The Left has started devouring Obama

[JohnnyMack]

-G0dIKy3d2s

Many of you bought into the extreme right maniacal ramblings that Obama was a Marxist, a socialist and someone who was bent on the destruction on capitalism and western democracy. I don't imagine you've paid much attention to that fact that the left has totally come unglued because of BHO's concession to the Republicans in regards to the Bush tax cuts.

Looks like the Obama White House has opted to get out the Clinton playbook and govern center-left.

[The]

http://i.imgur.com/OpD9n.jpg

[AlboSooner]

Democrats are politically weak.

[Sooner98]

The next limousine liberal that uses the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" gets a screwdriver to the left eyeball.

[The]

Democrats are politically weak.

I think it's pretty clear that the Democratic party is 100% in ideological agreement with the Republicans. They just use different campaign tactics.

[AlboSooner]

I think it's pretty clear that the Democratic party is 100% in ideological agreement with the Republicans. They just use different campaign tactics.

Could be the case. When W was in office and the Dems took control of the house, he still passed anything he wanted. W was tough.

[The]

Could be the case. When W was in office and the Dems took control of the house, he still passed anything he wanted. W was tough.

And they haven't produce a single aspect of a liberal agenda since they gained 2/3 of the government.

[badger]

I actually tuned into the O'Reilly Factor when I wasn't at in-laws or parents a few nights ago to see how the tax negotiations turned out... and instead of being applauded for compromising and being willing to work with the right, they were playing clips of CNN calling him Wayne Brady and ushering in leftist voices who didn't want all tax cuts extended.

And now, it sounds like the left is heeding this warning and not willing to back Obama on this compromise.

Frankly, I'm surprised that there was even a compromise on the table, considering the left still has the Congress and President and if there isn't an agreement soon, if there isn't any common ground to be heard of, doesn't that mean that the tax cuts for everyone just expire? Doesn't there NEED to be legislation in order for tax cuts to anyone to continue?

So, boo to everyone on the following list:

Fox News: You wanted the tax cuts, but you just couldn't pass up the chance to bash Obama, could you? Now, the Democrats have another reason to go against the president, ensuring that nobody gets tax cuts now.

Obama: I love that you are willing to compromise, but you gave way too much ground and in the process, went against your election promise to repeal the tax cuts.

Democrats: Compromise means everyone goes away angry. You get your middle class and lower income tax cuts, Republicans get their upper income tax cuts. Compromise.

About the only ones that seemed to succeed here were Republicans, because now the left is disarray again, Obama is getting shunned by everyone, and they nearly, NEARLY got through a tax cut that should have had absolutely no chance of passing in this crappy economy.

My two cents... in long form :O

[pphilfran]

I bet Keith has an accountant that spends many hours looking for every tax deduction for good old Keith....

[AlboSooner]

And they haven't produce a single aspect of a liberal agenda since they gained 2/3 of the government.

Yet, the GOP has made sure the people believe the opposite. It is the first time in history, a feat which the French bourgeoisie would have envied, they have made the poor stick up and worry for the cause of the (3-4%) rich. It's rather easy if you're determined: appeal to the noble side, make people believe they came to their own conclusion.

[The]

Yet, the GOP has made sure the people believe the opposite. It is the first time in history, a feat which the French bourgeoisie would have envied, they have made the poor stick up and worry for the cause of the (3-4%) rich. It's rather easy if you're determined: appeal to the noble side, make people believe they came to their own conclusion.

It's sort of like abortion. The GOP will NEVER actually illegalize abortion. It's their Golden Goose of recruiting. Of course, they say they're going to fight for it, but like the Dems and social policy, it's just campaigning.

[pphilfran]

What promise has he really kept?

Letting the tax cuts expire?

Close Guantanamo within his first year in office?

Double renewable energy? Energy dependence?

Transparent? (Currently, the most overused word)

Get us out of Iraq? (Bush signed the deal, but Obama gets the credit for following through)

8% unemployment?

The list could definitely grow with a little effort...

[AlboSooner]

It's sort of like abortion. The GOP will NEVER actually illegalize abortion. It's their Golden Goose of recruiting. Of course, they say they're going to fight for it, but like the Dems and social policy, it's just campaigning.

You are correct. Add gay marriage to that.

[Jammin']

I'd like it noted that if/when I am ever elected to anything I promise to look after my own interests first and foremost. I will, occasionally, think about the welfare of the rest of you people.

I'm in this for the money people.

Vote Jammin in '12.

[NormanPride]

An honest politician. You've got my vote.

[1890MilesToNorman]

The unemployed are jobs creators? OK, whatever. I hope the Liberals choke on Obama, lol

[soonerscuba]

The man can't position himself to force the hand of Republicans to concede a 3.5% increase on .5% of the population, he deserves a primary challenge and he deserves to lose. I was dead wrong in assuming he wouldn't cave so easily.

P.S. Republicans are about half way to never being able to talk about deficits again, see you at the debt ceiling vote!

[soonercruiser]

Oduma LIES!!
(I will use this term when, and as long as he lies to the American people by calling conservatives an Alinskyian name like "holding someone hostage".)

The government, Repubicans, and evil Demoncrats do not own the money that we, and hard working business people make.
They have no right TO TAKE IT AND WASTE IT, like they have for generations!!
:mad:

Oduma will do what it takes to demonize businesses in order to justify the redistribution of wealth - a socialist and communist scheme!
To the Left, extending tax relief is akin to giving new, big tax breaks to big business. The mindless minions of the left just don't have the brain power to think their way through this nonsense.

So, Oduma agrees to extend the Boooooosh tax cuts; and at the same time extends unemployment benefits????? - which will tend to keep unemployment high, by being a disincentive to taking a job of any kind.

I have son in Houston - out of work for over two years. And, he admitted as much at Thanksgiving - that he has no intention of taking a lower paying job as long as he can get unemployment benefits! DUH!
So, we gave him notice - we are no longer subsidizing his dependency on the govment!

[3rdgensooner]

P.S. Republicans are about half way to never being able to talk about deficits again, see you at the debt ceiling vote!
I'm sure the Tea Party is organizing rallies as we speak.

[The]

Oduma LIES!!
(I will use this term when, and as long as he lies to the American people by calling conservatives an Alinskyian name like holding someone hostage)

The government, Repubicans, and evil Demoncrats do not own what we, and hard working business people make.
They have no right TO TAKE IT AND WASTE IT, like they have for generations!!
:mad:

Are you like 12 or something?

[OklahomaTuba]

It is the first time in history, a feat which the French bourgeoisie would have envied, they have made the poor stick up and worry for the cause of the (3-4%) rich.
It's not hard, since most people who still have a job work for "the rich", and would like to keep getting a pay check instead of never ending unemployment checks and food stamps, as the liberals would seem to prefer.

[The]

It's not hard, since most people who still have a job work for those folks, and would like to keep getting a pay check instead of never ending unemployment checks.

Right, because it's taxes that are causing companies to downsize. Not greed.

[JohnnyMack]

Oduma LIES!!
(I will use this term when, and as long as he lies to the American people by calling conservatives an Alinskyian name like holding someone hostage)

The government, Repubicans, and evil Demoncrats do not own what we, and hard working business people make.
They have no right TO TAKE IT AND WASTE IT, like they have for generations!!
:mad:

I hope you're real and not a troll. Because you're just so awesomely crazy I can't stand it. You make RLIMC look like Joseph Ellis.

[bigfatjerk]

What promise has he really kept?

Letting the tax cuts expire?

Close Guantanamo within his first year in office?

Double renewable energy? Energy dependence?

Transparent? (Currently, the most overused word)

Get us out of Iraq? (Bush signed the deal, but Obama gets the credit for following through)

8% unemployment?

The list could definitely grow with a little effort...
He passed the biggest entitlement plan ever in Healthcare.

[OklahomaTuba]

P.S. Republicans are about half way to never being able to talk about deficits again, see you at the debt ceiling vote!

And the democrats have just made sure they can never talk about the merits of raising taxes again.

[The]

He passed the biggest entitlement plan ever in Healthcare.

What would that be? Requiring people to give money to insurance companies? Do some of you even read the news? If you're going to be upset about Healthcare, there's plenty to be upset about without making crap up.

[OklahomaTuba]

Right, because it's taxes that are causing companies to downsize. Not greed.That statement alone shows you know next to nothing about how a small company works.

[JohnnyMack]

Right, because it's taxes that are causing companies to downsize. Not greed.

When companies are allowed to ship jobs overseas where labor is cheaper, they never do it.

When they are afforded tax loopholes and shelters, they never take advantage of them, either.

[The]

That statement alone shows you know next to nothing about how a small company works.

No, it doesn't.

[JohnnyMack]

That statement alone shows you know next to nothing about how a small company works.

I've worked for a small company (4 people) for 12 years now and can assure you that the tax rate has never come into play when deciding whether or not to attempt to grow the company.

[bigfatjerk]

What would that be? Requiring people to give money to insurance companies? Do some of you even read the news? If you're going to be upset about Healthcare, there's plenty to be upset about without making crap up.

It forces people to buy a healthcare plan. Healthcare is basically already too expensive to buy anyway. Now it'll basically price everyone out of it and force them on the government plan. I don't care what the news says I've actually read the damn thing and seen some things that are happening because of the bill already. And it's not even into full effect for 5 years.

[The]

It forces people to buy a healthcare plan. Healthcare is basically already too expensive to buy anyway. Now it'll basically price everyone out of it and force them on the government plan.

What government plan?

[OklahomaTuba]

He passed the biggest entitlement plan ever in Healthcare.Heres another shining example of how obumblefuc is screwing everyone over..


Children’s Hospitals Lose Some Drug Discounts

In an unintended consequence of the new health care law, drug companies have begun notifying children’s hospitals around the country that they no longer qualify for large discounts on drugs used to treat rare medical conditions.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/health/policy/08health.html?ref=us

But thankfully those sick kids can now "qualify" for free physicals and nude photos of themselves at any local airport.

Thanks Brack!

[The]

Heres another shining example of how obumblefuc is screwing everyone over..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/health/policy/08health.html?ref=us

But thankfully those sick kids can get free physicals and nude photos of themselves at any local airport.

Sounds more like greedy drug company executives to me. Maybe we should give them a tax cut....

[soonerscuba]

When companies are allowed to ship jobs overseas where labor is cheaper, they never do it.

When they are afforded tax loopholes and shelters, they never take advantage of them, either.It's also a well established business concept to hire as many people as possible while demand is down.

[bigfatjerk]

Right, because it's taxes that are causing companies to downsize. Not greed.

Companies are downsizing not because of taxes or greed but because the bad economy. And the bigger the government the more money going to these stupid government programs that aren't worth what we put in them, the less money money that is in the private sector to get the economy going.

In 10 years entitlement programs will be at over 100% of GDP. phil has the stats up on several posts here. Medicare by 2015 will cost more than both SS and Military, because EVERYONE will be on it.

[OklahomaTuba]

No wonder The One is less popular than dubya. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/12/07/2010-12-07_president_barack_obamas_approval_rating_is_belo w_george_w_bush_gallup_poll.html)

[soonerscuba]

And the bigger the government the more money going to these stupid government programs that aren't worth what we put in them, the less money money that is in the private sector to get the economy going.Do you have any evidence to suggest that a lack of capital is behind the recession or unemployment?

[Jammin']

The one sure-fire solution to our political issues would be to gather a bunch of semi-informed, highly-opinionated people together in one forum and let them argue about it using only a few sentences at a time.

[The]

Companies are downsizing not because of taxes or greed but because the bad economy. And the bigger the government the more money going to these stupid government programs that aren't worth what we put in them, the less money money that is in the private sector to get the economy going.

In 10 years entitlement programs will be at over 100% of GDP. phil has the stats up on several posts here. Medicare by 2015 will cost more than both SS and Military, because EVERYONE will be on it.

Why the bad economy? Greed in the banking industry.

And, that "GOVERNMENT MONEY" somehow mysteriously vanishes from the economy? What, they keep it in a super-secret GOVERNMENT ECONOMY?

Social security would have been fine if it had been adequately funded and not raided to give tax cuts. I don't remember who said it, but the Conservative plan to destroy social security was called "Starving the Beast". And it's worked. (plus, hyperbole much?)

[The]

The one sure-fire solution to our political issues would be to gather a bunch of semi-informed, highly-opinionated people together in one forum and let them argue about it using only a few sentences at a time.

Silence, pot head.

[bigfatjerk]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that a lack of capital is behind the recession or unemployment?

I know that the more money we print and government tries to spend the less it means. Same thing happened throughout the 30s when FDR and Hoover tried to tax and spend their way out of a recession.

[3rdgensooner]

The one sure-fire solution to our political issues would be to gather a bunch of semi-informed, highly-opinionated people together in one forum and let them argue about it using only a few sentences at a time.

Brilliant!

[The]

I know that the more money we print the less it means. Same thing happened throughout the 40s when FDR and Hoover tried to tax and spend their way out of a recession.

Printed money doesn't matter. We are an electronic economy now.

[soonerscuba]

I know that the more money we print and government tries to spend the less it means. Same thing happened throughout the 30s when FDR and Hoover tried to tax and spend their way out of a recession.You're moving goal posts. You said that taxes results in less money for the private sector, which is true, but this suggests that there is a capital issue within the private sector, which simply isn't the case. 99% of our problems are on the demand side, which IMO, is a consequence of living as a debt soceity (Fed, state, individual) for the last 30 years.

How can you not see that we are not taxing and spending, we are simply spending without funding? We are well past tax cuts being the answer, auesterity is our future, it's only a matter of when and who has the fortitude to do it.

[The]

You're moving goal posts. You said that taxes results in less money for the private sector, which is true, but this suggests that there is a capital issue within the private sector, which simply isn't the case. 99% of our problems are on the demand side, which IMO, is a consequence of living as a debt soceity (Fed, state, individual) for the last 30 years.

How can you not see that we are not taxing and spending, we are simply spending without funding? We are well past tax cuts being the answer, auesterity is our future, it's only a matter of when and who has the fortitude to do it.

Rational discourse has no place in partisan hate.

[bigfatjerk]

Why the bad economy? Greed in the banking industry.

And, that "GOVERNMENT MONEY" somehow mysteriously vanishes from the economy? What, they keep it in a super-secret GOVERNMENT ECONOMY?

Social security would have been fine if it had been adequately funded and not raided to give tax cuts. I don't remember who said it, but the Conservative plan to destroy social security was called "Starving the Beast". And it's worked. (plus, hyperbole much?)

The government made sure that the banks were giving out bad home loans with Freddie and Fannie. One of the few good things Bush tried to do was go after those 18 times during his administration but he failed on a completely party line block. The democrats basically didn't allow him to regulate Freddie and Fannie like it should have been and they ended up destroying the entire industry. It was engineered mostly by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.


Printed money doesn't matter. We are an electronic economy now.


So our money can basically go to a point where it's worth nothing and everything will be fine? No eventually countries won't see our money as worth anything and we will be stuck without any trading partners in the world. Who would really try and attempt to bail out the US? They are having a hard time bailing out countries like Spain, Ireland, Greece, and others in the European Union right now.

[bigfatjerk]

You're moving goal posts. You said that taxes results in less money for the private sector, which is true, but this suggests that there is a capital issue within the private sector, which simply isn't the case. 99% of our problems are on the demand side, which IMO, is a consequence of living as a debt soceity (Fed, state, individual) for the last 30 years.

How can you not see that we are not taxing and spending, we are simply spending without funding? We are well past tax cuts being the answer, auesterity is our future, it's only a matter of when and who has the fortitude to do it.

There is always a capital issue because there's really limited wealth. There's not going to be an unlimited amount of money like you think. I'll agree somewhat that capital isn't an issue at the highest levels. But at the mid levels where most small business is created th ere's definitely capital issues right now.

We need to cut government spending in a large way while we still can. Europe is having a lot of issues right now because they have a populace that is even more entitled than we are. I'm for cutting entitlement programs and as much military as we can.

[The]

The government made sure that the banks were giving out bad home loans with Freddie and Fannie. One of the few good things Bush tried to do was go after those 18 times during his administration but he failed on a completely party line block. The democrats basically didn't allow him to regulate Freddie and Fannie like it should have been and they ended up destroying the entire industry. It was engineered mostly by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

This is my favorite argument. Those poor banks were just forced to hand out bad loans because, gasp, the government allowed them to?

It's not a party line issue. Deregulation in the banking industry by BOTH parties allowed the banks to do what they did. And greed took over. To blame this on one political party or another is absurd.




So our money can basically go to a point where it's worth nothing and everything will be fine? No eventually countries won't see our money as worth anything and we will be stuck without any trading partners in the world. Who would really try and attempt to bail out the US? They are having a hard time bailing out countries like Spain, Ireland, Greece, and others in the European Union right now.

We have a fiat economy. It's more complicated than that.

[achiro]

You know, I've never really understood why this is even an argument between any of "the people"
It would be one thing if the gooberment was being careful with OUR money and then needed more but they aren't. The wasteful spending needs to be controlled before any of us should be ok with them wanting more of it...regardless of tax bracket.

[dwarthog]

I've worked for a small company (4 people) for 12 years now and can assure you that the tax rate has never come into play when deciding whether or not to attempt to grow the company.

Data point of one.

[The]

Data point of one.

If taxes are what is keeping you from being successful, then maybe being successful isn't in your cards in the first place.

[dwarthog]

The one sure-fire solution to our political issues would be to gather a bunch of semi-informed, highly-opinionated people together in one forum and let them argue about it using only a few sentences at a time.

You Sir, are a by God genius!

[bigfatjerk]

You know, I've never really understood why this is even an argument between any of "the people"
It would be one thing if the gooberment was being careful with OUR money and then needed more but they aren't. The wasteful spending needs to be controlled before any of us should be ok with them wanting more of it...regardless of tax bracket.

I think the best way to do this is to take out all special interests by simplifying the tax rate to a point where you can't have deductions in tax or you can't give money to this company or that company specifically in government. Basically get rid of the rigged game we have in Washington right now. But this will never happen.

[picasso]

-G0dIKy3d2s

Many of you bought into the extreme right maniacal ramblings that Obama was a Marxist, a socialist and someone who was bent on the destruction on capitalism and western democracy. I don't imagine you've paid much attention to that fact that the left has totally come unglued because of BHO's concession to the Republicans in regards to the Bush tax cuts.

Looks like the Obama White House has opted to get out the Clinton playbook and govern center-left.

Maybe he got the message from the recent elections and decided he might want another term?
He was labeled a socialist because of how he voted while in Congress and who he's associated himself with in his public and private life.
Have you ever read the theology of his church? Liberation theology ain't centrist stuff Jack.

[soonerscuba]

There is always a capital issue because there's really limited wealth. There's not going to be an unlimited amount of money like you think. I'll agree somewhat that capital isn't an issue at the highest levels. But at the mid levels where most small business is created th ere's definitely capital issues right now.

We need to cut government spending in a large way while we still can. Europe is having a lot of issues right now because they have a populace that is even more entitled than we are. I'm for cutting entitlement programs and as much military as we can.I don't think there is an unlimited amount of money, but the Fed is either A) trying to fight deflation so our soceity of debtors can continue to eek out their payments or B) foist upon the American people a globalist scheme designed to enslave you to a NWO (depending on your point of view).

Here is the rub on small business capital, it requires gov't intervention right now, so you can't be against spending and for capital access, because there isn't a market demand right now on the finance side without D.C. prodding.

I agree that we need to cut services and entitlements, we also need revenue. It doesn't have to be an either/or game.

[JohnnyMack]

Have you ever read the theology of his church?

You forget who you're talking to? :D

Of course I ain't read it.

[tommieharris91]

Oduma LIES!!
(I will use this term when, and as long as he lies to the American people by calling conservatives an Alinskyian name like "holding someone hostage".)

The government, Repubicans, and evil Demoncrats do not own the money that we, and hard working business people make.
They have no right TO TAKE IT AND WASTE IT, like they have for generations!!
:mad:
The Constitution politely disagrees with you.


I have son in Houston - out of work for over two years. And, he admitted as much at Thanksgiving - that he has no intention of taking a lower paying job as long as he can get unemployment benefits! DUH!
So, we gave him notice - we are no longer subsidizing his dependency on the govment!
Unless your son is a Mexican, there isn't one. Unemployment is set at 40 hours per week of minimum wage.

[tommieharris91]

The one sure-fire solution to our political issues would be to gather a bunch of semi-informed, highly-opinionated people together in one forum and let them argue about it using only a few sentences at a time.

This is called Congress.

[tommieharris91]

Printed money doesn't matter. We are an electronic economy now.

Not true. Printed money still matters.

[The]

Not true. Printed money still matters.

To poor people.

[tommieharris91]

If taxes are what is keeping you from being successful, then maybe being successful isn't in your cards in the first place.

Considering how our income tax system actually works, you are certainly correct here. But progressive taxes are socialist, communist, Marxist, and muslim, even though our tax code has featured progressive taxes ever since the passage of Amendment XVI.

[tommieharris91]

To poor people.

No. It really does matter to a lot of people.

That said, I laugh at all of the people who say things like "OMG TEH DOLLER IS WORF 5% FO WHUT IT WUZ IN 1913!!!1!!" It's like they don't understand that a strong dollar might actually be a bad thing. Ohh wait...

[The]

No. It really does matter to a lot of people.

That said, I laugh at all of the people who say things like "OMG TEH DOLLER IS WORF 5% FO WHUT IT WUZ IN 1913!!!1!!" It's they don't understand that a strong dollar might actually be a bad thing. Ohh wait...

I don't touch paper monies, nor coin. To many poor people germs on them.

[JohnnyMack]

I don't touch paper monies, nor coin. To many poor people germs on them.

The glory hole now accepts your debit card?

[The]

The glory hole now accepts your debit card?

No, just my penis.

The girl at the front desk takes my card.

[3rdgensooner]

Maybe one of you can explain to me why my wackadoodle friend has decided that a crisis is imminent, that we may lose basic services, and that I should start stocking up on enough provisions to last for extended downtime?

[The]

Maybe one of you can explain to me why my wackadoodle friend has decided that a crisis is imminent, that we may lose basic services, and that I should start stocking up on enough provisions to last for extended downtime?

Zombies in Malaysia.

[AlboSooner]

Right, because it's taxes that are causing companies to downsize. Not greed.

Astute observation my friend. Even if you take greed out, the trickle down model only works when the economy is good, and only if that 3-4% who is making all money allows it to trickle down.

Wealth is never created in vacuum. The non-wealthy contribute to wealth creation just as the wealthy do.

Funny how nobody complains about governmental healthcare when it comes to senators, congressmen, most government employees, and the terrorists at GITMO.

I guess egalitarian ideas are ok as long as they remain on the paper of the constitution.

[3rdgensooner]

Zombies in Malaysia.
So, they're migrating like the killer bees?

I guess I should give her more credence.

[The]

So, they're migrating like the killer bees?

I guess I should give her more credence.

Is she hot?

[3rdgensooner]

Is she hot?Uh, Ima have to go with no.

[The]

Uh, Ima have to go with no.

Then toss a cup of hot coffee in her face and whack her with your vacuum cleaner.

[JohnnyMack]

No, just my penis.

The girl at the front desk takes my card.

That's a fancy place you've found.

My place I just slide a $20 under the bathroom stall with my foot.

[The]

That's a fancy place you've found.

My place I just slide a $20 under the bathroom stall with my foot.

It's at a Bank of Oklahoma. Most of them have 'holes in the back. Just go to the cashier, produce your card, and tell her that you're here for the gangbang.

[3rdgensooner]

Then toss a cup of hot coffee in her face and whack her with your vacuum cleaner.
Hmmm, don't really make much use of the vacuum cleaner. I'll whack her with a stilleto.

[Jammin']

This is called Congress.

partially my point. it hurts to have to explain the duality of the statement...so I'll ask The to post a picture instead.

[The]

partially my point. it hurts to have to explain the duality of the statement...so I'll ask The to post a picture instead.
http://i.imgur.com/Ka2yc.jpg

[The]

partially my point. it hurts to have to explain the duality of the statement...so I'll ask The to post a picture instead.
http://i.imgur.com/qPoBT.png

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Can anyone point to how they personally benefited from trickle down theory?

I like the CEO of my company, but him getting a tax cut does not mean I gets raise. It means he gets a fatter bank account to look at.

Tax increases do nit stiffle growth. Ten years post initial tax cut and look at where we are. It does not get any more apparent.

[dwarthog]

If taxes are what is keeping you from being successful, then maybe being successful isn't in your cards in the first place.

How successful is successful?

[The]

How successful is successful?

How high is high?

[pphilfran]

Can anyone point to how they personally benefited from trickle down theory?

I like the CEO of my company, but him getting a tax cut does not mean I gets raise. It means he gets a fatter bank account to look at.

Tax increases do nit stiffle growth. Ten years post initial tax cut and look at where we are. It does not get any more apparent.

You can't have taxes at 100% and expect business to grow...

You can't have taxes at 0% and expect government to stay solvent...

Somewhere between those two points is the sweet spot...

As a small business owner I can see half my profit go to fed, state, SS, local, sales, property, and various other taxes...

Taking over half the money that I bust my azz to make is not right...

The tax cut didn't do chit to reduce revenue...lack of GDP growth stymied revenue growth...

Get rid of all the loopholes and outrageous amount of deductions...

Simplify the tax code so 99% of us can do it on the back of a matchbook....and concentrate on growing the economy...

[pphilfran]

Oh, and I am not the billionaire that The is so I don't have a pack of accountants looking for the most effective ways to stash my cash...

[The]

Oh, and I am not the billionaire that The is so I don't have a pack of accountants looking for the most effective ways to stash my cash...


See, there's your mistake right thar.

[pphilfran]

See, there's your mistake right thar.

I know...

I always dreamed of being your fair haired boy...but my tolerance for pain is far too low for your tastes...

[The]

I know...

I always dreamed of being your fair haired boy...but my tolerance for pain is far too low for your tastes...

The opiates help.

[dwarthog]

How high is high?

62 miles above sea level.

[The]

62 miles above sea level.

KGultrg7l0I

[soonercruiser]

That statement alone shows you know next to nothing about how a small company works.

The trools of the LW just repeat Oduma's talking points.
The LW elite think that they know everything about every thing....and that we need them to tell us how to think! Of course he is just employing Alinsky's community organizing tactic of setting up enemies for the "masses". And, of course, this is Obama's only business experience.....community organizing.

If they were soooooo dam* smart, unemployment would be below 8% by now.
"A sucker is born every minute"!
:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

You're moving goal posts. You said that taxes results in less money for the private sector, which is true, but this suggests that there is a capital issue within the private sector, which simply isn't the case. 99% of our problems are on the demand side, which IMO, is a consequence of living as a debt soceity (Fed, state, individual) for the last 30 years.

How can you not see that we are not taxing and spending, we are simply spending without funding? We are well past tax cuts being the answer, auesterity is our future, it's only a matter of when and who has the fortitude to do it.

Good post!
Agree

[soonercruiser]

The Constitution politely disagrees with you.


Unless your son is a Mexican, there isn't one. Unemployment is set at 40 hours per week of minimum wage.

To even post that the Constitution somehow says that my $$ is not mine, but the govments owns all wealth and doles out a little to the individual is simply ludacrous!

The Constitution merely allows the government to "raise revenue".
It's the crooks and politicians (sometimes the same people, like Charlie Rangel) who abuse their power to pillage the worker and businessman - worst yet wasting our tax dollars on vote buying schemes.

[soonercruiser]

I don't touch paper monies, nor coin. To many poor people germs on them.

Now this....I believe!

[soonercruiser]

I know...

I always dreamed of being your fair haired boy...but my tolerance for pain is far too low for your tastes...

Oh! That's why the extracurricular sex costs so much!!!

[AlboSooner]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif

Allows for multi-quoting.

[85Sooner]

The next limousine liberal that uses the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" gets a screwdriver to the left eyeball.

And I'll buy you a new screwdriver.

[85Sooner]

Can anyone point to how they personally benefited from trickle down theory?

I like the CEO of my company, but him getting a tax cut does not mean I gets raise. It means he gets a fatter bank account to look at.

Tax increases do nit stiffle growth. Ten years post initial tax cut and look at where we are. It does not get any more apparent.

It works when you not living in the highest tax rate in the corporate world. How do you think you got a job again?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Frankly, I'm surprised that there was even a compromise on the table, considering the left still has the Congress and President and if there isn't an agreement soon, if there isn't any common ground to be heard of, doesn't that mean that the tax cuts for everyone just expire? Doesn't there NEED to be legislation in order for tax cuts to anyone to continue?


The left doesn't have the Congress. All those Blue Dogs that were strong-armed by Pelosi to vote for health care and are now heading out the door no longer have any incentive to toe the party line.

[The]

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u108/TheSooner/liberals.jpg

[tommieharris91]

To even post that the Constitution somehow says that my $$ is not mine, but the govments owns all wealth and doles out a little to the individual is simply ludacrous!


The congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
You said the government doesn't have the right to take away people's money. Now tell me; why do you hate the US Constitution?

The rest of your drivel might as well have come from Rush Limbaugh.

[soonerscuba]

It works when you not living in the highest tax rate in the corporate world. How do you think you got a job again?Ireland is doing AWESOME!

[Caboose]

You said the government doesn't have the right to take away people's money. Now tell me; why do you hate the US Constitution?

The rest of your drivel might as well have come from Rush Limbaugh.

Thats not what he said. At least not in the statement you quoted.

[OUthunder]

-G0dIKy3d2s

Many of you bought into the extreme right maniacal ramblings that Obama was a Marxist, a socialist and someone who was bent on the destruction on capitalism and western democracy. I don't imagine you've paid much attention to that fact that the left has totally come unglued because of BHO's concession to the Republicans in regards to the Bush tax cuts.

Looks like the Obama White House has opted to get out the Clinton playbook and govern center-left.


What choice did he have? He wants another term and most Americans think that he's done a crappy job thus far.

He's a progressive, that's all I gots to say.

[SoonerScribe]

Can anyone point to how they personally benefited from trickle down theory?

I like the CEO of my company, but him getting a tax cut does not mean I gets raise. It means he gets a fatter bank account to look at.

Tax increases do nit stiffle growth. Ten years post initial tax cut and look at where we are. It does not get any more apparent.

Let's take a look at 'trickle down'.

First off, how many jobs do poor people create?

Do you work for someone poor? No. Your CEO has a big fat bank account. Okay, try to follow along. Your CEO buys a new boat. 'Trickle Down'! The people who built that boat are personally benefiting. Your boss has a new huge azz house built. 'Trickle Down'! Everyone involved in the construction process benefits personally. I'm sure your CEO spends loads of cash... trickle... trickle... trickle...

Is this really so hard to comprehend?

Or, the Government can TAKE more of your CEO's money and spend it how THEY see fit. How much should he be taxed? 70% 80%? How 'bout 100%? Come on, he doesn't need it. Spread the wealth. After your CEO is taxed out of business, guess what? Then YOU won't personally benefit from jack. Get to the end of the line, hand out, here's your Gubment check... move along.

[tommieharris91]

Thats not what he said. At least not in the statement you quoted.
Really?


Oduma LIES!!
The government, Repubicans, and evil Demoncrats do not own the money that we, and hard working business people make.
They have no right TO TAKE IT AND WASTE IT, like they have for generations!!

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Let's take a look at 'trickle down'.

First off, how many jobs do poor people create?

Do you work for someone poor? No. Your CEO has a big fat bank account. Okay, try to follow along. Your CEO buys a new boat. 'Trickle Down'! The people who built that boat are personally benefiting. Your boss has a new huge azz house built. 'Trickle Down'! Everyone involved in the construction process benefits personally. I'm sure your CEO spends loads of cash... trickle... trickle... trickle...

Is this really so hard to comprehend?

Or, the Government can TAKE more of your CEO's money and spend it how THEY see fit. How much should he be taxed? 70% 80%? How 'bout 100%? Come on, he doesn't need it. Spread the wealth. After your CEO is taxed out of business, guess what? Then YOU won't personally benefit from jack. Get to the end of the line, hand out, here's your Gubment check... move along.

90% on earnings over $2.5 million.
50% on earnings over $1 million.

I don't want handouts from the government, I want a solvent government. People earning that much money simply don't need it. If the Bush tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't be at 10% unemployment 10 years after they have been imposed.

[Caboose]

Really?

Yes. That is really not what you quoted.

And really, even in the second snippet you brought up you misquoted him. You claimed he said that the government did not have the right to take to take away people's money, when in actuality he said the government doesn't have the right to take away peoples money AND waste it. Furthermore, he is factually correct however you decide to parse it because the government doesn't have ANY "rights" at all. The people have rights, not the government. The government has powers afforded to it by the will of the people.

[SCOUT]

90% on earnings over $2.5 million.
50% on earnings over $1 million.

I don't want handouts from the government, I want a solvent government. People earning that much money simply don't need it. If the Bush tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't be at 10% unemployment 10 years after they have been imposed.

Yikes.

I have decided that you don't need 2/3 of what you earn, so please deposit that at the local IRS office tomorrow. Thanks.

[XingTheRubicon]

90% on earnings over $2.5 million.
50% on earnings over $1 million.

I don't want handouts from the government, I want a solvent government. People earning that much money simply don't need it. If the Bush tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't be at 10% unemployment 10 years after they have been imposed.


If only ignorance could be incredibly painful.

[bigfatjerk]

90% on earnings over $2.5 million.
50% on earnings over $1 million.

I don't want handouts from the government, I want a solvent government. People earning that much money simply don't need it. If the Bush tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't be at 10% unemployment 10 years after they have been imposed.

A little history lesson on taxing the rich like crazy. We've done it a lot in history. All it does is gets the rich to hide their wealth and suddenly show they are not as rich even if they still are.

Can Republicans Talk?

By Thomas Sowell

Guess who said the following: "It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to his Government should remain unaltered."

Franklin D. Roosevelt? Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi?

Not even close. It was Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury under conservative Republican President Calvin Coolidge.

What was Mellon's point? That high tax rates do not necessarily result in high tax revenues to the government. "It is time to face the facts," he said. Merely having high tax rates on large incomes will not bring in more tax revenues to the treasury, because of "the flight of capital away from taxable investments."

This was all said in 1924, in Mellon's book, "Taxation: The People's Business." Yet here we are, more than 80 years later, still not facing those facts.

It is not just a question of what Andrew Mellon said. It is a question of hard facts, easily checked in official documents available to all-- and ignored all these years.

Internal Revenue Service data show that there were 206 people who reported annual incomes of one million dollars or more in 1916. But, as the tax rate on high incomes skyrocketed under the Woodrow Wilson administration, that number plummeted to just 21 people reporting a million dollars a year in income five years later.

What happened to all those millionaires? Did they flee the country? Were they stricken with fatal diseases? Did they meet with foul play?

Not to worry. Right after Congress enacted the cuts in tax rates that Mellon had been urging, there were suddenly 207 people reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more in 1925. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." It is on page 21 of an Internal Revenue publication titled "Statistics of Income from Returns of Net Income for 1925."

Where had all the income of those millionaires been hiding? In tax-exempt securities like state and local bonds, among other places. Mellon had urged Congress to end tax exemptions for such securities, even before he got them to cut tax rates. But he succeeded only with the latter, and only after a political struggle with those who made the same kinds of arguments that are still being made today by those who cry out against "tax cuts for the rich."

Still, one out of two is not bad, when it comes to getting Congress to do something that makes sense economically, rather than something that looks good politically.

The government, which collected less than $50 million in taxes on capital gains in 1924, suddenly collected well over $100 million in capital gains taxes in 1925. At lower tax rates, it no longer made sense to keep so much invested in tax-exempt securities, when more money could be made by investing in the economy.

As for "the rich"-- who really were rich in those days, when $100,000 was worth more than a million dollars is worth today-- those in the highest income brackets paid 30 percent of all taxes in 1920 and 65 percent of all taxes by 1929, after "tax cuts for the rich."

How can that be? Because high tax rates on paper, that many people avoid, often does not bring in as much tax revenue as lower tax rates that more people actually pay, after it is safe to come out of tax shelters and earn higher rates of taxable income.

The investors do this because it makes them better off, on net balance, even after they pay more money in taxes on incomes that have gone up. More important, the economy benefits when there is more investment in things that create more jobs and rising output.

None of this was unique to the 1920s. The same scenario played out again in later years, during the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43 administrations.

But economic success is not the same as political success. As former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it, "Demagoguery beats data."

As long as the voters keep buying the "tax cuts for the rich" demagoguery, politicians will keep selling it. And it will keep selling as long as it goes unanswered. The question is whether today's Republicans understand that as well as Andrew Mellon did back in the 1920s.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/01/can_republicans_talk_part_ii_108105.html

[soonercruiser]

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u108/TheSooner/liberals.jpg

Maybe WORST!

[AlboSooner]

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/Darth-twitty.gif

[Sooner_Havok]

If democrats are p*ssed at Obama for not being "progressive" enough, and republicans are p*ssed at Obama for being a far left, socialist, communist, what does this say about politics in this country?

[soonerinkaty]

90% on earnings over $2.5 million.
50% on earnings over $1 million.

I don't want handouts from the government, I want a solvent government. People earning that much money simply don't need it. If the Bush tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't be at 10% unemployment 10 years after they have been imposed.

Dude. SHEYAT. The rich tend to create jobs with their moolah, I would be unemployed if this tax rate was in place.

[soonerinkaty]

If democrats are p*ssed at Obama for not being "progressive" enough, and republicans are p*ssed at Obama for being a far left, socialist, communist, what does this say about politics in this country?

That the loser wins.

[AlboSooner]

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/Clint.gif

[AlboSooner]

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/Carlton.gif

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n501/billmilo/Clint.gif

This is me. I am a modern Clint.:texan:

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Many of you will be happy to know that I have decided the Estate Tax at 50% on estates at $1million was ridiculous.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Dude. SHEYAT. The rich tend to create jobs with their moolah, I would be unemployed if this tax rate was in place.

No you would not. The company you work for could potentially be a better and bigger company. Big earners would invest their money in their companies, and in growing America instead of trying to get a Scrooge McDuck money pit.

[dwarthog]

90% on earnings over $2.5 million.
50% on earnings over $1 million.

I don't want handouts from the government, I want a solvent government. People earning that much money simply don't need it. If the Bush tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't be at 10% unemployment 10 years after they have been imposed.

:eek:

With a little BDS thrown in for good measure.

[Sooner_Havok]

The middle class is the engine of our economy. They have just enough money to spend, but not enough money to hoard. If you distribute money to the middle class, nearly 98% of that money will flow through our economy, and wind up in the hands of the wealthy top 2%. Now, do this in reverse, and distribute money to the top 2% first, and 98% of it stays there. Now, I am not an economist, nor have I ever claimed to be, but it seems that the economy needs the money to actually move in order for the economy to grow.

[NormanPride]

What's the old saying? Rich people didn't get that way by spending money?

[Caboose]

The middle class is the engine of our economy. They have just enough money to spend, but not enough money to hoard. If you distribute money to the middle class, nearly 98% of that money will flow through our economy, and wind up in the hands of the wealthy top 2%. Now, do this in reverse, and distribute money to the top 2% first, and 98% of it stays there. Now, I am not an economist, nor have I ever claimed to be, but it seems that the economy needs the money to actually move in order for the economy to grow.

Money isn't "distributed" in our economy. Thus the very idea of "re-distributing" the wealth is flawed from the start. Also, in regards to tax breaks, which your post seems to be addressing, the idea of using the word "distribute" when describing the act of NOT taking someones money from them at gunpoint is laughable. How could you have even thought of using that term unless you started with the default mindset that all money belongs by default to the government?

Hey I didn't mug that guy today so that must mean I "distributed" money to him! Huh? What? No.

[Turd_Ferguson]

What's the old saying? Rich people didn't get that way by spending money?No, it's "You gotta spend money to make money".

[bigfatjerk]

You don't redistribute money. All government does is either take money and spend it on projects it can spend on. Or it makes sure it can't take money. In this government can't just redistribute wealth. It's trying to though.

Taxing the rich like crazy is just flawed and has never worked. Look at the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s when we cut down the tax rates. Suddenly more money was coming into the government with less tax rates. Because more people paid taxes. In this system if a millionaire or billionaire is smart they can find deductions, or hide income and give out less tax. And I see nothing wrong with that. If you have that choice you should do it.

[Jammin']

What's the old saying? Rich people didn't get that way by spending money?

I think they were talking about Jews.

[My Opinion Matters]

Save me some dark meat. HAHAHAHA! Did someone already say that? I'm not reading through 7 pages to find out.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Save me some dark meat. HAHAHAHA! Did someone already say that? I'm not reading through 7 pages to find out.You racist bastard!!!

[Sooner_Havok]

Money isn't "distributed" in our economy. Thus the very idea of "re-distributing" the wealth is flawed from the start. Also, in regards to tax breaks, which your post seems to be addressing, the idea of using the word "distribute" when describing the act of NOT taking someones money from them at gunpoint is laughable. How could you have even thought of using that term unless you started with the default mindset that all money belongs by default to the government?

Hey I didn't mug that guy today so that must mean I "distributed" money to him! Huh? What? No.

The fact that you don't believe that our system is nothing more than a mechanism designed to distribute money from one class to another is laughable at best. If our system wasn't designed to take money from 98% of Americans and concentrate it in the hands of 2% of Americans, then our system would be a total failure. I'm not even saying that this is a bad thing, it's not. We need this massive flow of money from the middle class the the ultra wealthy. It creates demand, which creates jobs, which creates more demand, which creates more jobs...

But by trying and hide the fact that our system is nothing but a huge wealth redistribution plan you are just lying to yourself. All I am pointing out is that if the middle class are given a tax cut, and the top 2% aren't, it helps everyone, not just the middle class. Give everyone a tax cut, then cut medicare/medicade, social security, unemployment insurance, and education, then you really aren't giving the middle class a break. You are giving relief to the upper class (who have no need, and thus rarely make use of these to-be-cut programs) and putting money in one pocket of the middle class, only to take more money out of the other pocket.

By only giving the tax breaks to the "bottom" 98% of Americans, you would have increased the amount of money that would actually be flowing through our economy. And care to take a guess where that flow leads? Yup, straight to the top 2%. So, by "increasing" (not really an increase, just an expiration of existing tax cuts) on the top 2% you are actually increasing the amount of money that the "bottom" 98% of Americans are willing to funnel towards the top 2%, completely offsetting this perceived tax hike, and most likely netting more money for the top 2%. The problem is we live in a society of "MOTHER F*CKING NOW!!!!!" If I told you you could have $100 today, or $150 next year, what you you take? Sure, in the long run you would be better off with the 150, but you wouldn't have it NOW!

[SCOUT]

The fact that you don't believe that our system is nothing more than a mechanism designed to distribute money from one class to another is laughable at best. If our system wasn't designed to take money from 98% of Americans and concentrate it in the hands of 2% of Americans, then our system would be a total failure. I'm not even saying that this is a bad thing, it's not. We need this massive flow of money from the middle class the the ultra wealthy. It creates demand, which creates jobs, which creates more demand, which creates more jobs...

But by trying and hide the fact that our system is nothing but a huge wealth redistribution plan you are just lying to yourself. All I am pointing out is that if the middle class are given a tax cut, and the top 2% aren't, it helps everyone, not just the middle class. Give everyone a tax cut, then cut medicare/medicade, social security, unemployment insurance, and education, then you really aren't giving the middle class a break. You are giving relief to the upper class (who have no need, and thus rarely make use of these to-be-cut programs) and putting money in one pocket of the middle class, only to take more money out of the other pocket.

By only giving the tax breaks to the "bottom" 98% of Americans, you would have increased the amount of money that would actually be flowing through our economy. And care to take a guess where that flow leads? Yup, straight to the top 2%. So, by "increasing" (not really an increase, just an expiration of existing tax cuts) on the top 2% you are actually increasing the amount of money that the "bottom" 98% of Americans are willing to funnel towards the top 2%, completely offsetting this perceived tax hike, and most likely netting more money for the top 2%. The problem is we live in a society of "MOTHER F*CKING NOW!!!!!" If I told you you could have $100 today, or $150 next year, what you you take? Sure, in the long run you would be better off with the 150, but you wouldn't have it NOW!

You seem preoccupied with the figure of 98%. I know it sounds like an imposing number and all, but where did you get it for either of your posts? In this post, you are kind of ignoring the fact that about 50% of the "bottom" aren't paying any taxes. It is hard to reduce from zero.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

90% on earnings over $2.5 million.
50% on earnings over $1 million.

I don't want handouts from the government, I want a solvent government. People earning that much money simply don't need it. If the Bush tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't be at 10% unemployment 10 years after they have been imposed.

How much do you make. I just want to tax 90% of that amount.

[Sooner_Havok]

You seem preoccupied with the figure of 98%. I know it sounds like an imposing number and all, but where did you get it for either of your posts? In this post, you are kind of ignoring the fact that about 50% of the "bottom" aren't paying any taxes. It is hard to reduce from zero.

I got 98% because the proposed raise in taxes was to only affect 2% of the American population.

And, to be fair here, yes the poorest Americans don't pay any taxes. But, let's be honest with ourselves here, without a poor, ignorant, exploitable workforce, the rich wouldn't be able to make nearly as much money. I know it sounds harsh, but we really do need to be able to stand on the backs of the poor, or our whole system comes crashing down. Is it what I would wish for in a perfect world? No, but this is not now, nor will it ever be, a perfect world. If someone must be exploited for me to live the style of life I want to, so be it. If it takes paying no taxes to keep them happily immersed in NASCAR and cheap beer so be it.

Plus, being honest again, the bottom 50% of this country earn less, considerably less, than the top 2%. Even if taxed evenly, at the same rate, this bottom 50% would be kicking in only a nickel for every $.90 the top 2% kick in. Let them keep their nickel if it means we can exploit them a little more.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

How much do you make. I just want to tax 90% of that amount.

I make 55k. I am not stating that I want to tax them for 90% on all income. But 90% on income after a certain point. Do you understand the basics of a tiered tax system?

[DIB]

I make 55k. I am not stating that I want to tax them for 90% on all income. But 90% on income after a certain point. Do you understand the basics of a tiered tax system?

That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. YOU don't think they need that much money, so you are going to take away 90% of their income above an arbitrary number you select. You are just going to force people to hide their income. All that system does is disincent people from earning above a certain income level. Why would I work harder, if I only get to keep 10% of it?

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Because you like money. You are acting like people aim to just touch the highest tax bracket and that is it.

People making Scrooge McDuck amounts of money do it because they are driven and there is no way they would stop making money just because they don't want to be taxed.

The point is to reinvest the money the company makes, not funnel it off the top and into the money pit in your back yard where you pay a couple of Mexicans $10 an hour to maintain.

[DIB]

Because you like money. You are acting like people aim to just touch the highest tax bracket and that is it.

People making Scrooge McDuck amounts of money do it because they are driven and there is no way they would stop making money just because they don't want to be taxed.

The point is to reinvest the money the company makes, not funnel it off the top and into the money pit in your back yard where you pay a couple ofexicans $10 an hour to maintain it.

Then make reinvestment tax deductible. Then Scrooge will funnel his money back into his or other companies, instead of his money pit. This would incent investment over hoarding without funneling the money through the government.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Because you like money. You are acting like people aim to just touch the highest tax bracket and that is it.

People making Scrooge McDuck amounts of money do it because they are driven and there is no way they would stop making money just because they don't want to be taxed.

The point is to reinvest the money the company makes, not funnel it off the top and into the money pit in your back yard where you pay a couple ofexicans $10 an hour to maintain it.I think your young, dumb and full of stupid.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

I think your young, dumb and full of stupid.

thank you for this insightful and on topic post.

[Sooner_Havok]

That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. YOU don't think they need that much money, so you are going to take away 90% of their income above an arbitrary number you select. You are just going to force people to hide their income. All that system does is disincent people from earning above a certain income level. Why would I work harder, if I only get to keep 10% of it?

Because 10% of a million is more than 100% of zero?

Look, I am not for taxing the ever loving **** out of the rich, but we have to throw a few bones at the lower class every now and then, or they get pissed and we have labor problems akin to Europe. There is no doubt a line in the sand. Give up to much and the benefits the upper class receives from the work of the lower class are no longer worth the sacrifices being made. We are no where near that line yet. Let the lower classes feel that they win a battle every now and again, it keeps them content and in their place.

Hell, keep your bugatti veyron, but for the love of god, don't drive it to the office.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Then make reinvestment tax deductible. Then Scrooge will funnel his money back into his or other companies, instead of his money pit. This would incent investment over hoarding without funneling the money through the government.

this sounds great. Business owners pay themselves less, lowering their taxes, then use the money left over to expand payroll, buy buildings, develop products.

That is what I want to happen. This is what we are trying to incentivize.

[OklahomaTuba]

Look, I am not for taxing the ever loving **** out of the rich, but we have to throw a few bones at the lower class every now and then, or they get pissed and we have labor problems akin to Europe.Yes, cause throwing trillions at "the lower class" has been so effective to date.

You do realize the problems Europe is having are exactly because they have been "throwing bones at the lower class" for generations, right??

[OklahomaTuba]

this sounds great. Business owners pay themselves less, lowering their taxes, then use the money left over to expand payroll, buy buildings, develop products.

That is what I want to happen. This is what we are trying to incentivize.So how does the government taking more money make the economy better?

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

So how does the government taking more money make the economy better?

you do understand we are at a 13 trillion dollar deficit, right?

[Sooner_Havok]

Yes, cause throwing trillions at "the lower class" has been so effective to date.

You do realize the problems Europe is having are exactly because they have been "throwing bones at the lower class" for generations, right??

You're right, we have had so many lower class uprisings in the last decade...

Look, Europe crossed the line. They gave in to much. Like I said, we are nowhere near that line yet. If it takes an extra 5% of my income to insure that the uneducated masses stay content with their lot in life, and don't actually try and rise up against the system that has benefitted me so much, so be it.

Plus, part of that 5% more I am now lossing goes to the military and police, that help in keeping the few that chose to rise up down. I am actually fine with this system. I maintain my quality of life, and the people who's back I am standing on think that they have won a major battle. They haven't, and I am still going to wind up with their money in the long run, but they think they won, and that makes them happy.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

You're right, we have had so many lower class uprisings in the last decade...

Look, Europe crossed the line. They gave in to much. Like I said, we are nowhere near that line yet. If it takes an extra 5% of my income to insure that the uneducated masses stay content with their lot in life, and don't actually try and rise up against the system that has benefitted me so much, so be it.

Plus, part of that 5% more I am now lossing goes to the military and police, that help in keeping the few that chose to rise up down. I am actually fine with this system. I maintain my quality of life, and the people who's back I am standing on think that they have won a major battle. They haven't, and I am still going to wind up with their money in the long run, but they think they won, and that makes them happy.

This sounds evil. But the logic is sound and realistic, kudos.

[Sooner_Havok]

This sounds evil. But the logic is sound and realistic, kudos.

Look, I'm not proud of it. Like I said, in a perfect world, everyone would have everything they wanted. This is not a perfect world, and I look out for #1. Do I like knowing that my quality of life is based on the underpaid labor of others? No. Do I lose any sleep over it? No. The system is what it is, and I for one am for protecting the current system (and my place in it by proxy) by any means necessary. As long as I don't have to give up too much, or as long as I only have to appear to be giving things up to maintain this system, so be it.

[Caboose]

The fact that you don't believe that our system is nothing more than a mechanism designed to distribute money from one class to another is laughable at best. If our system wasn't designed to take money from 98% of Americans and concentrate it in the hands of 2% of Americans, then our system would be a total failure. I'm not even saying that this is a bad thing, it's not. We need this massive flow of money from the middle class the the ultra wealthy. It creates demand, which creates jobs, which creates more demand, which creates more jobs...

But by trying and hide the fact that our system is nothing but a huge wealth redistribution plan you are just lying to yourself. All I am pointing out is that if the middle class are given a tax cut, and the top 2% aren't, it helps everyone, not just the middle class. Give everyone a tax cut, then cut medicare/medicade, social security, unemployment insurance, and education, then you really aren't giving the middle class a break. You are giving relief to the upper class (who have no need, and thus rarely make use of these to-be-cut programs) and putting money in one pocket of the middle class, only to take more money out of the other pocket.

By only giving the tax breaks to the "bottom" 98% of Americans, you would have increased the amount of money that would actually be flowing through our economy. And care to take a guess where that flow leads? Yup, straight to the top 2%. So, by "increasing" (not really an increase, just an expiration of existing tax cuts) on the top 2% you are actually increasing the amount of money that the "bottom" 98% of Americans are willing to funnel towards the top 2%, completely offsetting this perceived tax hike, and most likely netting more money for the top 2%. The problem is we live in a society of "MOTHER F*CKING NOW!!!!!" If I told you you could have $100 today, or $150 next year, what you you take? Sure, in the long run you would be better off with the 150, but you wouldn't have it NOW!

All I get out of this is that you dont know what the word distribute means.

[dwarthog]

You're right, we have had so many lower class uprisings in the last decade...

Look, Europe crossed the line. They gave in to much. Like I said, we are nowhere near that line yet. If it takes an extra 5% of my income to insure that the uneducated masses stay content with their lot in life, and don't actually try and rise up against the system that has benefitted me so much, so be it.

Plus, part of that 5% more I am now lossing goes to the military and police, that help in keeping the few that chose to rise up down. I am actually fine with this system. I maintain my quality of life, and the people who's back I am standing on think that they have won a major battle. They haven't, and I am still going to wind up with their money in the long run, but they think they won, and that makes them happy.

The problem with this scenario is short of population control, you won't be able to keep the demographics in your favor.

Look at the numbers now. 50% of the population in this country pays less than 3% percent of the taxes. I would say the critical tipping point is here now.

[Sooner_Havok]

The problem with this scenario is short of population control, you won't be able to keep the demographics in your favor.

Look at the numbers now. 50% of the population in this country pays less than 3% percent of the taxes. I would say the critical tipping point is here now.

And 2% of the population earn 80% of the income. What's your point?

[SoonerScribe]

I make 55k. I am not stating that I want to tax them for 90% on all income. But 90% on income after a certain point. Do you understand the basics of a tiered tax system?

Okay, let's start taxing 90% on income over 50k. That seems like a good place to start. Not such a good idea now, huh? It never is when you're the one being taxed at a ridiculous rate.
Why not come up with some arbitrary number, lets say $55k per year, and EVERYONE earns that amount, not a cent more. No matter what your occupation: pro athlete, CEO, fast food worker, you make $55k and all the excess goes to the Government. Because we all know the Government knows how to spend OUR money better than we do.

Wait. I've got an even better idea. The Government can dictate what everyone's career will be. Then we won't actually earn anything. The all mighty Government can PROVIDE everyone with minimal housing, food, clothes, etc... Sounds like a utopia, huh? Everyone jump on your unicorn, and off we go, spreading fairy dust over the lollipop houses as we soar through a marmalade sky.

[JohnnyMack]

Fairy. Dust.

[JohnnyMack]

Soar.

[Sooner_Havok]

All I get out of this is that you dont know what the word distribute means.

Government: Hey rich, I am taking some more of your money to give to the poor.

Rich: **** you!

Government: Here is some money poor.

Poor: Sweet, going to use this ****!

Poor: Hey rich, can I get some cigarettes, a new flat screen tv, and a big mac?

Rich: Sure, but the prices have gone up cause the government took all our money and gave it to you.

Poor: Well damn. But, I need my smokes, fox news, and junk food...Ok

Rich: Holly ****, we just got more money back than the government took from us. Those poor dumb bastards not only gave us the money the government took from us right back, they threw in a large chunk of their own money too!

Government: Time to pay taxes rich!

Rich: **** you, we never get anything out of this deal, you are just redistributing our wealth to the poor! We are going broke over here!

Me: Face palm.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I make 55k. I am not stating that I want to tax them for 90% on all income. But 90% on income after a certain point. Do you understand the basics of a tiered tax system?


I just want a 1 tier tax system. If you make 55k you pay 90% of your money to the gov't. How about that?

[SpankyNek]

Let's take a look at 'trickle down'.

First off, how many jobs do poor people create?

Do you work for someone poor? No. Your CEO has a big fat bank account. Okay, try to follow along. Your CEO buys a new boat. 'Trickle Down'! The people who built that boat are personally benefiting. Your boss has a new huge azz house built. 'Trickle Down'! Everyone involved in the construction process benefits personally. I'm sure your CEO spends loads of cash... trickle... trickle... trickle...

Is this really so hard to comprehend?

Or, the Government can TAKE more of your CEO's money and spend it how THEY see fit. How much should he be taxed? 70% 80%? How 'bout 100%? Come on, he doesn't need it. Spread the wealth. After your CEO is taxed out of business, guess what? Then YOU won't personally benefit from jack. Get to the end of the line, hand out, here's your Gubment check... move along.

I have not been on o political topic in a while, but I will gracefully disagree with you on this one.

People with less money spend more money.

For every fat cat that buys a $50,000 boat there are 1 million poor people buying McDoubles for $1.

The US economy is 100% vested in service industry dollars (And the energy that that sector needs to survive).

The current economic state of the Union is dependant on those that make less than $75,000/yr to keep it afloat...not the other way around.

[SoonerScribe]

Fairy. Dust.

that too...

fify

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

I just want a 1 tier tax system. If you make 55k you pay 90% of your money to the gov't. How about that?

if we have a one tier system with a 90% rate then we would have housing, health care, social security, massive programs all paid for.

I see nothing wrong with this, if we are all going to go all in.

I am not , nor have I ever argued that we should tax all income at 90%, you are trying to put me in this funny "gotcha" scenario that exists in your mind.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

if we have a one tier system with a 90% rate then we would have housing, health care, social security, massive programs all paid for.

I see nothing wrong with this, if we are all going to go all in.

I am not , nor have I ever argued that we should tax all income at 90%, you are trying to put me in this funny "gotcha" scenario that exists in your mind.

No you don't understand. i just want specifically people that make $55K to pay 90% of their income in taxes. The rest of us ride free.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

No you don't understand. i just want specifically people that make $55K to pay 90% of their income in taxes. The rest of us ride free.

oh that is cool too.

I don't understand how your point contributes to the discussion. Explain how you could see this system working.

[Soonerman82]

:pop:

[SoonerScribe]

oh that is cool too.

I don't understand how your point contributes to the discussion. Explain how you could see this system working.

This guy walks in a bar. He tells the bartender, "I make 55k a year"... then... oh never mind.

[pphilfran]

The following chart compares AGI (all I have to work with) from 1993 and 2007..IRS data...

There are an additional 325k returns showing more than a million...

3,2 million more people making between 200k and a million...

25 more million returns making between 50k and 200k...

Those reporting less than 50k stayed the same...

Probably more import is the last column...

Shows where most of the money flowed...50k and above showed growth...those making less than 50k got their butts hammered...they did not keep up with inflation...

We want to grow those upper brackets...the more people we get up there the better off we all will be...

But how can that be accomplished?

We can tax the snot out of the better off and give it to those with less...

Or we can find out why those in the upper brackets were successful...and I would imagine education/training/skills/risktaking/strong worth ethic are common to many....

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/agichange.jpg

[Bourbon St Sooner]

oh that is cool too.

I don't understand how your point contributes to the discussion. Explain how you could see this system working.

I just thought it makes as much sense as your system.

[pphilfran]

It might have been on another thread but a poster was talking about how the last 10 years were the cause of the recession and banking meltdown...

Two words...

Brooksley Born

PBS Frontline...The Warning

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

Cliff notes version...

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

"It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience."

[dwarthog]

And 2% of the population earn 80% of the income. What's your point?

My point would be that you might want to state that differently.


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k19/dwarthog/income_distribution.png

[soonercruiser]

You said the government doesn't have the right to take away people's money. Now tell me; why do you hate the US Constitution?

The rest of your drivel might as well have come from Rush Limbaugh.

YOU ARE WRONG!
Read my post again....on Dec 8th I said...


Oduma LIES!!
(I will use this term when, and as long as he lies to the American people by calling conservatives an Alinskyian name like "holding someone hostage".)

The government, Repubicans, and evil Demoncrats do not own the money that we, and hard working business people make.

I stand by my statement that Congress does not OWN the money I earn.
Yes, they apparently have the right to tax it, and waste it...which you are apparently happy with. BUT, THEY DO NOT OWN MY MONEY!

[soonercruiser]

Really?

Duh!
It's English.

[soonercruiser]

If democrats are p*ssed at Obama for not being "progressive" enough, and republicans are p*ssed at Obama for being a far left, socialist, communist, what does this say about politics in this country?

It simply shows that about half of America has abandoned the Constitution and it's value therein contained.
:O

[soonercruiser]

What's the old saying? Rich people didn't get that way by spending money?

But, smart rich people will invest their money in something that can increase or multiply it!

[TitoMorelli]

I have not been on o political topic in a while, but I will gracefully disagree with you on this one.



jlz0he9rtKw :D ;) :D

[SpankyNek]

Good to see ya, Tito....
looks like some folks made it over here.
Looking forward to future discussions (After Finals)

[TitoMorelli]

Always good to see you on the sites, Spanky. Hope you ace all your exams.

[MamaMia]

It's not hard, since most people who still have a job work for "the rich", and would like to keep getting a pay check instead of never ending unemployment checks and food stamps, as the liberals would seem to prefer.I've ran across a LOT of young, able bodied people who would rather not have to work as long as they're "collecting."

[swardboy]

Extending the current tax rate is not a tax cut! It's maintaining status quo. A true tax cut would set the economy on fire and put people back to work.

And tax cuts don't cost....spending costs.