Taking advantage of the IMF thread, I would like to ask something:
The Republican Party is defending tax cuts for the mega-rich, while proposing cuts on social programs and other things that help the poor.
Now, here in Europe, a party that defended such a position would rightfully be considered a joke party and would only get about 1% of the loony vote.
But in the US, the Republicans are seen as one of the most powerful political forces, and indeed their demands to keep tax cuts for the mega-rich seen as a valid political stance.
HOW can this position be even removely acceptable? What KIND of people are those who think this can somehow be a decent stance? Or who believe this can somehow be beneficial to anyone but to those who already have everything? Why don't people just shun these bastards?
Why? :huh:
Look at the Languish posters that support the GOP, an you'll have your answer.
What did the GOP leadership tell you at the dinner last week?
Quote from: The Brain on May 15, 2011, 07:48:07 AM
What did the GOP leadership tell you at the dinner last week?
Motherfucker, I
know you're not talking to me.
People don't shun these bastards for two reasons.
One, there is still a deeply held belief in the US that a person should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. That whereas some taxes are inevitable to provide for the common good, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to confiscate private income for public purposes, not the other way around.
Second, whereas most Americans accept the need for a social safety net that will help a person who is going through a rough patch, to enable him or her to get back on his feet, they are also suspicious of a permanent underclass, forever dependent on handouts for their existence and with little or no motivation to attain self-sufficiency.
I personally think the modern GOP has talked themselves into an ideological policy dead end on raising taxes, but since your question was on why the stance can be considered remotely acceptable, as opposed to being a darn good idea, I answered thus.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 08:02:01 AM
Second, whereas most Americans accept the need for a social safety net that will help a person who is going through a rough patch, to enable him or her to get back on his feet, they are also suspicious of a permanent underclass negroes, forever dependent on handouts for their existence and with little or no motivation to attain self-sufficiency.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 09:02:10 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 08:02:01 AM
Second, whereas most Americans accept the need for a social safety net that will help a person who is going through a rough patch, to enable him or her to get back on his feet, they are also suspicious of a permanent underclass negroes, forever dependent on handouts for their existence and with little or no motivation to attain self-sufficiency.
:lol:
I know if I was American I would probably be a Democrat save for the negro problem. :hmm:
Well, the Republicans propose tax cuts for everybody and their dog, not just the 'mega-rich'.
It looks like during your dinner with the Prime Minister of Portugal, he fed you some misinformation.
That's not fair. Some negroes achieve self-sufficiency through crime, or sometimes through demagoguery.
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 15, 2011, 07:40:29 AM
Why? :huh:
Tax cuts for the rich produce a larger increase in government revenues than taxing the rich.
Once you accept this as truth it will all make sense.
Quote from: Fate on May 15, 2011, 09:08:32 AM
Tax cuts for the rich produce a larger increase in government revenues than taxing the rich.
WRONG
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 09:10:32 AM
Quote from: Fate on May 15, 2011, 09:08:32 AM
Tax cuts for the rich produce a larger increase in government revenues than taxing the rich.
WRONG
Well, it can happen over the short term, as the rich plan their taxes so as to incur the liability when the lower rates are in effect. In the long term though, it's a stupid idea.
Spicey, I concede. Not only was your gag successful in suckering Martim into believing there was a "Republican Party" in America (after I said that he was so brilliant he would see through the gag immediately), but you've got the other forum geniuses believing it as well. When I had lunch with the Portuguese ambassador on Wednesday, he also indicated that he bought into your gag. I figured, though, that he was just taking Martim's word for it.
I am impressed. I know you had a lot of help from the Main Stream Media, but selling such an inherently absurd idea as a party that wanted to cut taxes and benefits? I didn't think it could be done. You Yale PhDs proved to be right, and we Harvard MDs proved to be wrong.
EDIT: OOPs! Wrong thread. Can someone move this to the thread in the Back Room?
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2011, 09:16:27 AM
Spicey, I concede. Not only was your gag successful in suckering Martim into believing there was a "Republican Party" in America (after I said that he was so brilliant he would see through the gag immediately), but you've got the other forum geniuses believing it as well. When I had lunch with the Portuguese ambassador on Wednesday, he also indicated that he bought into your gag. I figured, though, that he was just taking Martim's word for it.
