Rebirth of Fiscal Obstructionism

God forbid the people paying a disproportionately higher share of taxes get a tax cut. It certainly is easy to demagogue, however. When you appeal to wealth-envy you endear yourself to the masses and write off a minority (the wealthiest 1%). A vote buying scheme if there ever was one.As far is the war, it is the President’s responsibility to protect the country from threats and sometimes that requires war (whether you agree with the premise of going in or not). Wars are expensive and victory supercedes any concern for fiscal responsibility. Its like saying we shouldnt have gone into World War II because it would have been expensive.

Upgrayedd: it’s not smart or fiscally conservative to give a $1.2 Trillion tax cut to the wealthiest one percent and, at the same time spend incredible amounts of money on a war. One or the other may be defensible – not both at the same time.

The troll “Upgrayedd” just proved my point for me. Thanks, troll!

>>As far is the war, it is the President’s responsibility to protect the country from threats and sometimes that requires war (whether you agree with the premise of going in or not).This is the most important point. Fighting unnecessary wars at the expense of middle and lower income taxpayers and with 4500 plus in human capital is morally wrong. I am not requiring my President to be perfect but being completely wrong isn’t an option. Please think harder about this post and come back with a more human response about the horrors of fighting wars of choice.

The “troll”? Am I troll because I offer a differing view? Sorry I am not one of your typical lapdogs slobbering at the chance to sate your ego. Care to expound how I proved your point?

Lapdog?Thems fightin words!

“This is the most important point. Fighting unnecessary wars at the expense of middle and lower income taxpayers and with 4500 plus in human capital is morally wrong. I am not requiring my President to be perfect but being completely wrong isn’t an option. Please think harder about this post and come back with a more human response about the horrors of fighting wars of choice”Proportionately, higher income taxpayers pay a higher burden for the war.I’m not trying to debate the merits of whether we were right or not to go to war, I’m saying that fiscal responsibility isnt, and should not be, a primary concern if it comes at the cost of victory.

Upgrade, please define VICTORY in Iraq.

Thems fightin words!

WOOF!

>>The “troll”? Am I troll because I offer a differing view?No. You’re a troll who suddenly appeared on a very progressive/liberal blog with the goal of obstructing and derailing the discussion here. This isn’t an open forum, it’s a community in which liberal friends exchange ideas. And until you prove yourself to be an honest participant, you’ll be considered a troll.But thanks for proving my point anyway. Your assistance kept you from being summarily banned.

The merits require a debate. To ignore them would automatically make your point valid and I along with the majority of the country can’t ignore the merits of fighting wars of choice.

I’m not trying to debate the merits of whether we were right or not to go to war, I’m saying that fiscal responsibility isnt, and should not be, a primary concern if it comes at the cost of victory.

So, in other words, right or wrong we are going to war, and we will spend what we need to, ummmm, not lose! And because it’s a war, goddamn it, I still want my tax cut because I’m a rich bastard and I need to be richer – let the poor schmucks pay for the war, in all the ways it will cost them.Fucking right-wing asshole.

Troll said:>>>Care to expound how I proved your point?My point was that Republicans really don’t have a problem with Bush’s spending because, taken as individual policies, Republicans supported all of that spending. And then you, a helpful troll, came along and posted a comment in which you voiced your support for two of the most expensive items from the Bush years. Thanks for doing that!

“No. You’re a troll who suddenly appeared on a very progressive/liberal blog with the goal of obstructing and derailing the discussion here. This isn’t an open forum, it’s a community in which liberal friends exchange ideas. And until you prove yourself to be an honest participant, you’ll be considered a troll.But thanks for proving my point anyway. Your assistance kept you from being summarily banned.”First of all, how is offering a differing view “obstructing and derailing”? Isnt that the point of discussion and debate? I dont see why you even have a comment section if you all you want is people to agree with you (Sounds like a Hillary listening tour). Is that how I become an “honest” participant? This is what passes for “progressive”? I cant believe such an intolerant collective has the nerve to commandeer that word. Oh the irony. And I still dont see how I proved your point and would greatly appreciate it if you would care to explain.Thank you,Sincerely,Summarily Banned

The fallacy of Upgrayedd’s argument is the premise that wealthy Americans pay a disproportionately higher share of taxes.Yes – in total dollars paid, the wealthy pay more. In percent of income, however, this is NOT true; the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes. I laid it out the other night in the thread called “A Reminder”.Really – it’s time to stop wringing our hands over the unfairness of it all to the wealthy, who got a $1.3 trillion tax cut just 8 years ago. Now it’s the turn of the middle & working classes so quit yer bitchin’

Can anyone come up with a better analogy for the Iraq war costs than, “Its like saying we shouldnt have gone into World War II because it would have been expensive.”"Victory supercedes any concern for fiscal responsibility.” Are f**king kidding me? This wasn’t Hitler trying to conquer Europe.Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure Japan actually attacked the U.S. on December 7, 1941. Germany invaded and conquered Poland, France, the Netherlands, parts of North Africa, invaded the Soviet Union, and were knocking on Britain’s doorstep. They were a pretty credible threat.Iraq had no WMDs. They were not involved in 9/11. Their economy was reeling from 12 years of UN sanctions. The Iraq army was never reconstructed to pre-Gulf War I status. They were never a threat to U.S. security.How are these two situations remotely similar?BANKRUPT YOUR NATION, WIN AT ALL COSTS! Makes a lot of sense to me.

