Liberal free for all coming to an end

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So back to this GRH... The senate is working on a bill that cuts $2 trillion over 10 years. Why? If S&P says we need to cut $4 trillion over 10 years why is the senate trying to cut $2 trillion over 10 years? And why has the senate tossed the only bill so far that does cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years?

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
JG J

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
JG J

Of course, "fuck you" to everyone but the rich should come as no surprise.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
JG J

I guarantee you that Cut Capt and Balance does nothing like this:

What happens if the US credit rating is officially downgraded from AAA status?

Standard and Poor?s warning, combined with long-term bond holder recent sentiment, clearly indicates the highest level of risk to the Treasury market since the great depression. The world knows that if we lose our AAA credit rating, America?s ability to run its government on borrowed money will be compromised. As the Fed found out, bond yields didn?t behave as expected with the implementation of QE2. Instead of falling because of QE2, bond yields rose. If we lose our AAA credit rating, bond yields will rise dramatically as prices continue to fall. In short, we will have to pay through the nose to keep borrowing money from the Chinese. Consequently, taxes would then have to be dramatically increased and draconian budget cuts would filter down to the municipal level. The Fed would also have to print money like never before, which would further devalue the dollar and probably end its reserve status. If that happens, oil will no longer be priced in dollars and the price of gas would skyrocket to current levels in Europe; around the $8 per gallon. Local governments would also be in serious trouble. For example: Many may consider raising occupational license fees for small businesses from $125.00 to over $500.00. States many have to implement new and higher highway tolls, and increase the price for an automobile tag by several hundred dollars. In short, the burden of the ensuing budget shortfalls will be passed along to the public. Prices for everything would increase dramatically across the board; food energy, you name it. Finally, all of the associated increased austerity will abort the current hyper-anemic economic recovery and usher the United States into a second Great Depression.

Before Obama became president, i.e. $4 trillion ago, the seniors, poor and lower middle class have been doing relatively ok. Certainly better than they will be when the above happens. And we haven't even got to the part where medicare goes bankrupt because fiscal responsibility is not a trait of democrats. It is your party that will break the backs of seniors, the poor and lower middle class as well as at least the upper middle class. Pat yourself on the back libs.

p.s. you know that the necessity to raise the debt ceiling has been known since at least before last November right? And did you know that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could have easily raised it back then before the newly elected GOP took office? They chose not to because they wanted the GOP to share the blame of raising the debt ceiling. Not that that would have kept us from losing our credit rating, we still need to cut all that debt that the dems added in the last 3 years.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Before Obama became president, i.e. $4 trillion ago, the seniors, poor and lower middle class have been doing relatively ok.

More lies from Tracy Coxx. The budget for the first year of the Obama administration was Bush's budget. That's how it works. But Tracy Coxx wants to pin those trillions on Obama, so Tracy Coxx tries to make it sound as if it's Obama's fault. Of course, Tracy Coxx will say Tracy Coxx never specifically wrote that. Fortunately, most everyone reading here is brighter than Tracy Coxx wishes you were.

To repeat, as I wrote earlier: Obama is responsible for $1.44 trillion of the deficit, not the amount Tracy Coxx writes. Obama inherited unfunded wars and a budget. No matter how much lying Tracy Coxx does, it doesn't make the facts go away.

As for "doing relatively ok" ... well, that just negates 30 or so years of economic truth in the United States. But when you're trying to paint a picture for ideological reasons, why should facts get in the way?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Certainly better than they will be when the above happens. And we haven't even got to the part where medicare goes bankrupt because fiscal responsibility is not a trait of democrats. It is your party that will break the backs of seniors, the poor and lower middle class as well as at least the upper middle class. Pat yourself on the back libs.

I am no Democrat, but this is another crock of shit from Tracy Coxx. The implication is that "fiscal responsibility is, by contrast, a trait of Republicans. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans -- all of which reversed the U.S. surplus and made it a deficit -- now there are great examples of "fiscal responsibility." Oh, by the way, Bush was a Republican.

Tracy Coxx is an ideologue without conscience, which means that facts are fungible or downright ignorable if they get in the way of making the ridiculous arguments that are the Tracy Coxx hallmark.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

[ila]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

Except that under Clinton it went up before reducing slightly and under Obama it has gone up.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

[randolph]

Since we are in graphing mode , here is a comparison, if Regan and Bush had kept debt under control..

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

I blame Obama for the trillions he spent as president, decimating high tech jobs, passing Obamacare, and generally ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is more of course, but I'm busy with the freebies section.

And btw... THE CAKE IS A LIE!

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by ila

Except that under Clinton it went up before reducing slightly and under Obama it has gone up.

Debt was rising when Clinton comes into power, Clinton slows the rise then reverses it, you can't expect an upward trend to be reversed instantly, as rapid spending cuts lead economic contraction, ditto rapid tax increases. With Obama, well, his dick and ball fell off so he's just letting his economic policies be written by republicans, he already let them make the decision on tax cuts for the rich, and continue fighting the wars they started, and he just let them write the next move in his economic policies, so if it continues we'll just put Obama down as the latest (secret) republican to follow Regan.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

Difference between your graph and mine is simple. Mine correlates to what we were actually discussing, government debt. Note yours says total debt, mine says federal debt, yours includes private debts. This new graph will explain the difference, note that it is a stacked graph, you want t be looking at the thickness of the bands here..