I am impressed. I know you had a lot of help from the Main Stream Media, but selling such an inherently absurd idea as a party that wanted to cut taxes and benefits? I didn't think it could be done. You Yale PhDs proved to be right, and we Harvard MDs proved to be wrong.
EDIT: OOPs! Wrong thread. Can someone move this to the thread in the Back Room?
To the thread where you declare your undying love for Martinus? I'm sure it can be arranged.
Quote from: Slargos on May 15, 2011, 09:20:24 AM
To the thread where you declare your undying love for Martinus? I'm sure it can be arranged.
You got it mixed up, he said Marti
manus, i.e. our connected bisexual Portuguese friend.
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2011, 09:16:27 AM... but selling such an inherently absurd idea as a party that wanted to cut taxes and benefits?
In the last decade have Republicans ever cut benefits along with taxes?
Quote from: Fate on May 15, 2011, 09:39:37 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2011, 09:16:27 AM... but selling such an inherently absurd idea as a party that wanted to cut taxes and benefits?
In the last decade have Republicans ever cut benefits along with taxes?
They did a lovely job eviscerating Medicare benefits with the Prescription Drug Act. Jacking up costs AND cutting benefits at the same time? Quite the feat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 07:44:18 AM
Look at the Languish posters that support the GOP, an you'll have your answer.
Holla.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2011, 09:48:40 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 07:44:18 AM
Look at the Languish posters that support the GOP, an you'll have your answer.
Holla.
You're such a race- and sexual orientation-traitor. You're Alan Keyes in leather asschaps.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 07:44:18 AM
Look at the Languish posters that support the GOP, an you'll have your answer.
:moon:
Because most men would prefer to protect the possibility of becoming rich rather than face the reality of being poor. -_-
That and the Republicans do not actually call for cutting benefits. They bribe rich and poor alike...as well as enrich entire regions of the country with out of control military spending. Hence the budget deficit.
The Democrats likewise do not actually call for tax hikes :P
Quote from: Fate on May 15, 2011, 09:08:32 AM
Tax cuts for the rich produce a larger increase in government revenues than taxing the rich.
Once you accept this as truth it will all make sense.
It ain't a truth for the very rich, because their relative increase in disposable income will be very small, hence not much more spending or saving.
But it all depends on what you think is rich. In Quebec, taxing the rich, means taxing people at 100 000$ dual income.
If we're talking billionaire in the US, it makes sense taxing them a little more. It won't hurt them and it will benefit the state. In places where you can count the billionaires on the fingers of one hand, it ain't a remedy though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 09:02:10 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 08:02:01 AM
Second, whereas most Americans accept the need for a social safety net that will help a person who is going through a rough patch, to enable him or her to get back on his feet, they are also suspicious of a permanent underclass negroes, forever dependent on handouts for their existence and with little or no motivation to attain self-sufficiency.
How come you're not a Republican? I've never met anyone who disdains the dazzlers as much as you.
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2011, 02:45:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 09:02:10 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 08:02:01 AM
Second, whereas most Americans accept the need for a social safety net that will help a person who is going through a rough patch, to enable him or her to get back on his feet, they are also suspicious of a permanent underclass negroes, forever dependent on handouts for their existence and with little or no motivation to attain self-sufficiency.
How come you're not a Republican? I've never met anyone who disdains the dazzlers as much as you.
I love them. They're such a musical people. And all the different stuff they can do with their hair? Awesome.
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2011, 02:45:22 PM
How come you're not a Republican? I've never met anyone who disdains hates the dazzlers niggers as much as you me.
Doesn't want to associate with the types of people find at Republican rallies these days, I would reckon.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 03:17:50 PM
I love them. They're such a musical people. And all the different stuff they can do with their hair? Awesome.
That post just needs a squee or mew and it would read like something written by Lettow.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2011, 04:17:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 03:17:50 PM
I love them. They're such a musical people. And all the different stuff they can do with their hair? Awesome.
That post just needs a squee or mew and it would read like something written by Lettow.
Maybe CdM had a goofy childhood. Only instead of anime, it was wargames and Depeche Mode.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 09:48:11 AM
They did a lovely job eviscerating Medicare benefits with the Prescription Drug Act. Jacking up costs AND cutting benefits at the same time? Quite the feat.
What in the world are you talking about?