“My point was that Republicans really don’t have a problem with Bush’s spending because, taken as individual policies, Republicans supported all of that spending. And then you, a helpful troll, came along and posted a comment in which you voiced your support for two of the most expensive items from the Bush years. Thanks for doing that!”You are right to an extent. They basically supported all of Bush’s spending, war and domestic spending. That certainly makes them look hypocritical now. They should have held the same view on domestic spending then as they do now. As I stated with the war spending, that is justified and required if there is a determined threat to the country and war is necessary. Are you critical of the Democrats that supported this spending?

Troll said:>>>You are right to an extent. They basically supported all of Bush’s spending, war and domestic spending. That certainly makes them look hypocritical now.Thank you again. Seriously, that’s very honest of you.>>>First of all, how is offering a differing view “obstructing and derailing”? Isnt that the point of discussion and debate?I repeat: This isn’t an open forum. Incoming conservatives who randomly appear on the site are considered trolls until proven otherwise. Ask around. We’ve had some problems with this.

“The merits require a debate. To ignore them would automatically make your point valid and I along with the majority of the country can’t ignore the merits of fighting wars of choice.”I agree. The merits of going to war should be debated before a decision is made to go in or not. I never said otherwise. I’m not saying going into Iraq was right or wrong, rather I’m pointing out that when you do go to war victory is your primary objective, not fiscal responsibility.

Bob, your post should be the Dem talking points for the rest of the day and this evening after the President’s address. You’re right: Obama has outflanked them. And what he should do next is to bring up a battalion from the rear, sealing their ability to retreat. Crush them where they stand. Bring these lying, hypocritical, dissembling fiends to an end.

“And because it’s a war, goddamn it, I still want my tax cut because I’m a rich bastard and I need to be richer – let the poor schmucks pay for the war, in all the ways it will cost them.Fucking right-wing asshole.”Hows that wealth envy chip on your shoulder working out for you?

“Thank you again. Seriously, that’s very honest of you.”I call em as I see em. The Republicans during the past 8 years were extremely disappointing and deserved to be put out of office, not to say I prefer the alternative.”I repeat: This isn’t an open forum. Incoming conservatives who randomly appear on the site are considered trolls until proven otherwise. Ask around. We’ve had some problems with this”How do they “prove themselves”? Not sure what that means. I’m more of a libertarian than conservative anyway.

“Hows that wealth envy chip on your shoulder working out for you?”How’s that hatred of the poor working out for you?

>> “Are you critical of the Democrats that supported this spending?”Every liberal Democrat I know were pissed as hell at the Democrats in Congress who supported going into Iraq and voting for the appropriations that pay for it. I think that is one of the main reasons Obama beat out Hillary for the nomination…originally supporting the war in Iraq…big mistake.And, Upgrade, did you really use Hillary Clintons listening tours as your example of lack of opposing views? You know that for 8 years Bush spoke in front of adoring sycophants only. God forbid I have a Kerry sticker on my car and am parked out front of a Bush “Townhall”. Tow it! Arrest them!

Hows that wealth envy chip on your shoulder working out for you?

Non-existent. I’m quite comfortable myself, thank you for asking.It’s not wealth envy, it’s intolerence for stupid greed regardless of consequences. It’s hate for the moronic attitude by some of those with power that have allowed their freinds and cronies to completely rape the wealth of our nation – and then have the balls to insist that they still deserve thier tax cuts and bonuses.

“How’s that hatred of the poor working out for you?Posted by: Kyle W. at February 24, 2009 11:22 AM”What are you nasing that comment on?

“I’m pointing out that when you do go to war victory is your primary objective, not fiscal responsibility.”Please define “victory.”To me, victory in war, although that’s somewhat of an oxymoron, is making yourself or your country safer that when it started. How did attacking a country that was no threat to the United States produce a “victory?”And to answer your previous question about holding democrats responsible for voting with the war authorization, yes I’m pissed about it. However, that was a different time. That was back when we believed that the President, Vice President, and State Department would be somewhat honest about their reasons for seeking authorization for the war.

“I’m not saying going into Iraq was right or wrong, rather I’m pointing out that when you do go to war victory is your primary objective, not fiscal responsibility.”You mean when non-neo-conservatives go to war. Iraq was started without an exit strategy because the neo-cons didn’t want to to exit.

“It’s not wealth envy, it’s intolerence for stupid greed regardless of consequences. It’s hate for the moronic attitude by some of those with power that have allowed their freinds and cronies to completely rape the wealth of our nation – and then have the balls to insist that they still deserve thier tax cuts and bonuses.”Is it greed for someone to demand they keep more of what they have earned? Especially when they are paying at a higher rate?The only fair thing to do is have everyone prepare a proportional share of income taxes, isnt it? That way the tax cut applies to everyone equally. No complaints. What a novel concept, equal treatment under the law.

“What are you nasing that comment on?”That comment was ‘nased’ on your comment about someone else’s wealth-envy. Because I think the richer people should pay a progressive tax does not mean that I’m envious of their wealth, and my tongue-in-cheek comment was intended to illustrate that point: don’t make stupid party-line assumptions.

