN months. You can't go from losing 700k jobs per month to suddenly adding jobs the next The reversal of jobs lost per month since Obama took office was remarkable.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 The unemployment rate increased when Obama took office because of the TARP'S, the stimulus, the taxes, etc etc. Not to mention, the jobs that have been created are all public sector jobs. Jobs not substantial enough for economic growth. We cant spend the rest of our lives working on railroads and highways. Has there been success in the private sector?
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine Unemployment increased during Obama on the way to adding jobs. In Bush's last year, we were losing more and more each month to the point where, in his last month we peaked - losing over 700K in Dec 2008. When Obama came in Jan. the losses immediately started going down. The next month it went down to 650K, the next month 600K, then 500k, then 400k, then 300k, etc. OBVIOUSLY, even as the number of losses steadily improved-the unemployment rate continued to go up- 650+600+500 etc.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 But you are thinking all infrastructure, jobs not substantial enough for economic growth, and the private sector continues to hang on to a thread, think about the problem which is less jobs that actually stimulate economy. Lower taxes and let market produce and people consume
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@plynth2 put us in overwhelming debt
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine First of all, when the tax cuts expire they will only go up to the rates we had during the 1990's when there was significant economic growth. Second, its ridiculous to think the wealthy are hoarding because of high taxes -.the wealthy are paying the lowest % of their income in taxes in the last 30 years. Taxes are VERY LOW now.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 Well, when the republican-led congress passed the tax cut in the 90's, more and more jobs were created. But, you are still forget. Clinton's taxes could not injure the economy after the major cuts and they were not in a recession, so if the taxes were that high, it is not the same predicament as the one we have today. And, if the economy were better for the wealthy, there would be job growth. The taxes in fact have been precluding them from doing wonders with their money
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine The economy has been just fine for the wealthy. Their incomes have gone up about 10% in the last three years and there have been record profits. No taxes have been raised AT ALL in over twelve years and in fact, small business have been given over 16 tax releif packages in the last 3 years. Neither Boehner nor McConnell have proposed lowering taxes because they know that taxes are not too high. Taxes haven't been this low in the last 30 years or more.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 Our wealthy may have money, but they do not spend or invest it without government interference. And, taxes have, in fact, been raised. We have the second largest corporation tax in the world, not to mentioned the top 1% wealthy pay 53% taxes. Whereas you have the careless ones that dont pay at all. And, still either way, raising taxes in a recession is a big NO-NO. You do not come into office raising taxes when America is hanging on a thread, taxes in the past could not
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine The top 1% pay 53% of total taxes? Yes, that is a SYMPTOM of the problem - not the problem. As the 1% increases their share of income and the middle class % goes down - the % of total taxes the wealthy pay will go up even more. Its like, ONE GUY gets ALL the income and everyone else gets zero and the one guy getting 100% of all income complains because he has to pay 100% of the taxes. Poor guy-lets tax people who earn nothing so the one guy doesn't have to pay all taxes. Hahaha
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 The only thing extending the taxes the wealthy pay is the taxes themself, government, basically. I definitely agree they should all pay their share, but they have been paying more than just a fair share. They pay more than anyone. The wealthy pay at least 70% in all, whereas a large % dont pay any. Somewhere in the 40's 47%?
I believe
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine Capitalism works as a system. The wealthy spend their money to provide goods and services that consumers, with their wealthy, to purchase those goods and services. When they purchase those goods and services, their money goes back to the wealthy and the system works. The system does NOT work when one of the parts is broken. When consumer wealth is so small that they can no longer purchase goods and services the system breaks down. Consumers incomes have been flat for 30 years.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 Taxes have been going down and down. I repeat, the % of their income that the wealthy pay has not been this low since the 1960s. High taxes are NOT the problem. The problem is that the income of consumers has not sufficiently increases in the last 30 years and to make matters worse, their wages are now going down. Hiring workers at lower and lower wages makes the problem worse. How is providing the wealthy with even more money going to increase the wealth of consumers?
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 Kennedy actually gave a tax cut and job growth spurred. The taxes were in fact very high at a moment, but loopholes did exist at that time. They were not gonna pay millions of dollars because of governments jealousy of job creators. The wages of a consumer have been going down because jobs are constantly being cut and there are multiple taxes that cannot, I repeat cannot be paid. The wealthy consume as well. Investment/consumption, leads to more jobs, goods and services
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 But government still holds power because you pay taxes on what you consume, therefore preventing monopolies. And a capitalist economy is a free economy. Spending the rest of our lives wearing the same clothes, eating the same food and making the same amount of money is absolutely impossible. It is like the imagination of a drug addict, that is how truly bizarre it is. Capitalism is just freely trading and prospering for that matter.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 harm the impervious economy because of the success of tax breaks.
