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

[Craig234]

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.

I don't find many of your posts I disagree with to have the characteristic of idiotic. This is one.

Some on the right have a cultish ideological view that denies the entire idea of our country's government - denies the constitution, denies the taxation for government as legitimate, denies democracy.

It's like saying you don't have to follow any traffic laws because it's YOUR CAR and YOUR BODY MOVING and YOUR FREE CHOICE to drive when and where and how you want.

It's NOBODY'S BUSINESS to say a word to you tellingy ou how you can or can't drive until you cause an accident at which point you are liable for behavior. Until then, your basic rights are VIOLATED.

What can you say to such an idelogue? What can you say to someone who says "OK, we have a $trillion dollar budget. But since I prefer we had a $1 billion doller budget, I am going to pretend we do, and refuse to pay for the other $999 billion. I won't support taxing anyone for it. It all justr goes on the magic debt pile for later because I'm acting in a principled protest manner by not paying for it that shows how good I position I have that it should be $1 billion. And in the meantime if someone says they'll shift another $100 billion with tax cuts for the rich and transfer the burder to everyone else, I'm for that."

Grow the hell up and deal with the fact that living in our society has a price, called taxes. You don't like how taxes are spent? Fix the voters. You insist all taxes are theft? Move to Haiti and give up taxes and benefits.

 

[JSt0rm]

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.

ok how about we chop the military budget by 75% and spend that money in the country? I know our kids aren't smart enough to compete in the world, the economy of scarcity requires us to go kill brown skinned people and force third world countries to become indebted to us via the paper money we print but I think we can figure out a better way then this. Dont you?

Because for all your fiscal/social conservatives bellowing you don't want to swallow the real lesson/answer to all of the problems.

 

[Craig234]

From the New York Times article you linked:


Is that not what I stated?

No, it's not what you stated. It's what I stated. Just read the parts you did not bold to understand.

For example, I said that you were not honest by describing the issue as 'the rich pay more tax'. I explained how the issue isn't the *proportional* more tax they'd be expected to pay, it's that they got MORE cut.

I illustrated with an example, if someone's income goes up 200%, and their taxes go up 100%, that's not an uinfair tax increase on them, though they're 'paying more tax'.

I explained how that is a dihonest phrase to describe that in response to your dong that.

THe NY Times article then said the same thing, 'The rich paid more taxes; the reson is their incomes went up even more than their taxes'. THat proved my point.

You asked, isn't that what you said? No.

You just repeated the error, bolding the first part making it sound unfair, and not bolding the second part you had not inclded at all in your own post.

THen Blackangst comes along and restates the myth like he hasn't seen any of this info.

It's so simple I can only repeated it. If you get a skyrocketing income, and your taxes go up but not enough to keep up with the income increase proportionally you are not 'getting screwed'. You are getting a cut on the percentage rate of taxes you pay. When the taxes are reduced on the rich disproprtionately to how they're reduced to others to shift them on others, including the deficit, that's a tax cut.

Let's say I get a 90% tax cut, and you get a 10% tax cut on a lower income. Hey, we both got a cut, so no problem you say. Hey, it was my money alreado so there's no problem with redistributing wealth, Palehorse says. No, we can keep cutting taxes alot on the rich, and a little on everyone else, and adding it to the debt, and the fact it causes the rich to get an even larger share of the wealth - no redistribution.

 

[brencat]

I don't want the government (reps or dems) to do things for me. I want the government to allow me to do things for myself.

Therein lies the difference between you and I. When our rights (which you insist come from the government) are interfered with, then it needs to be involved. Otherwise it needs to keep a minimal profile.

The difference between myself and some others is that I understand there are people who can't work and their care is beyond what an individual family can support. I'm agreeable to the government extending help to those people with my taxes.

I also understand that corporations can be big sharks which eat people. I'm not a fan of two class societies or dangerous chemicals being tossed in the water.


As far as Reps and Dems, the only thing I'd like is to see them go away. As to government itself, provide the necessary services to those who can't work, the minimum involvement needed to accomplish what I've said, and make the maximal effort to keep out of my life while restraining it's lust for power and money.

+1. I think Hayabusa hit the nail on the head perfectly. I want govt the fvck out of my life -- both parties have proven themselves to be unable to govern properly. From now on, I want divided govt and I will vote accordingly to make that happen. These sumbitches need to be forced to work together and compromise again, and if not, then I prefer nothing get done at all. Because right now, every day Congress meets we all seem to lose a little more of our liberty.

/End rant

 

[blackangst1]

THen Blackangst comes along and restates the myth like he hasn't seen any of this info.

