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

[theevilsharpie]

Tax cuts? Craig's right. Distribution of all Repub taxcuts heavily favored the wealthy...

The top 20% of wage earners pay the majority of federal taxes. It's only logical that a tax cut benefits the people that pay more taxes.

 

[Jaskalas]

The top 20% of wage earners pay the majority of federal taxes. It's only logical that a tax cut benefits the people that pay more taxes.

An across the board percent cut has no bias.

 

[blackangst1]

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.



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.



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.

Looks to me you've already made up your mind

Also I brought up the welfare reform act on the first page of replies, before you started "clarifying". Maybe you missed it. Either way, it looks like anything I could possibly write would fall on deaf ears.

 

[Craig234]

The top 20% of wage earners pay the majority of federal taxes. It's only logical that a tax cut benefits the people that pay more taxes.

And that's a dishonest statement. If you give the people who make 20% of taxxes 20% of the tax cut, and people who pay 5% of the taxes 5% of the tax cut, you can call that 'more cut for those who pay more'.

Bt when you give the people who pay 20% of the taxes 21%, 25%, 30% of the cut, you are not just 'giving those who pay more more cut' in a fair manner. You are redistributing wealth to the top.

The Bush borrowed tax cuts were not more for the rich because they pay more. They were MORE for the rich than their higher share of taxes - they were weighted to give the rich more than their 'share'.

 

[shiner]

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?

I've said it in two other threads this weekend so might as well say it here as well.

McCraigwen234 is a child running around shouting his BS at the top of his lungs. When someone calls him on it and presents him with facts contrary to his warped worldview he starts calling them names and goes into

mode.

 

[theevilsharpie]

An across the board percent cut has no bias.

From a percentage standpoint, no. However, since the top 20% pay a percentage of taxes disproportionately larger than those in lower socioeconomic classes, they would receive more of an absolute benefit from a flat tax cut, and liberals would paint it as a tax cut for "The Rich."

 

[theevilsharpie]

And that's a dishonest statement. If you give the people who make 20% of taxxes 20% of the tax cut, and people who pay 5% of the taxes 5% of the tax cut, you can call that 'more cut for those who pay more'.

Bt when you give the people who pay 20% of the taxes 21%, 25%, 30% of the cut, you are not just 'giving those who pay more more cut' in a fair manner. You are redistributing wealth to the top.

The Bush borrowed tax cuts were not more for the rich because they pay more. They were MORE for the rich than their higher share of taxes - they were weighted to give the rich more than their 'share'.

Please show how Bush's tax cuts were weighted specifically for top wage earners.

 

[2L84U]

Originally Posted by JSt0rm01

"...Personally I think the party should be dismantled and get some true fiscal conservative social liberal thing going..."

Just curious what socially liberal policies are fiscally conservative?

The harder you push one the more the other has to give, thats also the reason craig cant see (then again maybe he did know) that his question was a loaded one.

With our current progressive tax system anyone claiming any tax 'cuts' being a redistribution of wealth to the rich, must be mathematically illiterate, have virtually no understanding of the tax system, or be an outright lier.

 

[blackangst1]

And that's a dishonest statement. If you give the people who make 20% of taxxes 20% of the tax cut, and people who pay 5% of the taxes 5% of the tax cut, you can call that 'more cut for those who pay more'.

Bt when you give the people who pay 20% of the taxes 21%, 25%, 30% of the cut, you are not just 'giving those who pay more more cut' in a fair manner. You are redistributing wealth to the top.

The Bush borrowed tax cuts were not more for the rich because they pay more. They were MORE for the rich than their higher share of taxes - they were weighted to give the rich more than their 'share'.

Its not dishonest at all. There have been studies that show the top 5% of income earners received approx 55% of the benefits of the tax cuts. Compare that to the fact that the top 5% amount to approx 60% of taxes collected. Looks fair to me.

Oh and Reagan greatly expanded the earned income tax credit while he was in office. That benefits the poor.

 

[JSt0rm]

Just curious what socially liberal policies are fiscally conservative?

gay marriage and drug reform are 2.

 

[xj0hnx]

By limiting accomplishments to "programs" that they've implemented, not only will you almost guarantee that nobody will come up with anything since establishing government programs is the antithesis of Republican policy, you also demonstrate your ignorance of what the Republican party and its supporters view as beneficial.

This thread was over before it began, but this is the nail in the coffin.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Just curious what socially liberal policies are fiscally conservative?

When I think of socially-liberal policies, I think of policies that promote social freedom like equality in marriage, liberal drug policies, etc. I don't see how these are incompatible with fiscally conservative polices.

 

[spidey07]

Originally Posted by JSt0rm01

"...Personally I think the party should be dismantled and get some true fiscal conservative social liberal thing going..."

Just curious what socially liberal policies are fiscally conservative?

The harder you push one the more the other has to give, thats also the reason craig cant see (then again maybe he did know) that his question was a loaded one.