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@plynth2 And is it not better for the rich to be paying less? Because with their money they definitely can do wonders with business and flipping stocks, etc. I say a cut for everyone, all classes, is the key to the restoration of our economy
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine The reason you don't understand the Democrats' motive is because you are misinformed as to what they want. Obama does NOT want to tax everybody. The only ones he has proposed raising taxes on are those making over $1M a year - that's is certainly NOT EVERYBODY. The only thing that is illogical is your misunderstandings.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 But the problem is that raising taxes is not what you do in a stagnant economy. When the rich cant invest the economy is in worse condition because they do wonders with their money and employ many people, expand many business, create jobs
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine The wealthy don't create jobs-they hire people to fill jobs that have been created by consumer demand. There is no consumer demand because the middle class has lost wealth and their wages are going down or they have lost their jobs. No business owner is going to hire people to make products that people don't have the money to purchase. In other words, the middle class does not have the spending power to generate any demand and create jobs.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 Actually the wealthy can increase the success of a business by expanding them, and the decrease in taxes could lead to more consumption, which is more goods and services. And, your second assertion is because number one, the middle class do pay taxes, number two, how can there be wealth when we dont have a healthy economy. And they dont have the money because of the taxes. And, that is why I advocate allowing the rich to pay less because they earn more and can do wonders with
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine Why don't have a healthy economy because the middle class is shrinking. Taxes haven't been this low in 30 years and the incomes of the wealthy have gone up and up.
Businesses owners are not stupid. They won't expand when they can't even move the products they have in their warehouses now. Republicans have helped the wealthy and let the middle class wither.
I suppose the wealthy can do business selling diamonds, beach houses and yachts to each other - but that's about it.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 But in the past you are neglecting to bring up the cuts Reagan gave and the cuts congress pushed during Clinton years. Tax cuts make the economy impervious to high taxes. By helping the wealthy invest their money, it has a more positive affect than it does when the money goes to government cuz the only thing that has stimulated is debt. And, by investing in multiple businesses, and lowering taxes on the market, you are both creating and having money to consume with. Hence goods/services
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine said, "...the decrease in taxes could lead to more consumption, which is more goods and services". I completely agree as long as the decrease in taxes goes to middle and low incomes earners which will increase demand and thereby create jobs. Once middle and low income earners have more money to spend, they will create jobs and businesses owners will hire people to fill the jobs that are created.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 I believe there should be a tax for all though, just because the rich make a lot of money does not mean they should be taxed more, it is unconstitutional. I think a cut goes for everyone, therefore they can invest in economy, better the condition of it and employ the less fortunate. Just because they have large sums of money doesnt mean they should be taxed more. It means they should be taxed less because they have more than the average middle class person and can do more with millions
TNovaccaine 2 months ago
@TNovaccaine Taxing the higher incomes at a higher rate is unconstutional??? Where did you get that?
You have said the same thing repeatedly, i.e. if the rich had even MORE money than they already have and their taxes were even LOWER than the already are, then everything would be fine. What you haven't said is any kind of response to any of the points I have been making.
plynth2 2 months ago
@plynth2 Not in a recession! I have been doing nothing but addressing your points. Problem is the rich dont have more money, the taxes are not low, there should not be taxes in a recession because...well its a recession, common sense. Clinton said it himself and he is one of the biggest libs you can find. And I do seem to recall you have been neglecting to respond to a few of my comments. Point is, if you pay 15% taxes and the rich pay 2% taxes, that is much more money than you are payi
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine The facts are that the wealthy have not paid as small a % of their income to taxes in the last thirty years as they do now. Their taxes are very low. And the disparity of income has not been this great since before the Great Depression. Their wealthy now is very high. Those are the facts.
Where in the constitution does it prohibit progressive tax rates? You haven't answered a single question I have asked you so I don't expect you to answer this one either.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Even though a rate may say 2%, that is still a lot of money. You cannot just rely on a rate or percentage... 2% taxes paid by them is more than we pay at a 10% rate. And we are not against taxes, we do however, disagree that taxes should be high because investing in the private sector brings more money into economy and government, believe it or not, because investments made to the private sector spurs growth. And all of your questions have been answered, perhaps you just dont
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 understand. The wealthy have paid taxes, the government has taxed and the worst part is idiots are advocating being taxed in a recession with an 8.6% unemployment and jobs in America being put in China and jobs are leaving the country. And you condone this ?
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine You rambled on without responding to any of the questions I have asked.
Middle class and lower incomes have been stagnant for 30 years while the income and wealthy at the top has increased dramatically.
I'll ask the same questions again, How does anything you've said create wealth for the middle and lower classes?
You can't answer my queston about where in the constitution progressive taxes are unconstitutional because it isn't in the constitution.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Actually middle class incomes have been stable for a while, when Bush gave a cut for everyone, ya hear, everyone? We need a cut for everyone, but the libs dont seem to have a single clue to how the world works. The top wealthy are actually wealthy because they work, not saying the middle class dont work, but the wealthy own their money. A cut for everyone helps everyone to have more freedom with it, that in fact brings more money into the government than taxation does.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Adam Smith, himself, wrote, "It is NOT very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
IRS facts show that the tax rates of the richest 400 Americans declined from 29.9 percent in 1995 to 18.1 percent in 2008, largely because that exclusive group derives two-thirds of its income from capital gains.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 More money is, in fact, contributed to the public sector with a cut than there is with a tax. They have stopped paying because taxes are simply too high when in this condition and we need to start saving. They are conveying a message to the ones that dont know a damn thing about economy.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine 60% of the top earners income comes from capital gains which is taxed at 15% which is less than half of what I pay for much of my income. I don't want to hear from you any more how taxes are too high.
The incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent have increased by 278% since 1979. Incomes of The 81-99% has gone up 65%
Middle and low incomes have gone up less than 50%.
Your opinions are not based on facts-they are based on fantasy.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 If middle income earners went up as much as the wealthy has gone up, I would be earning about $200K more than I'm making now. Cutting mhy taxes is not going to make any where near that kind of difference. And I know that cutting taxes is not going to make any difference in anone's "freedom".
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Hahah their 10% compared to your 15% is much more than you make. They have the constant burden of taxation on their back and in a recession? If you dont wanna hear from me how taxes are to high, aka the truth, that is your problem, dont commit the crime if ya cant take the time. Incomes have increased because they work at good-paying jobs and the middle class pay jobs that simply are not as well-paying. I think the problem here is you're so blinded by socialism, it is hurting
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 your head. I understand what the problem is here. You think they should all have the same amount of pay, and its not fair that the rich make their hard-earned money, I am sick of it. My opinion is based on what is right, not some Utopian/communist fantasy... Blame the rich because they work good-paying jobs. GTFOH
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Don't tell what I think. If you have to assume that I think that "all have the same amount of pay" in order to justify your lunacy, you have already lost this argument.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 I am simply pointing this out because all idiotic liberals like yourself have beliefs that suggest we should all share the same amount of money, and live in a Utopian fantasy where the rich's money is constantly redistributed.... I am a lunatic? Buddy, you need to search for mental help, because one that believes a rich person should be punished for being wealthy, is clearly a person that makes less than them. It would not surprise me if you live off of a government program
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine There are a lot of stupid, fact ignoring Republicans like you who think that liberals think "we should all share the same amount of money." Your statement shows how stupid you really are. No obviously have no idea what liberals believe.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Is that why people the protestors on wall street, all left-winged yutz's, much like yourself, are all bitching and yelling they dont make enough money and want the rich's money? The rich want to get by in life, but scum like you are whining that they should receive punishment just because they are wealthy. They did something with their life and the libbie communists just want to redistribute their money to people on government programs that receive money from government and
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine The Republican's 30 year war on the middle class that makes sure that all the wealth that is generated by economic growth only goes to the wealthy has got to be stopped. The Republicans have successfully redistributed wealth from the middle class to the pockets of the wealthiest. And the Republicans have convinced fools like you that, because you don't work hard and the wealthy do, you should be happy with your miniscule yearly raises for the rest of your worthless working life.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Actually the republicans have successfully encouraged the wealthy to place more money into the economy to better the working environment for the middle class, and bring more money into the hands of government. At least dont allow government to put me down and make it look like I need the money of a hard-working person to survive. God you are absolutely pathetic, it frightens me that loons like you are not in a cell where they belong
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine You're hell bent on ideology its as simple as that. Its doesnt work, never has never will Reagan's own cabinet member Bruce Bartlett - He was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. He recently came out said trickle down economics is a dismal failure! He gets it, he actually has a conscience and knows it wrong, period! The trolls you get your information from are just greedy sociopaths..
scottsway 1 month ago
@scottsway Look up Dick Morris, who worked in Clinton's cabinet, Clinton, just incase, cuz you seem pretty stupid, has actually said that taxes should not be raised in a recession. And that is a hardcore lib right there. Taxes can be raised in a time of prosperity when taxes are to be collected but in a recession, even your role model, Clinton said raising taxes should not be done in a recession on David Letterman, now I never thought I would say it, but he is a smart lib
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Dick Morris a liberal you say? More stupid delusional statements coming from you - you're a bigger moron than I ever thought. Dick Morris is a fixed news contributor and a right wing loon you babbling idiot! He's a whore and will sell his soul for a buck you nit wit. So spare me about good ole dick I'm well aware he worked with Clinton as a political adviser NOT an economic adviser! Hold old are you 10? Obliviously I'm talking to an ignorant kid.
scottsway 1 month ago
@scottsway Hahah who worked in the Clinton administration...yeah Clinton is a lib you dope. Morris was an adviser to Clinton, sad you dont even know the facts, you moronic individual. He was a big liberal at the time working for Clinton, God you poor moron, I pray for idiots like you. And ignorant kid? You are most likely some freak loon off the street that abuses welfare and you sit there going on and on about how the rich dont deserve their own money? Im ignorant? Friggin scalawag
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 dont even get out of bed half the time. I know four of those people, so don try and cover that up. People like you need a grip on reality, it is really sad
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine the right wing is completely invested in attacking the middle class and create a permanent underclass. They have dumb ass working class whites, yourself, as pawns for their chess game. They are brazenly stripping the rights of hard working Americans and you laugh. They have brainwashed you to identify with the heartless elite, when those people could care less about you.