It's so simple I can only repeated it. If you get a skyrocketing income, and your taxes go up but not enough to keep up with the income increase proportionally you are not 'getting screwed'. You are getting a cut on the percentage rate of taxes you pay. When the taxes are reduced on the rich disproprtionately to how they're reduced to others to shift them on others, including the deficit, that's a tax cut.

Let's say I get a 90% tax cut, and you get a 10% tax cut on a lower income. Hey, we both got a cut, so no problem you say. Hey, it was my money alreado so there's no problem with redistributing wealth, Palehorse says. No, we can keep cutting taxes alot on the rich, and a little on everyone else, and adding it to the debt, and the fact it causes the rich to get an even larger share of the wealth - no redistribution.

And this is your fundemental blindness to your thinking. I didnt post ANY myth whatsoever. I posted stone cold hard facts. Im not sure what you think Im trying to imply. I'll state it again since you missed it: 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.

Whats the problem?

 

[palehorse]

I don't find many of your posts I disagree with to have the characteristic of idiotic. This is one.

Some on the right have a cultish ideological view that denies the entire idea of our country's government - denies the constitution, denies the taxation for government as legitimate, denies democracy.

It's like saying you don't have to follow any traffic laws because it's YOUR CAR and YOUR BODY MOVING and YOUR FREE CHOICE to drive when and where and how you want.

It's NOBODY'S BUSINESS to say a word to you tellingy ou how you can or can't drive until you cause an accident at which point you are liable for behavior. Until then, your basic rights are VIOLATED.

What can you say to such an idelogue? What can you say to someone who says "OK, we have a $trillion dollar budget. But since I prefer we had a $1 billion doller budget, I am going to pretend we do, and refuse to pay for the other $999 billion. I won't support taxing anyone for it. It all justr goes on the magic debt pile for later because I'm acting in a principled protest manner by not paying for it that shows how good I position I have that it should be $1 billion. And in the meantime if someone says they'll shift another $100 billion with tax cuts for the rich and transfer the burden to everyone else, I'm for that."

Grow the hell up and deal with the fact that living in our society has a price, called taxes. You don't like how taxes are spent? Fix the voters. You insist all taxes are theft? Move to Haiti and give up taxes and benefits.

wow, you're a fucking idiot... and you really --REALLY-- dont get it. wtf is all that nonsense about cars and traffic laws?!

I never stated that I object to the idea of taxes, nor the need for them in the U.S. -- and I certainly never called them "theft."

My point was, and the thing you really dont get, is that all earned money first and foremost belongs to the citizens who earned it, not the government. In your mind, that concept of ownership is completely reversed, which is what I -- and many others -- find disgusting.

That is the reason you see tax cuts as "redistribution to the rich," or as some sort of gift. You believe that the government is actually "giving" them something; when, in fact, they are merely being allowed to keep more of what was already theirs to start with.

My dollars are my own, period. The fact that I give the government some of what is mine is because I respect and appreciate some of the services and opportunities my government has made available to me, so I agree to pay a certain percentage of my money for each of those things. Now, I generally depend on the government to let me know how much money they need to keep functioning, so I will generally pay the percentage of my money they say they need to keep things moving along. That said, if they tell me that they can get by with a little less from me (tax cut), then I'm more than happy to keep more of my money in my bank accounts.

After all, I earned it. It's my money. I'm willing to give part of it to our government, but I don't see it as a privilege when I get to keep a little more, or a little less. After all, it was mine to begin with.

 

[Craig234]

+1. I think Hayabusa hit the nail on the head perfectly. I want govt the fvck out of my life -- both parties have proven themselves to be unable to govern properly. From now on, I want divided govt and I will vote accordingly to make that happen. These sumbitches need to be forced to work together and compromise again, and if not, then I prefer nothing get done at all. Because right now, every day Congress meets we all seem to lose a little more of our liberty.

/End rant

That's because you and Hyabusa don't understand the threat private concentrated wealth is.

Let's use an analogy - you live ni a town and there's a mafia.

At first, the people charter the police force to do something about it.

Over time, the mafia is always looking for police to bribe, city council members to bribe, judges to bribe, refiing their techniques to not get caught. In the meantime, the citizens slash the police budget and don't pay attention to the problems that are increasing. Gradually, the public notices the police seem to be working more for the mafia than the public. The mafia pretends to be for the public, but complaints are not well investigated, conviction rates are down, and the public feels the police are working for them.

Indeed, the mafia are dropping some money here and there on nice things for the public, buying propaganda campaigns, to buildup its image.