“You mean when non-neo-conservatives go to war. Iraq was started without an exit strategy because the neo-cons didn’t want to to exit.”I dont see what that has to do with my comment. I made no such implication.

Upgrayedd, we’ve tried tax cuts for the wealthy. Where will you go next:lower capital gains and corporate taxes? You want money policy to continue running through Wall Street with zero accountability? You want to get behind corporate raiders, investment bankers, hedge fund managers? Well, they’ve all their shot. What else have you got? It’s all been done, cousin. But the whistle has mercifully blown on that deal. Game over. So, you can’t really expect to come here hoping to find a sympathetic audience for this stuff you’re selling, can you? I mean, what else have you got?

Is it greed for someone to demand they keep more of what they have earned? Especially when they are paying at a higher rate?

If it bankrupts the country to do so, then yes, it is greed.

“That comment was ‘nased’ on your comment about someone else’s wealth-envy. Because I think the richer people should pay a progressive tax does not mean that I’m envious of their wealth, and my tongue-in-cheek comment was intended to illustrate that point: don’t make stupid party-line assumptions”I knew that typo would be my undoing. It just seems like there is a lot of vitriol on this board for people who have made something of themselves in this life, like they should be punished for their success in terms of higher taxes. On principle that makes no sense. If anything, they should have the lowest taxes of anyone because in all likeliehood they are the ones creating businesses and jobs, and products thats cumulative social benefits far exceed their personal gain. Not saying I’m advocating that tax position, I’m not. Its just that I think it is a crime the way the people who do the most for this society are treated.

“I dont see what that has to do with my comment. I made no such implication.”And I didn’t imply that you made that implication. I just wanted to make an addendum that is highly relevant to your idea of “victory vs. fiscal responsibility.”

“Upgrayedd, we’ve tried tax cuts for the wealthy. Where will you go next:lower capital gains and corporate taxes? You want money policy to continue running through Wall Street with zero accountability? You want to get behind corporate raiders, investment bankers, hedge fund managers? Well, they’ve all their shot. What else have you got? It’s all been done, cousin. But the whistle has mercifully blown on that deal. Game over. So, you can’t really expect to come here hoping to find a sympathetic audience for this stuff you’re selling, can you? I mean, what else have you got?”Tax cuts mean people retain more of the money they earn. What do they do with that money? They either spend it or invest it. Both good things for the economy, no? You think the government can spend the money better for the economy? If thats the case why not double or triple the stimulus? We should do one of these every year. In fact why dont we all just hand over the entirety of our paychecks to the government and a blissful utopia will await us.

“I knew that typo would be my undoing. It just seems like there is a lot of vitriol on this board for people who have made something of themselves in this life, like they should be punished for their success in terms of higher taxes. On principle that makes no sense. If anything, they should have the lowest taxes of anyone because in all likeliehood they are the ones creating businesses and jobs, and products thats cumulative social benefits far exceed their personal gain. Not saying I’m advocating that tax position, I’m not. Its just that I think it is a crime the way the people who do the most for this society are treated.”That typo wasn’t your undoing. It’s all the stuff you spell correct which makes a fool of you. The paragraph above is a prime example.If you feel ridiculed, its because you stepped into a liberal blog and decided to advocate lowering taxes for the wealthy which, if you know anything about the liberal viewpoint, is not a tenant which is up for debate. This country has had a progressive tax system for a long time, and will continue to, because it makes no sense for a person making $800,000 a year to pay the same percentage in tax as a person making $30,000 a year. You invited the ridicule by doing so. Can you imagine what the reaction would be to me going to a conservative blog comment section and trying to present an argument in favor of gay marriage? I would be ridiculed, and rightly so, for stepping into the lion’s den.Now move along, troll.

Bob said,”they supported Bush’s $1.2 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest one percent.”Now that’s cartoon talk, Bob. It’s effective, nevertheless, there’s more to the taxcut you mention above than a $1.2 trillion tax cut for the wealthy.”critics often label the measures as “tax cuts for the rich.” Yet a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says the Bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive, no matter how progressivity is measured. In fact, the report concludes that every major tax change (Republican or Democrat) over the past two decades has increased the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans”You can see the rest of the article here.http://www.ncpa.org/prs/rel/2008/20080121.html(From the National Ccenter for policy Analysis)Republicans have USED “fiscal conservatism” as an election ploy. Newt Gingrich realised that if anyone was going to take Republicans seriously in the Clinton era, they might actually have to be conservative. They tried their best to claim all of the credit for a balanced budget in the 90′s, hoping that would make them look conservative enough. It didn’t work, because as soon as there was another war to fight, another enemy to stand up to, fiscal restraint flew out the window, as it often does in republican government. Democratic government does not have a better history, but my point is, Republicans are no more conservative than Democrats when it comes to blowing taxpayer money.The 1.2 trillion dollar tax cut Bob is referring to for the wealthy actually caused the progressive tax scale to get higher against the wealthy.

I’ll betcha the troll who threw out the “wealth envy” dumbass line of the day is nothing of the sort. Just another idiot R wannabe who votes against his own best interest.