scottsway 1 month ago
@scottsway They have actually encouraged investment and advocated cuts for not only the rich, but also the middle class. The real ones depriving our hard working Americans of their jobs, is Obama...you are just too blind to see it.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine You're doing exactly what the Republicans, the paid agents of the wealthy, want you to do - you're willing to sacrifice your own economic gain while advocating for miniscule taxes on the wealthy. The wealthy wins and you lose, but that's ok with you. You're a loser and you want to stay that way.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Cuts help the economy, clearly if I am advocating cuts I am advocating economic gain...dopey. And, the wealthy actually helps the economy that I care about, i know you could care less, cuz ur a greedy blind ass lib, but some people care about the country you thick-skulled commie
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine You don't care about the economy - you only care about the wealthy. The middle class should get a fair share of US economic growth instead of the next to nothing they've gotten for the last 30 years. I know that's commie talk to you because its good for the middle class. If the wealthy wants to earn more that's good. If the middle class wants more you call them greedy. Why do you insist that wealth must never go to the middle class-only to the wealthy?
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Actually I have said that the middle class should have a proper environment along with the poor at the rich's expense. I actually never once said the middle class are greedy, if ur gonna argue here, dont think twice bout puttin words in my mouth. And to your last assertion, they call them wealthy for a reason, if the middle class want all of the kind of money the wealthy get, get a better-paying job like the wealthy has. But punish them for being wealthy? Sad man
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Republicans want a flat tax because they say its fair. I wonder if they would go for flat income increases because its fair. NO WAY. They only want fairness when it benefits the wealthy - but never if will benefit anyone else. That's commie.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Commie is when you expect everyone having the same pay and the rich should not earn the money they do because they make too much and the middle class just dont make as much. Not to mention the fantasies you live in with wearing the same clothes, eating the same food, etc etc We just simply want the rich to invest to better the economy for the lower classes. Historically it has worked and will, if idiots like you did not advocate more and more taxes for the rich
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Watch Youtube video named, "Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy". In it, Buffet and Bill Gates discuss how little they pay in taxes. They both agree that their taxes are too low. Lowering taxes will not improve the economy at all.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Lowering taxes encourages investment. Buffet has to realize raising the rich's taxes to 100%, even, is not going to close the gap in our budget. Of course, he is a lib so it might be hard for him to comprehend that but it is important that you must know, raising taxes to 100% only rounds near to 940 billion dollars, meanwhile we are in debt by trillion and government continues shoving debt down our throat...and you wanna know with who's money? THE RICH! Jackoff
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine I don't know any of those people. Goes to show what a low-grade environment you live in.
I'm not a liberal, I'm just a middle class guy who is more interested in seeing a healthy middle class by fighting people like you who want to punish the middle class by neglect and want to heap more rewards on those who are already receiving all the rewards. I'm willing to fight for the hard working job creators in middle class - unlike the saps of the wealthy like you.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Well I wasnt asking if you know them. I know multiple people that are on welfare and each abuse the system, they have been collecting money from hard-working people, and I live in a sluggish environment? I dont know why ur mouth is running with that liberal crap you prattle on about. You still refuse to realize by investing in the private sector it encourages growth and production which is for the middle class. We want our rich to invest our money, but we want middle class
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine The wealthy are not going to invest in the private sector because the middle class has not recovered from their recent loss of wealth and workers who are being re-hired are taking a cut in pay so middle class wages are being driven down. Businesses are not going to hire workers to provide goods and services for a middle class that does not have the wealth to buy.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Actually the wealthy want nothing more than to invest in the private sector. They just need low taxes to do it. And I already know the next couple excuses coming out of your mouth. The wealthy will just pocket the money and hoard it and blah blah blah cry me a river... they dont actually have the ability because the moment they invest their money, or God forbid, put it to good use, you jump right on the idea of taxation...and then blame unemployment on republicans? Get therapy
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 And businesses actually will hire workers once there is investment in production, lower taxes on the middle class and the wealthy so they could consume, and even throughout that process the wealthy puts more money into hands of government, if you need explaining, which would not surprise me, I will explain that process too
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine You want things to keep going the way they have been for 30 years. The wealthy have no plans to eliminate the middle class but you do. Its as simple as that.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 So while I sit here telling you about how my plan brings more money into government and MC I simultaneously dont care for the middle class? Hahah I dont know rather to call you inattentive or retarded, but I am pretty sure both. It helps a lot when you use your ears instead of allowing your fantasies to distort reality
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine I have never advocated taxing the wealthy and put the money into the pockets of the poor. You just like to think that is what I'm saying because you find that easy to discredit. You constantly put words in my mouth because you find it less brainwork to argue with some cartoon character you have invented instead of what I am actually saying.
Money from the wealthy can be used to give OPPORTUNITIES (not money) to the middle class so they are able to increase their wealth. Get it?
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 No, because you do believe that taking money from the rich is going to benefit middle class, yeah same difference MC/poor... dont matter. There is a difference of what the money the wealthy's money can be used for and what it is used for. Under president Bush's cuts more money came into federal government. Investing in the private sector actually, now listen close, it brings more money into government, and it betters the working environment for MC/poor. Investing in the economy
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine And just how does increasing the wealth of the wealthy and more tax revenues for the government mean a better working environment for you? You are assured to have a job paying $12 an hour? You're not gonna get ahead that way. Besides, you want to end OSHA regulations which will make the job environment more dangerous for many workers-not better.