Now, which are the choices and which do you pick:

1. Abolish that darn police department- it works for the mafia and is the problem!

2. Get the public acting as citizens, electing the right oversight, paying themoney needed to clean up and staff the police force so it represents the public.

You are all about #1. As the private powers the United States government was created to protect the people from get more and more powerful, with the only thig to fear the public running that government to keep them in check, you are out there saying 'the answewr is get rid of the government'. Right, because not havig the public have the government available to protect it will make the private concentrated powers treat you vrwey nicely, like they have all through human history as the masses have been peasants slaving away for the nobles. Good idea!

The answer is for the public to fix our democracy, not throw it away like you want. But you don't understand the problem the corporatocracy poses, so you are saying 'what is he talking about'.

 

[Ozoned]

wow, you're a fucking idiot... and you really --REALLY-- dont get it. wtf is all that nonsense about cars and traffic laws?!

I never stated that I object to the idea of taxes, nor the need for them in the U.S. -- and I certainly never called them "theft."

My point was, and the thing you really dont get, is that all earned money first and foremost belongs to the citizens who earned it, not the government. In your mind, that concept of ownership is completely reversed, which is what I -- and many others -- find disgusting.

That is the reason you see tax cuts as "redistribution to the rich," or as some sort of gift. You believe that the government is actually "giving" them something; when, in fact, they are merely being allowed to keep more of what was already theirs to start with.

My dollars are my own, period. The fact that I give the government some of what is mine is because I respect and appreciate some of the services and opportunities my government has made available to me, so I agree to pay a certain percentage of my money for each of those things. Now, I generally depend on the government to let me know how much money they need to keep functioning, so I will generally pay the percentage of my money they say they need to keep things moving along. That said, if they tell me that they can get by with a little less from me (tax cut), then I'm more than happy to keep more of my money in my bank accounts.

After all, I earned it. It's my money. I'm willing to give part of it to our government, but I don't see it as a privilege when I get to keep a little more, or a little less. After all, it was mine to begin with.

So,,,what you are trying to say is that it is your money? Heh.

 

[palehorse]

Let's say I get a 90% tax cut, and you get a 10% tax cut on a lower income. Hey, we both got a cut, so no problem you say. Hey, it was my money alreado so there's no problem with redistributing wealth, Palehorse says. No, we can keep cutting taxes alot on the rich, and a little on everyone else, and adding it to the debt, and the fact it causes the rich to get an even larger share of the wealth - no redistribution.

I'm beginning to think that you have reading comprehension issues. I've said none of those things. Your blind ideological hatred is filling in a lot of blanks for you. Seriously, can you read?

The money that I earn -- just like yours, just like the poor, and just like the rich -- is first and foremost mine. Before the Government gets any piece of it, I own all of it.

That simple fact is the reason that tax cuts cannot be considered redistribution. The only redistribution that occurs, with any tax, is with the money that is given to the government, not with the money that is simply kept by the one who earned it in the first place.

 

[spidey07]

So,,,what you are trying to say is that it is your money? Heh.

Yes, now you're gettin it. MY MONEY, do not tread on me.

 

[Craig234]

So,,,what you are trying to say is that it is your money? Heh.

Yes, he's just posting idiocy over and over abot my opinion, getting it wrong as usual, that I think the money isn't 'his' to start with.

He pretends that taxes don't exist, so that if tax policy shifts the tax burden off the rich, then it's not a 'redistribution of wealth' because his idology says it isn't.

Policies that cause the rich to own higher and higher shares of the wealth by such tax shifting are not 'wealth redistribution' because he says so. But he hasn't agreed to give me and not him a big tax cut yet.

 

[earthman]

I'd say they haven't done squat, which is not surprising, as they don't represent the middle class's interests. Quite the contrary, the middle class has been in decline for decades, thanks to "reaganomics" and its derivatives.

 

[shiner]

I'm beginning to think that you have reading comprehension issues. I've said none of those things. Your blind ideological hatred is filling in a lot of blanks for you. Seriously, can you read?

The money that I earn -- just like yours, just like the poor, and just like the rich -- is first and foremost mine. Before the Government gets any piece of it, I own all of it.

That simple fact is the reason that tax cuts cannot be considered redistribution. The only redistribution that occurs, with any tax, is with the money that is given to the government, not with the money that is kept by the one who earned it.

McCraigwen234 strikes again....

 

[palehorse]

Yes, he's just posting idiocy over and over abot my opinion, getting it wrong as usual, that I think the money isn't 'his' to start with.