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2011, 03:19:50 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2011, 02:45:22 PM
How come you're not a Republican? I've never met anyone who disdains hates the dazzlers niggers as much as you me.
Doesn't want to associate with the types of people find at Republican rallies these days, I would reckon.
I'm about as likely to go to a political rally of any kind as you.
Only political rally find me at now is AWTP. :ccr
Why are Democrats so pro-abortion? Don't they know that they've aborted millions of their voters?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 05:24:43 PM
What in the world are you talking about?
Your boy Dubya's cock-up called the Prescription Drug Act of Ought-6.
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 15, 2011, 06:39:31 PM
Why are Democrats so pro-abortion? Don't they know that they've aborted millions of their voters?
Lulz, silly niggerhater. Foetuseses aren't 18 years old.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:41:03 PM
Your boy Dubya's cock-up called the Prescription Drug Act of Ought-6.
Yeah, I don't get the part about eviscerating Medicare.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:41:59 PMLulz, I'm a niggerhater and I want as many black babies dead as possible.
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 15, 2011, 06:39:31 PM
Why are Democrats so pro-abortion? Don't they know that they've aborted millions of their voters?
Turns out they still have plenty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 06:44:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:41:03 PM
Your boy Dubya's cock-up called the Prescription Drug Act of Ought-6.
Yeah, I don't get the part about eviscerating Medicare.
Perhaps "eviscerating Medicare" was a poor choice. "Sodomizing Medicare with a broom handle in front of children" works better.
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 15, 2011, 06:46:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:41:59 PMLulz, I'm a niggerhater and I want as many black babies dead as possible.
Have my caramel babies, Jonas.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:51:17 PM
Perhaps "eviscerating Medicare" was a poor choice. "Sodomizing Medicare with a broom handle in front of children" works better.
Better yet would be "woops, maybe I should stick to rants that aren't subject to fact checking."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:51:17 PM
Perhaps "eviscerating Medicare" was a poor choice. "Sodomizing Medicare with a broom handle in front of children" works better.
Better yet would be "woops, maybe I should stick to rants that aren't subject to fact checking."
C'mon, even a GOP nutter like yourself can see how the out of pocket deduction bullshit they forced onto indigent senior citizens was a fuckover through Medicare.
How much is Pfizer paying you, anyway?
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2011, 06:54:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:51:41 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 15, 2011, 06:46:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:41:59 PMLulz, I'm a niggerhater and I want as many black babies dead as possible.
Have my caramel babies, Jonas.
He's a dude, Martinus.
He's also anti-choice, so it's a push.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:58:15 PM
C'mon, even a GOP nutter like yourself can see how the out of pocket deduction bullshit they forced onto indigent senior citizens was a fuckover through Medicare.
How much is Pfizer paying you, anyway?
A GOP nutter like myself is still having a hard time figuring out what you're talking about. Was there some copay introduced into Medicare parts A & B as part of the Prescription Drug benefit legislation, or are you talking about drug copays?
I'd like to know who thought the Medicare Donut Hole was a fucking good idea.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 06:58:45 PM
He's also anti-choice, so it's a push.
He's not though. He seems like a dogmatic GOP guy, so I'm sure he believes in all sorts of choices. He's just anti-abortion.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 15, 2011, 07:09:15 PM
I'd like to know who thought the Medicare Donut Hole was a fucking good idea.
Your old ass ain't retired enough to have to worry about that.
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2011, 07:11:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 15, 2011, 07:09:15 PM
I'd like to know who thought the Medicare Donut Hole was a fucking good idea.
Your old ass ain't retired enough to have to worry about that.
My father is, cossack.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 15, 2011, 07:13:07 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2011, 07:11:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 15, 2011, 07:09:15 PM
I'd like to know who thought the Medicare Donut Hole was a fucking good idea.
Your old ass ain't retired enough to have to worry about that.
My father is, cossack.
Watch it, Ed. He's got dogs with no signs posted. That makes him: doubly dangerous.
Wow, Marim Silva posts on obvious troll thread, and Seedy takes it and RUNS!
You've really sunk to new lows money....
We's aims ta please, Mista.
anyway
it's in part because many people don't really know or care about politics; they vote based off their family ideology. they care more that they're republicans voting for what is best for america, whatever that might be
for the nitpickers- i'm not saying it's limited to the right
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 15, 2011, 07:40:29 AM
Taking advantage of the IMF thread, I would like to ask something:
The Republican Party is defending tax cuts for the mega-rich, while proposing cuts on social programs and other things that help the poor.