End OSHA regulations so the wealthy can increase their profits, make the job place more dangerous, and keep you making $24K. You loser.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Well, think of it this way. The cuts that were given under Bush placed more money into the hands of the federal government than they have ever received. More money for the economy means more job opportunities, that poor head of yours, I can never imagine being that dumb. And $12 an hour? Increasing minimum wage can be detrimental. Check government spending before you come around here crying bout the rich being more successful than a prick like you. Get outta your hole and live
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Give me that statistics that say the Bush tax cuts increased revenues. It's a fallacy. There aren't any statistics.that support it.
"More money for the economy means more job opportunities" How do you then explain why the US was losing 750,000 jobs in Bush's month even after years and years of tax cuts. We got fewer job opportunities.
I never said anything about a $12 minimum wage nor increasing the minimum wage. Did you not understand anything I said about earning $12 /hour?
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Besides the fact that he provided cuts for the rich and created private/public sector jobs that went to nearly billions of jobs. More money puts towards consumption leads to more money put into the hands of government, cuz you're paying taxes on what you purchase, catching on?
We began losing these jobs because were funding different wars, we suffered financial problems after 911, and just to add on to the mayhem, we decided to grant failing businesses with TARP'S. Brilliant
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 It sounded like you were implying $12 is not enough to make an hour, I dont know about you, but that sounded a bit like you were saying to increase minimum wage. Otherwise, it was just a general statement I suppose
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 betters it. But you dont seem to like facts
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine A $1500 tax cut does add enough wealth to the middle class to cause businesses to hire - it only allows the MC to continue to scrape by. Because so much wealth has been redistributed to the top for the last 30 years - they are trying to get blood from a stone. Hey Republicans, the wealthy already have all the money. You want us to sell our children so we can buy products from the wealthy?
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Wealthy have all the money, but can they use it for what it is supposed to be used for? Investment/consumption? Nah! You need to wake up from your communist Utopian fantasy pal.. They simply invest in productivity, create inventory for businesses, and once the libs lower taxes on all the classes, there can be consumption too. But, the wealthy are evil because they put their money to good use and did something with their life right? What a great American you are
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Your simplistic little trickle down plan hasn't worked for the last 30 and you want to increase your silly plan even more. You've repeatedly said that taking action to increase the wealth of the middle class is communist. I say its the only thing that is going to save our capitalist system. I suppose its to your credit that you have never claimed that you little plan is going to do anything to avert the shrinking wealth of the MC - because it won't.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Increasing taxes on the wealthy to distribute their money and place it in the pockets of middle class people, who actually have jobs and do not need that money is commie. Things that morons like you support. We have always been a capitalist society, America become great through business...not government and debt like what you obviously believe got us here. And my plan actually does help the middle class, you just simply have knowledge to how stupid you are and cant even support
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 your own assertions
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine sounds like a lot of great americans inherited their fortunes drone! Did you too?
scottsway 1 month ago
@scottsway I am very near to poor and by the sounds of it so are you. Except I dont sit there and bitch and moan like you do "Wahhhhh!!! The rich make too much money! They should not be successful! I should be because I am poor and on welfare" much like the way you do. There is something called individual responsibility, something you need to educate yourself on
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine said to scottsway, "I am very near to poor and by the sounds of it so are you". You say you're poor and yet you favor a plan that guarantees that you will remain poor for the rest of your life. If your income had increase for the last 17 years at the same percentage as the wealthy you would not be poor. You are not in a position to get education for yourself or your children and never will. You may be content in your poverty but others want to work and get ahead. But not you.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Poor for the rest of my life? Well, under the regulations we suffer from today, of course, a lifetime of poverty can be expected. Investments in the economy, help it, it does not damage it, I mean I do not see how a person can be this stupid. I want to work and get ahead without the government taking money out of my hands, taking money out of the wealthy's hands, it is freakin idiot morons like you that piss me off because of how mentally moronic they are.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine If anything, regulations by the FDA are keeping you from going bankrupt as a result of medical bills incurred from taking unregulated dangerous drugs or from toxic air and water. Just what regulations are keeping you in poverty? (I know this will be just another question you won't have an answer for).
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 More like keeping small businesses to compete with large businesses. Regulation stifles a businesses capabilities.....and I have answered all of your questions, I can tell you will just hate being wrong again
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine You're very funny. I ask you a question about what regulation is keeing you in poverty, you don't state a single regulation., then you claim you answer all my questions. I'll ask you that same question and we'll see if you can formulate an answer - Can you name a single regulation that stifles a businesses capabilities which keeps you in poverty? The wealthy are getting richer even with all those regulations and YOU"RE being kept in poverty? Hahaha
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 You mean regulations on businesses that have been preventing progress in their competition stifling the exact way an economy works. Funny you evade intelligence. I see taxes as of being a a disability. I see government preventing businesses from making investments and hiring people as a regulation bcuz government hates any kind of business. The wealthy getting richer? Hahahah God Bless your liberal-screwed head
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Hahaha. You still can't answer a simple question-can't name a single regulation that has made you poor.
