What if Republicans don't compromise? by kpo

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
What Mike said, every time, especially the last one. If you disagree, prove it. Prove it with facts and figures, I dare you.

Already have, over and over and over again.

You ignore facts and figures, or mock my sources, out of hand, and so it's pointless to even try. And yet, to prove you wrong, once again, here it is.

The facts:

Quote:

July 30, 2009, 2:26 PM

Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in ‘07

By CATHERINE RAMPELL

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.42 percent of total federal income taxes in 2007, according to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federa
l-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/

This represents the second year in a row that the richest 1 percent paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent

( I again refer you to the above West Wing video - Tax the Rich, which makes reference to this very topic, even though it's 10+ years old )

" Swimming pools and faster private jets. " - Same old, tired rhetoric, even today. Pathetic.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:58 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

No they don't, and it doesn't matter if you're on your period or not; you're wrong.

Yes, they do, and I'm right.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:04 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Posted by Rappy:

And your wiki link is ridiculous. Doesn't remotely deal w/ the non-discretionary spending we're going to have to deal with, in the years to come, even BEFORE ObamaCare ( which absolutely does NOT save any $, but will cost us 1 trillion $ , from the very start )

But according to you, money not collected by the government doesn't count. So your claims of some future spending calamity ring false.

I never said that, so you ( again ) present a false portrait of my view.

Ignoring the future spending calamity is what D.C. has been doing for decades. Pretending it's not coming, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Obama is oblivious to all this, as are those sycophants who buy into his hopey - changey message.

The gig's up. The creditors see the writing on the wall. Our house isn't in order, and only some in D.C. are trying to correct that problem.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
What Mike said, every time, especially the last one. If you disagree, prove it. Prove it with facts and figures, I dare you.

Already have, over and over and over again.

You ignore facts and figures, or mock my sources, out of hand, and so it's pointless to even try.

What did I tell you, Niki? "You're not worthy of my response..."
Did you really expect anything more from Rappy here?

Quote:

July 30, 2009, 2:26 PM

Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in ‘07

By CATHERINE RAMPELL

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.42 percent of total federal income taxes in 2007, according to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federa
l-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/

This represents the second year in a row that the richest 1 percent paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent

You keep speaking of "income taxes" as if they are the entirety of ALL taxes. Look back up at my post above, and read it SLLOOOOWWWWLLLLYYY if you need to to figure it out.

Quote:

( I again refer you to the above West Wing video - Tax the Rich, which makes reference to this very topic, even though it's 10+ years old )

" Swimming pools and faster private jets. " - Same old, tired rhetoric, even today. Pathetic.

So... your primary source for your idiotic claims is a FICTIONAL TV SHOW?

Hey, I bet I could use Firefly clips to prove that there are cargo ships full of bandits in space!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:11 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Posted by Rappy:

And your wiki link is ridiculous. Doesn't remotely deal w/ the non-discretionary spending we're going to have to deal with, in the years to come, even BEFORE ObamaCare ( which absolutely does NOT save any $, but will cost us 1 trillion $ , from the very start )

But according to you, money not collected by the government doesn't count. So your claims of some future spending calamity ring false.

And if a trillion dollars is such a big deal to you, why do you STILL support the disastrous and illegal Iraq war? That one has cost well over a trillion bucks, and will never save anyone a penny. Of course, it also didn't save any lives or turn up any WMD, but don't let mere facts stand in your way...

Anyone who pays ANY taxes is "paying to live here", by the way. That's why you always have such a problem with illegals, because they AREN'T "paying to live here". Right?

If you ever said "Support the Troops!", you are a socialist. You've taken money from me, by force and at gunpoint, and you've given it to people who are on a mission I don't support, and are murdering others in my name, and I am given no choice in the matter.

Just to be on record...When Aurapt was all over Bush's cock and lapping at the neo-con's sack...he was for the war in Iraq...but to be fair! Now that he can see what true conservatism is he's on the right side ...and you are Ron Paul...go figure?...joking. It is a tough issue. and balancing it all means end war spending(not defense...i'm pretty sure with our present military and those fucking oceans...we are safe) and use that money at home...simply put..Well, it is true...we can take care of our neededs and defend our selves while doing it and save money...End war.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:24 PM

America loves a winner!

Some of you are simply idiots, and just blindly partisan myrmidons.

If President A orders a drone attack to take out Terrorist B, living in village C, it makes no difference to me WHO the President is.