Now, here in Europe, a party that defended such a position would rightfully be considered a joke party and would only get about 1% of the loony vote.
But in the US, the Republicans are seen as one of the most powerful political forces, and indeed their demands to keep tax cuts for the mega-rich seen as a valid political stance.
HOW can this position be even removely acceptable? What KIND of people are those who think this can somehow be a decent stance? Or who believe this can somehow be beneficial to anyone but to those who already have everything? Why don't people just shun these bastards?
Why? :huh:
I'll tell you why:
1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.
2- The goverment should not look at the Rich as people, but as a national resource, and treat them as such. They are to be husbanded and taken care for, since they are the ones that create the wealth of the nation.
3- The rich have no country and no loyalty. The middle class is tied to a job or small bussiness, and to the homes they own. The middle class have a hard time moving to other countries. The rich does not. They have no loyalties and their money allow them the freedom to live anywhere. They can relatively easily invest their money in other countires, creating jobs that do not benefit our country. We want them to stay here, expend their money here, and invest here.
The moment you forget that rich people are not people, but a natural resource that create jobs, you will drive your country into ruin. They are only loyal to their money, so you have to create the conditions that make their money grow, for the benefit of all the poor and middle class that do not know how to create wealtjh.
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 05:36:51 AM
1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.
lol, the rich make more money firing people. Downsizing and golden parachutes and whatnot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2011, 05:41:20 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 05:36:51 AM
1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.
lol, the rich make more money firing people. Downsizing and golden parachutes and whatnot.
Plezz niggah, go back to school.
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 05:44:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2011, 05:41:20 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 05:36:51 AM
1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.
lol, the rich make more money firing people. Downsizing and golden parachutes and whatnot.
Plezz niggah, go back to school.
Look who's talking, no-wage noncom monkey. Oop, oop.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2011, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 05:44:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2011, 05:41:20 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 05:36:51 AM
1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.
lol, the rich make more money firing people. Downsizing and golden parachutes and whatnot.
Plezz niggah, go back to school.
Look who's talking, no-wage noncom monkey. Oop, oop.
But I got a sand score, bro.
Ya score is black pussies in yur dungeon.
That don't count fo' shit, bro.
lulz, OK, Flava Siegy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2011, 05:53:42 AM
lulz, OK, Flava Siegy.
And take me ass off yur sig, ya puss.
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 05:56:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2011, 05:53:42 AM
lulz, OK, Flava Siegy.
And take me ass off yur sig, ya puss.
No. You whack off to anime. You filthy pedo-Jew.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftomopop.com%2Ful%2F11085-550x-review-kon-alter-koto.jpg&hash=65dc4c070b114a252dcc7c507f9a81388970a078)
Quote from: Berkut
Wow, Marim Silva posts on obvious troll thread, and Seedy takes it and RUNS!
I wasn't trolling. Keeping tax cuts to the mega-rich (and only they), especially when many of those billionaires even said they don't need it, is something that is quite uncomprehensible to us Europeans. And sounds amazingly daft.
In that regards, Yi did shed some light to the general idea, though that would imply a strong cultural rift between Europeans and Americans in that particular area.
Quote from: Siege
1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.
I thought companies and the State created jobs, not rich people per se (barring maids, drivers, cooks, bodyguards, personal secretaries and private jet crews). If job creation is your main goal, should't corporate tax cuts be more logical than tax cuts to the most wealthy individuals?
Also, would't a tax cut to the poor/middle class mean that they'll consume more, thus also increasing the growth of businesses?
Quote from: Siege
2- The goverment should not look at the Rich as people, but as a national resource, and treat them as such. They are to be husbanded and taken care for, since they are the ones that create the wealth of the nation.
I disagree. I belive it is the People of a nation that creates it's Wealth through their work, not a group of people that only thinks of themselves. In that regard, the resource that should be husbanded is the population, not the top 2%.
Quote from: Siege
3- The rich have no country and no loyalty. The middle class is tied to a job or small bussiness, and to the homes they own. The middle class have a hard time moving to other countries. The rich does not. They have no loyalties and their money allow them the freedom to live anywhere. They can relatively easily invest their money in other countires, creating jobs that do not benefit our country. We want them to stay here, expend their money here, and invest here.