You're like, "Regulations-Bad". Which regulations? Your response? "Regulations-Bad"
.
And "...government hates any kind of business" is probably the stupidest thing you uttered yet.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 I have listed regulations, regulations have been impeding on the progress of business. I gave you taxes as an example but you just to condone that and make it as though I did not list a fact. It is because all of you libs only think that government should have the ability to run everything, simply government should have complete control, and our four fathers came here to avoid being controlled, did government make us great? Is that what made us wealthy and prosperous as a
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine I have reviewed you previous posts and found no reference to a single fact on taxes from the IRS website or anywhere else. Or is the fact that you are citing is that we pay taxes? That's the fact that you have stated? Or that there is an IRS website is another fact? Or that there are tax tables is the fact you offered?
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Simply go on an official IRS site where you will find tax tables and you will see that the rich pay the most taxes, according to their brackets, mainly.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine If you're looking at the tax tables and concluding that that is the % the the wealthy actually pay, you couldn't more wrong.
Hedge fund managers don't pay rate that is on the tables. They pay a rate that is less than half of the rate that I pay. Let's test YOUR tax rate knowledge by you coming back with the reason why that is so. Here's a hint: it is the same reason that Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Is that why the wealthiest 1% are ordered to pay around 37%? The bottom 50% earn 13% of taxes and only pay 3%. Oh, and that little cry for the middle class, according to actual quotes from April, if I am not mistake of '11, most of them agreed that it was fair. Nobody complained about their taxes. You need t be a little more educated on things like this. With Bush's cut, there was more investment in both sectors, including hiring and years back around Reagan's time. Admittedly,
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 Lower taxes rates have made the tax system more progressive. Think of it this way, years back when Carter left office, the top 5% were only paying 37%. Today, the top 1% pay that, and the top 5% pay near to 57%.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine WOW. You actually provided a fact. Congrats. Republicans LOVE to cite the fact that the top 5% contribution has gone from 37% to 57% of total taxes paid and that that is unfair to the top 5%. BULLSHIT. Its a symptom of fact that their incomes have gone way up and the bottom 95% incomes have not.
Essentially the Republicans are saying, " OK,Mr. Avg Guy, not only are you hurting because your income has not gone up, we're gonna hurt you some more by having you pay additional taxes.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 It is a symptom that jackasses like you only want to attack the wealthy people in today's society when we are piss-poor. You need to pull you liberal-screwed head out of Obama's ass. Once again forgetting, the republicans advocate cuts not higher taxes. God, you are starting to forget your own ideology, you bafoon
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine What the facts indicate is that the income of the wealthy has gone up at a far greater rate than that of the bottom 95%. If the incomes of the bottom 95% rose at the same rate as the top 5%, the top 5% would still be paying 37% of total taxes - not 57%
Thank you for supporting my point.
Think of it this way: If I made 100% of all income and everyone else in the US earned nothin', I would be paying 100% of the taxes. Is that unfair to me or unfair to the rest of you?
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Yeah, they create the jobs with their money! Lower their taxes and they can put more into productivity, consume more and eventually bring the middle classes earnings up, its just that simple! WE'RE LEARNING!
If you made 100%, you earn that 100%, now you're demonstration is a little extreme. Think of it as, multiple people make 37% of all income, why should they have to pay more money so government can throw us deeper in debt, while we can make investments in productivity
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 and grant businesses more money so they can hire people?
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine The wealthy will never hire as long as the middle class continues to lose wealth and their incomes are stagnant or are dropping like they are now. It doesn't matter how much you cut their taxes or shovel more money into their pockets, they are not going to hire anyone just to have them sit around with nothing to do. THE REPUBLICAN'S GRAND EXPERIMENT HAS FAILED AND WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Once again, with a cut, wealthy invests their money or consumes and that gives the middle class a kick and gets things started. It aint shoveling more money into their pockets, it is shoveling more money into the economy. Sit around and do nothing? Clearly you need a bit more information on what people actually do in businesses. And what grand experiment? The cuts have always worked in the past, they add onto the deficit though.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 I will reveal my own circumstances, not to pat myself on the back, but to try to get you to recognize that people that have the opinions that I have are not the cartoon character lliberals that you need us to be, and depend on, in order to justify your opinions.
30 years ago I woud agree with most of the things you do. For 35 years I was a registered Republican who CONTRIBUTED to the NRC. As a result, I have many Republican logo pins and signed photos from Republican presidents.
plynth2 1 month ago
Comment removed
plynth2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@plynth2 @plynth2 I received more phone calls from the NRC than I can count, and I sent them the cash that they requested. I have never been a liberal and I am not a liberal now. I believed in trickle down economics, as you do, and thought that if only the wealthy had lower taxes the circumstances of the middle class would improve. Now I am 57 years old, and after 30 years of believing in the Republican philsophy, I am here to report that trickle down economics has failed.
plynth2 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Before I call you an out and out liar, direct me to this "list" of regulations you mentioned. You say you gave me taxes as an example. AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT? Yes, taxes exist. Is that you "example" ?
