The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big

[MooseNSquirrel]

How is that any different than liberals?

They believe you should be allowed to pop out bastard children, divorce because you are "unhappy", do drugs, drop out of school, etc, etc and have the government bail you out.

Social compact implies obligations in both directions.

Ah..the reasoning...it is excellent and circular!

Women get divorced because....wait for it...they want handouts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

 

[Ldir]

lol thats like saying prove the left wants to raise taxes on the wealthy

Good. You agree Romney does want to cut welfare and similar benefits. The left is not lying about that.

 

[Ldir]

Ah..the reasoning...it is excellent and circular!

Women get divorced because....wait for it...they want handouts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

One track minds can only go in circles.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hmm ok so the left's lie about the GOP wanting to cut welfare and other similar benefits really is a lie.

Cool.

Past Repub administrations have used the welfare state, tax cuts & deficit spending as cover for the economic changes wrought by their own policies- an enormous transfer of wealth & income to the tippy-top, the true Bush constituency. Not the top 1%, but rather the top .1%, & even more so, the top .01%.

Now that they've largely accomplished that, it's time to put the squeeze to the chumps, invoke the economic order they've been creating all along-

"I got mine! Screw you! All of you!"

 

[nehalem256]

Ah..the reasoning...it is excellent and circular!

Women get divorced because....wait for it...they want handouts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

No they get divorced because they want to. And their wants are catered to by the Democratic Party providing them with handouts.

 

[Matt1970]

Past Repub administrations have used the welfare state, tax cuts & deficit spending as cover for the economic changes wrought by their own policies- an enormous transfer of wealth & income to the tippy-top, the true Bush constituency. Not the top 1%, but rather the top .1%, & even more so, the top .01%.

Now that they've largely accomplished that, it's time to put the squeeze to the chumps, invoke the economic order they've been creating all along-

"I got mine! Screw you! All of you!"

People keeping more of what they earn is not a transfer. The top earners are paying an ever increasing percentage of the total tax taken in, while the middle and lower are paying an ever increasing lower percentage, but Obama wants to kick it up for the sake of fairness.

 

[lotus503]

People keeping more of what they earn is not a transfer. The top earners are paying an ever increasing percentage of the total tax taken in, while the middle and lower are paying an ever increasing lower percentage, but Obama wants to kick it up for the sake of fairness.

We have a progressive tax system where those than benefit most by our society pay more. Except they dont actually pay more as a percentage and thats a problem.

 

[Phokus]

People keeping more of what they earn is not a transfer. The top earners are paying an ever increasing percentage of the total tax taken in, while the middle and lower are paying an ever increasing lower percentage, but Obama wants to kick it up for the sake of fairness.

But i'm sure am grateful for paying a mid 20's effective federal tax rate while Romney pays 13% (or even lower in some years).

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM

 

[Matt1970]

But i'm sure am grateful for paying a mid 20's effective federal tax rate while Romney pays 13% (or even lower in some years).

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM

You should vote for Romney then. He will cut a lot of the loophole the rich take advantge of.

 

[Jhhnn]

Social compact implies obligations in both directions.

Indeed it does. We used to have a deal. It was called the New Deal. American capitalists hired American workers, paid decent wages due in part to unions & govt competition for workers. Mild Socialist underpinnings cemented the whole thing, creating a mixed economy where everybody shared for mutual benefit. Progressive taxes. SS. Medicare. Financial regulations. Insured deposits. Unemployment compensation. So forth & so on.

It wasn't workers who broke that deal, it was capitalists, the financial elite. The truth of it all is revealed in the explosive inequality created over the last 30 years.

Righties always sidestep & head straight for denial in the face of the most pertinent questions of all- If low taxes at the top create jobs, where the fuck are the jobs? If the so-called "Job Creators" aren't living up to their end of the bargain, why should they be pampered for not doing so? If the rest of America is called upon to sacrifice, why should they escape some of their own? Merely because they're Rich?

 

[Matt1970]

We have a progressive tax system where those than benefit most by our society pay more. Except they dont actually pay more as a percentage and thats a problem.

So as long as it's a higher percentage of their income, not a higher percentage of total taxes paid?

 

[Jhhnn]

You should vote for Romney then. He will cut a lot of the loophole the rich take advantge of.