Obama has successfully stepped up such attacks, and even though I loath the communist loving, piece of crap, he's at least doing that part of his job well.

I can honestly admit that, where as most of your dick wads can't say anything good about President Bush.

Just putting it into perspective, is all.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:30 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The rich pay far less in taxes than the middle class, as a percentage of income.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the boundaries between "rich", "middle class", and "poor"?

Also, which taxes are you including? SSA? Medicare? Sales tax? Income tax(state, local, national)? Property tax? Sewer assessments? Others?

The debt ceiling plans which call for increases in revenue are pretty much all focused on Federal income tax, so are other taxes germane to the discussion?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The rich pay far less in taxes than the middle class, as a percentage of income.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the boundaries between "rich", "middle class", and "poor"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/how-the-rich-often-
pay-less-taxes-than-the-middle-class

Quote:

Also, which taxes are you including? SSA? Medicare? Sales tax? Income tax(state, local, national)? Property tax? Sewer assessments? Others?

All taxes.

Quote:

The debt ceiling plans which call for increases in revenue are pretty much all focused on Federal income tax, so are other taxes germane to the discussion?

They damned well SHOULD BE. Restructure the SSA tax, the capital gains tax, and put income tax rates back to 1960 levels, the the national debt disappears pretty quickly.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:06 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
...and put income tax rates back to 1960 levels.

So you would tax the poor at 20% to 50%?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, if the income inequality goes back to 1960 levels, why not?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2011 5:17 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, if the income inequality goes back to 1960 levels, why not?

Did Mike mention that? I looked pretty closely at his post, and it's not apparent. Maybe you could point it out?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2011 5:39 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You're "right" but you're also wrong. That's the old song about what their tax bracket is SUPPOSED to be. They actually pay less as a % because a lot of their income is not *earned* income, but rather income from investments (passive income). For example, if you have enough money, you can invest in double tax-free bonds. Any interest earnings on those bonds are not taxable by the federal government or the state government. If you're in a high tax bracket, you're better off earning $75 of tax-free interest than $100 of taxable interest. The "average" person would prefer the $100 income.

There are lots of other ways to get around paying taxes and if you can afford to hire people who know the tax laws, you can afford to avoid taxes.

Also, The top 20% of America own 93% of financial assets while the bottom 80% own just 7%. The top 1% of America own 50% of Financial Assets. So why shouldn't they pay more? IF we knew what they earned versus what they ACTUALLY PAY, your figures would be screwed...but I don't know how we could find that out.

In other words, while it looks nice that they pay a higher AMOUNT of taxes, percentage-wise they pay far LESS of their income--taxable and not--than all the rest of us.

Plus, your figures are five years old; let's have some current data, if you please.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2011 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
...and put income tax rates back to 1960 levels.

So you would tax the poor at 20% to 50%?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I'd be guaranteed every Republican vote in Congress if I did! ;)

And really, as y'all keep pointing out, it's not like that whole "War on Poverty" thing really worked out, right?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2011 8:41 AM

KANEMAN

The biggest tax on the poor and middle class is inflation...sure they can take fuel and other shit out of the CPI...but we are all well aware the price of energy and food has gone up..why? War and big government hitting the printing press...easy answer...end war and keep entitlements level for four years....real inflation drops...so every dollar the unwashed recieves buys more...just say'n

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2011 3:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
For example, if you have enough money, you can invest in double tax-free bonds. Any interest earnings on those bonds are not taxable by the federal government or the state government.

And the reason for that is because governments figure that otherwise no one would buy the bonds and stuff (schools, parks, etc.) would go unfinanced.

Quote:
Plus, your figures are five years old; let's have some current data, if you please.

The only place to get such tax data is the IRS Statistics of Income Division. The last year of complete data they have published is for 2008.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2011 11:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And the reason for that is because governments figure that otherwise no one would buy the bonds and stuff (schools, parks, etc.) would go unfinanced.

Not entirely. The Feds supposedly don't tax local and state bonds because they aren't supposed to "interfere" with these entities' ability to raise money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Did Mike mention that? I looked pretty closely at his post, and it's not apparent. Maybe you could point it out?

No, I did, ya maroon! Last time I looked, this was an OPEN conversation and anyone could opine on any post- right? So- "way to go" on not responding to my point. And now that I pointed that out... care to respond?

