[kswier]

kswier, you've been working and paying your way whilst contributing to the tax flow exactly how long?

I began working when I was 14, worked off and on during undergrad (self funded), and have been working ever since. I have earned everything I own, and would like some of these programs (i.e. social security and medicare) that I am currently paying for to be around when I reach retirement.

But does it really matter (A bit of a cheap shot, isn't it)? I will have to pay taxes throughout life just like everybody else. My point stands. I think it is responsible for the United States to have a plan to reduce the deficit. Creating this plan requires politicians to work together. In political land, working together means that both republicans and democrats need to be able to go back to their constituents and show them that they have made progress toward the ideals they touted when they were elected. If the creation of a deficit plan means repealing the Bush tax cuts (which seem to have been given using an incorrect premise), than I am ok with that. I think that slightly higher taxes are better than failing to create a deficit reduction plan (see congressional budget office report CBO | The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook).

Also, I not understand what was so bad about Clinton era taxes. Sure they were a bit more than they are now, but as you go back in history the top tax bracket was much higher than it is now. the wealthy will continue to make money, and will continue to find new innovative ways to hide their money from taxes.

The cut and paste crowd won't list the lies that Barry has made

Not part of the cut and paste crowd, but I try and call out both democrat and republican BS as I see it. In this case, I do not think Obama is asking for anything unreasonable (perhaps unpopular, but not unreasonable). If there was a politically feasible plan on the table that did not include tax increases, I would probably be amendable to that plan as well (depending on where the spending cuts came from). I just think politicians need to keep the end goal in mind, which is some kind of deficit reduction plan.

BTW, Barry's only "willingness" is to promote his own ego manifestations of a socialist agenda!

I have never quite understood statements like these. I do think Obama favors using government more than a republican president would, and I think he would prefer an America with more income inequality (could be considered somewhat socialistic policies I suppose). However, I think those in the socialist party would take offense to Obama being called a socialist.

---

Last edited by kswier; 12-01-2012 at 03:31 PM.

[jeffkrol]

I see! Everyone else lies so it's perfectly appropriate for your God Barry to do the same. That's your moral compass? Thought your savior was above all that copy cat corruption..... Now I know why you cut and pasta everything, thinking is actually hard work......in you case probably impossible!

I'm afraid your "disgust" has not allowed you to actually read my threads... that is sad.. they may even bring you laughter...

and please point to where I said ANYONE in DC (or the Fed) is "capable"?????
I'm pretty sure that, despite quoting Krugman" who as I already said is only marginally valid.. I don't have much faith in DC. mostly There "interest" ie. loyalties are NOT to the 'people" though they may believe they are... and the few .. like Kuchinic.. marginalized (opposite coin of Paul) nor considered newsworthy..
(You never did comment on HR2990, not worth your intellect???)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/206811-ver...ml#post2188622

[jeffkrol]

I


I have never quite understood statements like these. I do think Obama favors using government more than a republican president would, and I think he would prefer an America with more income inequality (could be considered somewhat socialistic policies I suppose). However, I think those in the socialist party would take offense to Obama being called a socialist.

how come "they" never ask real socialists......

Socialist Party Candidate Alexander Calls Obamacare Another Corporate Giveaway
by Billy Wharton
Friday Jun 29th, 2012 10:10 AM
Obama’s policy was based on the original sin of allowing the pharmaceutical companies off the hook. He then followed this up by pledging public funds to subsidize junk healthcare plans, coercing Americans into purchasing these plans and silencing the voices of single-payer healthcare advocates. Obamacare is not healthcare reform; it is just another corporate giveaway by the Obama administration.
Socialist Party USA Presidential Candidate Stewart Alexander condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the provisions of the President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Calling it a “corporate restructuring of the healthcare system in America,” Alexander pointed to the many inequities that are built into to the new system. He highlighted the need for a fully socialized healthcare system that guarantees access to high quality healthcare as a human right.