“Tax cuts mean people retain more of the money they earn. What do they do with that money? They either spend it or invest it. Both good things for the economy, no?”And you just finished yourself off. We had 8 years of Bush/Cheney tax cuts for the wealthy and the economy tanked, rendering your theories useless. Maybe at one time in this country, money could actually “trickle down” but that’s not the case anymore. If you don’t believe me, do some research into the disparity between the rich and poor and how much it has grown since the 1970′s.

“That typo wasn’t your undoing. It’s all the stuff you spell correct which makes a fool of you. The paragraph above is a prime example.If you feel ridiculed, its because you stepped into a liberal blog and decided to advocate lowering taxes for the wealthy which, if you know anything about the liberal viewpoint, is not a tenant which is up for debate. This country has had a progressive tax system for a long time, and will continue to, because it makes no sense for a person making $800,000 a year to pay the same percentage in tax as a person making $30,000 a year. You invited the ridicule by doing so. Can you imagine what the reaction would be to me going to a conservative blog comment section and trying to present an argument in favor of gay marriage? I would be ridiculed, and rightly so, for stepping into the lion’s den.Now move along, troll.”I’m sorry I made the mistake of thinking the likes of you may have had an open mind. That was certainly my error. You clearly prefer the lockstep approach to your worldview. Enjoy.

ppp: NCPA is a conservative think tank. You may as well be quoting Rove.

“And you just finished yourself off. We had 8 years of Bush/Cheney tax cuts for the wealthy and the economy tanked, rendering your theories useless. Maybe at one time in this country, money could actually “trickle down” but that’s not the case anymore. If you don’t believe me, do some research into the disparity between the rich and poor and how much it has grown since the 1970′s.”You do understand there are more elements involved in the economy than just tax cuts right? Tell me specifically how tax cuts caused the collapse.

“I’m not trying to debate the merits of whether we were right or not to go to war, I’m saying that fiscal responsibility isnt, and should not be, a primary concern if it comes at the cost of victory.”Of course not…why WOULD you want to debate the merits of whether we were right or not to go to war? It might require an admittance of wrong doing on your part, and we all know the right can’t ever admit any wrong doing or error.Jesus H. Christ you people have a lot of fucking nerve. Just what the fuck victory are you hoping for? Delusional and sad.

“Its just that I think it is a crime the way the people who do the most for this society are treated.”And, that about sums it up. If that’s your worldview, you’re not going to find too many in agreement here.I mean, in my worldview, it’s not those that make the most money that do the most for society. Not even close. I’m sorry you see it that way.

“I’m sorry I made the mistake of thinking the likes of you may have had an open mind. That was certainly my error. You clearly prefer the lockstep approach to your worldview. Enjoy.”Well Goddamn! You admitted making a mistake! Congratulations.Except your premise is wrong. We are open minded. We just don’t like you.

“You do understand there are more elements involved in the economy than just tax cuts right? Tell me specifically how tax cuts caused the collapse.”I never said they caused the collapse. I just said they didn’t help at all, which you seem to also be admitting. Republicans seem to think tax cuts are the magic cure-all, and we can all plainly see they are not.Care to dig any more holes?

“I never said they caused the collapse. I just said they didn’t help at all, which you seem to also be admitting. Republicans seem to think tax cuts are the magic cure-all, and we can all plainly see they are not.Care to dig any more holes?”I’m not admitting that at all. Tax cuts were, and are, good for the economy.

“I’m not admitting that at all. Tax cuts were, and are, good for the economy.”Care to offer any evidence in favor of your argument?

“If anything, they should have the lowest taxes of anyone because in all likeliehood they are the ones creating businesses and jobs, and products thats cumulative social benefits far exceed their personal gain.”

Isn’t that what’s happened for the last eight years? And moreover for the last 30 years. It. Doesn’t. Work.No one begrudges anyone’s wealth. I’m sure we all want to be millionaires. But as Warren Buffet says, why should a billionaire pay 17% in income taxes but the secretary working under him making $60,000 per year par 30% ?

“Well Goddamn! You admitted making a mistake! Congratulations.Except your premise is wrong. We are open minded. We just don’t like you”You like me. You were all hanging on my every word. You couldnt get enough of me. Even that Bob guy couldnt will himself to ban me because I am so damn likable. Anyway, it was good talking to you all. Good stuff.Love,Upgrayedd

Awww, don’t leave angry. You’ll hate yourself in the morning.I’ll admit it, it was fun watching you shoot yourself in the foot.

Kyle,Sorry about that. But NCPA isn’t the only place stating those facts. You can look up for yourself the effects of the Bush tax cuts on the progressive rates for any class. The wealthy are paying a higher percentage of Federal taxes today than they were in 2001.Any way you slice it, the wealthy paid more in taxes, not less. My point was, politics is image driven, and “tax cuts for the wealthy” sells for Democrats. But substance is what makes this world go around, and the real substance is that the wealthy are paying more today than they did in 2001. Which world would you like to live in?

“You like me. You were all hanging on my every word. You couldnt get enough of me. Even that Bob guy couldnt will himself to ban me because I am so damn likable. Anyway, it was good talking to you all. Good stuff.”How’s this for hanging on your every word? Fuck off and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on yor way out.

ppp,A quick search turned up the story below. I can’t find anything backing up the NCPA report that isn’t being hosted on a far-right website. I’m curious to see figures to back that up.I’m always for living in a world where I have facts, and not party mantra, so please, any non-conservative sources citing the data would be of great interest.”WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.”