And speaking of not responding on point... when Niki correctly said that the rich pay a lower percentage of taxes than everyone else, YOUR response was..

Quote:
The only place to get such tax data is the IRS Statistics of Income Division. The last year of complete data they have published is for 2008.

Really, Geezer? Is that the best you can do? That earns another "way to go" on avoiding the issue. If you want to know why I think you're weasely, here are two great examples.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:52 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And now that I pointed that out... care to respond?

Sure. If you think 1960 tax rates would be OK if income distribution was also at 1960 levels, you're proposing that a married couple with a $30,000.00 taxable income pay $9,380.00 in Federal income tax. Using 2010 tax rates they'd pay $3663.00, and if they had one child, get $1775.00 EITC back plus $1,000.00 Child Tax Credit, for a net of $888.00 tax (two children would wipe out their tax altogether, and get them a $112.00 refundable credit). I'm not sure if knowing the rich guys were making only X times my income rather than Y times my income would console me when I saw an extra $8,500.00 or more of my money go out the door.

Quote:
And speaking of not responding on point... when Niki correctly said that the rich pay a lower percentage of taxes than everyone else, YOUR response was...

When Niki mentioned 'taxable income', that made me consider she was talking about Income tax. I provided a link to the SOI reports that she could follow (sort of like Mike did when I asked him what he considered "rich"). She also wanted newer data, but there isn't any newer than 2008.

SOI still shows that, even with deductions, tax-free bonds, capital gains, good tax lawyers, etc. the "rich" with AGIs of $100,000.00 pay the vast majority of Federal income tax. You can quote Warren Buffet's anecdote about paying less tax than his secretary, but it's just that - an anecdote.

Now if you'd like to take the caps off SSA and Medicare contributions, I got no problem with that, but saying the "rich" don't pay their fair share of Federal income tax doesn't fly.

I suspect a lot of this is just sour grapes and that folks are really saying is that the "rich" should be punished for doing better than you, since they have to be cheating somehow to be able to make more money, rather than having better or more marketable skills, more drive and ambition, or just better dumb luck.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
the "rich" with AGIs of $100,000.00 pay the vast majority of Federal income tax.

"The rich" who have more than $100,000 in AGI?

That's not "rich", bud. That's statistical legerdemain - lumping a whole bunch of people into one category to hid the fact that the REALLY rich pay LESS. Yep, they do, and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't have been so carefully dishonest with your answer. So... how much tax by percentage do real people pay when their income is $1,000,000? Or $10,000,000? Or $100,000,000?

Quote:
Sure. If you think 1960 tax rates would be OK if income distribution was also at 1960 levels, you're proposing that a married couple with a $30,000.00 taxable income pay $9,380.00 in Federal income tax. Using 2010 tax rates they'd pay $3663.00, and if they had one child, get $1775.00 EITC back plus $1,000.00 Child Tax Credit

Geezer, you're making my head hurt! A couple that made $30,000 in 1960 would be making $218,300 in 2010! www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi Now I KNOW you're a smart guy, too smart to be making such a stupid "mistake" as mixing up 1960 with 2010 dollars without adjusting for inflation, which any moron can do by hitting the internet. So all I can figure is you're being dishonest (AGAIN).

Quote:
I suspect a lot of this is just sour grapes and that folks are really saying is that the "rich" should be punished for doing better than you

Better than me??? Oh, I have no personal reason for sour grapes. In fact, I'm probably doing better than YOU. (Unless you were embezzling or something in your former job). So I've got no personal reason to gripe. But the so-called "free market" idiocy that people cling to as some sort of wisdom is first going to wreck society and then going to wreck the economy, because the so-called "free market" is creating all of this misery in the first place.

So why don't we just get to the heart of the matter, then, and you stop with the bullshit? Defending a system with lies only makes you look corrupt and the system look weak.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 5:36 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

People buy bonds for reasons other than you cited, as Sig pointed out. They also buy them because they are supposedly "safer", even tho' the pay smaller yield. Things have changed so much that even BONDS don't help local communities; they're in trouble, too, but the federal government is shoving more and more onto them, and there are only so many bonds they can sell.