“The private health insurance companies always had two ideas in mind when it came to healthcare reform – either to avoid all reforms or stick the American people with a bad reform,” Alexander stated, “Today, the Supreme Court upheld the bad healthcare reform that will insure the profits of private healthcare companies at the expense of American’s access to healthcare.”
“Obama’s policy was based on the original sin of allowing the pharmaceutical companies off the hook. He then followed this up by pledging public funds to subsidize junk healthcare plans, coercing Americans into purchasing these plans and silencing the voices of single-payer healthcare advocates. This is no reform; it is just another corporate giveaway by the Obama administration.”
Alexander pointed to the fact that an estimated 26 million people will remain outside the healthcare system and that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act still leaves millions of Americans vulnerable to bankruptcy because of medical bills.
Alexander and his running mate Alex Mendoza advocate for a single-payer healthcare system that will abolish the private health insurance companies. They see this measure as an important first step in the direction of a fully socialized healthcare system. The pair will challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care on the campaign trail, including the Swing States of Ohio, Colorado, Louisiana, New Jersey and Florida.

Even the socialists hate Obamacare
Oh I get it.. it is a trick......................or reverse psychology..........LOL

[graphicgr8s]

I began working when I was 14, worked off and on during undergrad (self funded), and have been working ever since. I have earned everything I own, and would like some of these programs (i.e. social security and medicare) that I am currently paying for to be around when I reach retirement.

But does it really matter (A bit of a cheap shot, isn't it)? I will have to pay taxes throughout life just like everybody else. My point stands. I think it is responsible for the United States to have a plan to reduce the deficit. Creating this plan requires politicians to work together. In political land, working together means that both republicans and democrats need to be able to go back to their constituents and show them that they have made progress toward the ideals they touted when they were elected. If the creation of a deficit plan means repealing the Bush tax cuts (which seem to have been given using an incorrect premise), than I am ok with that. I think that slightly higher taxes are better than failing to create a deficit reduction plan (see congressional budget office report CBO | The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook).

Also, I not understand what was so bad about Clinton era taxes. Sure they were a bit more than they are now, but as you go back in history the top tax bracket was much higher than it is now. the wealthy will continue to make money, and will continue to find new innovative ways to hide their money from taxes.


Not part of the cut and paste crowd, but I try and call out both democrat and republican BS as I see it. In this case, I do not think Obama is asking for anything unreasonable (perhaps unpopular, but not unreasonable). If there was a politically feasible plan on the table that did not include tax increases, I would probably be amendable to that plan as well (depending on where the spending cuts came from). I just think politicians need to keep the end goal in mind, which is some kind of deficit reduction plan.


I have never quite understood statements like these. I do think Obama favors using government more than a republican president would, and I think he would prefer an America with more income inequality (could be considered somewhat socialistic policies I suppose). However, I think those in the socialist party would take offense to Obama being called a socialist.

Actually it's not like everybody else. 47% of the population pays NO federal income tax.

[kswier]

Actually it's not like everybody else. 47% of the population pays NO federal income tax.

Good point. Then like the 53% that pay taxes . I know I currently pay a higher tax rate than Romney and Buffet if that makes any difference .

Still have to answer the question of why the length of time I have been paying taxes matters. Seems like it could be a distraction from answering the real questions I have asked:
- How have the house republicans shown any willingness to compromise?
- Why were Clinton era taxes so bad?
- Why not repeal the Bush tax cuts since they were given on a false premise?
- Under current spending and revenue collection, the US debt is expected to balloon to 200% of GDP by 2037 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43288). This is a bit high for my tastes, and I would like to see a long term deficit reduction plan in place. Is it worth going through all this political turmoil (which hurts the economy) to protect tax cuts that should not have occurred in the first place?

[Blue]

Here is one aspect that often gets over looked. When clowns like Pelosi and Reid get up and rail about the 1%, they are the 1 %. I want to see the social security taxes put into a separate account from the general fund like they are supposed to be and all the money paid back. Take the money out of the retirement and benefits of the House and Senate until it is paid back.