If the rich have no loyalty to the country, all the more reason not to rely on them.
That said, the US is a MAJOR economic hub in the planet. It is economically unsound to leave it if one has a residence there. Unlike small countries, leaving the USA is not a good business move for a very major company. Especially because America can use its leverage to pressure future businesses such runaway billionaire would most certainly have to do inside US territory.
Quote from: Siege
The moment you forget that rich people are not people, but a natural resource that create jobs, you will drive your country into ruin. They are only loyal to their money, so you have to create the conditions that make their money grow, for the benefit of all the poor and middle class that do not know how to create wealtjh.
If they are only loyal to their money, would't it make more sense to the State to take that away from them (they are only people, and money is all they got) and use it itself to generate wealth to benefit the poor and middle class, who ARE loyal to the country?
Oh, and
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 06:04:58 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftomopop.com%2Ful%2F11085-550x-review-kon-alter-koto.jpg&hash=65dc4c070b114a252dcc7c507f9a81388970a078)
I agree that Mio is cute. :hug:
Especially because she is left-handed and shy.
Besides, HTT is in University now.
A debate between Martim Sliva and Siegy on economics. It's like watching 2 blind quadrapeglics try to have a sword fight.
QuoteIf they are only loyal to their money, would't it make more sense to the State to take that away from them (they are only people, and money is all they got) and use it itself to generate wealth to benefit the poor and middle class, who ARE loyal to the country?
:huh: Hasnt this been tried before? Somewhere?
QuoteIf they are only loyal to their money, would't it make more sense to the State to take that away from them (they are only people, and money is all they got) and use it itself to generate wealth to benefit the poor and middle class, who ARE loyal to the country?
Why work your ass off to support some lazy ass cum dumster that keeps squirting out kids.
I wonder who these 'mega-rich' are that are the only ones to get a tax cut? At this point, he's got to be trolling.
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 05:36:51 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 15, 2011, 07:40:29 AM
Taking advantage of the IMF thread, I would like to ask something:
The Republican Party is defending tax cuts for the mega-rich, while proposing cuts on social programs and other things that help the poor.
Now, here in Europe, a party that defended such a position would rightfully be considered a joke party and would only get about 1% of the loony vote.
But in the US, the Republicans are seen as one of the most powerful political forces, and indeed their demands to keep tax cuts for the mega-rich seen as a valid political stance.
HOW can this position be even removely acceptable? What KIND of people are those who think this can somehow be a decent stance? Or who believe this can somehow be beneficial to anyone but to those who already have everything? Why don't people just shun these bastards?
Why? :huh:
I'll tell you why:
1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.
2- The goverment should not look at the Rich as people, but as a national resource, and treat them as such. They are to be husbanded and taken care for, since they are the ones that create the wealth of the nation.
3- The rich have no country and no loyalty. The middle class is tied to a job or small bussiness, and to the homes they own. The middle class have a hard time moving to other countries. The rich does not. They have no loyalties and their money allow them the freedom to live anywhere. They can relatively easily invest their money in other countires, creating jobs that do not benefit our country. We want them to stay here, expend their money here, and invest here.
The moment you forget that rich people are not people, but a natural resource that create jobs, you will drive your country into ruin. They are only loyal to their money, so you have to create the conditions that make their money grow, for the benefit of all the poor and middle class that do not know how to create wealtjh.
In your post, is the "rich" a code word for "Jews"?
Did Hitler carry out a strip-mine equivalent of "exploiting the resource"? :unsure:
Quote from: Neil on May 16, 2011, 07:36:03 AM
I wonder who these 'mega-rich' are that are the only ones to get a tax cut? At this point, he's got to be trolling.
Bush enacted some tax cuts early last decade, most of which would have expired by December 31, 2010.
Obama wanted to let those expire, thus raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 per year.
Republicans oppose this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25143640/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-tax-incomes-above/
This debate has going on for years. Haven't you heard about it?
Quote from: 11B4V
Why work your ass off to support some lazy ass cum dumster that keeps squirting out kids.
Being a Mother is hard work. And those kids you don't want to support are the ones who will be paying your pension when you're old.