He pretends that taxes don't exist, so that if tax policy shifts the tax burden off the rich, then it's not a 'redistribution of wealth' because his idology says it isn't.

Policies that cause the rich to own higher and higher shares of the wealth by such tax shifting are not 'wealth redistribution' because he says so.

I've said none of those things. How am I "pretending that taxes don't exist"?

I don't believe you when you say that you agree that all of my money is my own. I know that you really see it as my privilege that I am allowed, by our ever-benevolent big government, to keep some of it.

But he hasn't agreed to give me and not him a big tax cut yet.

I'm not rich, by any means, so I have no stake in defending their cuts, other than principle.

You're filling in the blanks again.

My entire point -- and really my only point -- was that tax cuts themselves cannot be considered redistribution since they are nothing more than someone getting to keep a larger portion of what was already theirs. The key word is "keep." When you "keep" something, that is, by definition, the complete opposite of redistribution.

 

[Jhhnn]

The sad truth is that free market capitalism would have devolved into oligopoly long ago if it weren't for redistribution via income and estate taxes. Another truth is that America's concepts of wealth and entitlement are often based on romantic notions of the frontier, which closed over 100 years ago. Basically infinite wealth, there for the taking.

There was a time not so long ago that patriotic and wealthy people were proud to pay big taxes on big money, regarded it as a privilege, and weren't shy about saying so, either... they'd witnessed what happened to the people at the top in other countries when they got too greedy, too arrogant, to full of their own rhetoric to recognize that their fortunes depended on that of their own countrymen, too...

If positions of wealth and power were up for auction, what % of income as taxes would you pledge to pay to have tens or hundreds of millions per year as income? To have a system that truly protects your interests in a multi-generational sort of way? Where you don't need armored limousines and walled compounds with armed guards, where you children don't need bodyguards to protect them from kidnapping?

Just a little food for thought for the fatcat wannabees...

 

[ebaycj]

You mean they dont? So this chart is incorrect?

Find the same chart with over 1000 data points instead of 5, and I'll show you that you're wrong.

 

[Ozoned]

So I guess if you read the last 20 posts you would have to assume that the republicans have created an enviroment in the last 30 years that have led to wealth creation for the rich and by extension the stuffing of federal coffers and the subsequent ability to lower the tax burden for the middle class.

Just think about how out of place this thread would be if there was no wealth to tax, and by extension, no middle class.

 

[Carmen813]

I'll say this much:

Palehorse and Craig don't appear to understand the other persons position at all. Both are valid.

 

[2L84U]

ok how about we chop the military budget by 75% and spend that money in the country?

You want to cut military spending by 75%, but not to reduce spending but to spend it on other things "in the country"
Sorry, but I will have to decline since you don't explain the impact it has on national security, it will not be used to reduce spending, and since you failed to explain what these mystery programs are I must assume you intend to waste it.

I know our kids aren't smart enough to compete in the world,

Are you sure you are replying to my post, I don't see how you could be.

the economy of scarcity requires us to go kill brown skinned people

I hope your not suggesting that some form of genocide is needed to be fiscally responsible.

and force third world countries to become indebted to us via the paper money we print but I think we can figure out a better way then this. Dont you?

I get it, this is some sort of riddle... then again you could just be in lala land.

Because for all your fiscal/social conservatives bellowing you don't want to swallow the real lesson/answer to all of the problems.

You where all for fiscal responsiblity for both parties earlier in this thread, has that changed?

 

[JSt0rm]

You where all for fiscal responsiblity for both parties earlier in this thread, has that changed?

not at the expense of social issues. unfortunately to be fiscal conservative I would need to side with senators that pray on public access channels and even then they aren't fiscal conservatives.

 

[ebaycj]

Yes, now you're gettin it. MY MONEY, do not tread on me.

What percentage of your income in taxes is low enough that you would consider yourself "not tread on"?

Same question to palehorse.

 

[nick1985]

Pissed you off, for one

 

[2L84U]

not at the expense of social issues. unfortunately to be fiscal conservative I would need to side with senators that pray on public access channels and even then they aren't fiscal conservatives.

You could have just agreed that you place social issues ahead of keeping the national debt under control, instead you spout some rubbish in an attempt to what distract and get the last word in?

Go ahead and respond, you can have the last word, you've already proved my point.

 

[teddyv]

Ended the Democrat-led Senate filibuster of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights act (much to Bobby Byrd's chagrin), leading to its passage a short time later?

 

[Carmen813]

ended the democrat-led senate filibuster of the landmark 1964 civil rights act (much to bobby byrd's chagrin), leading to its passage a short time later?

1964 + 30 = 1994.