Take a look at this. The poorest guy in the house and Senate"s richest list seems to be Ben Nelson from Nebraska.

1. Seven of 10 Richest Members of Congress Are Democrats
For the second year in a row, Republican Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas is the richest member of Congress, with a reported net worth of $305 million — the first time a Washington lawmaker has surpassed the $300 million mark.
Roll Call’s annual list of the 50 richest members of Congress reveals that seven of the top 10 are Democrats — and four of the 10 owe their fortunes to wealthy spouses.
McCaul, a former federal prosecutor, reported in 2010 that his wife had received assets as gifts from her parents, boosting his net worth from some $73 million to at least $294 million that year. His wife Linda is the daughter of Clear Channel Communications Inc. CEO and founder Lowry Mays.
Roll Call determines the minimum net worth of members by subtracting the total minimum value of all liabilities from the total minimum value of all assets. Lawmakers do not have to report the value of personal residences as an asset.
The assets and liabilities are listed in broad ranges, making it difficult to calculate a lawmaker’s exact minimum net worth, Roll Call pointed out.
Second on the 2012 list of richest members of Congress is Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., up from No. 3 last year with a net worth of $199 million. His wife Teresa Heinz Kerry is the widow of the late Sen. H. John Heinz III of the Heinz ketchup fortune.
At No. 3, down one place this year, is Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., at $141 million. Issa is the founder of Directed Electronics Inc., which makes car alarms.
Next on the list is Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., at $86 million. He made his fortune as co-founder of Nextel Communications Inc.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., is No. 5, with $83 million. He is the great-grandson of Standard Oil Co. founder John D. Rockefeller.
He is followed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., at $79 million. His wife Cynthia Blumenthal is the daughter of New York real estate mogul Peter Malkin.
Another Democrat, Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, is No. 7 with a net worth of $72 million. Much of his wealth comes from Blue Mountain Arts, his family’s greeting card and publishing business.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, yet another Democrat, is No. 8 at $57 million. He is co-founder of Automatic Data Processing, a payroll processing company.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., No. 9 on the list, owes her fortune to her husband Richard Blum, president and CEO of the private equity firm Blum Capital Partners LP. Her net worth is estimated at $42 million.
Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, is No. 10 with a net worth of $37 million. He has significant investments in fast-food chains, electronics companies, pharmaceutical companies, and oil giants, according to Roll Call.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California is at No. 13, with a net worth of $26 million, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is at No. 37 with $9 million.
The “poorest” member on the list is Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., with a net worth of $6.28 million.

[graphicgr8s]

Good point. Then like the 53% that pay taxes . I know I currently pay a higher tax rate than Romney and Buffet if that makes any difference .

Still have to answer the question of why the length of time I have been paying taxes matters. Seems like it could be a distraction from answering the real questions I have asked:
- How have the house republicans shown any willingness to compromise?
- Why were Clinton era taxes so bad?
- Why not repeal the Bush tax cuts since they were given on a false premise?
- Under current spending and revenue collection, the US debt is expected to balloon to 200% of GDP by 2037 (CBO | The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook). This is a bit high for my tastes, and I would like to see a long term deficit reduction plan in place. Is it worth going through all this political turmoil (which hurts the economy) to protect tax cuts that should not have occurred in the first place?

Actually you don't pay a higher tax rate than Mitt or Buffet.

My guess is that you have an amount listed in Box 1 on your W-2. Another guess is that they don't. You go to work everyday and your employer pays you a predetermined set amount per unit of time whether an hour a day or per week depending on your status. You really have no risk in normal circumstances With Mitt or Warren they invest in certain companies. Whether venture capital or stock purchase they stand a good chance of losing everything they put up. While they are taxed at a lower rate for CAPITAL GAINS not INCOME and are taxed upon the entire gain less appropriate deductions as allowed by law in most case cannot deduct the entire amount when they LOSE money. If you were to have the same type of income you would be taxed on that same as they are.

None came from wages, the primary source of income for most Americans. Instead, Romney and his wife, Ann, collected millions in capital gains from a profusion of investments, as well as stock dividends and interest payments.