No, Geezer, there's no sour grapes about it. The wealthy and big corporations in this country have lobbied/donated/paid their way to many loopholes, subsidies and tax breaks because of their influence. The end result is the disparity between rich and poor--even rich and middle class--has become wider and wider. It's not that they've done better, it's that they've used perfectly legal methods which their wealth makes possible to widen that gap more and more. You wanna call it dumb luck, okay, but I'll argue whether they are any better than I. I worked my whole life, I saw up close and personal how kissing ass, cut-throat politics and who you golf with got people into positions of wealth; I did their work for them, I saw people who wouldn't make it to their positions on just skills. How about the day traders and Wall Street? Are you really saying they've "earned" their enormous salaries, golden parachutes and bonuses? This country is hurting because of the income gap; an income gap which doesn't reflect quality in many, many cases.

Just for the health of the country this isn't healthy. And taxes on the rich have gone down enormously, yet they're "earning" a higher and higher percentage of the wealth, as well as the fact that there are fewer of them, so they don't spread the wealth around as much as the rest of us.

THOSE are my arguments against tax cuts for the wealthy and why I think the Bush tax cuts (we've already been over how they benefitted the wealthy) should expire for people with enormous wealth. Not the $250,000-a-year folk, I'd start higher, but the top 1%? For sure.

If our government wasn't skewed dramatically in favor of the wealthy, it would be a healthier country, and the Bush tax cuts just for them are adding HOW much to the debt? It's bad for ALL of us (will touch even them as things are going); how do you figure that's right?

I, too, would like to see caps on Medicare and SSI; in fact, just that and closing loopholes and ending subsidies to companies who are making money hand over fist would be sufficient for me.

My comment about newer data was aimed at Raptor, who posted "Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in ‘07. Your link led to a page with links to another page with links to a bunch of different graphs, so I didn't follow each of them up.

I don't feel the same way as Sig, I believe we just differ in our opinions and maybe in how we come to them. But the increasing disparity in income, which has been growing at an expanding rate for some time, isn't in my opinion "earned" (because of the ability to influence government, tax laws, subsidies, etc.), nor is it healthy for any economy/country. I do, however, take offense at your assumption that it's just "sour grapes".

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 8:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yep, they do, and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't have been so carefully dishonest with your answer.

...

So why don't we just get to the heart of the matter, then, and you stop with the bullshit? Defending a system with lies only makes you look corrupt and the system look weak.

So anything that doesn't agree with your preconceptions is 'carefully dishonest'? And anything that doesn't fall into your worldview is 'bullshit'? No point in carrying on with this any more, since you'll dismiss as lies any fact that doesn't support you and take as gospel any 'bullshit' that you agree with.

It's amazing how similar you are to the Tea Party folks you dispise.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 8:56 AM

And it's funny that you think you're any different, Geeze.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 9:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Bullshit Geezer. It's not that you disagree, or that she has preconceptions, it's that your response was WRONG. She showed that; claiming those who make $100,000 are "rich" is disingenuous...even those who wanted the tax cuts to expire "for the wealthy" STARTED at $250,000.

She refuted your second point by explaining about 2011 dollars.

She and I BOTH refuted your idea that our desire for a more reasonable tax structure was just "sour grapes".

I wouldn't call what you posted "lies", but it's certainly "false". I don't attribute the same motives she does, but it's certainly not about disagreeing or preconceptions!

Rather than snarking by comparing her to the Tea Party (which is a joke!), why not address her refutations of your points? You seemingly can't even admit that it might be other than "sour grapes" that we'd like to see the ACTUALLY WEALTHY pay their fair share, for the good of the country.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Bullshit Geezer. It's not that you disagree, or that she has preconceptions, it's that your response was WRONG. She showed that; claiming those who make $100,000 are "rich" is disingenuous...even those who wanted the tax cuts to expire "for the wealthy" STARTED at $250,000.

And remember, the righties insisted that someone with a taxable income of $250,000/yr ($500,000/yr if filing jointly) *wasn't* rich, back when they were arguing that we couldn't possibly let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Now it seems that while $250k/yr isn't rich, $100k/yr *IS*. This must be that "new math" the new right is using, eh?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 10:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
She showed that; claiming those who make $100,000 are "rich" is disingenuous...even those who wanted the tax cuts to expire "for the wealthy" STARTED at $250,000.

Pick a cutoff then. Per the SOI data I cited, in 2008 folks with AGI over $200,000 had 30.8% of total income and paid 52.1% of total tax (The table doesn't have a $250,000 level, jumping from $200,000 to $500,000, so I'm really not trying to sneakily deceive you by using a lower figure). Those with over $1,000,000 AGI had 13% of income and paid 24.2%. The 13,000 or so filers over $10,000,000 AGI had 5.2% of income and paid 8.1% of total tax.