Is it greed for someone to demand they keep more of what they have earned? Especially when they are paying at a higher rate?(sigh) they aren’t paying at a higher rate.And they’re whining their asses off anyway.It IS greedy to get a $1.3 trillion tax cut and then bitch when others are given a tax cut, too. And it IS greedy to get a tax cut & stand back & watch your community fall apart – fiscally, physically – and then bitch that more tax cuts are needed.

Its just that I think it is a crime the way the people who do the most for this society are treated.

Upgrayedd, you’re serious, aren’t you? Those who have achieved wealth in this country are treated better than anywhere else on this sad earth. Oh, well, what’s the use…

just wondering – if people get to keep more of their money because they know better than the gov’t how to spend it – who do I call to get the huge pothole in the road by my house fixed? Who’s paying the teachers? and the policemen? And when the next bridge falls down, who’s paying for the rescue/recovery work? the snow-plowing?And I’m thinking there will be no new books purchased for the library….I’m confused as to how these services will be paid for if we’re all keeping our own money (’cause we know how to spend it better than the gov’t does). Or is the idea that it’s every man for himself & fuck the collective good?

ppp,I just spotted the fuzzy analysis used to arrive at that conclusion. The % of the total amount of tax money received by the federal government being paid by the wealthiest people has indeed gone up, BUT at the same time, their average individual tax bill has went down. Simultaneously, the average taxpayer’s % of the total has went down, but his/her average tax bill has went up.It’s a matter of semantics. The tax cuts for the wealthy did lower their individual tax burden, but collectively, their burden has increased. Likewise, the average tax-payer’s share of the total was lowered, but the average tax bill actually increased.The disappearing middle class might be the best explanation for this discrepancy.

“Or is the idea that it’s every man for himself & fuck the collective good?”That is the Rep. way and I can’t stand them for it. I think they should fix their own damn potholes and extinguish their own fires when their houses start buring to the ground. Oh yeah and don’t even THINK about calling the police when your gas guzzling car is stolen. Find the thief yourself. You don’t get to use our socialized programs and then complain about socialism.

rather I’m pointing out that when you do go to war victory is your primary objective, not fiscal responsibility.Turns out that We the People have declared war on economic collapse. Victory is our primary objective. Whine about fiscal responsibility later, k?

Ceu. Nice.

Bravo CEU. Brav-fucking-O!

Goddamn it!I step away from the intertubes for 30 minutes and you scare off my troll. Can’t we share the troll beatings around here? I know you pussy liberal democrats are sitting at home collecting welfare and all but some of us hard working(lazy college student living off of government welfare) americans have to work. Wake up america.

Lol @ GI!

Calm down and have some soup GI. There’ll be another troll. There always is.

Kyle,I wanted straight answers, so I went to the IRS site. This may mirror what you found, but i can’t be sure. In 2000, the top 1% paid 37.42% of the Federal taxes. Immediately in 2001, that share dropped to 33.89%, but that drop was likely due as much to the recession as it was to tax cuts. The actual rate has been increasing steadily since 2002, and at the end of 2005 (that’s the last year shown in the IRS spreadsheet), the top 1% were paying 39.38% of all Federal taxes.This has been instructive, Kyle, and I thank you for helping.Nevertheless, I stand by my original premise. Both parties suck when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Most businesses in the world try to operate on a balanced budget. Only in government is it considered prudent to ignore budget deficits, and in fact, considered wise to increase them.Talk about fucked up. If I ran my business that way, I would be in jail. It’s time for a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT! Make it a crime for our government to go over budget, or to approve a “budget” that is actually a deficit.My line in the amendment would state:”Any Federally Elected Official who approves a budget that is not at the least balanced (or surplus) shall NOT be ELIGIBLE to run for ANY AND EVERY future Federal Election at the Legislative or Executive Branch.”

“Nevertheless, I stand by my original premise. Both parties suck when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Most businesses in the world try to operate on a balanced budget. Only in government is it considered prudent to ignore budget deficits, and in fact, considered wise to increase them.”And on that grounds, we can whole-heartedly agree.

If the average tax bill for each individual in the top 1% has gone down (as Kyle stated, and PPP agreed), and the total percentage of all federal taxes paid by the top 1% has gone up, then doesn’t this just reflect the fact that more of the countries wealth is no held by those in the top 1%? I really can’t see how that argument can be used as a justification for lowering taxes on the top 1%.

Typos, Grr. s/b:”…more of the country’s wealth is now held …:

Typos, Grr. s/b:”…more of the country’s wealth is now held …:

.. and double posts too. It’s the interweb’s way of telling me to get back to work…

Fuck it!If we are going to throw around tax ideas then I will put mine into the mix.You can’t tell me that someone that makes $300,000 a year should be in the same tax bracket as someone that makes $1 Billion.The brackets need to be adjusted to the times. For instance anyone that makes under $50,000 a year should be in the lowest bracket of 10%. 15 % should be under $100,000. 20% should be under 200,000. 25% should be under $500,000 and final 30% should be $1,000,000 and above.NO REBATES, NO TAX CREDITS, JUST PAY IT AN SHUT THE FUCK UP.