You say, "you libs only think that gov't shoud have the ability to run everything". If you think libs think that then I can assume that you believe that gov't should run nothing and should not exist. You are an anarchist who hates the constitution and business should run the country.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 I have mentioned others and the site in which they were found, look at the previous comments it is there. I believe gov't should run their programs, not businesses, not private sector jobs, not health care, because businesses end up having to fire people from their jobs, the private sector becomes extremely weak when government decides to put forward their regulations, and should officials in Washington D.C have the ability to decide the what a person is to do with their health
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 In what way am I an anarchist? If anything that would be you. You constantly imply that government should have complete control over the country, which it does now, and they spend every little dime left and tax productive businesses to dust. And I hate the constitution? You mental? The constitution protects us from your messiah, government, but you commie's wanna eradicate the constitution because government is great, right?
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine You're an anarchist because you want businesses to be able to do anything they want without any regulations and leave it to us taxpayers to pay to clean up their pollution, hospital bills when they sell us a substances that are dangerous to our heatlh, allow the workplace to contain dangerous working conditions, etc. The constitution is the basis for our government and you hate government and you support corporate greed and the draining of the wealth of the middle class.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 We want taxpayer dollars to pay for pollution? If you werent such a moron you could understand I have already stated I think everything should be funded and paid for by the business, once again, like a typical lib, you're putting words in my mouth. If I didn't say something, dont make it look like I did, moron. If you are forgetting, it is your party that wants high taxes. The constitution protects the citizens of the US from government. That second amendment, right to bear arm
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Frankly, I'm sick of your assumptions of who I am and what want. You repeatedly state that I want high taxes, that I'm a liberal, that I want to eliminate competition, that I hate business, etc. You make a lot of assumptions about me in order to justify your own naive postition. My only goal is to examine ways to fix a progressively breaking economic situation.
plynth2 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine I put myself through college, worked full tiime while going to school full time (yes, that may sound impossble but its true), got a professional college degree and now make over $100k a year. I raised two children and put them both through college. Both my parents were Republicans, one of my brother earned a PhD, the other graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Business School and my sister's husband also graduated from Harvard Business School.
plynth2 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine All my siblings have been highly successful and I am happy for them. I bear no grudge whatsoever against anyone who is wealthy.
After 30 years of this trickle down economics experiment, I realize that my two college educated children now earn only slightly more than I earned when I was their age and their standard of living is lower than mine was at their age. I had a three bedroom apartments when I was rasing them. My son is raising my grandson in a one bedroom apartment.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 But, still you imply the wealthy do not deserve their money and it should be redistributed, while making high investments can lead to economic growth.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine I bought a home 5 years ago for $435,000 and my wife and I have about $500,000 saved in 401ks and IRAs.
I have never expected and never got any handouts from the government or anyone else. My children never have either. I look at my grandson and I wonder if my son will ever have the means to send him to college. With all the wealth going to the top 5%, and the middle class losing wealth, I fear my grandson will end poor like where the rest of middle class is heading.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 The middle class have hit this stage because there is no investments being made in the economy and government continues to abuse tax privileges, the rich are people too. Their investments have greater affects for both classes and government more than taxing does.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine With so much wealth concentrated in the top 5% over 30 years and their tax cuts under Bush , we saw business cutting jobs in 2007 and 2008 by as many as 750.000 jobs per month in Bush's last month in office. I left the Republican party and became an independent in 2007. CONCENTRATING WEALTH AND TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS HAS FAILED. You are advocating for more of the same. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WON'T CONTINUE TO FAIL
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Bush's term was not simple though. He was handed a recession, six months into presidency attacked by Bin Laden, funded the wars, us going into Afghanistan, then Iraq, then there was the housing bubble which started this mess. There was advanced knowledge to it but everyone kept quiet. But, I do not dispute the fact that Bush spent like a drunken sailor, he most certainly did. Tax cuts for the wealthy and across-the-board cuts has worked in the past and it will again. Guarenteed
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 Reagan passed one of the largest cuts that went on for years, Clinton ended up agreeing with Congress and passed a cut which stimulated growth. Bush made multiple cuts and there were over 100 million jobs in both sectors, and Bush's cut brought massive amounts into government as well.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine You say you are poor. I have no contempt for those who are poor. I hope you are able to improve your circumstances. I hope my son can improve his circumstances and those of my grandson. After seeing how this failed Republican trickle dlown theory has played out after the last 30 years, I am not optimistic. More wealth for the wealthy only means more wealth for the wealthy and less wealth for everyone else.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Thank you, and I am not literally out on the streets poor, but I am more suffering middle class. And I wish you all the best with your family issues. But it is not the republicans who got us into this mess, it is the idea for the liberals to attack the only wealthy ones that still exist in today's society and hand it to government so they could throw it to the deficit, I am not very optimistic about that. More wealth for the wealthy means HIGHER INVESTMENT. Thats positive
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine says"Tax cuts for the wealthy and across-the-board cuts has worked in the past and it will again. Guarenteed." Well I know it hasn't worked in my lifetime. The middle class has steadily lost wealth because too little trickled down. It hasn't worked for 30 years. It doesn't work.