None of the points in Obama's plan call for cutting real spending.They do call for an increase in spending. Bush's tax cuts did revive the economy after 9-11. Clinton's tax rates would have been even higher if not for the takeover by conservatives and spending would have been then where we are now. Conservative house was the reason we had a "surplus". Clinton would have spend like a drunken sailor given his druthers. Clinton's tax increases prior to 96 had investors looking at how to keep what they had made instead of looking to make more (true investing unlike what Obama calls "investing" Translation Investing means SPENDING money we don't have in ObamaSpeak.)

---

Last edited by graphicgr8s; 12-02-2012 at 08:47 PM.

[graphicgr8s]

blah blah blah.. Same old tired memes...........Few believe you (hey maybe we do have something in common.. )

We agree here. Barry is using the same exact approach and talking points he's used the last 4 years that didn't work.

[graphicgr8s]

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

BF

[kswier]

Actually you don't pay a higher tax rate than Mitt or Buffet.

If you take the total amount of taxes I pay divided by my gross income (defined as the wealth I gain), it is a higher percentage than they pay. Anyway, my point with that statement was to show that I pay my fair share of taxes (which was a question for some reason).

My guess is that you have an amount listed in Box 1 on your W-2. Another guess is that they don't. You go to work everyday and your employer pays you a predetermined set amount per unit of time whether an hour a day or per week depending on your status. You really have no risk in normal circumstances With Mitt or Warren they invest in certain companies. Whether venture capital or stock purchase they stand a good chance of losing everything they put up. While they are taxed at a lower rate for CAPITAL GAINS not INCOME and are taxed upon the entire gain less appropriate deductions as allowed by law in most case cannot deduct the entire amount when they LOSE money. If you were to have the same type of income you would be taxed on that same as they are.

This is a good point. There is higher risk and there needs to be higher reward. And with stocks, you are risking your pot of money instead of just your income.

None of the points in Obama's plan call for cutting real spending.They do call for an increase in spending. Bush's tax cuts did revive the economy after 9-11. Clinton's tax rates would have been even higher if not for the takeover by conservatives and spending would have been then where we are now. Conservative house was the reason we had a "surplus". Clinton would have spend like a drunken sailor given his druthers. Clinton's tax increases prior to 96 had investors looking at how to keep what they had made instead of looking to make more (true investing unlike what Obama calls "investing" Translation Investing means SPENDING money we don't have in ObamaSpeak.)

My understanding is that there are ~3 dollars of spending cuts proposed for every dollar of tax increases. As I mentioned before, if Obama is really trying to close the deficit with only tax increases I will take back all my previous comments. However, I have not seen any article that makes this claim.

Also, the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy because they added to the deficit (It was economic stimulus...bringing "free" money into the economy in the form or debt...Just like the stimulus plan Obama passed). However, they did not stimulate the economy enough to offset the decreased revenue with new revenue.

Because we are currently looking at cutting the deficit, we will feel economic pain (we are in a bubble right now caused by deficit spending, and fiscal responsibility will deflate that bubble). However, I think that it is important to restore fiscal sanity. The United State has a massive economy and can hold a lot of debt, but I do not think we necessarily should (there are detriments to large amounts of debt).

[kswier]

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

I think the question is whether we are trying to lead or drive people out of poverty. It is possible cutting welfare could provide additional motivation to obtain and keep a job. However, motivation is only one par of the equation. Along with motivation you also need hope and direction. If a person does not believe it is possible for them to make it to a certain level, they will never try. People also need direction. They need someone who knows the system and can encourage them to take the baby steps that throughout their childhood that are needed to become successful in whatever career they decide to pursue. And lastly, they need to have the means to succeed, which includes access to a good education and to affordable colleges. All of these aspects have to be there from a young age. Unfortunately, I think the schools in struggling neighborhoods fail to provide hope, direction, and a quality education.

Unfortunately, when I hear of reforming welfare, it is always about motivation.

[JohnInIndy]

Actually you don't pay a higher tax rate than Mitt or Buffet.

My guess is that you have an amount listed in Box 1 on your W-2. Another guess is that they don't. You go to work everyday and your employer pays you a predetermined set amount per unit of time whether an hour a day or per week depending on your status. You really have no risk in normal circumstances With Mitt or Warren they invest in certain companies. Whether venture capital or stock purchase they stand a good chance of losing everything they put up. While they are taxed at a lower rate for CAPITAL GAINS not INCOME and are taxed upon the entire gain less appropriate deductions as allowed by law in most case cannot deduct the entire amount when they LOSE money. If you were to have the same type of income you would be taxed on that same as they are.



None of the points in Obama's plan call for cutting real spending.They do call for an increase in spending. Bush's tax cuts did revive the economy after 9-11. Clinton's tax rates would have been even higher if not for the takeover by conservatives and spending would have been then where we are now. Conservative house was the reason we had a "surplus". Clinton would have spend like a drunken sailor given his druthers. Clinton's tax increases prior to 96 had investors looking at how to keep what they had made instead of looking to make more (true investing unlike what Obama calls "investing" Translation Investing means SPENDING money we don't have in ObamaSpeak.)

Not entirely true. If they made all of that money as income it would be taxed at the highest rate. Currently maxed out at 35%. Less appropriate legal deductions of course. My guess is you're in the 15% bracket. So in reality they would be paying MORE.

[audiobomber]

Excellent points, kswier. Educational opportunity, medical care that doesn't cause bankruptcy, social assistance to help people in need, these are all great ideas that benefit a nation when implemented properly. Unfortunately, the importance of benefitting the nation is exactly what the churlish conservative mentality never seems to grasp. I blame US woes on the fanatically patriotic "We're the best" mind-set. Several nations have leveraged dreaded socialist policies to outdo the US in virtually every measure of a civilized country. Until this fact is owned, things will continue to decline.

Decline of the USA:
relative to Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and United Kingdom

You can read all about if for 5 bucks. http://www.paecon.net/RWEBooks/USA/USA1.pdf

[Nesster]

Barry proposed a "balanced" plan to get out of this mess. Now we know what he meant. Seems compromise, to this IIC is just a word.

1 Raise taxes.
2. Cut deductions.
3. Increase spending instead of cutting it. But by using fuzzy math call cuts in an increase done last year as a cut.
4. Another stimulus of 50 billion or so
5. It's the Obama way or the highway.
6. Wants to take the power away from Congress for managing the debt ceiling. In other words he wants to trample the US Constitution and get a blank check on the taxpayers. Well the 55% (give or take) that actually pay taxes.

1. the Republicans will do so as well, only they won't touch the marginal rates, but rather deductions and other expenditures, i.e. they want to use weasel words to raise taxes without seeming to
2. both sides are up to doing this
3. are you sure the Republican plans aren't the same way? Last I looked they were.
5. Republican version of stimulus: cut the top marginal rate instead of letting it rise.
6. it's Republican way or the highway
7. want to keep manufacturing crises which eventually affect our credit ratings etc. Only the fact that the rest of the world is worse off or less stable is keeping us afloat.

Do the Republicans know the election is over and they have a window to actually govern for the good of the nation?

[JohnInIndy]

1. the Republicans will do so as well, only they won't touch the marginal rates, but rather deductions and other expenditures, i.e. they want to use weasel words to raise taxes without seeming to
2. both sides are up to doing this
3. are you sure the Republican plans aren't the same way? Last I looked they were.
5. Republican version of stimulus: cut the top marginal rate instead of letting it rise.
6. it's Republican way or the highway
7. want to keep manufacturing crises which eventually affect our credit ratings etc. Only the fact that the rest of the world is worse off or less stable is keeping us afloat.

Do the Republicans know the election is over and they have a window to actually govern for the good of the nation?

Did any of the Republicans go campaigning like Barry did last week? At a toy factory? Why yes I believe he did.

Obama: No K?NEX for naughty lawmakers | The Ticket - Yahoo! News