PPP: Ask Californians how well such a constitutional amendment has worked for them.

How do they “prove themselves”? Not sure what that means.

By demonstrating an ability for logical reasoning. Being able to cite evidence to support your position.You appear to be doing fine.We get many that just replay talking points one after another without any supporting evidence that anything they say is true or valid. I have no problem with people whose conclusions differ from mine as long as they can demonstrate the reasoning that lead to that conclusion. Unsupported conclusions are annoying at best.

If anything, they should have the lowest taxes of anyone because in all likeliehood they are the ones creating businesses and jobs…

When the jobs and businesses that they create are in India and China, it’s not clear to me how this helps me here in the U.S. You need to learn how to separate what you have been told from how they have distracted you from the truth of their position.The truth is this. The upper 1% have basically declared economic war on the lower 99%. They are shipping jobs overseas so fast your head should be spinning. The middle class is disappearing. Wake up and smell the propaganda.

It just seems like there is a lot of vitriol on this board for people who have made something of themselves in this life, like they should be punished for their success in terms of higher taxes. On principle that makes no sense. If anything, they should have the lowest taxes of anyone because in all likeliehood they are the ones creating businesses and jobs, and products thats cumulative social benefits far exceed their personal gain. Not saying I’m advocating that tax position, I’m not. Its just that I think it is a crime the way the people who do the most for this society are treated.Let’s analyze that, shall we?The reality of wealth is that no one “earns” a million dollars.I’ll say that again: NO ONE “earns” their way to wealth.People get wealthy by OWNING things. Marx called it “the means of production,” but really it’s property, whether that be a business or a factory or a piece of the action in stocks and bonds.Now, I have no problem with property. There’s nothing wrong with making a buck. But when you OWN something, you depend on a huge number of people that aren’t on your payroll.Your goods move on taxpayers’ highways and across seas patrolled by a navy and coast guard.Your employees are educated in public schools and depend on police and firefighters for protection.NONE of what makes this country such a great place to do business will happen without all those things. The wealthy benefit MORE from these things than the poor! Wealth would be impossible without public and social services!The richest Americans aren’t “doing the most for this society” unless they shoulder a bigger burden in paying for that society to continue. That’s not socialism — it’s plain common sense.

“People get wealthy by OWNING things. Marx called it “the means of production,” but really it’s property, whether that be a business or a factory or a piece of the action in stocks and bonds.Now, I have no problem with property. There’s nothing wrong with making a buck. But when you OWN something, you depend on a huge number of people that aren’t on your payroll.Your goods move on taxpayers’ highways and across seas patrolled by a navy and coast guard.Your employees are educated in public schools and depend on police and firefighters for protection.NONE of what makes this country such a great place to do business will happen without all those things. The wealthy benefit MORE from these things than the poor! Wealth would be impossible without public and social services!The richest Americans aren’t “doing the most for this society” unless they shoulder a bigger burden in paying for that society to continue. That’s not socialism — it’s plain common sense.”Henry Ford became very wealthy because he found a way to make the automobile affordable and reliable for the common man. His products effectively necessitated the advent of the highway system. His products revolutionized peoples lives in that they now had the ability to travel farther, inexpensively, and were now open to more opportunities then they could have imagined. His products created thousands of jobs and new businesses were created to support the burgeoning auto industry as a result.Yes, his goods required that taxpayers foot the bill for highway construction (more jobs right?), as well as numerous other government services far beyond what the average taxpayer would use.The question is, did the taxpayer cost exceed the benefit gained to the taxpayer?What is a better social optimum, a world where Henry Ford hadnt developed the assembly line, or one where he had?You stated: “The wealthy benefit MORE from these things than the poor!”Is this the case with Henry Ford? Does anyone amount of wealth he accumulated exceed the benefit gained to society from his innovation?

Spend nearly three trillion dollars in 4 months then talk about how your going to worry about Deficits….say your going to have the most ethical admin in history that have it lined with Tax Cheats and lobbyists…Say your against Pork then have Billions upon Billions of taxpayers money in Pork…say your going to be bipartisan then say “we Won”…..This is the Change you can all believe in?? This country is doomed now that the Corrupt Democrats Like Burris, and Dodd and Wrangle and Frank and Pelosi and Reid and Emmanuel and all the rest are in charge…God help us all

Upgrayyed,You’re falling into the “great man” fallacy. And then you’re posing a false choice.The question is, did the taxpayer cost exceed the benefit gained to the taxpayer?What is a better social optimum, a world where Henry Ford hadnt developed the assembly line, or one where he had?Taking these points in reverse order: Ford perfecting the assembly line (he didn’t invent it) is not at question. Like all technological advances, someone would have done it some day (Even flight; the Wright brothers weren’t the first guys to fly a powered aircraft, either).Nor would I force Henry Ford to give up his “invention” or his business or turn his factories over to a worker’s collective. That’s a straw man you’re knocking down.Now, as to the cost-benefit: thank you for making my point! The taxpayer gets a huge benefit from highways. WHICH IS WHY RICH PEOPLE SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES, since they benefit from **all** of us HAVING this benefit. Their profits would be impossible without these means of ***public*** commerce.