[ila]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

...With Obama, well, his dick and ball fell off so he's just letting his economic policies be written by republicans, he already let them make the decision on tax cuts for the rich, and continue fighting the wars they started, and he just let them write the next move in his economic policies, so if it continues we'll just put Obama down as the latest (secret) republican to follow Regan...

That's quite funny, Anna, and also true.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by transjen

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

About 43% (that seems to be the average figure, I saw one number that had it as low as 39% and another put it as high as 51%) of Americans pay NO taxes, with at least ONE IN THREE of these nonpayers actually getting money form the government! Whereas, the top 1% wage earners, "those evil rich" pay 38% taxes. Now that's just on the Federal level. If you add in the local, county, and state it's more like 50% to 60% tax.

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by tslust

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

About 43% (that seems to be the average figure, I saw one number that had it as low as 39% and another put it as high as 51%) of Americans pay NO taxes, with at least ONE IN THREE of these nonpayers actually getting money form the government! Whereas, the top 1% wage earners, "those evil rich" pay 38% taxes. Now that's just on the Federal level. If you add in the local, county, and state it's more like 50% to 60% tax.

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

A flat tax that is too high will throw millions into the poverty zone and tax too low will result in a major loss of tax revenue. I dunno where your statistics come from but does that mean "43%" of adult citizens in the workforce "do not pay taxes"? Or just overall population?

[tslust]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

A flat tax that is too high will throw millions into the poverty zone and tax too low will result in a major loss of tax revenue. I dunno where your statistics come from but does that mean "43%" of adult citizens in the workforce "do not pay taxes"? Or just overall population?

I do agree that a flat tax would be hard to figure a correct percentage. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale, starting at 5% for the lowest income bracket and increasing by 2-5% from there.

I would assume that the statistics come from the number of people who filed their taxes.

[GRH]

Another common misconception that the right likes to spread...The old "half the population pays no taxes." Due to the myriad of deductions and credits, it's more accurate to say that a certain percentage of the population pays no INCOME TAX. Nobody (except for kids or people that have no income) pays NO taxes. This percentage that pays no income tax still pays payroll taxes on their earnings as well as a myriad of state and local taxes.

Personally, I don't know where they derive this statistic. My family has never made in excess of $50,000 annually and yet we've ALWAYS had income tax liability. It seems like clever accounting to me to arrive at this statistic.

[Suckslut]

I support the fair tax.

Note: I am not a right wing republican, so you can't attack me for being that.

Here is what the fair tax does.

Eliminate the federal income tax and replaces it with a federal sales tax.

That way, the IRS only has to collect info from all the businesses in America instead of every citizen. (probably 3 million vs. 200 million). This way we can shrink the IRS by about 90%, and eliminate headaches for filling out taxes for most citizens. This replaces the chaotic system we have now with lots of loopholes, deductions, and different tax rates for different kinds of income (work, long and short term capital gains, rent, etc).


The way it is written now is that every purchase would be subject to the federal sales tax, and then the federal government would send a rebate to every family the amount of sales tax that a person subject to the poverty line would pay. So if the poverty line is $12,000 per person per year with the federal sales tax at 25%, the government would send a check to every person for $3,000 a year.

The way I would do it, is that the basic standards such as milk, bread, water, rent will not be subject to the sales tax (so that poor people do not pay a disproportionate share of their income to taxes).

This will encourage people to automatically save. This will help them for retirement and in emergencies such as job loses.

Plus I believe that lots of businesses will start up and come to the US, because we would be one of only a few countries in the world without an income tax.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by tslust

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

...

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who's "rich". And I agree about flat tax.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who's "rich". And I agree about flat tax.

What do you think about the fair tax?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

What do you think about the fair tax?

I haven't looked at it real close, but it looks like there's many advantages to it, like allowing people to keep all their income, promoting savings, being able to tax even illegal aliens, and the elimination of the IRS. Might be a good idea.

But like flat tax or any other fundamental change in the tax system there's going to be a lot of resistance in changing it.

[smc]

This speaks volumes ...

[TracyCoxx]

... if this home is so bad probably need to stop fixing other people's homes, and the able bodied people in this home need to get a job.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

This speaks volumes ...

Yep, this is where we are heading. Unfortunately, its not just the Republicans ruining the country, the Democrats and Obama are complicit. Instead of pouring billions into the fuckedup financial industry, the government could have taken over the banks and invested in infrastructure and energy efficiency creating new industries and thousands of jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead we bailed out the rich and preserved their dominance over congress.
Obama didn't betray, us he conned us. He is just another corporate lackey.
The rich have a strangle hold on us and I have no idea how we are going to break their hold. Elections don't work, voting doesn't work, complaining doesn't work. What would work?
Somehow, develop enough support to raise taxes on the rich back where they were before Reagan. The government would then have sufficient funding to sustain the type of society the majority of Americans want.