With our current progressive tax system anyone claiming any tax 'cuts' being a redistribution of wealth to the rich, must be mathematically illiterate, have virtually no understanding of the tax system, or be an outright lier.

Not really. Socially liberal is more Libertarian oriented of which fiscal conservative also fits. They don't have to be mutually exclusive as societal and fiscal conservatism/real liberalism defines where one is politically.

 

[Craig234]

Please show how Bush's tax cuts were weighted specifically for top wage earners.

A couple quick articles - you can finde more complete answers with Google, including misleading conservative propaganda like the Heritage Foundation trying the 'rich pay more taxes, get more cut' line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm

 

[JSt0rm]

Either way, it looks like anything I could possibly write would fall on deaf ears.

I think this goes both ways sparky.

 

[blackangst1]

A couple quick articles - you can finde more complete answers with Google, including misleading conservative propaganda like the Heritage Foundation trying the 'rich pay more taxes, get more cut' line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm

You mean they dont? So this chart is incorrect?

 

[theevilsharpie]

A couple quick articles - you can finde more complete answers with Google, including misleading conservative propaganda like the Heritage Foundation trying the 'rich pay more taxes, get more cut' line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm

From the New York Times article you linked:

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

Is that not what I stated?

 

[Jhhnn]

Shee-it, Graig- Righties are so intentionally blind that they can't even see the links on the page, let alone read 'em....

They've adopted the Rush/ Hannity/ O'Reilly/ Beck song and dance routine as their own- can't hear you over the music playing in their heads. They have Faith- they Believe, and no amount of reason will overcome that. They'd have to examine their own belief structure, which they've been conditioned to avoid at all cost.

 

[palehorse]

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 group 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.

In this case, it's not a "redistribution," since those wealthy are only keeping what already belongs to them -- what they have already earned... but you dont get that, do ya? You believe that earned money belongs to the government first, and not to the individual who earned it. The government then decides how much each of us "gets to keep." In that way, the government supposedly "distributes" money.

Only a fucking government-uber-alles nutjob could see a tax cut as "redistribution of wealth." It's f'n disgusting.

 

[piasabird]

The Berlin wall fell.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Shee-it, Graig- Righties are so intentionally blind that they can't even see the links on the page, let alone read 'em....

They've adopted the Rush/ Hannity/ O'Reilly/ Beck song and dance routine as their own- can't hear you over the music playing in their heads. They have Faith- they Believe, and no amount of reason will overcome that. They'd have to examine their own belief structure, which they've been conditioned to avoid at all cost.

Someone provides a direct quote from the link provided, and your response is that they aren't reading the links. Good stuff.

 

[spidey07]

In this case, it's not a "redistribution," since those wealthy are only keeping what was already theirs -- what they already earned... but you dont get that. You believe that earned money belongs to the government first, and not to the individual who earned it. The government then decides how much each of us "gets to keep."

It's f'n disgusting.

I think it's called peasant or servant mentality. How ever shall I get my bread and grain if the government does not give it to me?

 

[blackangst1]

Someone provides a direct quote from the link provided, and your response is that they aren't reading the links. Good stuff.

I think his comment "so intentionally blind" had him in a frenzy....

 

[palehorse]

I think it's called peasant or servant mentality. How ever shall I get my bread and grain if the government does not give it to me?

exactly.

Craig, pay attention...

If YOU (a rich dude) earn one dollar every day, then that dollar, in its entirety, is first and foremost YOURS. You earned it... you own it. If I (the Feds) come along every day and take 30 cents from YOUR dollar, YOU are left with 70 cents of YOUR own money. I have not "given" you anything. That entire dollar was YOURS to begin with. In fact, it is YOU who have "given" 30 cents to me!

Now, if I decide to drop the amount of money I take each day to 20 cents (tax cut), instead of 30, then YOU will "get to" keep 80 cents of YOUR own money, instead of 70. This does not mean that I have "given" you the 10-cent difference. Instead, YOU have simply been allowed to keep more of the original dollar that YOU already earned and owned. Remember, that entire dollar was originally YOURS, not the government's.

In Craig's world, I have somehow redistributed that 10-cent difference back to you. In his world, I have somehow "given" you that ten cents. But, in reality, YOU have simply been allowed to keep what was already YOURS to begin with... he really doesnt get that.

 

[2L84U]

I expected those to be two of the three answers I might get.

however you cant support the dems and expect them to stop there, if that was possible I dont think the republicans would have a chance in hell, ever, end of story.

To have unwavering support of the dems you must be willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, and give up fiscally conservative policy altogether, true socially liberal policies demand this.

What I want is the fed to to say to the states be as liberal or conservative as you like (as long as it doesnt infringe on the BASIC right to life, liberty, and the PERSUIT of happiness). This would allow those moderatly liberal policies a chance without abandoning fiscaly conservative policies at a national level.