final democrat solution

[NEEDFREDJACKSONNOW]

No he is using the common sense defense, something you obviously lack. We live in the land of black and white, cut and dry, wrong and right, there is no grey area. In a month an a half the country will prove this true. God bless America!!!

 

No, common sense says the world has grey areas. We cannot live in "absolutes". This is the path toward facism.

[NEEDFREDJACKSONNOW]

Big Government - Can we agree to have competent government? I agree that having "big brother" government is evil as I said earlier. Let's have just enough government, but we must balance our DEARLY HELD personal freedoms with having an entity that will promote fairness (NOT SOCIALISM) and be effective (see mortgage deregulation, lack of oversight). Whatever we got now ain't workin'.

Fine! But Obiden is not the answer. Don't feel bad about being an American, be proud. Lib/Dems want every demographic to feel guilty over their race, color, creed, affluence , sexual preference. The most disadvantaged demographic of all these days is the white, heterosexual, viable male. I guess they have had it to good for to long.

 

No, really, the Libs/Dems have the big tent where all are welcome. This includes ALL of the groups you mentioned above. This is what America is about!

[Da Big Man]

No, really, the Libs/Dems have the big tent where all are welcome. This includes ALL of the groups you mentioned above. This is what America is about!

Wrong, we are not taking care of business here or in the middle east because of our concerns of what rights of some terrorist may be violated. ex. a jihad warrior fakes like he is dead to lure US troops closer so he can detenate a bomb or fire enough shots to kill a half dozen or so and the marine that recognizes this and kills him is the criminal. Or the Lib/Dems that wanted to be used as human shields and acted suprised when Iraqs military put them in front of military targets. You people are so out of whack its sad. I weep for your narrow minded thought. Try being altruistic.

[finknottle]

Sorry, not an economist here, just trying to keep informed. But if you're referring to "supply side economics", I don't think it's working very well. I don't think it ever worked well. Please review link below:

 

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/200...a_test_of_.html

 

It would stand to reason that if more people had more money to spend, more tax revenue would be created. Then the figures you quoted above would change, despite the top income earners paying a higher percentage. What about the corporate welfare? If it was reduced, our total tax bill would be less. Don't most agree that the tax rebates the country received this summer were at least good for our economy?

 

Here's what Alan Greenspan thinks of McSame's tax plan:

 

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2...ant-afford.html

 

He believes that spending must be reduced in order for McSame's plan to have any chance.

 

I am not arguing for supply side economics or that the taxes on the wealthy should be cut etc. The point that I am making is simply that any reasonable discussion of the subject, and an attempt to find the right level of taxation to promote job creation, economic mobility, and reward from risk, as well as fund the government, cannot occur if one starts with absurd assumptions like the idea that the rich are getting a tax cut being paid for by the middle class and the poor.

 

For all practical purposes, the top 20% of wage earners pay *all* the income tax in this country. The rest make no contribution beyond payroll-type taxes, which are flat rate that everybody pays. The question is how much of their income should the top 20% be providing. You can cut their taxes till the cows come home, and their contribution is still carrying the rest of the country.

 

[i agree with Greenspans view that spending must be cut under McCain's plan. But I'd also say that Obama's policy will be disasterous, since he will be dramatically increasing social spending and entitlements. Unlike war funding, these are things that never go away. Once you say seniors making less than 50k should no longer pay no taxes, *no* politician can come in later and reverse it. Unlike the rich, *nobody* is ever going to come into office and raise taxes on the poor. Funding for schools, same thing. It's a one-way street.]

[Booster4324]

I am not arguing for supply side economics or that the taxes on the wealthy should be cut etc. The point that I am making is simply that any reasonable discussion of the subject, and an attempt to find the right level of taxation to promote job creation, economic mobility, and reward from risk, as well as fund the government, cannot occur if one starts with absurd assumptions like the idea that the rich are getting a tax cut being paid for by the middle class and the poor.

 

For all practical purposes, the top 20% of wage earners pay *all* the income tax in this country. The rest make no contribution beyond payroll-type taxes, which are flat rate that everybody pays. The question is how much of their income should the top 20% be providing. You can cut their taxes till the cows come home, and their contribution is still carrying the rest of the country.

 

[i agree with Greenspans view that spending must be cut under McCain's plan. But I'd also say that Obama's policy will be disasterous, since he will be dramatically increasing social spending and entitlements. Unlike war funding, these are things that never go away. Once you say seniors making less than 50k should no longer pay no taxes, *no* politician can come in later and reverse it. Unlike the rich, *nobody* is ever going to come into office and raise taxes on the poor. Funding for schools, same thing. It's a one-way street.]

 

You have some valid points, which is why I am so disappointed in you. You only consider income taxes. Are those the only taxes that people face? Piss poor math IMO.

[swede316]

But I'd also say that Obama's policy will be disasterous, since he will be dramatically increasing social spending and entitlements.

Two Nobel Prize winning economists said Obama's plan would send the economy into a nose dive. Who to believe?

[finknottle]

You have some valid points, which is why I am so disappointed in you. You only consider income taxes. Are those the only taxes that people face? Piss poor math IMO.

 

Again - I am not delivering an analysis on what an optimal tax policy should be, so there's no reason to be comprehensive. I'm only saying thre is no point in discussing the issue with people whose views as so partisan that they believe absurdities. The original post spoke of the middle class and the poor paying for tax cuts for the rich - that is as far from true as can be.

 

Are income taxes the only taxes? No. But the rich didn't get a cut in their payroll taxes or sales tax, did they?

 

The only other tax worth bringing in to the discussion is the estate tax; and it makes no sense to say that those cuts (which for the record I strongly disapprove of) are 'paid for' by anybody else.

[Hazed and Amuzed]

Wrong, we are not taking care of business here or in the middle east because of our concerns of what rights of some terrorist may be violated. ex. a jihad warrior fakes like he is dead to lure US troops closer so he can detenate a bomb or fire enough shots to kill a half dozen or so and the marine that recognizes this and kills him is the criminal. Or the Lib/Dems that wanted to be used as human shields and acted suprised when Iraqs military put them in front of military targets. You people are so out of whack its sad. I weep for your narrow minded thought. Try being altruistic.

 

 

The truth is that we shouldn't be over there at all and it makes me sad that people like you believe what they see on the news about what's going on in the middle east. You say that Dems are lemmings because they believe what the media tells them, yet how can you sit there and pretend to know what's happening in Iraq? The problem here is that it's not you or me that are out of whack, we both want the same thing: To live in the best country in the world. It's the people running this country that are out of whack and if you can't see that then you're turning what seems to be a blind eye. Bush has MADE HIMSELF untrustworthy. The lefties didn't do it to him. Why should we trust McCain? He was a Bush supporter UNTIL he decided to run for office.Hell, I like John McCain, in fact I'd rather hang out and BS with McCain over Obama but it's that same mentality that got Bush elected and he was a disaster so...

 

What was Einstein's definition of insanity again?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I was there also and this happened under Wild Bills watch in between BJ's . We didn't do business with China till Wild Bill said so. Selling this country down the drain is what he did. Lincoln bedroom stays starting at $100,000 per night. Remember that China grounded one of our recon planes shortly after GWB took office , do you know why? Billy said it would be OK. Under his administration the world viewed us as passive, see Bosnia, see Somalia, see 1998 when Yemen had Osama Bin Laden in custody and offered him to us and Billy was to busy !@#$in off to say Hell Yes. Uss cole, Bombing after bombing on US interest and Wild Bill did nothing. Weakened our country is all he did. As for the "surplus" of money, I hope there was money left with all the taxes I paid those 8 years of girls gone wild. P.S. I don't go to your links to read propoganda I witnessed history with my own two eyes.

 

You are useless... this was published by the non-partisan congressional research service and is plain jane history of what happened. What a little piece of informative scare you. That is all ewe spew is propaganda. Who do you get your narrow minded info from, Michael Savage... because it certainly isn't based in facts..

 

P.S. I drafted an amendment to the legislation to make it subject to further review so that China had to meet certain labor standards, it was accepted because it was just a review, relatively useless, but at least it would have brought more light to China's labor abuses, but the amendement made in unpalatable to trade at any cost Republicans and the legislation was never passed. I think it fell a couple of votes short.

 

But my explanation doesn't matter because you obviously don't read and you can't spell propaganda, so you can't know what that means.... Big word, you pay someone to write it?

[NEEDFREDJACKSONNOW]

Again - I am not delivering an analysis on what an optimal tax policy should be, so there's no reason to be comprehensive. I'm only saying thre is no point in discussing the issue with people whose views as so partisan that they believe absurdities. The original post spoke of the middle class and the poor paying for tax cuts for the rich - that is as far from true as can be.

 

Are income taxes the only taxes? No. But the rich didn't get a cut in their payroll taxes or sales tax, did they?

 

The only other tax worth bringing in to the discussion is the estate tax; and it makes no sense to say that those cuts (which for the record I strongly disapprove of) are 'paid for' by anybody else.

 

I think your reply to my original assertion deserves a more "comprehensive" discussion. Having an opinion does not mean your partisan and unable to exchange views!

 

Why do you say that the poor paying for the tax cuts for the rich is not true? Your explanations seems basic. I would think there are other ways to get taxes, like someone else here recently said. When the government takes our taxes they get keep the money for awhile, I assume they invest it, and make some interest. Also, not everyone gets money back, especially those that are not eligible for tax credits. I remember when I was single without kids and no house...Ouch! The tax credits are designed to reinforce "desirable" behavior, like keeping a family together. And if the middle class had more money to spend, you will get more business. More business leads to more profits.

[NEEDFREDJACKSONNOW]

Wrong, we are not taking care of business here or in the middle east because of our concerns of what rights of some terrorist may be violated. ex. a jihad warrior fakes like he is dead to lure US troops closer so he can detenate a bomb or fire enough shots to kill a half dozen or so and the marine that recognizes this and kills him is the criminal. Or the Lib/Dems that wanted to be used as human shields and acted suprised when Iraqs military put them in front of military targets. You people are so out of whack its sad. I weep for your narrow minded thought. Try being altruistic.

 

Did someone put a taser up your a%&?

 

Dude, you're going off topic here. No one is blaming anything on the US military. Get a grip.

 

Again, absolute thinking will lead to facism.

[finknottle]

I think your reply to my original assertion deserves a more "comprehensive" discussion. Having an opinion does not mean your partisan and unable to exchange views!

 

Why do you say that the poor paying for the tax cuts for the rich is not true? Your explanations seems basic. I would think there are other ways to get taxes, like someone else here recently said. When the government takes our taxes they get keep the money for awhile, I assume they invest it, and make some interest. Also, not everyone gets money back, especially those that are not eligible for tax credits. I remember when I was single without kids and no house...Ouch! The tax credits are designed to reinforce "desirable" behavior, like keeping a family together. And if the middle class had more money to spend, you will get more business. More business leads to more profits.

 

Nothing disqualifying about taking a partisan position, as long as we all accept the same underlying facts.

 

The poor pay for the tax cuts of the rich only in the sense that there is less money transfered from rich to the poor. They are 'paying' only if you believe they are entitled to that money, not as a decision of policy but as some kind of fundamental right. If a parent gives their children a 10 dollar weekly allowance, loses their job and then lowers it to 5 so that they have some money for themselves, would you say the children are paying for their parents?

 

When the government takes our money, they do not invest it - they spend it. The only money they are 'making' is in the sense that they don't have to borrow that amount and pay interest on it. This is an issue with social security: they take your money, and pay it back later with interest (it is slanted towards the poor - the less you put in, the higher the interest rate they use). The problem is that they did *not* invest your money, so that they can just pass on the interest to you. They have to hope that the economy keeps growing so that they have increased revenues to come up with it. (But in practice, what they really do is use the contributions of today's workers to pay for today's retiree's. This works as long as the number of people working keeps growing - it is a pyramid scheme.)

 

As for whether the middle class having more money to spend helps the economy, I wouldn't disagree. But the optimal level is not obvious. More business means more profits, but when you reduce profits through taxation you remove the incentive to risk your money starting a business. Suppose you had two million dollars. Maybe there is a safe passive investment like bonds that pays you $80,000 a year for it ($50,000 after taxes). Or you could open up a fancy resturarant. There is an 80% chance it will fail and you lose all your money, and a 20% chance it will succeed and pay you $250,000 a year. If you say 'sock it to the rich' and make that $150,000 after taxes, then what is the choice before you? $50,000 a year guaranteed, versus one chance in five of making $150,000. You take the $50,000, and one less business is created. These numbers are made up, but it illustrates how the tax impact the willingness to risk money.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Nothing disqualifying about taking a partisan position, as long as we all accept the same underlying facts.

 

The poor pay for the tax cuts of the rich only in the sense that there is less money transfered from rich to the poor. They are 'paying' only if you believe they are entitled to that money, not as a decision of policy but as some kind of fundamental right. If a parent gives their children a 10 dollar weekly allowance, loses their job and then lowers it to 5 so that they have some money for themselves, would you say the children are paying for their parents?

 

 

 

As for whether the middle class having more money to spend helps the economy, I wouldn't disagree. But the optimal level is not obvious. More business means more profits, but when you reduce profits through taxation you remove the incentive to risk your money starting a business. Suppose you had two million dollars. Maybe there is a safe passive investment like bonds that pays you $80,000 a year for it ($50,000 after taxes). Or you could open up a fancy resturarant. There is an 80% chance it will fail and you lose all your money, and a 20% chance it will succeed and pay you $250,000 a year. If you say 'sock it to the rich' and make that $150,000 after taxes, then what is the choice before you? $50,000 a year guaranteed, versus one chance in five of making $150,000. You take the $50,000, and one less business is created. These numbers are made up, but it illustrates how the tax impact the willingness to risk money.

 

 

Nice post, and generally I agree with your assumption of taxes on business except when you get into multi-nationals where taxes don't apply. The real problem as a small business start up that I find is not on the Fed level, but the state and local level. There are so many nickle and dime taxes in NY state and county that I wonder why anyone runs a business in NY unless it generating ridiculous amounts of revenue. Then at those levels the Feds may become a problem, but if properly managed mostly corporation can limit their tax liabilities well below the going rates. And there in lies the problem. There is a lack of transparency on all ends that distorts business. Government raises rates to deal with corporate loop holes, business look for opportunities to declare revenue or expenditures where it will do them the most good to maximize profits. If taxes both state and local were uniform across the board and state and local lines it would be much more efficient.