Once again, go to http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html and select the 2008 table for "All Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items" and you can see how it breaks down.

Quote:
She refuted your second point by explaining about 2011 dollars.

Not really. I was making the point that 1960 rates weren't friendly to the poorer folks here in 2011. Even adjusted for inflation, they still aren't.

Lets look again at our 2011 family with two kids and a $30,000 taxable income. With 2010 tax rates and credits, they pay no tax, and even get some credits back. Under 1960 rates, even adjusted for inflation, they fall in the lowest 1960 bracket, 20%, and still owe $6,000 income tax. Even after applying EITC and Child Tax credits, which they wouldn't have under 1960 laws, they're still owing $3,225 instead of getting $112 back.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 10:36 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And remember, the righties insisted that someone with a taxable income of $250,000/yr ($500,000/yr if filing jointly) *wasn't* rich, back when they were arguing that we couldn't possibly let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Now it seems that while $250k/yr isn't rich, $100k/yr *IS*. This must be that "new math" the new right is using, eh?

Okay, in light of your non-answer previously (A web link that pretty much came to no conclusion), what do you think is the cutoff for "Rich"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 11:10 AM

FREMDFIRMA

It ain't WHAT they supposedly "earned" so much as HOW they "earned" it - by subverting the law of the land with bribes, breaking the law, ignoring the law since no one dares apply to to them, and this most heinous, being penalized with a slap on the wrist and a "fine" of less than 1% of the profit they made when someone does manage to call them to heel.

So the message is crime pays, if you do it grand enough - it's like penalizing a bank robber who took 40K with a $400.00 fine, not much of a deterrent is it ?

And when they tell the Gov to piss off and sleaze that money over in the Caymans, then what ?

Me, *I* say we send in the goddamn troops and SEIZE their assets, this in respect to certain financial fuckers who got plenty of money from the Gov to do certain things, then pocketed it and laughed in our faces...

Well, send in the Dirty 3rd, and throw them in Gitmo while we liquidate their holdings, and see how funny they think it is.

Okay, that's mostly sarcasm, yeah - but the damn scary thing is just how possible, and likely, that can become, and faster than you know, people...

ESPECIALLY if the troops, who are already as a rule pretty pissed about the situation, being stop lossed, foreclosed, outsourced, knowing their life back home has been essentially destroyed and all they have to look forward to is unemployment, homelessness, alcoholism, and crippling pyschological damage on top of it....
If they don't get paid, there WILL be hell to pay, you'd better believe it, it'll be the bonus march all over again, only even less polite.

Ironic, that - cause the pebble that started my own break with the military was their failure to abide by the terms of my contract (which they broke, which is why they could do nothing but make me inactive reserve for all eternity when I did walk out on em) - and thus when they DID NOT PAY UP, the shit hit the fan.

There's really few things less dangerous to a country than an army that hasn't been paid.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 11:46 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Re the balanced budget amendment

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

We've had the discussion about the process before-- the R's in Congress can vote for one, anytime they want, maybe pass it by a super-majority, then send it on to the states that have to pass it also by super-majorities. They don't have to get approval or agreement from Obama. Don't see where it's a negotiating point, unless it's "We demand that you ALL vote in favor of it in advance."

Just caught up with the language in Boehner's plan today Sat July 30 over on CNN.com. Boehner is requiring guaranteed support for absolute passage, in advance.
The only change from what I predicted is that it isn't " all of you have to vote in favor."

That guy Boehner is just a soft-core, sell-out, compromising fool, isn't he?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:12 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

It is my contention that he's between a rock and a hard Tea Party, otherwise he would be willing to compromise. That language was what they put in at the last minute deliberately to "buy" the few Tea Party votes they could garner to pass the damned thing. It wasn't there before and I believe Boehner put it in because otherwise he simply couldn't get the votes.

This whole mess has been disasterous for "the saddest tangerine", as Jon Stewart called him. I don't particularly like his politics, but I can't help feeling sorry for him right now, with all he's going through.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:37 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So anything that doesn't agree with your preconceptions is 'carefully dishonest'? And anything that doesn't fall into your worldview is 'bullshit'? No point in carrying on with this any more, since you'll dismiss as lies any fact that doesn't support you and take as gospel any 'bullshit' that you agree with. It's amazing how similar you are to the Tea Party folks you dispise. (sic)

No, because unlike them I'll actually listen to facts, if you bring them to the table.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The 400 richest American taxpayers... paid an effective federal income tax of 18.1% in 2008.