plynth2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TNovaccaine says"Tax cuts for the wealthy and across-the-board cuts has worked in the past and it will again. Guarenteed." Well I know it hasn't worked in my lifetime. The middle class has steadily lost wealth because too little trickled down. It hasn't worked for 30 years. It doesn't work.
plynth2 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine We can pass more tax cuts for the wealthy, increase their profits more by eliminating regulations and putting that cost on taxpayers instead, put more of a financial burden on the elderly by reducing their social security and medicare. We can continue to direct the money to the top, almost nothing trickles down, and the middle class continues its steady decline. And the decline has not stopped even through the years when unemployment was very low.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 What cost on taxpayers? An across-the-board cut leads to cuts for ALL classes, meaning less of a burden to basically survive for the three classes. Except we do not pay the wealthy with the middle class's money, we ALLOW the wealthy to keep THEIR money. If anything, it is the wealthy's money that is given away to others that abuse government programs. A cut inspires more working. Because you know you are actually keeping the money you earn
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine You want to keep doing the same things, i.e, cut taxes for the wealthy and increase wealth at the top, and you expect it to magically start to work even after seeing that it hasn't worked for the last 30 years.
Since you view any attempt to direct wealth to the MC and poor as an attack on the wealthy, I must conclude that any suggestion by you that we direct more money to the wealthy is an attack on the middle class and poor. The Republicans have taught you to suffer in silence.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 When, in reality, across-the-board cuts are cuts for all classes. I dont think you fully comprehend what an across-the-board cut actually does. I am not advocating cuts for the wealthy, but I do not agree that they should be attacked because they make good money. I can clearly tell you dont listen to half the things I say, you completely procrastinate reality and hope your fantasies will be a worthy substitute for it. You just want every single person to earn the same amount
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Look, don't keep giving me your bullshit about my wanting everyone to make the same amount and that I am attacking the wealthy. When YOU assign extreme postions to ME it means you are looking for a lazy way to defend a weak position that you canot defend any other way.
It sad that you think that any effort to provide opportunities for the middle class to raise their incomes and create more wealth for themselves is a fantasy.
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Or I am trying to make you confront the truth because I know how well you are at trying to ignore what is real and what is apart of your fantasies. And, I have given multiple methods of raising the earnings of middle class by investments in the private sector, more business, more production, it is weird that you seem to ignore that though
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 of money. That is your problem. You cannot take the fact that the rich make good money and they just try to get along, but cant because idiots like yourself want to eliminate the wealthy in today's society and keep us on the verge of bankruptcy. In what way is it logical to take the wealthy's money and attack the prosperous people left in our failing economy? Are you just one of them government worshipers or what?
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 Allow me to clear something up, earlier when I mentioned "I am not advocating cuts for the wealthy, I meant not advocating cuts for ONLY the wealthy" just so you dont misconstrue that like you do everything else
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine I have understood everything that have said, except for the occasional strange comments like "procrastinate reality".
Your postion is that if taxes are lower for everyone, the wealthy will accumulate more wealth which they will invest, businesses will then have the capital to hire workers, and the middle class will have more after tax income which assure them a comfortable middle class lifestyle.
Does that sum it up?
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 Except I am not advocating a tax for only the wealthy. I am advocating a break for all of the classes. Rich, middle class, poor... but I am simply saying the rich's investments have the largest and best affect being that they make much more money
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine Why is it that you cannot seem to answer a question? I'll ask you my last question again.... "Does that sum it up?"
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 But as I have said, you have a tenancy to make it seem like I advocate cuts for the wealthy only, when I am advocating a cut for all classes.
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine I seem to have been able to correctly summarize what you positions and issues are. If there is something that I have misunderstood or if there is more, let me know.
Now, let's see if you can correctly summarize what my points are regarding tax rates and levels, income levels, income disparity, middle class wealth.
Start with tax rates and tax levels . Based on my past comments, what are my points and positions tax rates and tax levels?
plynth2 1 month ago
@plynth2 I have so many arguments I go to a day on here, if you cant rebut I am certainly willing to hear you say it. I dont exactly see how this is relevant, you are just another pet of the liberals who avoid legitimate concerns and place irrelevant comments such as this one on here. Allow me to sum up what i think...your opinion is "THE RICH ARE NO GOOD, MONEY MAKING PEOPLE! HOW COME I DONT MAKE THAT MONEY? WHY DO THEY GET SUCH GOOD PLACES AND NOT ME? WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ABUSE
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@plynth2 PROGRAMS THAT DESERVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF WHAT THE RICH MAKE FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO SIT ON THEIR ASSES ALL DAY!" That is your viewpoint and you could care less about the wealthy's position because you believe they should be punished for doing something with their lives. TRUE AMERICAN YOU ARE, YOU YUTZ!
TNovaccaine 1 month ago
@TNovaccaine First of all, I have never said any of the things that you wrote in caps. You insist on dismissing everything I actually say and assign a string of opinions to me that are not mine at all. You didn't mention anything that addresses my question. I'm suggesting that we start with one aspect of our discussion that involves you summarizing and understanding what I have actually said.
Based on my past comments, what are my points and positions tax rates and tax levels?
plynth2 1 month ago