“Taking these points in reverse order: Ford perfecting the assembly line (he didn’t invent it) is not at question. Like all technological advances, someone would have done it some day (Even flight; the Wright brothers weren’t the first guys to fly a powered aircraft, either).Nor would I force Henry Ford to give up his “invention” or his business or turn his factories over to a worker’s collective. That’s a straw man you’re knocking down.”What is the relevance if someone else would have accomplished Henry Ford’s feat if he hadnt? The point is whoever does is providing a greater sum benefit to society then they are likely receiving in return.”Now, as to the cost-benefit: thank you for making my point! The taxpayer gets a huge benefit from highways. WHICH IS WHY RICH PEOPLE SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES, since they benefit from **all** of us HAVING this benefit. Their profits would be impossible without these means of ***public*** commerce”So the taxpayer gets a benefit from the highways as dictated by the demand created by the rich, they get a benefit from the products and services offered from the rich, and they get a benefit from the jobs and industry created by the rich, and the rich, as a result, should be forced to pay more???”You’re falling into the “great man” fallacy”You didnt really expound on this but I think I know what you are driving at. I think you are suggesting I am using an extreme example of social benefit created by a private individual and I would agree with that assessment. The point was that it was an example that was easy to explain and was virtually irrefutable. Most of the rich dont have that level of impact as Ford had. That is an issue of scale but the substance is still the same. When you have businesses creating products or services, as well as jobs and industry, you are typically having a better social optimum than if these companies hadnt existed. The degree to which society benefits probably reflects the degree to which taxpayer dollars are required. Likewise, the increased size of the benefit indicates a greater prosperity for society as a whole vs taxpayers dollars expended than if on a lower scale.

Henry Ford was considered crazy by his fellow robber barons for paying his employees so well. His answer to their question of Why? was “When the employees can not afford to purchase the products that they make you do not have a long term sustainable economy.”Everything sold in the U.S. that is not a car or other durable goods is now manufactured in China by workers that can not afford to purchaaase the products that they make.The state of of world economy is not long term sustainable. Henry Ford says so.If we don’t create manufacturing jobs in the U.S. the middle class will completely disappear and the tax burden will fall entirely on the rich. If republicans don’t wake up and realize just how dire the situation we are in is, then the U.S. is doomed to be a third rate technological backwater filled with nothing but billionairs and their servants and staff because no one else will have the means to exist here.The status quo is a road to destruction of all we know and have been.

ceu said, “Yes – in total dollars paid, the wealthy pay more. In percent of income, however, this is NOT true; the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes. I laid it out the other night in the thread called “A Reminder”.You gave three examples in that other thread. Let me slightly edit and repost my responses here, since you didn’t see my response over there, and I had also made some typos and logical mistakes.1.) “Wages over $106,800 [2009 figure] are not subject to the social security part of FICA. [Perhaps if that cap hadn't been put in place so many years ago, and high paid executives had had to contribute their 6.2% like the rest of us, the social security system wouldn't be having problems.]“I replied that we shouldn’t have Social Security in the first place. But the problem is that if we do agree to have it, then everyone should be paying their fair share of it. The problem is that it is a program that I believe we shouldn’t be in. However, now that the liberals have gotten it implemented, and people have become dependent on it, there is no easy way out of it, and whenever people who oppose it try to cut spending toward it since they don’t have the power to abolish it altogether, the people who have become dependent on it start to complain that now it doesn’t work properly.Social Security IS the problem! It’s a pyramid scheme, it always was going to be over the long term. The government has now spent all of it away to balance out the debt, and we let them do it, and even if they hadn’t, the false expectations of the American people of an always increasing quality of life and extended retirements, while on average never being conservative and saving any of their own money and living below their means, because the government would always save them, would have eventually broken it. People must be responsible to pay for their own retirements, so that the government can’t underestimate it for them and spend it away on something else. The poor would have been getting 6.2% more every paycheck to save for themselves, and it wouldn’t have been squandered by the government, had SS never existed.But you see the problem that if I think that SS should be abolished and that Americans should save for themselves or possibly have plans offered to them by their employers, there is no way to get back to that point. If we try to cut spending to it, the Democrats will cry foul when they continue trying to run it and it no longer works. If we argue that there are better alternatives and that cutting it would be the best option, we just get laughed at because they will say that we hate the poor, or that it is the government’s job to offer these things to its citizens.2.)”Gasoline and other taxes are commodity-based, and therefore, lower paid workers pay a higher percentage of their paychecks in taxes to the gov’t for those items.”We can go into a discussion of flat tax versus progressive tax, but just so you know where I stand, I support things like equal percentage taxes on all, and flat taxes. I don’t think the percentage of a person’s income he spends on a particular item should necessarily be the determining factor for whether it is right or not. But I think the real problem for the poor lies in our living in an unsustainably designed society.The reason Americans depend so much on gasoline is because gasoline subsidies have allowed for an overextended infrastructure to develop. If gasoline wasn’t subsidized to the extent that it has been, we’d probably be living closer to our jobs and would already have the market incentives to develop alternative energy sources. With all the subsidies, it obfuscates the real market data, and we don’t know when we are actually living above our means and building up bubbles in the economy and ways of life that are unsustainable.3.) “Moreover, a lot of the wealth for the wealthy comes from investments – dividends, interest, and capital gains. The tax rate for capital gains is about 15%, IIRC. So the person who earns $100,000 pays a HIGHER tax rate than the person who has $100,000 in capital gains.Now is the time to support the workers, so that goods are produced & services provided, and to stop the hand-wringing over the plight of the “poor, pitiful” rich.”I don’t pity the rich, and I agree with you that the poor aren’t able to take advantage of investment opportunities like the rich do. However, I also think it can be unethical to use the voting power of poorer majority to steal from the rich minority indiscriminately, when not all rich people manipulate the poor. But not being able to take advantage of investment opportunities is often impeded by a lack of knowledge, not the lack of ability to save money. I support educating more Americans in economics and investing to close this gap, not taxing the rich more because they know how to invest their money wisely.With all of that said, let me give you some areas where I think the poor are taken advantage of by the government. With the government continuing to inflate the currency every year to try to inflate their way out of the debt that already exists, the poor suffer even more, because their wages don’t increase accordingly, nor do they have the knowledge of investing their savings to try to keep their heads above the rising water of inflation. Taxing the rich more to compensate for government bloat just continues to perpetuate the unrestricted spending of our politicians/bureaucrats. We have to cut spending and stop the practice of going into debt, and live within the realities of what actually exists, or we will continue to live in a fantasy world while spending ourselves off a cliff.