Also, aside from the fact that those kids are the ones that will be the future members of society, some of them will be geniuses, and who knows? The baby you want his mother to abort today may grow up to become the guy that cures Cancer (and possibly saves your life) 40 years down the road.
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 16, 2011, 07:56:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 16, 2011, 07:36:03 AM
I wonder who these 'mega-rich' are that are the only ones to get a tax cut? At this point, he's got to be trolling.
Bush enacted some tax cuts early last decade, most of which would have expired by December 31, 2010.
Obama wanted to let those expire, thus raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 per year.
Republicans oppose this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25143640/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-tax-incomes-above/
This debate has going on for years. Haven't you heard about it?
A quarter-mil isn't 'mega-rich' over here.
Also, that's not really giving a tax cut only to the 'mega-rich', since they already got the tax cut, along with everyone else. The Bush tax cuts were pretty all-inclusive, which was why they were so damaging. The Republicans aren't arguing for only giving tax cuts to the 'mega-rich'. They are arguing for not raising taxes only on the 'mega-rich'. In fact, they've painted themselves into the corner where their true believers now think that raising taxes on anyone is a bad thing to do.
Try not to get so caught up in your own rhetoric. You can have dinner with every ambassador you like, but if you can't step back from your emotional attachment to your politics, true knowledge and wisdom will always remain outside your grasp.
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 16, 2011, 07:56:03 AM
The baby you want his mother to abort today may become the guy that cures Cancer (and possibly your life) 40 years down the road.
Curing cancer is unwise.
Besides, poor people don't go into the sciences anymore.
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 16, 2011, 07:56:03 AM
Being a Mother is hard work. And those kids you don't want to support are the ones who will be paying your pension when you're old.
My mother took care of her kids and held down a job.
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 05:36:51 AM
I'll tell you why:
1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.
No, the market creates jobs. If the lower 90% can't buy a product because
their cost of living is too high, some tax savings on the boss (or more likely, chairman, with even
less power to directly influence job creation) isn't going to mean squat, and the business won't expand.
Quote2- The goverment should not look at the Rich as people, but as a national resource, and treat them as such. They are to be husbanded and taken care for, since they are the ones that create the wealth of the nation.
I have yet to meet the kind of Rich that would qualify as a "national resource." There are plenty of rich in my area; mostly, they're hamfisted farm moguls who've gotten and stayed rich by figuring out how
not to contribute taxes while maintaining their profit margin.
Quote3- The rich have no country and no loyalty. The middle class is tied to a job or small bussiness, and to the homes they own. The middle class have a hard time moving to other countries. The rich does not. They have no loyalties and their money allow them the freedom to live anywhere. They can relatively easily invest their money in other countires, creating jobs that do not benefit our country. We want them to stay here, expend their money here, and invest here.
The moment you forget that rich people are not people, but a natural resource that create jobs, you will drive your country into ruin. They are only loyal to their money, so you have to create the conditions that make their money grow, for the benefit of all the poor and middle class that do not know how to create wealtjh.
This is the first accurate item in this post, but it's still misguided. The decision to keep jobs over here is mostly driven by the cost of doing business in a given state in the US. That involves resource costs, facility costs, and taxes on the business- I've never heard of it being driven by income taxes on the Rich.
To answer Martim, the United States is a little different from Europe electorally.
For example, we don't have fascist parties that get 20%+ of the vote. We don't have communist and "Trotskyite" parties that get 20%+ of the vote. We don't have "Green" parties that advocate dismantling large swaths of modern industrial infrastructure. We don't have viable national parties that just represent a single ethnic group (Scots, Flemish, Basques, etc). We don't have parties that are just wings of large Italian media companies, and we don't have parties that have platforms items like confiscating private pensions and eliminating freedom of the press.
Once all those commonplaces of European political life are removed, there isn't a lot of places for some of our confused or eccentric citizens to go. So some clever people invented the GOP, which channels those people into mostly harmless sorts of things like tax cuts for dead rich people, prayers at high school football games, and protecting the legal status of gun shows. It's not ideal, but it would be a lot worse, as European politics always helpfully reminds us.
Quote from: Neil on May 16, 2011, 08:07:14 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 16, 2011, 07:56:03 AM
The baby you want his mother to abort today may become the guy that cures Cancer (and possibly your life) 40 years down the road.
Curing cancer is unwise.