 

That said, it will never happen. Businesses will never give up their advantages and locals will never give up having the control with their hand in the till. Not sure how to reform it, but it has to happen all three layers of government without creating any great losses in revenue for any of the parties. The resulting perceived power loss will be just as difficult to overcome and I just can't see it occurring.

[Da Big Man]

Did someone put a taser up your a%&?

 

Dude, you're going off topic here. No one is blaming anything on the US military. Get a grip.

 

Again, absolute thinking will lead to facism.

This is in response to you saying that Lib/Dems welcome all to it's big tent, even sheltering and protecting our enemies, ABSOLUTLY!!! :wallbash:Be part of the solution, not the problem!!!!

[NEEDFREDJACKSONNOW]

This is in response to you saying that Lib/Dems welcome all to it's big tent, even sheltering and protecting our enemies, ABSOLUTLY!!! :wallbash:Be part of the solution, not the problem!!!!

 

Dems and Libs do not shelter enemies! The belief that they coddle enemies is political propaganda, began many years ago by Reagan and the racist "Willie Horton" ads. What about the Dems and Libs that have died for this country, are you minimizing their sacrifices? Your thoughts are quite absolute and polorizing, and as I said before, will lead to facism.

 

BTW, you're welcome in the tent.....

[Da Big Man]

Dems and Libs do not shelter enemies! The belief that they coddle enemies is political propaganda, began many years ago by Reagan and the racist "Willie Horton" ads. What about the Dems and Libs that have died for this country, are you minimizing their sacrifices? Your thoughts are quite absolute and polorizing, and as I said before, will lead to facism.

 

BTW, you're welcome in the tent.....

I believe it's POLARIZING, and boy you are a big fan of facism. I subscribe to no ism! Isn't there a free Gtmo prisoner ralley you should be attending. I have my own tent where I am free to do and decide what I want and not be fed BS on a daily basis by the drive by media that preys on mindless sheep. Oh yeah and the majority of the country is in here with me.

[Da Big Man]

The truth is that we shouldn't be over there at all and it makes me sad that people like you believe what they see on the news about what's going on in the middle east. You say that Dems are lemmings because they believe what the media tells them, yet how can you sit there and pretend to know what's happening in Iraq? The problem here is that it's not you or me that are out of whack, we both want the same thing: To live in the best country in the world. It's the people running this country that are out of whack and if you can't see that then you're turning what seems to be a blind eye. Bush has MADE HIMSELF untrustworthy. The lefties didn't do it to him. Why should we trust McCain? He was a Bush supporter UNTIL he decided to run for office.Hell, I like John McCain, in fact I'd rather hang out and BS with McCain over Obama but it's that same mentality that got Bush elected and he was a disaster so...

 

What was Einstein's definition of insanity again?

Wrong! We should be in Iraq and Trashcanistan. Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolution 1441, reason enough to be there. Also Germany, France ,Russia and China were all doing back door business with them ,thats why they originally didn't support the enforcing of that resolution. Saddam threw the IAEA inspectors out time and time again. Even Lybia realized that it is better to join civilized nations and enjoy the fruits of the world then to be a crazy Foil Can Hairy. Thats all Saddam had to do is just comply and the enforcing wouldn't of happened and he would still be the warden of that asylum. It was our responsability as the lone super power to see that this crazy !@#$ couldn't bully his neighbors anymore and keep him in accordance with thew 1441 resolution. If he didn't posess WMD's, he sure did want us to think he did. P.S. nice breasts!

[Da Big Man]

Two Nobel Prize winning economists said Obama's plan would send the economy into a nose dive. Who to believe?

I feel you, but you are wasting your time. These Lib/Dems are like one task robots with eyes and ears shut to fact. Like the terminator they don't feel pity or remorse and they absolutely will not stop until this country is dead.

[Hazed and Amuzed]

I feel you, but you are wasting your time. These Lib/Dems are like one task robots with eyes and ears shut to fact. Like the terminator they don't feel pity or remorse and they absolutely will not stop until this country is dead.

 

 

Riiiiigght. Because it's the evil Dems that are killing this country, it's not the warmongers in office that have turned much of the world against us. They're just doing what's right. Right? What a freakin' joke.

[drnykterstein]

Riiiiigght. Because it's the evil Dems that are killing this country, it's not the warmongers in office that have turned much of the world against us. They're just doing what's right. Right? What a freakin' joke.

 

If Pakistan drops a nuke on us.. do you think Da Big Man and StupidNation will change their tune. .. or just keep blaming "liberal media".