Tax Rates for Millionaires Continue to Fall
www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/MSUN-7YHGVN?OpenDocument

Their calculation is 22%.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:20 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And remember, the righties insisted that someone with a taxable income of $250,000/yr ($500,000/yr if filing jointly) *wasn't* rich, back when they were arguing that we couldn't possibly let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Now it seems that while $250k/yr isn't rich, $100k/yr *IS*. This must be that "new math" the new right is using, eh?

Okay, in light of your non-answer previously (A web link that pretty much came to no conclusion), what do you think is the cutoff for "Rich"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well, depending on where you live, I'd say $250,000/yr qualifies as pretty posh. Mind you that won't go as far in New York City of Los Angeles, but a single person earning 250k per year of taxable income isn't going to miss many meals.

Certainly by the time you're getting paid $500k/yr, you're doing pretty well. If, like John McCain, you can't remember how many homes you own, you're probably not going to the poor house if your tax rate goes up 3% to the old Clinton levels.

Bear in mind that for those earning more than a million bucks under that "commie" Eisenhower, the top tax rate was well above 90%. 38% hardly seems usurious by comparison.

As for "rich"... well, that's a subjective question, isn't it? I mean, aside from one person in the world, no matter who you are, there's ALWAYS someone richer, right? So who's really "rich"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 3:11 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike: wonderful visual! Go Ike! And wasn't he just right, tho'? "They're number is negligible and they're stupid". Perfect description!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I have to point out that Geezer weaseled around my question AGAIN. I didn't ask what percentage of total tax the rich paid, but what percentage of their income. Since he didn't answer, I answered for him (If you're a billionaire, 18%. If you're a millionaire, 22%). Now, you have to think for a while to come up with the answer he did, so clearly... and once again... he prevaricated. Dodged. Weaseled. Lied.

Do I have a grudge against Geezer?

YOU BET!

The guy is dishonest as the day is long, and then some.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:54 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have to point out that Geezer weaseled around my question AGAIN.

I wasn't answering your question {SignyM mode}you nitwit{/SignyM mode}.

I had a long and reasoned response to this, which disappeared when I hit the "Post Your Response" button, and I don't feel like doing it again...so I'll leave it at this.

I got no problem with increasing taxes to reduce the deficit, even down farther than the $250,000 income range, although I expect if we did, the money would be spent by Congress on other stuff instead of paying down our debt.

Where I do have a problem is with folks who propose or support cockamamie ideas like going back to 1960 tax rates, having no idea of the harm it'd do.

I also consider the statement "The rich should pay their Fair Share" to be code for "The rich should pay My share"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 6:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The rich should pay their Fair Share" to be code for "The rich should pay My share"

YOUR share? MY share?

I am not talking about "fair", Geezer. I'm talking macroeconomics. As long as most money is in the hands a just a few very wealthy people, the average person will buy fewer goods and services. There will be less demand. Less demand, less production. Less production, fewer jobs. Fewer jobs... less money. It's a nasty self-propelling downward spiral once that gets going.

Money is like blood- it only does any good when it's circulating. Once it concentrates, the area that is starved for money dies. It's that simple. That's the reason why money needs to be redistributed - returned into widespread circulation. THAT'S how I knew we were in deep economic trouble in 2008... when income inequality hit pre-Great Depression levels.

After decades of government intervention, you all seem to have forgotten the lessons of history. You now think that markets are self-righting and self-adjusting. They're not, as even Greenspan (the great Free Marketeer) had to admit in his famous "I was wrong" comment.

Now, there are several ways to keep the economy going (which even the wealthy depend on) despite the concentration of wealth. Keynes' answer was simply to increase the money supply... have the government print money. Extend credit to the less well-off. However, that inevitably leads to high personal debt, government deficits and inflation. It also doesn't address the problem of where the money is going. IF the money is injected towards the wealthy, all it does is cause inflation without increasing production and jobs. But he proposed that because he knew the wealthy would object to the obvious solution, which is simply to redistribute the money already in existence. Redistribution improves the economy while avoiding the problems of high personal debt, deficits, and inflation.

