Righties: what are three things Repubs have done for the middle class in 30 years

[JSt0rm]

Do you think the same of Democrats?

Yes I would love to see that. Fiscally responsible doesn't mean tax cuts btw

 

[Craig234]

I wouldnt consider the welfare reform bill "nothing"...maybe you do *shrug*

I consider it something not listed in this thread when I wrote that.

Why don't you break down who got more or less because of it: poor, middle, rich. (Sigh, you won't).

 

[spidey07]

If you cut one group's taxes more than another's, the effect is to increase their share of wealth.

Conceptually, imagine this.

You say "wealthy, you pay 50% of all taxes. We'll give you 60% of a tax cut. Everyone else, you pay 50% of all taxes. You can have 40% of the tax cut. And the whole thing is borrowed from later Americans."

The effect of this is to shift more wealth to the rich than they would have had - and since it's borrowed, repaid by the public debt to everyone.

While the rich may pay 'more taxes', their income goes up higher percentages than their taxes. Can I double your taxes if I triple your income?

You look at who gets the tax cuts. If one grou gets more cuts, they benefit. If another, they do. The Bush borrowed tax cuts were weighted to give the rich more share of the money. Trillions over time IIRC.

The difference is miniscule so stop with your tax cuts for the rich. The upper group were already paying almost 40% tax rate which was insane. THAT was wealth redistribution - stealing from those who are successful to give to people that don't pay taxes. You asked the question in the OP, I answered it with fact.

 

[drebo]

If you cut one group's taxes more than another's, the effect is to increase their share of wealth.

Conceptually, imagine this.

You say "wealthy, you pay 50% of all taxes. We'll give you 60% of a tax cut. Everyone else, you pay 50% of all taxes. You can have 40% of the tax cut. And the whole thing is borrowed from later Americans."

The effect of this is to shift more wealth to the rich than they would have had - and since it's borrowed, repaid by the public debt to everyone.

While the rich may pay 'more taxes', their income goes up higher percentages than their taxes. Can I double your taxes if I triple your income?

You look at who gets the tax cuts. If one grou gets more cuts, they benefit. If another, they do. The Bush borrowed tax cuts were weighted to give the rich more share of the money. Trillions over time IIRC.

But that's not the way it works. Seriously, are you that stupid? You can't oversimplify things to this extent and expect to be taken seriously.

Otherwise, I'll simply point to barstool economics as "proof" that entitlement is bad.

Nevermind that both are wrong.

I don't even know why I bother to read your posts anymore. You're worse than Ann Coulter with the "head stuck in the sand" mentality.

 

[JSt0rm]

Isn't it amazing that after having it their way for the better part of the last 30 years they now see the problems that need fixed. Aren't these they same problems the hard core righties were elected to fix in the first place?

So the party of proven hypocrits want to argue that the other side is hypocrits also, so NOW let's do it the right way??? LMAO!! Don't do as WE do, do as WE say!!

They had their chance. It was like a bull in a china shop and now 1 year later the bull comes back and wonders why the china shop inst cleaned up yet :sneaky:

 

[blackangst1]

Someone mentioned HIPAA...there also AEDPA...maybe it seems insignificant but the national do not call bill...Medicare part D....and free credit reports to consumers annually....Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pension Protection Act of 2006....theres a few for you.

Oh I found PEPFAR also.

 

[dammitgibs]

Well I'm part of the middle class, and I don't want any political party to "do something for me" I just want to be left alone.

 

[Craig234]

The difference is miniscule so stop with your tax cuts for the rich. The upper group were already paying almost 40% tax rate which was insane. THAT was wealth redistribution - stealing from those who are successful to give to people that don't pay taxes. You asked the question in the OP, I answered it with fact.

Your reading comprehensions is lousy.

You say "the difference is miniscule". I said the difference was huge dollars. You missed it.

You said the upper grop was already paying 40% which was "insane". I explained that their incomes were up MORE than their taxes. Not so insane. You did not see that.

You are saying policies in which the rich get richer are 'wealth redistribution benefitting the poor', and calling any share the poort get 'theft from the rich'. And you say 'insane'.

 

[Craig234]

Well I'm part of the middle class, and I don't want any political party to "do something for me" I just want to be left alone.

Read my post about the three top Bush domestic priorities and let me know how that goes for you, ostrich.

 

[blackangst1]

They had their chance. It was like a bull in a china shop and now 3 years later the bull comes back and wonders why the china shop inst cleaned up yet :sneaky:

Again fixed for accuracy.

 

[JSt0rm]

Again fixed for accuracy.

i know bush didnt do shit in his last 2 years of office but he was still dribbling and eating jelly beans in the oval office. So 404 correction not found.

 

[blackangst1]

I consider it something not listed in this thread when I wrote that.

Why don't you break down who got more or less because of it: poor, middle, rich. (Sigh, you won't).

Do you really need it spelled out for you? You asked for legislation and its been given. What more would you expect in a flagrant elitist thread?

 

[blackangst1]

i know bush didnt do shit in his last 2 years of office but he was still dribbling and eating jelly beans in the oval office. So 404 correction not found.

Psst....Democrats had a majority since 2006....

 

[nobodyknows]

Psst....Democrats had a majority since 2006....

Psst... you do know there is more then one branch of goverment? DUHHHHHH!!

 

[Craig234]

Do you really need it spelled out for you? You asked for legislation and its been given. What more would you expect in a flagrant elitist thread?

I am patience but you try it. I reported that none had been reported. None were. You adding one does not make that wrong. You and context are water and oil, and it's tedious. You raise wrong, petty nonsense.

And by doing so, you use up whatever interest I had in discussing the actual issue with you. You make talking to you a waste of time.