Kyle W. said, “And you just finished yourself off. We had 8 years of Bush/Cheney tax cuts for the wealthy and the economy tanked, rendering your theories useless. Maybe at one time in this country, money could actually “trickle down” but that’s not the case anymore. If you don’t believe me, do some research into the disparity between the rich and poor and how much it has grown since the 1970′s.”Conservative economic theories have not been rendered useless because Bush/Cheney weren’t fiscally conservative.

ceu said, “just wondering – if people get to keep more of their money because they know better than the gov’t how to spend it – who do I call to get the huge pothole in the road by my house fixed? Who’s paying the teachers? and the policemen? And when the next bridge falls down, who’s paying for the rescue/recovery work? the snow-plowing?And I’m thinking there will be no new books purchased for the library….I’m confused as to how these services will be paid for if we’re all keeping our own money (’cause we know how to spend it better than the gov’t does). Or is the idea that it’s every man for himself & fuck the collective good?”The system has been designed such that you depend on the government for those things. However, it isn’t the only way to have the potholes fixed, the teachers paid, a police force, bridges repaired, snow-plowing, or books in the library. Other theories of doing those things privately have been developed. But lets say that we do decide to depend on the government for those things, a lot of which are collectively useful, and could save money by being centralized. All of them can be done at the state level, and that then removes both the possibility of the federal government redistributing our money we paid for these vital things to fighting unpopular wars, and it also deals a blow to the lobbying problem, because the average man would no longer have to travel to Washington to compete against the lobbyists. Instead, he can travel to his state government to counter them. Furthermore, it forces the big corporations to break up their lobbying efforts 50 ways.

mmortal03 -Privatize Social Security? Really?What a great fucking idea! Brilliant! We can turn SS over to Bernie Madoff and that Stanford guy, and they can do to SS what they’ve already done to many 401Ks.You Sir, are either fucking insane, or have criminal intent. In either case you are a danger to yourself and others and should be institutionalized which is, BTW, another socialist service provided by the state.YOU have zero credibility here since you have demonstrated that you live in a fantasy world built on the propaganda of the far right. That world is a very sad and lonely place.

SillyGit, I didn’t say privatize it, I said get rid of it. But even if we did privatize it, it would be regulated such that criminals like Madoff and Stanford wouldn’t be anywhere near it. As it is now, the design of SS rivals what those guys did, but since the government is doing it, it’s all okay and legal.”You Sir, are either fucking insane, or have criminal intent. In either case you are a danger to yourself and others and should be institutionalized which is, BTW, another socialist service provided by the state.”Do you like to use false dichotomies, appeals to emotion, and ad hominem much?”YOU have zero credibility here since you have demonstrated that you live in a fantasy world built on the propaganda of the far right. That world is a very sad and lonely place.”There was a lot more to my post than just Social Security, and I don’t take seriously claims of “zero credibility” from individuals who rely on logical fallacies instead of refuting the points of the argument.I don’t buy into “far right” propaganda and I don’t live in a fantasy world. I’d agree with you that abolishing SS isn’t politically feasible in America…and that’s evidence of the problem. Once a nation institutes such large government entitlement programs, it’s stuck with them, because people become dependent on them, the population expands, and the programs just get bigger and bigger until they are unmanageable, and then the government starts taking out loans to pay for them.All the while, the proponents argue that the only reason why the programs don’t work is because they aren’t funded well enough (while concurrently broadening the expectations and magnitude of the programs every generation, along with the debt that goes along with it) and they pile even more programs on whenever a crisis strikes, because they can take advantage of the public’s fearfulness. Once the entitlement ball starts rolling, it doesn’t stop until it rolls over the cliff, because it’s human nature to continuing to delay the inevitable by taking on more debt, once something gets so big. We’ve been conditioned to think everything is fine with taking on more debt, because as a society we’ll never see the consequences until it’s too late.I just hope Barack Obama walks the walk on the issue of fiscal responsibility and the national debt, because the Bush administration sure didn’t. With all the promises he is making, though, my expectations are low.