Besides, poor people don't go into the sciences anymore.
super cancer curing baby would also have less resources to learn and make it possible to cure cancer. by funneling more resources into less super cancer curing babies we up the odds :contract: :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2011, 09:21:55 AM
To answer Martim, the United States is a little different from Europe electorally.
For example, we don't have fascist parties that get 20%+ of the vote. We don't have communist and "Trotskyite" parties that get 20%+ of the vote. We don't have "Green" parties that advocate dismantling large swaths of modern industrial infrastructure. We don't have viable national parties that just represent a single ethnic group (Scots, Flemish, Basques, etc). We don't have parties that are just wings of large Italian media companies, and we don't have parties that have platforms items like confiscating private pensions and eliminating freedom of the press.
Once all those commonplaces of European political life are removed, there isn't a lot of places for some of our confused or eccentric citizens to go. So some clever people invented the GOP, which channels those people into mostly harmless sorts of things like tax cuts for dead rich people, prayers at high school football games, and protecting the legal status of gun shows. It's not ideal, but it would be a lot worse, as European politics always helpfully reminds us.
Best
Counter
Troll
Ever.
+1
The US is a country and Europe is a continent. Not many Americans know this.
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 16, 2011, 07:04:32 AM
In that regards, Yi did shed some light to the general idea, though that would imply a strong cultural rift between Europeans and Americans in that particular area.
Of course. The US has no experience with feudalism for one.
Fun fact: the 250K + tax bracket was created by Bill Clinton. Before that the top rate started at 89k.
Quote from: The Brain on May 16, 2011, 11:17:08 AM
The US is a country and Europe is a continent. Not many Americans know this.
Europeans can't agree amongst themselves exactly what Europe is or should be or even where it begins and ends. The only thing that can be said with some certainty is that it was named after a Middle Eastern rape victim.
Martim is just dismayed that we don't have any parties crazy enough for him to want to vote for them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2011, 11:30:22 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 16, 2011, 11:17:08 AM
The US is a country and Europe is a continent. Not many Americans know this.
Europeans can't agree amongst themselves exactly what Europe is or should be or even where it begins and ends. The only thing that can be said with some certainty is that it was named after a Middle Eastern rape victim.
Only the North Germanic parts matter.
The top federal individual tax rate is 35%. Obama thinks it should be 39.5%. Bush ran on a 33% platform. These aren't dramatic differences.
Quote from: The Brain on May 16, 2011, 11:34:06 AM
Only the North Germanic parts matter.
Slargos tells me they will soon be the Somalian parts. I look forward to the pirates infesting the Baltic Sea.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 11:59:56 AM
The top federal individual tax rate is 35%. Obama thinks it should be 39.5%. Bush ran on a 33% platform. These aren't dramatic differences.
I read somewhere that he wants to raise it to 44.5.
Why not 44.99%?
Because 44.5 is pretty close to 44, which is really just 40, which is most of the way to 25. 44.99 is awfully close to 45, which is really 50 in disguise. So you can see there's almost 25% difference between the two.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2011, 03:09:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 11:59:56 AM
The top federal individual tax rate is 35%. Obama thinks it should be 39.5%. Bush ran on a 33% platform. These aren't dramatic differences.
I read somewhere that he wants to raise it to 44.5.
I thought he ran on going back to the pre Bush tax cut rates which were just under 40%, and google searches seem to confirm this. Could the 44.5% somehow relate to eliminating the cap for social security taxes?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 05:41:19 PM
I thought he ran on going back to the pre Bush tax cut rates which were just under 40%, and google searches seem to confirm this. Could the 44.5% somehow relate to eliminating the cap for social security taxes?
Could be.
To clarify, are you talking about the additional Medicare tax on filthy rich billionares to help finance Obamacare, or some new proposal?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2011, 05:43:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 05:41:19 PM
I thought he ran on going back to the pre Bush tax cut rates which were just under 40%, and google searches seem to confirm this. Could the 44.5% somehow relate to eliminating the cap for social security taxes?
Could be.
To clarify, are you talking about the additional Medicare tax on filthy rich billionares to help finance Obamacare, or some new proposal?
During the campaign Obama mentioned possibly eliminating the cap on SS taxes, so some republicans added these taxes to the top marginal rate that would be paid by rich people.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 06:03:29 PM
During the campaign Obama mentioned possibly eliminating the cap on SS taxes, so some republicans added these taxes to the top marginal rate that would be paid by rich people.