Like what? Are you claiming to read Mitt's mind, such as it is?

 

[lotus503]

Indeed it does. We used to have a deal. It was called the New Deal. American capitalists hired American workers, paid decent wages due in part to unions & govt competition for workers. Mild Socialist underpinnings cemented the whole thing, creating a mixed economy where everybody shared for mutual benefit. Progressive taxes. SS. Medicare. Financial regulations. Insured deposits. Unemployment compensation. So forth & so on.

It wasn't workers who broke that deal, it was capitalists, the financial elite. The truth of it all is revealed in the explosive inequality created over the last 30 years.

Righties always sidestep & head straight for denial in the face of the most pertinent questions of all- If low taxes at the top create jobs, where the fuck are the jobs? If the so-called "Job Creators" aren't living up to their end of the bargain, why should they be pampered for not doing so? If the rest of America is called upon to sacrifice, why should they escape some of their own? Merely because they're Rich?

THIS!!!

 

[jackstar7]

You should vote for Romney then. He will cut a lot of the loophole the rich take advantge of.

Name one.

 

[Matt1970]

Name one.

He hasn't listed any, but just because he hasn't the Liberals are automatically assuming he will cut loophopes the middle class have. He did suggest they will target the rich.

 

[lotus503]

So as long as it's a higher percentage of their income, not a higher percentage of total taxes paid?

Yes when the progressive tax system was created/implemted that was the goal, those that benefited the most from society payed a higher percentage of their income in tax.

as one of those people who has been fortunate enough to benefit from our society I pay a ton of tax, both in real dollars and as a percentage.

And I am totally fine with it. Had I made about 500k more this year or made more of my income from long term capital gains, I would pay way less as a percentage than say soemone making 40k a year, thats where things go south

 

[Phokus]

You should vote for Romney then. He will cut a lot of the loophole the rich take advantge of.

LOL bullshit, he's going to lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires.

 

[bfdd]

But i'm sure am grateful for paying a mid 20's effective federal tax rate while Romney pays 13% (or even lower in some years).

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM

Get rid of all taxes, do charity.

 

[lotus503]

LOL bullshit, he's going to lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires.

This whole lowering taxes meme just proves without a doubt the GOP doesnt give a shit about 16t in debt.

 

[blackangst1]

Past Repub administrations have used the welfare state, tax cuts & deficit spending as cover for the economic changes wrought by their own policies- an enormous transfer of wealth & income to the tippy-top, the true Bush constituency. Not the top 1%, but rather the top .1%, & even more so, the top .01%.

Now that they've largely accomplished that, it's time to put the squeeze to the chumps, invoke the economic order they've been creating all along-

"I got mine! Screw you! All of you!"

No wealth was transferred anywhere. That implies it was taken from the middle and lower class and given to the .01%. Which is unequivocally false.

 

[monovillage]

WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT DAVID BROOKS SAYS?
Please reply to every Phokus post in huge font

 

[lotus503]

No wealth was transferred anywhere. That implies it was taken from the middle and lower class and given to the .01%. Which is unequivocally false.

Its not false its indesputible fact. How it was taken can be debated a bit, incrementally via tax law, and lobby and Supply side shenaigans.

 

[Matt1970]

Yes when the progressive tax system was created/implemted that was the goal, those that benefited the most from society payed a higher percentage of their income in tax.

as one of those people who has been fortunate enough to benefit from our society I pay a ton of tax, both in real dollars and as a percentage.

And I am totally fine with it. Had I made about 500k more this year or made more of my income from long term capital gains, I would pay way less as a percentage than say soemone making 40k a year, thats where things go south

A lot of those people who do pay a lower rate do so because capital gains taxes are lower. The two times it was lowered recently revenue from capital gains increased. If you are happier with a higher percentage, but less revenue, that will mean the middle class will have to make up the difference.

 

[Ldir]

WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT DAVID BROOKS SAYS?
Please reply to every Phokus post in huge font

You seem to care enough to reply. Maybe you should find a new hobby. Or new meds.

 

[emperus]

So they are republicans just because he says they are? He links to no proof whatsoever.

If you Liberals want to circle jerk around another opinion piece, knock yourselves out.

Fyi Matt. David Brooks is not a liberal.

You should really do some research before delving into your talking points.