The "free market" doesn't create unending growth; it is the source of both booms and busts. Government policy, up until Reagan, was to moderate the cycle. Both you and rappy are irremediably, irretrievably wrong about the economy and taxes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 7:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Bump for geezer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I see Geezer has no answer.

Figures.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I see Geezer has no answer.

Figures.

Oh, come on, Siggy. I was out of the house since, unlike you, I apparently have things to do other than sit around RWED.

I'll get back to you when I feel like it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 1:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You have time to snark in other threads but not to come up with a reply to this one?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 3:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yep, you have absolutely no time to respond to the cold, hard fact of economic reality. Which is...

---------
I am not talking about "fair", Geezer. I'm talking macroeconomics. As long only a few people get more and more money, the average person will buy fewer and fewer goods and services. There will be less demand. Less demand, less production. Less production, fewer jobs. Fewer jobs... less money. It's a nasty self-propelling downward spiral once that gets going.

Money is like blood- it only does any good when it's circulating. Once it concentrates, the area that is starved for money dies. It's that simple. That's the reason why money needs to be redistributed - returned into widespread circulation. THAT'S how I knew we were in deep economic trouble in 2008... when income inequality hit pre-Great Depression levels.

After decades of government intervention, you all seem to have forgotten the lessons of history. You now think that markets are self-righting and self-adjusting. They're not, as even Greenspan (the great Free Marketeer) had to admit in his famous "I was wrong" comment.

Now, there are several ways to keep the economy going (which even the wealthy depend on) despite the concentration of wealth. Keynes' answer was simply to increase the money supply... have the government print money. Extend credit to the less well-off. However, that inevitably leads to high personal debt, government deficits and inflation. It also doesn't address the problem of where the money is going. IF the money is injected towards the wealthy, all it does is cause inflation without increasing production and jobs. But he proposed that because he knew the wealthy would object to the obvious solution, which is simply to redistribute the money already in existence. Redistribution improves the economy while avoiding the problems of high personal debt, deficits, and inflation.

The "free market" doesn't create unending growth; it is the source of both booms and busts. Government policy, up until Reagan, was to moderate the cycle. Both you and rappy are irremediably, irretrievably wrong about the economy and taxes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:19 PM

DREAMTROVE

Sig,

Give Geezer some time. I checked the time stamps above, it seems a little hyper. Sometimes I don't get to RWED to respond for days.

As to the issue: The problem with govt. spending to get cashflow circulating is that the recipients of big spending items in the public sector are a small number of people and organizations, corporations mostly.

In the private sector, there is always a need for labor, creating a more dispersed economic engine.

So, while I concur that money does no good sitting there and not circulating, the govt. as moderator only serves one function: To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:28 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
In the private sector, there is always a need for labor

So how do you explain unemployment?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:56 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
In the private sector, there is always a need for labor
So how do you explain unemployment?

A failure of the private sector, brought on by high taxation and regulation. Some unemployment will always be with us as some people have no marketable skills, or are unwilling to work for the going wage rates, which is often understandable.

One thing we need in all walks of the economy is to get rid of middlemen. I recently did a crunching of the cost of providing a college education and the tuition and expenses, and it's headed towards 1000% markup. Text books are already there. Fat cat administrators are dipping into the till. Same thing in corporations and govt.

It bugs me that ipod workers make 5.60 RMB/hour and are docked for living expenses while apple sells the device at an 80% markup. That seems morally wrong. It's impossible to regulate internationally, but even if you could, apple would just stock the regulatory committee in its favor. the market needs to be informed, competitive, and vote with its wallet.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
brought on by high taxation and regulation.

Don't businesses have an incentive to improve profits by reducing their payroll costs though automation, or by getting fewer people to work more? Isn't that a rather natural and inevitable business motivation under capitalism?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sig,

Give Geezer some time. I checked the time stamps above, it seems a little hyper. Sometimes I don't get to RWED to respond for days.

Thing is, Geezer's posted on other threads since then. Seems he's purposely avoiding this one out of either cowardice or because he just doesn't have a reasonable response. Wouldn't be the first time, of course.

Quote:
So, while I concur that money does no good sitting there and not circulating, the govt. as moderator only serves one function: To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Are you speaking of ALL government, or just particularly of OUR government? Because you do realize, of course, that there are countries with much more regulation by government, where the wealth inequality is much lower and the general "happiness index" is much, much higher.

That crony capitalism hasn't worked well here doesn't mean that no government in the world can ever work better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 6:48 PM