 

[blackangst1]

I am patience but you try it. I reported that none had been reported. None were. You adding one does not make that wrong. You and context are water and oil, and it's tedious. You raise wrong, petty nonsense.

And by doing so, you use up whatever interest I had in discussing the actual issue with you. You make talking to you a waste of time.

Craig, your OP clearly says "I'm looking for any policy aimed at the middle (heck, lower too) class with any significant benefits for them".

Taking the welfare reform bill...you honestly need someone to explain how it benefits them? Come on man. Or how about Medicare D? You really need that one explained also?

 

[blackangst1]

Psst... you do know there is more then one branch of goverment? DUHHHHHH!!

erm...

judicial: they dont write law, and are not D/R (for the most part).
executive: they dont write law either. They enforce it.
legislative: They DO write law!

Did I miss one? Nope, I didnt. Since judicial is out of the picture, as well as executive (since they, you know, dont write legislation) that means I was right: Democrats have had a majority since 2006 in the only branch that writes law.

 

[Argo]

Government shouldn't aim to do anything for anybody (except protect them from theft and violence). If the republicans prevented government intervention and oppression in any way, they helped the middle class.

Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[UberNeuman]

I believe alerting the middle class to the dangers of fancy mustard should count for something...

 

[JSt0rm]

erm...

judicial: they dont write law, and are not D/R (for the most part).
executive: they dont write law either. They enforce it.
legislative: They DO write law!

Did I miss one? Nope, I didnt. Since judicial is out of the picture, as well as executive (since they, you know, dont write legislation) that means I was right: Democrats have had a majority since 2006 in the only branch that writes law.

The senate was split 49 49 with 2 indies you douche.

 

[blackangst1]

The senate was split 49 49 with 2 indies you douche.

heh...in case you forgot or didnt pay attention, those two independants caucused with the Dems. They had an operational majority.

 

[JSt0rm]

heh...in case you forgot or didnt pay attention, those two independants caucused with the Dems. They had an operational majority.

http://mydd.com/2007/2/22/the-senates-iraq-problem-lieberman

Thanks for playing but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

 

[Craig234]

Craig, your OP clearly says "I'm looking for any policy aimed at the middle (heck, lower too) class with any significant benefits for them".

Yes, you were welcome to add whatever programs. I was pointing out that as of the point I said none had ben listed, none had been listed. You adding one after didn't make that wrong - but it might add one.

I also clarified I'm talking about the economic benefits.

Taking the welfare reform bill...you honestly need someone to explain how it benefits them? Come on man.

Yes. I asked you how much moey was gained/lost by the bill by the poor, middle, and rich. I also predicted you are unlikely to answer the question, which you haven't.

A program cutting the money for the poor that mainly benefits the rich does not a middle class targetted policy make.

Or how about Medicare D? You really need that one explained also?

You do, I suspect.

Did you even read what I wrote?

First, the Republicans put in a requirement that seniors give up their Medicare benefits to get this benefit. Pick. That's not 'good for the middle class', it's a stealth attack on Medicare fortheir political benefit.

Second, the benefits were very iffy - limits were put in making it not helpful to most seniors, IIRC, even after Democrats forrced them to make it better for people. Rememeber "the bubble"?

Thirdly, the main purpose of the policy was to create a program that would give tax dollars to big pharma.

Now, a legitimate drug bill would povide money to big pharma - but the benefits would be mainly for the people. That wasnot this bill.

The clear measure of this bill was the Republicans addinga provision putting in a 'no drug price negotiation' law that had NO PURPOSE other than to give a $150 billion profit windfall to big pharma.

The Republican Congressman who led the passage of the bill, in which for the first time in history, the vote went on hours after it expired, because Republican ledaership lost, all night while the twisted arms bribing, resigned weeks after it passed and became the head of lobbying for the big pharma industry. You don't get it.

The Medicare part D bill had far less benefit to seniors than it should, while its prmary purpose was to reward their top donor industry, adding massively to the deficit. That is a bill showing Republicans doing bad.

 

[Jhhnn]

The senate was split 49 49 with 2 indies you douche.

And Dick Cheney as the tie breaker...

Perhaps the most telling aspect of threads like this is the repeated notion that Repubs want "smaller govt" when they really don't, at all. That's reflected in deeds, not words. I normally wouldn't link the Washington Times, but I do so now because even they are forced to admit the truth-

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/

As I said- Deeds, not words, tell the real story. Much the same is true for RR and GHWB.

Repubs have passed some legislation beneficial to the middle class, if only for their own partisan purposes. Medicare part D is a great example. They opposed Ted Kennedy's efforts for decades, but when they found a way to claim it as their own, pander to senior voters, they were all over it like a monkey on a cupcake... Financial "reform"? Pure necessity- had to make it look like they were "doing something", even as they paved the way for financial flimflams that made Enron look tame...

Tax cuts? Craig's right. Distribution of all Repub taxcuts heavily favored the wealthy, something that's obvious when the top 1&#37; share of income rose from <9% in 1979 to > 23% in 2007... and when the top 400 filers pay a much lower federal tax rate than the rest of the top 1%...

But, believe what you want, what appeals to you emotionally, even if it is lies...

The truth wrt deficits (trade and federal) and job loss are very much the same, too, but faith conquers all, right?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

ok lets assume you are correct. Where the fuck have all you people been during the last decade? You see how little cred ANYONE gets? Bush and his "free speech zones" I mean this republican president was the worst president ever. Just for that the republicans should get nothing for atleast 10 years. Personally I think the party should be dismantled and get some true fiscal conservative social liberal thing going. Until you get rid of the social conservatives and neocons your side has nothing to say.

I've been bitching about administrations when they screw up for decades.

Out of curiosity, what's "my side"?