I have a suspicion this might be something else then. The article I read was written in the wake of Obama's counterproposal to the Ryan plan, and it would have been in either Time or the NYT, neither exactly bastions of Teabagger agitprop.
Shifting the SS tax burden would be helpful first in reducing the burden on the poorest employees and the employers of least-skilled labor, and also by putting the top earners subject to it. Then, we means-test Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2011, 12:41:20 PM
Slargos tells me they will soon be the Somalian parts. I look forward to the pirates infesting the Baltic Sea.
The Scandinavians used to be so good at that, too. :(
Quote from: Scipio on May 16, 2011, 06:26:53 PM
Shifting the SS tax burden would be helpful first in reducing the burden on the poorest employees and the employers of least-skilled labor, and also by putting the top earners subject to it. Then, we means-test Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well.
That would effectively make social security a welfare program that includes the middle class and payroll taxes a flat income tax.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2011, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 06:03:29 PM
During the campaign Obama mentioned possibly eliminating the cap on SS taxes, so some republicans added these taxes to the top marginal rate that would be paid by rich people.
I have a suspicion this might be something else then. The article I read was written in the wake of Obama's counterproposal to the Ryan plan, and it would have been in either Time or the NYT, neither exactly bastions of Teabagger agitprop.
Is there a chance you might know where to find the article? I would be interested in what the proposal was.
For the purpose of responding to Martim, the point still holds that both the Republicans and Democrats are broadly in favor of the status quo regarding tax rates, with each wanting relatively minor changes to policy (in the grand scheme of things).
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 08:12:21 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 16, 2011, 06:26:53 PM
Shifting the SS tax burden would be helpful first in reducing the burden on the poorest employees and the employers of least-skilled labor, and also by putting the top earners subject to it. Then, we means-test Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well.
That would effectively make social security a welfare program that includes the middle class and payroll taxes a flat income tax.
Only slightly less bad than what we have now, granted.
Meh. Despite what we like to tell ourselves, SSA has always been a welfare program. So no gnashing of teeth from me.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 08:15:08 PM
Is there a chance you might know where to find the article?
I can't narrow it down any more than I already have. Wait--in addition to Time and the NYT it could have been the FT.
Quote from: Scipio on May 16, 2011, 06:26:53 PM
Shifting the SS tax burden would be helpful first in reducing the burden on the poorest employees and the employers of least-skilled labor, and also by putting the top earners subject to it. Then, we means-test Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well.
Who are you & what did you do with Scippy? :glare:
Quote from: derspiess on May 17, 2011, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: Scipio on May 16, 2011, 06:26:53 PM
Shifting the SS tax burden would be helpful first in reducing the burden on the poorest employees and the employers of least-skilled labor, and also by putting the top earners subject to it. Then, we means-test Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well.
Who are you & what did you do with Scippy? :glare:
You gotta plan to reform Social Security and Medicare?
Quote from: derspiess on May 17, 2011, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: Scipio on May 16, 2011, 06:26:53 PM
Shifting the SS tax burden would be helpful first in reducing the burden on the poorest employees and the employers of least-skilled labor, and also by putting the top earners subject to it. Then, we means-test Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well.
Who are you & what did you do with Scippy? :glare:
Lawyers who let their dogs eat their clients tend to be more concerned about being provided for when they get old.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2011, 09:21:55 AM
To answer Martim, the United States is a little different from Europe electorally.
For example, we don't have fascist parties that get 20%+ of the vote. We don't have communist and "Trotskyite" parties that get 20%+ of the vote. We don't have "Green" parties that advocate dismantling large swaths of modern industrial infrastructure. We don't have viable national parties that just represent a single ethnic group (Scots, Flemish, Basques, etc). We don't have parties that are just wings of large Italian media companies, and we don't have parties that have platforms items like confiscating private pensions and eliminating freedom of the press.
Once all those commonplaces of European political life are removed, there isn't a lot of places for some of our confused or eccentric citizens to go. So some clever people invented the GOP, which channels those people into mostly harmless sorts of things like tax cuts for dead rich people, prayers at high school football games, and protecting the legal status of gun shows. It's not ideal, but it would be a lot worse, as European politics always helpfully reminds us.
Perfection. :lol: