PDA

View Full Version : It is amazing that people will vote for Obama despite Mitt's tax plan



NF0913
10-05-2012, 07:46 AM
mitt wants to reduce tax rates by 20%, while obama would like to raise taxes on high-income earners.

despite the fact that americans will see their marginal tax rate decline by 20% under mitt romney as president, they continue to support obama's tax plans in the name of "fairness" even if they will be worse off under it.

here is what has happened...

mitt proposes 20% rate cuts for EVERYONE
team obama claims it will hurt the deficit too much because he won't make it up in loophole/deduction cutoffs
obama supporters go gangbusters over this new revelation, despite the fact that the national debt has increased by $6T under their messiah.

where is the logic here?

this reminds me of the study done where americans would rather make more salary than their neighbors, even if they are making less overall... example,

choice between you making $50K and neighbor making $60K, or you making $40K and neighbor making $30K.... most would choose the 2nd option.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 07:56 AM
The whole "5 trillion" thing is made up, but it is funny that they worst thing that they can come up with about Romney's tax plan is "OMG he's going to give you a big tax cut and let you keep more of your money!!"


Per the Dems we should vote for the guy who is going to run up the deficit by giving your money to someone else, over the guy who is going to run up the deficit by letting you keep your money

NF0913
10-05-2012, 07:58 AM
The whole "5 trillion" thing is made up, but it is funny that they worst thing that they can come up with about Romney's tax plan is "OMG he's going to give you a big tax cut and let you keep more of your money!!"


Per the Dems we should vote for the guy who is going to run up the deficit by giving your money to someone else, over the guy who is going to run up the deficit by letting you keep your money

exactly.

the $5T thing isn't exactly 'made up', but the dems are trying to overblow it. mitt technically is cutting taxes by $5T on one side of the equation, but on the other, he is closing loopholes/deductions to offset that tax-cut. it doesn't mean all $5T of it will be offset, however, i think it's safe to assume that there won't be a multi-trillion dollar gap in the cuts and offsetting deduction changes. democrats are trying to sell it as this.

saloman
10-05-2012, 07:59 AM
bJzUQwJFW7k



http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/10/04/about-mitt-romneys-5-trillion-tax-cut/
:rolleyes:

NoFXN
10-05-2012, 08:01 AM
I find it funny that people want to lower taxes on rich people as if the taxes really hurt them at the end of the day. The funniest thing to me is that everyone here for the most part is Middle Class and still standing up for the rich. You guys really do have some sort of ****ed up slave mentality.

http://img.overpic.net/images/n/s/3/xns3go7gmc0m8imbbg3sf.jpg

We SHOULD tax the rich higher while moving the tax bracket up higher as well so that people making a 100,000-200,000 don't get slammed with extremely high taxes. Another option is creating more brackets in that tax structure.

You idiots were making the same ****ing points when FDR came through with the new deal.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:04 AM
I find it funny that people want to lower taxes on rich people as if the taxes really hurt them at the end of the day. The funniest thing to me is that everyone here for the most part is Middle Class and still standing up for the rich. You guys really do have some sort of ****ed up slave mentality.

http://img.overpic.net/images/n/s/3/xns3go7gmc0m8i3sf.jpg

We SHOULD tax the rich higher while moving the tax bracket up higher as well so that people making a 100,000-200,000 don't get slammed with extremely high taxes. Another option is creating more brackets in that tax structure.

Standing up for everyone =/= standing up for the rich

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:06 AM
exactly.

the $5T thing isn't exactly 'made up', but the dems are trying to overblow it. mitt technically is cutting taxes by $5T on one side of the equation, but on the other, he is closing loopholes/deductions to offset that tax-cut. it doesn't mean all $5T of it will be offset, however, i think it's safe to assume that there won't be a multi-trillion dollar gap in the cuts and offsetting deduction changes. democrats are trying to sell it as this.

Its completely made up.

kingzamzon
10-05-2012, 08:11 AM
Romney is a liar and everyone knows. He says he will cut taxes for everyone but at same time govt will still take in same amount of money by getting rid deductions. The only way the math works is that if someone is getting a tax cut someone else is paying more. And because millionaires and billionaries arent using same deductions as regular folks, they will be on opposite sides. It is a zero sum game between the two groups. Either rich people will pay more, in which case it is no different than Obamas plan or you and I get stuck with the bill.

GoldStorm
10-05-2012, 08:13 AM
I find it very annoying that everyone claims Mitt gets all the rich votes which is comletely untrue. The richest districts in the United States are overwheleming democrate.

Broconomist
10-05-2012, 08:13 AM
Its completely made up.


I wouldn't go that far. It is an accurate statement given the information Mitt Romney has said (it's undeniable that a 20% cut to everybody would lead to a $500 billion a year cut in revenues). Now, Romney says he will offset this by getting rid of deductions and loopholes, but even closing the largest loopholes such as home mortgage would not come close to making up for the cuts. Plus, telling the middle class that they'll lose their home mortgage deduction probably won't go down well anyway, which may be why he is so hesitant to mention any specific deductions or loopholes that he will close.

NF0913
10-05-2012, 08:15 AM
Its completely made up.

can you explain to me how?


I find it funny that people want to lower taxes on rich people as if the taxes really hurt them at the end of the day. The funniest thing to me is that everyone here for the most part is Middle Class and still standing up for the rich. You guys really do have some sort of ****ed up slave mentality.

We SHOULD tax the rich higher while moving the tax bracket up higher as well so that people making a 100,000-200,000 don't get slammed with extremely high taxes. Another option is creating more brackets in that tax structure.

You idiots were making the same ****ing points when FDR came through with the new deal.

wtf are you talking about? we have slave mentalities because we want our taxes to be cut, even if that means the rich get tax cuts too? last time i checked, the rich pay most of our country's income taxes, so it seems like they're already paying their 'fair share.'


bJzUQwJFW7k



http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/10/04/about-mitt-romneys-5-trillion-tax-cut/
:rolleyes:

what's the matter? can't come up with some thoughts/insights of your own other than relying on the same talking points used by the buffoons in your party? i already responded to your point about the 'real mitt romney' in your other thread. you libs will do anything to reinforce your illogical/negative views of mitt

he doesn't have a $5T tax cut, he has a tax cut that will be offset by tax increases. the net result will be lower taxes on the middle class, the same taxes on the rich, and a zero to moderate increase in the national debt. then you can also consider a broader tax base, increased GDP growth, lower unemployment, and ultimately higher tax revenue for the govt based on those factors which will lead to a reduction in the debt.

it's like nobody can think from 2 perspectives or 2 sides of a problem. yes, mitt's plan has a weakness... there will be an unknown hole in revenues which will lead to some sort of increase in the national debt, but at the same time there will be quicker reductions in unemployment and greater increases in GDP growth which will offset that... all the while, we (the middle class) will be surrendering less cash to the federal government.

anyone who doesn't see that this is a win-win is a fool.


I would expect no. Basically the debate is a waste of time.

lol yup waste of time cuz your candidate got his **** tossed, i bet it would've been the 'most pivotal debate of all time' if obama had won.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:16 AM
I wouldn't go that far. It is an accurate statement given the information Mitt Romney has said (it's undeniable that a 20% cut to everybody would lead to a $500 billion a year cut in revenues). Now, Romney says he will offset this by getting rid of deductions and loopholes, but even closing the largest loopholes such as home mortgage would not come close to making up for the cuts. Plus, telling the middle class that they'll lose their home mortgage deduction probably won't go down well anyway, which may be why he is so hesitant to mention any specific deductions or loopholes that he will close.


can you explain to me how?

He also said that he would not do something to add to the deficit. You cant only look at half of what he said.

GoldStorm
10-05-2012, 08:21 AM
Romney is a liar and everyone knows. He says he will cut taxes for everyone but at same time govt will still take in same amount of money by getting rid deductions. The only way the math works is that if someone is getting a tax cut someone else is paying more. And because millionaires and billionaries arent using same deductions as regular folks, they will be on opposite sides. It is a zero sum game between the two groups. Either rich people will pay more, in which case it is no different than Obamas plan or you and I get stuck with the bill.

umm no... When you lower taxes it makes the people able to invest more money in the economy. When the economy grows the government makes more money. That is the plan, why in gods name would you want to pay more taxes?

JUSA
10-05-2012, 08:21 AM
The whole "5 trillion" thing is made up, but it is funny that they worst thing that they can come up with about Romney's tax plan is "OMG he's going to give you a big tax cut and let you keep more of your money!!"

Per the Dems we should vote for the guy who is going to run up the deficit by giving your money to someone else, over the guy who is going to run up the deficit by letting you keep your money I think I just said this yesterday or the other day, but the press does such a good (or bad, depending on the viewpoint) job at framing debates like this. It's always emotion-driven and makes it just nearly impossible to approach these problems in a sensible and logical way.

Meaning, if someone proposes a tax cut 20% down the board for everyone, somehow it becomes a "tax cut for the RICH" since they pay so much more and will thus see more benefit from a cut down the board as someone paying much much less.
1. Guy paying $100,000 in taxes gets $20,000 back
2. Elmo paying in $5000 only gets back $1000
3. Press: The rich bastard is sticking it to us! Tax cut for the rich!
4. Let's all ignore Guy#1 is still paying $80,000 and $76,000 more than Guy#2

NoFXN
10-05-2012, 08:23 AM
I think I just said this yesterday or the other day, but the press does such a good (or bad, depending on the viewpoint) job at framing debates like this. It's always emotion-driven and makes it just nearly impossible to approach these problems in a sensible and logical way.

Meaning, if someone proposes a tax cut 20% down the board for everyone, somehow it becomes a "tax cut for the RICH" since they pay so much more and will thus see more benefit from a cut down the board as someone paying much much less.
1. Guy paying $100,000 in taxes gets $20,000 back
2. Elmo paying in $5000 only gets back $1000
3. Press: The rich bastard is sticking it to us! Tax cut for the rich!
4. Let's all ignore Guy#1 is still paying $80,000 and $76,000 more than Guy#2
So you don't care at all about income inequality? And the redistribution of wealth?

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:24 AM
So you don't care at all about income inequality? And the redistribution of wealth?

It obviously the poor, the women, and black people that he doesn't care about. Get your liberal attacks right.

NF0913
10-05-2012, 08:25 AM
So you don't care at all about income inequality? And the redistribution of wealth?

.......... no?


It obviously the poor, the women, and black people that he doesn't care about. Get your liberal attacks right.

LOL

flairon
10-05-2012, 08:26 AM
So if right now we're spending more than we're taking in....and we cut what we're taking in by 20% but don't cut what we're spending....how is that going to help again?

JUSA
10-05-2012, 08:26 AM
So you don't care at all about income inequality? And the redistribution of wealth? I care far more about the overall standard of living, which to me goes up more in a (truly) capitalist system than any other. So, income inequality isn't that big a deal to me if someone who works hard can move up in the system and make a good living for themselves and their family. I don't care if someone is making more than me, I care about my family and my own.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:26 AM
.......... no?



LOL

Its funny because he basically just did exactly what JUSA was saying.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:30 AM
So if right now we're spending more than we're taking in....and we cut what we're taking in by 20% but don't cut what we're spending....how is that going to help again?

But he wants to cut spending, so..

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 08:35 AM
The logic is that cutting deductions will hurt the middle class the most.

NF0913
10-05-2012, 08:36 AM
So if right now we're spending more than we're taking in....and we cut what we're taking in by 20% but don't cut what we're spending....how is that going to help again?

increased gdp
decreased unemployment


The logic is that cutting deductions will hurt the middle class the most.

the whole point is that he wants to cut deductions for high income earners. this is why so many doubt his plan, because they don't think he can come up with enough loophole/deduction closures for the rich to offset that tax cuts for the poor.

the guy is literally fighting for the middle class directly thru his tax plan, and the entire obama campaign's strategy is to chastise him for his disinterest in helping the middle class..... lol

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:36 AM
The logic is that cutting deductions will hurt the middle class the most.

And what leads you to believe he is cutting middle class deductions??

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 08:38 AM
increased gdp
decreased unemployment

You're too young to remember, but we've heard that song before. We cut taxes, and now we have record unemployment.

flairon
10-05-2012, 08:41 AM
But he wants to cut spending, so..

But he doesnt want to cut spending on the military, doesnt want to cut spending on education, doesnt want to cut spending on social security, since those are the 3 biggest expenses the country has, what else could he cut that is going to make a difference without totally destroying whatever it is he's cutting?

Dr._S._Colbert
10-05-2012, 08:41 AM
Yes, why ever would people be skeptical about more trickle down, supply side economics and as of yet unknown deductions being removed?

NoFXN
10-05-2012, 08:42 AM
It obviously the poor, the women, and black people that he doesn't care about. Get your liberal attacks right.
Who said I am a liberal?


I care far more about the overall standard of living, which to me goes up more in a (truly) capitalist system than any other. So, income inequality isn't that big a deal to me if someone who works hard can move up in the system and make a good living for themselves and their family. I don't care if someone is making more than me, I care about my family and my own.
We have never seen a truly capitalist system so how do you know it will have that affect?


But he doesnt want to cut spending on the military, doesnt want to cut spending on education, doesnt want to cut spending on social security, since those are the 3 biggest expenses the country has, what else could he cut that is going to make a difference without totally destroying whatever it is he's cutting?
What the ****? When did you grow a brain?

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:43 AM
Who said I am a liberal?

I was referring to your attack style. It was most certainly liberal.

flairon
10-05-2012, 08:43 AM
increased gdp
decreased unemployment


Those aren't just words that have nothing attached to them. If he's going ot cut something, that means jobs are going to be removed somewhere. So how is cutting jobs going to decrease unemployment and increase gdp?

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:43 AM
But he doesnt want to cut spending on the military, doesnt want to cut spending on education, doesnt want to cut spending on social security, since those are the 3 biggest expenses the country has, what else could he cut that is going to make a difference without totally destroying whatever it is he's cutting?

He said he wanted to reform those programs about 10x the other night.

NF0913
10-05-2012, 08:45 AM
You're too young to remember, but we've heard that song before. We cut taxes, and now we have record unemployment.

i hate when people use this argument. i hear it over and over again on this board.

just because bush cut taxes doesn't mean our 'record unemployment' is due to that action.


Those aren't just words that have nothing attached to them. If he's going ot cut something, that means jobs are going to be removed somewhere. So how is cutting jobs going to decrease unemployment and increase gdp?

what? we're talking about tax cuts buddy. tax cuts are a good thing... the only reason people don't see them as a good thing right now is because obama ran up the debt by over $5T, and is now trying to say there is 'no room to compromise' on tax cuts.

democrats use some interesting tactics. still waiting for an insightful and semi-logical response from an obama supporter.

kingzamzon
10-05-2012, 08:48 AM
umm no... When you lower taxes it makes the people able to invest more money in the economy. When the economy grows the government makes more money. That is the plan, why in gods name would you want to pay more taxes?

Ye b/c Bush tax cuts led to great propersity and when Clinton raised taxed the economy collapsed b/c the rich had less money to create "jobs".

By your logic we should reduce taxes to 0 as people will have more money and govt will also magically have more too!!!!!

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 08:48 AM
i hate when people use this argument. i hear it over and over again on this board.

just because bush cut taxes doesn't mean our 'record unemployment' is due to that action.

By too young, I mean you weren't born yet. We've been steadily cutting taxes since 1980 with no long-term positive effect for the majority of Americans. It's resulted in higher unemployment and lower wages, not to mention the spiraling deficit and debt.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:48 AM
i hate when people use this argument. i hear it over and over again on this board.

just because bush cut taxes doesn't mean our 'record unemployment' is due to that action.

I ate a bean burrito that day. Obviously every time I eat a bean burrito the employment goes up.

flairon
10-05-2012, 08:49 AM
He said he wanted to reform those programs about 10x the other night.

Ok, but let's think about this, how are you going to reform those programs.

My first thought would be shrinking them, that means cutting jobs. So how is he going to decrease unemployment while cutting jobs? And reform generally costs money.

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 08:49 AM
I ate a bean burrito that day. Obviously every time I eat a bean burrito the employment goes up.

If the burrito was served up by a supporter of trickle-down, it wasn't beans.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:51 AM
By too young, I mean you weren't born yet. We've been steadily cutting taxes since 1980 with no long-term positive effect for the majority of Americans. It's resulted in higher unemployment and lower wages, not to mention the spiraling deficit and debt.

Huh?? The GDP has gone way up since 1980.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:52 AM
Ok, but let's think about this, how are you going to reform those programs.

My first thought would be shrinking them, that means cutting jobs. So how is he going to decrease unemployment while cutting jobs? And reform generally costs money.

He explained that the other night too.

JUSA
10-05-2012, 08:52 AM
We have never seen a truly capitalist system so how do you know it will have that affect? True, you are correct. I would say though that the more we move away from it, as we are these days, the worse it has become. Freer markets, less regulations, less Government picking winners and losers, less or no lobbyists buying off politicians to favor their industry or particular client, etc... all this Corporatism is what is truly strangling the middle class more than anything.

I've said this before, my preference is to live in a Capitalist society but I don't view the word Socialism as a big evil boogey man like some people do. Socialism, in some cases, you see in some European countries works to a degree, just as in many others it's completely falling apart at the seams. That's another debate, though. The point I'm trying to make is that I see us now in a heavily Corporatist society which to me is the worst of both worlds. I would prefer a fully Socialist environment to one where the politicians and lobbyists protect their own interests and make society as a whole pay through the nose. Prices go up, coverage goes down, quality goes down, etc, etc...

flairon
10-05-2012, 08:53 AM
what? we're talking about tax cuts buddy. tax cuts are a good thing... the only reason people don't see them as a good thing right now is because obama ran up the debt by over $5T, and is now trying to say there is 'no room to compromise' on tax cuts.

democrats use some interesting tactics. still waiting for an insightful and semi-logical response from an obama supporter.

Tax cuts are a great thing, but if right now tax money is more or less the "income" of the country....and we aren't making enough to pay the country's 'bills'...and we're not going to decrease the bills of the country...but we're going to cut taxes by 20% supposedly, how is that going to work?

If you aren't making enough money at work to pay your bills how is the boss cutting your pay a good thing?

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 08:55 AM
Huh?? The GDP has gone way up since 1980.

OK....That's true. It's gone up at a very steady pace. It's gone up when taxes are cut or raised, when there's a deficit and when there's a surplus, during times of war and during times of peace. What does that have to do with unemployment and wages? And how does that bit of information combined with the growing disparity of wealth not make it obvious that trickle-down does the opposite of its stated goal?

flairon
10-05-2012, 08:56 AM
He explained that the other night too.

No..he didn't. That's the problem. Everyone is all up on his jock because he's telling them what they want to hear. He's saying buzzwords that everyone wants to hear but hasn't gotten around to the part about telling how this is going to work.

Am I the only one in this country of people with minute rice attention spans that remembers 4 years ago when the country was getting sung the same song, and people rushed to jump on that train too? Jesus, people just never learn, thats what allows these jackasses to keep getting away with the sh*t they do.

badbart
10-05-2012, 08:57 AM
Only idiot blinded by political ideology would want to raise taxes with a very high unemployment rate. We should at least wait until the economy improves to have this argument.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:58 AM
OK....That's true. It's gone up at a very steady pace. It's gone up when taxes are cut or raised, when there's a deficit and when there's a surplus, during times of war and during times of peace. What does that have to do with unemployment and wages? And how does that bit of information combined with the growing disparity of wealth not make it obvious that trickle-down does the opposite of its stated goal?

Its got nothing to do with unemployment and wages. It was pretty stupid for you to attempt to tie them together.

amtharin
10-05-2012, 08:59 AM
No..he didn't. That's the problem. Everyone is all up on his jock because he's telling them what they want to hear. He's saying buzzwords that everyone wants to hear but hasn't gotten around to the part about telling how this is going to work.

Am I the only one in this country of people with minute rice attention spans that remembers 4 years ago when the country was getting sung the same song, and people rushed to jump on that train too? Jesus, people just never learn, thats what allows these jackasses to keep getting away with the sh*t they do.

Clean the fat out of your ears, he most certainly did.

Gunite
10-05-2012, 08:59 AM
Romney is a liar and everyone knows.

Obama = 4 years of lies = ok

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 09:00 AM
Only idiot blinded by political ideology would want to raise taxes with a very high unemployment rate. We should at least wait until the economy improves to have this argument.

The thing is that the economy has improved enormously for a small percentage of Americans, who Romney tells us should have it improved even more so they'll create jobs. Obama's tax plan of providing tax cuts to those successful Americans after they create jobs says bull**** to that.

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 09:02 AM
Its got nothing to do with unemployment and wages. It was pretty stupid for you to attempt to tie them together.

Unemployment and wages aren't related?

badbart
10-05-2012, 09:08 AM
The thing is that the economy has improved enormously for a small percentage of Americans


So you want to reelect the man that has created this amazing economy? Class warfare is a pathetic tactic.

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 09:18 AM
So you want to reelect the man that has created this amazing economy? Class warfare is a pathetic tactic.

I think that the economy is doing well in spite of the GOP's best efforts to stop it, and more Americans would be doing better if it weren't for their stated primary goal of unseating the president. I think the concentration of wealth is dangerous and Romney's continuously changing opinions shows a win at any cost attitude that is equally dangerous.

badbart
10-05-2012, 09:20 AM
I think that the economy is doing well in spite of the GOP's best efforts to stop it, and more Americans would be doing better if it weren't for their stated primary goal of unseating the president. I think the concentration of wealth is dangerous and Romney's continuously changing opinions shows a win at any cost attitude that is equally dangerous.

DNC talking points.

Gunite
10-05-2012, 09:21 AM
We cut taxes, and now we have record unemployment.

This type of false logic always amazes me.

JUSA
10-05-2012, 10:00 AM
This type of false logic always amazes me. These guys like to attribute everything bad to the other guy's policies and any good news is always because of their team. So, for some reason today's news about the drop in unemployment certainly isn't because of taxes, it's surely because of some other phantom policy Obama enacted that the GOP fought against or some silliness like that.

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 10:04 AM
Let me explain simply the idea behind Romney's tax plan since most people don't seem to understand it. In this example, say there are 100 people in America.

Right now, 47 of those 100 people don't pay income tax. Let's say the top 2 people are "rich" and the remaining 51 are "middle class".

Romney proposes that by lowering marginal rates and removing deductions/loopholes he can simplify that tax code. He has also said that the share of the tax burden paid by the wealthy and by the middle class will not change. His plan instead is to lower rates for the middle class by having more people pay in for the same total. The simplification of the tax code and the lowering of rates makes it easier for small businesses to hire more people, thus broadening the tax base. Let me illustrate:

Under Obama:
2 rich taxpayers
51 middle class taxpayers
47 non-taxpayers

Romney plan:
2 rich taxpayers
56 middle class taxpayers
42 non-taxpayers

Now, in order to keep the tax burden the same for the wealthy, unless the number of them goes up (which it may or may not), their taxes stay relatively the same. Because we have increased the number of taxpayers in the middle class, each individual's taxes go down while the total revenue stays the same.

The result: individuals who are rich keep paying the same amount they're currently paying, individuals who are middle class pay less than they're currently paying. Net revenue to the government is the same.

daxtrader
10-05-2012, 10:52 AM
Why the hell does anyone support any type of taxes? These government employees want more money for vacation, their pensions, etc etc. It's a conflict of interest for them to support lowering taxes. Government is nothing but a leech, especially these days. Inb4 who will build the roads.

We have government departments for the stupidest things. So much wasteful spending. These employees are nothing but paper pushers. They have no incentive to innovate. They just want to sit on their lazy diet coke-drinking asses and keep collecting that easy money.

The only way we'll ever lower spending is by lowering taxes so much so that government has absolutely no way to waste a single cent. As of now there is no responsibility with tax payer money. It's a shame people support higher taxes.

Go0d_Call
10-05-2012, 11:01 AM
Why the hell does anyone support any type of taxes? These government employees want more money for vacation, their pensions, etc etc. It's a conflict of interest for them to support lowering taxes. Government is nothing but a leech, especially these days. Inb4 who will build the roads.

We have government departments for the stupidest things. So much wasteful spending. These employees are nothing but paper pushers. They have no incentive to innovate. They just want to sit on their lazy diet coke-drinking asses and keep collecting that easy money.

The only way we'll ever lower spending is by lowering taxes so much so that government has absolutely no way to waste a single cent. As of now there is no responsibility with tax payer money. It's a shame people support higher taxes.

The thing that blows my mine is how people believe the Federal goverment has a better understanding of what you and I need compared to our own local governments.

I don't understand why Romey didn't slam Obama with a simple comment like that during the healthcare discussion. Just because Romey's healthcare plan worked in one state, doesn't automatically mean it should work for every state (ie. ObamaCare). Every state is different, and the needs of the people within each state is different.

GoldStorm
10-05-2012, 11:30 AM
Tax cuts are a great thing, but if right now tax money is more or less the "income" of the country....and we aren't making enough to pay the country's 'bills'...and we're not going to decrease the bills of the country...but we're going to cut taxes by 20% supposedly, how is that going to work?

If you aren't making enough money at work to pay your bills how is the boss cutting your pay a good thing?

If you feel so strongly that raising taxes is the right thing go to the IRS and say you want to give them more money, they will be more than willing to take it.

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 11:32 AM
This type of false logic always amazes me.

How is it false? The whole premise of the Romney plan is by cutting taxes on who he calls the "job creators", they will be more inclined to create jobs. This has already been tried, several times since Reagan. Where are we now?

I say we can cut their taxes after they invest in America.

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 11:44 AM
These guys like to attribute everything bad to the other guy's policies and any good news is always because of their team. So, for some reason today's news about the drop in unemployment certainly isn't because of taxes, it's surely because of some other phantom policy Obama enacted that the GOP fought against or some silliness like that.

"These guys"?? Seems like it is always a matter of perspective until you look below the surface. While Obama did indeed cut taxes, he also signed a stimulus package. There are more people working and they are paying less taxes, and thus are spending more. This is what is creating a demand for more workers. While having my taxes cut a couple hundred bucks a year is nice, it's no substitute for having a job.

The people Romney refers to as "job creators" are sitting on at least two Trillion in cash, yet they keep talking about "uncertainty". Bull****. They have at least two years of certainty, if they simply used that money to give every unemployed American a job. What would two years of near zero unemployment do for the economy?

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 11:50 AM
How is it false? The whole premise of the Romney plan is by cutting taxes on who he calls the "job creators", they will be more inclined to create jobs. This has already been tried, several times since Reagan. Where are we now?

I say we can cut their taxes after they invest in America.

I'm going to go ahead and quote myself in the hopes that maybe you'll read this and understand what Romney is proposing instead of continuing to spew Democratic talking points.

Let me explain simply the idea behind Romney's tax plan since most people don't seem to understand it. In this example, say there are 100 people in America.

Right now, 47 of those 100 people don't pay income tax. Let's say the top 2 people are "rich" and the remaining 51 are "middle class".

Romney proposes that by lowering marginal rates and removing deductions/loopholes he can simplify that tax code. He has also said that the share of the tax burden paid by the wealthy and by the middle class will not change. His plan instead is to lower rates for the middle class by having more people pay in for the same total. The simplification of the tax code and the lowering of rates makes it easier for small businesses to hire more people, thus broadening the tax base. Let me illustrate:

Under Obama:
2 rich taxpayers
51 middle class taxpayers
47 non-taxpayers

Romney plan:
2 rich taxpayers
56 middle class taxpayers
42 non-taxpayers

Now, in order to keep the tax burden the same for the wealthy, unless the number of them goes up (which it may or may not), their taxes stay relatively the same. Because we have increased the number of taxpayers in the middle class, each individual's taxes go down while the total revenue stays the same.

The result: individuals who are rich keep paying the same amount they're currently paying, individuals who are middle class pay less than they're currently paying. Net revenue to the government is the same.

He's talking about keeping rates for "the rich" the same and lowering taxes for the middle class.

kingzamzon
10-05-2012, 11:52 AM
The crazy thing with Romney/Republicans doubling down on trickle down economics is that the current situation calls for the exact opposite policies because of where we are. Quick summary for those not following current economic situation.

1) The issue with economy is not that all Rich people's money is tied up in government hands b/c they are overtaxed and just don't have enough cash to invest on all those great ideas that they would invest only if the government got out of the way. It is the OPPOSITE situation. The rich have no never been richer. They are sitting on tons of cash (US corporations are sitting on 5 trillion in $$$). In fact they are investing in government bonds, not for the any return or interest, but just to protect against inflation. How is giving them more money going to result in more investment? They are not investing in the money they are sitting on right now.

2) The real problem with the economy is that there is not enough demand. Business/Investors only invest when they feel they need to increase supply to meet demand. Lets use an example. If I own a restaurant, and I have 5 workers. Those 5 workers can support 100 customers per night. The only scenario in which I hire more staff or invest is if I feel I can increase the demand (100+ more customers). Government giving me a tax cut is not going to result in me hiring more people. I will keep the 5 workers, and increase my profit. Business don't run a charity.

The real goal should be to increase the demand in the system. Rich already have money they are sitting on and doing nothing with it. Middle class people for the most part are living pay check to pay check. For every $1 they receive, they will spend close to that $1 (increase demand). The approach should be how to get these people more $$$.

r0gue6
10-05-2012, 11:53 AM
Voting for someone based on a tax plan that would have a 0% chance of ever making it passed the Senate, is just about one of the most asinine arguments I've ever heard in favor of voting for Romney.

/thread

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 11:55 AM
I'm going to go ahead and quote myself in the hopes that maybe you'll read this and understand what Romney is proposing instead of continuing to spew Democratic talking points.


He's talking about keeping rates for "the rich" the same and lowering taxes for the middle class.

I read that. It's too simplistic. Also, he said that he would cut taxes across the board. Further, cutting deductions, the other and unspoken part of Romney's plan, will hurt middle-income workers hardest.

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 11:57 AM
Voting for someone based on a tax plan that would have a 0% chance of ever making it passed the Senate, is just about one of the most asinine arguments I've ever heard in favor of voting for Romney.

/thread

Yeah, OK. Let's vote for a guy who will never get any proposals approved by the house. Voting against Romney for that reason is just as stupid as voting for Obama because of his promises.

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 12:00 PM
I read that. It's too simplistic. Also, he said that he would cut taxes across the board. Further, cutting deductions, the other and unspoken part of Romney's plan, will hurt middle-income workers hardest.

This is your opinion, not a fact. Until we know what deductions are being removed/reduced that is pure speculation, nothing more. Maybe Obama should have asked him that on Wednesday instead of pretending that there were no deductions in Romney's plan and saying "Romney wants a $5 trillion tax cut" over and over again.

r0gue6
10-05-2012, 12:11 PM
Yeah, OK. Let's vote for a guy who will never get any proposals approved by the house. Voting against Romney for that reason is just as stupid as voting for Obama because of his promises.

Nobody here ever argued against Romney based on your asinine logic.

So, quit deflecting and just admit there's no way a crazy ass tax plan like that would ever be passed, so it's a stupid reason to vote for Romney.

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 12:12 PM
This is your opinion, not a fact. Until we know what deductions are being removed/reduced that is pure speculation, nothing more. Maybe Obama should have asked him that on Wednesday instead of pretending that there were no deductions in Romney's plan and saying "Romney wants a $5 trillion tax cut" over and over again.

Do the math. There is no way limiting deductions to $17,000.00 alone will compensate for the 20% across the board tax cut. Without cutting any deductions, 13 Million middle income American families will see their taxes go up. If he also cuts deductions, which will be necessary to remain "revenue neutral", that will further impact middle Americans. Unfortunately these are the job creators.

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 12:20 PM
Nobody here ever argued against Romney based on your asinine logic.

So, quit deflecting and just admit there's no way a crazy ass tax plan like that would ever be passed, so it's a stupid reason to vote for Romney.

If it does in fact lower taxes for middle class incomes and keep taxes the same for upper class incomes, I think that's a pretty good starting point and through some finetuning, a bill like that could pass. Unless of course Harry Reid is just dead set upon digging his heels in.

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 12:21 PM
Do the math. There is no way limiting deductions to $17,000.00 alone will compensate for the 20% across the board tax cut. Without cutting any deductions, 13 Million middle income American families will see their taxes go up. If he also cuts deductions, which will be necessary to remain "revenue neutral", that will further impact middle Americans. Unfortunately these are the job creators.

You seem to be assuming that the number of taxpayers will remain constant.

r0gue6
10-05-2012, 12:27 PM
If it does in fact lower taxes for middle class incomes and keep taxes the same for upper class incomes, I think that's a pretty good starting point and through some finetuning, a bill like that could pass. Unless of course Harry Reid is just dead set upon digging his heels in.

Romney's "tax" plan is a farce, that's why it won't pass.

We can't even get both sides to agree on a decent tax system, so we keep getting stuck with what we have...which benefits the wealthy far more than anyone else...gee, maybe that's why it will never change.

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 12:34 PM
Romney's "tax" plan is a farce, that's why it won't pass.

I didn't realize you had insider access to Romney's tax plan. Could you let us all know which loopholes and deductions he is proposing to cut?


We can't even get both sides to agree on a decent tax system, so we keep getting stuck with what we have...which benefits the wealthy far more than anyone else...gee, maybe that's why it will never change.

Right, which is why someone brings forward a suggestion for something new, it's a good idea to learn all the facts before calling it a "farce" and dismissing it. Tax reform will never happen until people stop being so closed minded.

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 12:37 PM
You seem to be assuming that the number of taxpayers will remain constant.

I have no reason to assume otherwise.

r0gue6
10-05-2012, 12:40 PM
Right, which is why someone brings forward a suggestion for something new, it's a good idea to learn all the facts before calling it a "farce" and dismissing it. Tax reform will never happen until people stop being so closed minded.

He did nothing of the sort.

If you are ignorant you may believe that though, he did say some things about lower taxes, but a plan that does not make.

BRB here's my tax plan.

1. Lower taxes
2. Close loopholes
3. Lower deficit

OMG you guys it's a perfect plan why u no vote for it!

NF0913
10-05-2012, 12:43 PM
Why the hell does anyone support any type of taxes? These government employees want more money for vacation, their pensions, etc etc. It's a conflict of interest for them to support lowering taxes. Government is nothing but a leech, especially these days. Inb4 who will build the roads.

We have government departments for the stupidest things. So much wasteful spending. These employees are nothing but paper pushers. They have no incentive to innovate. They just want to sit on their lazy diet coke-drinking asses and keep collecting that easy money.

The only way we'll ever lower spending is by lowering taxes so much so that government has absolutely no way to waste a single cent. As of now there is no responsibility with tax payer money. It's a shame people support higher taxes.

good post but... why the hate on diet coke?

also someone explain how obama's tax plan is any better

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 12:46 PM
I have no reason to assume otherwise.

You're ignoring a key assumption in Romney's plan then. Romney assumes that more people will go back to work once he is in office due to his policies.


He did nothing of the sort.

If you are ignorant you may believe that though, he did say some things about lower taxes, but a plan that does not make.

BRB here's my tax plan.

1. Lower taxes
2. Close loopholes
3. Lower deficit

OMG you guys it's a perfect plan why u no vote for it!

Romney's tax plan has nothing to do with lowering the deficit - it is supposedly a revenue neutral plan. The deficit reduction will supposedly be done by cutting spending.

UncommonGrounds
10-05-2012, 12:52 PM
I would love to have super low taxes. But I would also love to live in a society with a lot of the services the government is currently providing.

I don't believe that Romney's tax plan works out how he says it does. I don't believe he can make his cuts revenue neutral and I don't support widespread spending cuts.

kel_varnsen
10-05-2012, 12:54 PM
mitt wants to reduce tax rates by 20%, while obama would like to raise taxes on high-income earners.

despite the fact that americans will see their marginal tax rate decline by 20% under mitt romney as president, they continue to support obama's tax plans in the name of "fairness" even if they will be worse off under it.

here is what has happened...

mitt proposes 20% rate cuts for EVERYONE
team obama claims it will hurt the deficit too much because he won't make it up in loophole/deduction cutoffs
obama supporters go gangbusters over this new revelation, despite the fact that the national debt has increased by $6T under their messiah.

where is the logic here?

the logic is that most taxpayers in the us probably receive more from the government in terms of goods and services (education, health care, welfare, infrastructure etc) than they pay into in the form of taxes and fees. reduce tax rates across the board -> reduce revenue -> cut government programs. in other words, it is economically not rational to support such a move for most tax payers.

PSToolman
10-05-2012, 12:55 PM
You're ignoring a key assumption in Romney's plan then. Romney assumes that more people will go back to work once he is in office due to his policies.

As I said, this is the same old trickle-down theory that is a proven failure. There's no reason for him to assume such a thing.

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 12:56 PM
I would love to have super low taxes. But I would also love to live in a society with a lot of the services the government is currently providing.

I don't believe that Romney's tax plan works out how he says it does. I don't believe he can make his cuts revenue neutral and I don't support widespread spending cuts.

My problem isn't with the services themselves, but more with the waste and fraud of entitlement programs, wasteful military spending, and social security not being optional. If you could just cut out the waste and the fraud, you'd knock out a huge portion of our annual deficit. I don't think it's ridiculous to ask for our tax dollars to not be squandered.

As to Romney's plan, who knows. Any version that makes it through congress probably won't be much different from what we have now.

UncommonGrounds
10-05-2012, 12:59 PM
My problem isn't with the services themselves, but more with the waste and fraud of entitlement programs, wasteful military spending, and social security not being optional. If you could just cut out the waste and the fraud, you'd knock out a huge portion of our annual deficit. I don't think it's ridiculous to ask for our tax dollars to not be squandered.

As to Romney's plan, who knows. Any version that makes it through congress probably won't be much different from what we have now.

Firstly, I think people overstate the waste in government. I'm sure there is a lot. But I don't think it is a major player in our overall spending.

Secondly, I'm all for cutting spending after the economy recovers. Cutting spending in a depressed economy is contractionary. We need to pursue pro growth policies in order to fix our fiscal mess.

jafomofo
10-05-2012, 01:07 PM
what's the matter? can't come up with some thoughts/insights of your own other than relying on the same talking points used by the buffoons in your party? i already responded to your point about the 'real mitt romney' in your other thread. you libs will do anything to reinforce your illogical/negative views of mitt

he doesn't have a $5T tax cut, he has a tax cut that will be offset by tax increases. the net result will be lower taxes on the middle class, the same taxes on the rich, and a zero to moderate increase in the national debt. then you can also consider a broader tax base, increased GDP growth, lower unemployment, and ultimately higher tax revenue for the govt based on those factors which will lead to a reduction in the debt.


Reaganomics! Sadly its total bull****.

-Here are the facts. He does have a series of tax cut that will total nearly 5 trillion dollars. This is not in dispute.
-He claims that any tax cuts he makes will be deficit neutral. He also claims he will not raise taxes on the middle class and will not reduce the tax burden on the wealthy.
-He is claiming that he will pay for this rather large tax cut by reducing waste in government and broadening the base. <- Pro tip. This is utter bull**** that every single candidate spouts and it is completely meaningless. If you buy this you are ****ing dumb.
-He indicates that he will offset the reduced revenue of his tax cuts by eliminating deductions but he won't specify which ones. Independent analysis has been done which indicates there is no conceivable way this can happen while maintain his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. It's an impossibility. Romney is a dick though and claims he has 6 studies proving it can happen but alas, those are all written by people on his payroll and even those don't actually say what Mitt is claiming.
-So here we sit, huge tax cuts coming, claims that they will be deficit neutral and won't raise taxes on the middle class while depending on the day of the week, they will either be tax relief for the wealthy or will keep the tax burden on the wealthy static.
-Considering he is promising to keep the tax burden static there is no stimulative effect that could even be claimed which would be false even if it was claimed because trickle down is a disproven pile of **** that only succeeds if it coincides with cutting the fed rate to 1% during an economic bubble boom.

Cliffs:
-He is making several contradictory and impossible promises with no attempts to even explain how it will be paid for without resorting to only the vaguest and often rehashed political bull**** talking points.

jafomofo
10-05-2012, 01:10 PM
I'm going to go ahead and quote myself in the hopes that maybe you'll read this and understand what Romney is proposing instead of continuing to spew Democratic talking points.

That is a farce, reducing rates doesn't magically grow the base and even if it did it wouldn't generate the revenue to offset the cuts. You do realize that you are arguing for the same economic philsophy that has been refuted time and again. How do you not see this and realize that argument you are making is a partisan fairy tale?

MuscularTophFan
10-05-2012, 01:11 PM
Which Mitt Romney tax plan again? I don't know considering he's Etch A Sketch all of his policies in the last debate. He's not pro-choice he's multiple choice.

Also just to inform you retards on here Obama HASN'T raised ****ing taxes on anyone as president. So why the **** are you bitching you ****ing babies?

SouthernGent20
10-05-2012, 01:16 PM
It's amazing how a non rich corporate business owner would vote for romney

freeheeler
10-05-2012, 01:19 PM
He did nothing of the sort.

If you are ignorant you may believe that though, he did say some things about lower taxes, but a plan that does not make.

BRB here's my tax plan.

1. Lower taxes
2. Close loopholes
3. Lower deficit

OMG you guys it's a perfect plan why u no vote for it!

Sums up Dem/Rep politics for the masses, followed by the blind

Trapstar4.4
10-05-2012, 01:27 PM
But he doesnt want to cut spending on the military, doesnt want to cut spending on education, doesnt want to cut spending on social security, since those are the 3 biggest expenses the country has, what else could he cut that is going to make a difference without totally destroying whatever it is he's cutting?


So if right now we're spending more than we're taking in....and we cut what we're taking in by 20% but don't cut what we're spending....how is that going to help again?


Those aren't just words that have nothing attached to them. If he's going ot cut something, that means jobs are going to be removed somewhere. So how is cutting jobs going to decrease unemployment and increase gdp?


Tax cuts are a great thing, but if right now tax money is more or less the "income" of the country....and we aren't making enough to pay the country's 'bills'...and we're not going to decrease the bills of the country...but we're going to cut taxes by 20% supposedly, how is that going to work?

If you aren't making enough money at work to pay your bills how is the boss cutting your pay a good thing?

been pondering this sht for a while now. especially on the heels of the debate
it seems like romney has come up with the "perfect plan", but unfortunately many intelligent people know, that it just isnt that simple, unfortunately. this is why im sure through people (obama included) will demand for more information.

Tharsos
10-05-2012, 01:31 PM
-Make higher tax brackets and increase marginal tax rates at the top
-lower capital gains tax
-lower payroll tax
-increase gov spending in short run with plan to cut spending once unemployment goes down.

It's actually pretty surprising how much agreement there is among most economists on some big issues. Too bad none of it is politically feasible.

jafomofo
10-05-2012, 01:35 PM
Clearly some people have not read this study yet so I will just cut and paste the conclusion. You're welcome. Even if the study makes use of the unreasonably large growth that would be predicated on falsehoods then the tax cut still has no chance of being deficit neutral without tax increases on the people romney is claiming to aid.


Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates
the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates
substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax
breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and
increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we
bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting
tax system as progressive as possible. For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks – like
the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance –
are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as
necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality– the net effect of the plan
would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income
households.

In addition, we also assess whether these results hold if we assume that revenue reductions are
partially offset by higher economic growth. Although reasonable models would show that these
tax changes would have little effect on growth, we show that even with implausibly large growth
effects, revenue neutrality would still require large reductions in tax expenditures and would
likely result in a net tax increase for lower- and middle-income households and tax cuts for highincome
households.

MrTeal
10-05-2012, 01:46 PM
Firstly, I think people overstate the waste in government. I'm sure there is a lot. But I don't think it is a major player in our overall spending.

Secondly, I'm all for cutting spending after the economy recovers. Cutting spending in a depressed economy is contractionary. We need to pursue pro growth policies in order to fix our fiscal mess.

Gotta run so I'll just quote an old post:

Well, Medicare fraud has been estimated at about $90 billion/year. That's about 20% of the $450 billion we spend on it annually. Source: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/medicare-fraud-costs-americans-90-billon-year-entitlement-program-biggest-criticisms-health-12945081

Since June 2009, when the recession officially ended, we've seen 4.7 million people join social security disability (which ironically helps to bring down the unemployment rate since they are no longer looking for work) while only 2.3 million people have gotten jobs. You think suddenly the workplace became so unsafe that the number of people on social security disability has doubled from 5.4 million to 10.8 million since Obama took office? I'm not saying that there aren't people legitimately using this program but I'm pretty sure there's some massive fraud happening there as well. Source: http://news.investors.com/article/608418/201204200802/ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full

Unemployment fraud has been estimated at $17 billion of $150 billion for 2010 - over 11%. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20076594.html

If you can cut 10% of our deficit, that's a pretty big step to be taking IMO. Those are cuts that most people should be able to get behind (unless they're cheating the system).

We have to stop spending and racking up debt and printing money - paper with imaginary value to try to pay our bills. It isn't working. Average costs of food have gone up 15% since Obama took office while the median salary has gone down 4%. We can't keep up this madness. If the dollar is going to hold it's value we have to stop printing money. To stop printing money we have to stop spending so much so that we don't need to print more to pay the bills.

badbart
10-05-2012, 01:47 PM
Why would anyone want to give more money to the incompetent fools in Washington? Do you guys really think the government spends your money better then you? Obama has been a 100% fiscal failure.

jacklambert58
10-05-2012, 02:11 PM
Romney made it clear in the debate, that his tax plan is revenue neutral; one hand gives, the other takes.

So the question is: What Tax Cut - there's not going to be one, unless he is lying?

anonymousceleb
10-05-2012, 02:26 PM
Generally, it doesn't seem like presidents necessarily get to do precisely what they want to do or say they'll do, so I can tolerate the specifics of one plan or another being cryptic.

That said, I'm not so much concerned with the amount of taxes and "size of government" so much as I am about where the money is going. If the government needs a certain amount of money from the tax payers, I'll try to take that claim at face value. It's like a restaurant. A restaurant will use a given number of dollars to make more and/or better food than than I'd make with the same money. It's not like I want to give the restaurant money to give to another person who then proceeds to buy and make their own food. I'd rather the restaurant just gives the person food than simply transfer my spending power to someone else. Essentially, I want the government to use the money rather than just re-insert it somewhere where its use isn't dictated by the government. The big drain on funds is that a lot of the money going to the government isn't actually being spent by the government and it does nothing to change the average wealth of the overall population.

jimbone21
10-05-2012, 02:51 PM
Generally, it doesn't seem like presidents necessarily get to do precisely what they want to do or say they'll do, so I can tolerate the specifics of one plan or another being cryptic.

That said, I'm not so much concerned with the amount of taxes and "size of government" so much as I am about where the money is going. If the government needs a certain amount of money from the tax payers, I'll try to take that claim at face value. It's like a restaurant. A restaurant will use a given number of dollars to make more and/or better food than than I'd make with the same money. It's not like I want to give the restaurant money to give to another person who then proceeds to buy and make their own food. I'd rather the restaurant just gives the person food than simply transfer my spending power to someone else. Essentially, I want the government to use the money rather than just re-insert it somewhere where its use isn't dictated by the government. The big drain on funds is that a lot of the money going to the government isn't actually being spent by the government and it does nothing to change the average wealth of the overall population.

What the hell are you even talking about? A restaurant charges you $2 for a Coke that they poured out of the can into a glass in the back. And most of the time you could make as good or better quality food with the same or better quality ingredients with a little effort for way less cost. Wish people had to take a test before they could vote.

anonymousceleb
10-05-2012, 06:40 PM
What the hell are you even talking about? A restaurant charges you $2 for a Coke that they poured out of the can into a glass in the back. And most of the time you could make as good or better quality food with the same or better quality ingredients with a little effort for way less cost. Wish people had to take a test before they could vote.

Fine if you don't like the analogy, but don't get too carried away. A restaurant might over-charge, but I'm not talking about that possibility. It's just that giving money to an organization with better resources than an individual is going to go further than just giving money to another individual.

daxtrader
10-08-2012, 10:53 PM
First of all, you aren't "giving" anything. It is TAKEN from you, taken from you and spent on things you have no say in.

Also, most "services" that people talk about, are 99% at the local level. None of your federal taxes go to these local services.

I'm always shocked how much trust people put into government. Do people realize government employees are largely made up of average Joes who couldn't make it in the real world? We don't need a department for every little damn thing and we certainly don't need a majority of federal departments.

xmikeman
10-08-2012, 11:34 PM
i don't understand at all. we've seen trickle down economics and now the bottom 50% own 1% of the america's wealth. i don't think either party is truly for the people but the lesser evil is definitely the left.

stezus
10-09-2012, 01:00 AM
By too young, I mean you weren't born yet. We've been steadily cutting taxes since 1980 with no long-term positive effect for the majority of Americans. It's resulted in higher unemployment and lower wages, not to mention the spiraling deficit and debt.

Please illustrate the causal relationship.

daxtrader
10-09-2012, 01:14 AM
i don't understand at all. we've seen trickle down economics and now the bottom 50% own 1% of the america's wealth. i don't think either party is truly for the people but the lesser evil is definitely the left.

It's okay that you don't understand. Most of the left doesn't. Government policies distort free market enterprise. It's unnatural. It causes anomalies where few get rich while majority suffer, even though the intentions of those policies may have been good. Here's an example:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA

MiKey4
10-09-2012, 01:43 AM
It's okay that you don't understand. Most of the left doesn't.

Do you have any factual evidence to add, or are you going to be relying on pure condescension?

Thinking you're smarter than someone else doesn't make you more correct.

daxtrader
10-09-2012, 01:51 AM
Do you have any factual evidence to add, or are you going to be relying on pure condescension?

Thinking you're smarter than someone else doesn't make you more correct.

Sure. The housing crash.

MiKey4
10-09-2012, 01:54 AM
What does that have to do with trickle down economics?

daxtrader
10-09-2012, 02:01 AM
What does that have to do with trickle down economics?

My post was about how government intervention leads to unintended consequences. You asked for evidence. If that wasn't your question then what the fk are you asking?

BuenoImGeorge
10-09-2012, 02:04 AM
I don't see how you guys can back a canidate so much. Regardless of who wins we are going to up end phucked in the end.

These canidates are both backed by private companies and are going to look out for them to ensure they keep throwing money into their party.

MiKey4
10-09-2012, 02:36 AM
My post was about how government intervention leads to unintended consequences.Which was in response to "we've seen trickle down economics and now the bottom 50% own 1% of the america's wealth."

To be honest I didn't really see the link between any of your post and the post to which you replied, and it annoyed me that you were so patronising, because I completely agreed with him.

xzenothunder
10-09-2012, 02:41 AM
I don't see how you guys can back a canidate so much. Regardless of who wins we are going to up end phucked in the end.

These canidates are both backed by private companies and are going to look out for them to ensure they keep throwing money into their party.
Awwww yeahh bro your right, **** the evil corporate entities that are gonna tie us down and take over the world and stuff. Let's go watch some more YouTube conspiracy videos and pretend like we're so intelligent and away from the "mainstream" idiots Mann.

the8atman
10-09-2012, 02:48 AM
I'll believe it when I see it. Every jackoff president makes promises then when they're in office it's like "lolz just trolling!"

kel_varnsen
10-09-2012, 02:51 AM
My post was about how government intervention leads to unintended consequences. You asked for evidence. If that wasn't your question then what the fk are you asking?

leaving the market to itself can have unintended consequences (see for instance construction sector crash in spain). what is your (underlying) point here?

EctoCanuck
10-09-2012, 04:12 AM
Newt Gingrich was on CNN a couple of nights ago defending Mitt-for-brains tax cuts against a Democrat(this never ever ends well for the conservative).


He was told the cuts could cost $5 trillion dollars.He said "increased employment would offset that deficit and if necessary we would repeal the oil subsidiary."


The democrat said "that's only $4 billion dollars(1/1250)."



Newt looked into the camera and said "yeah I guess so."










http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww307/AndreasFerrari/125783415.jpg

xmikeman
10-09-2012, 06:04 AM
It's okay that you don't understand. Most of the left doesn't. Government policies distort free market enterprise. It's unnatural. It causes anomalies where few get rich while majority suffer, even though the intentions of those policies may have been good. Here's an example:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA
look at any country that doesn't take care of their poor, and tell me people having responsibility for them is a good thing. good luck with your slums all over american citys goals of 2013. i'm sure you're a misc "future ceo" so you have to fight for the 1%'s rights now before you join them lol.

TheOneArmedMan
10-09-2012, 07:09 AM
mitt wants to reduce tax rates by 20%, while obama would like to raise taxes on high-income earners.

despite the fact that americans will see their marginal tax rate decline by 20% under mitt romney as president, they continue to support obama's tax plans in the name of "fairness" even if they will be worse off under it.

here is what has happened...

mitt proposes 20% rate cuts for EVERYONE
team obama claims it will hurt the deficit too much because he won't make it up in loophole/deduction cutoffs
obama supporters go gangbusters over this new revelation, despite the fact that the national debt has increased by $6T under their messiah.

where is the logic here?

this reminds me of the study done where americans would rather make more salary than their neighbors, even if they are making less overall... example,

choice between you making $50K and neighbor making $60K, or you making $40K and neighbor making $30K.... most would choose the 2nd option.

in b 4 Romney flip flops and rasies taxes by 20% I'd like to believe he wants to lower them, but he will most likely raise them.

illriginalized
10-09-2012, 08:07 AM
I'm just gon' leave this here:
ZDKtI5hMp4s

daxtrader
10-09-2012, 03:21 PM
look at any country that doesn't take care of their poor, and tell me people having responsibility for them is a good thing. good luck with your slums all over american citys goals of 2013. i'm sure you're a misc "future ceo" so you have to fight for the 1%'s rights now before you join them lol.

What do you mean by taking care of their poor? Giving them free stuff? Why are they poor in the first place? Ever thought about that? Did you even watch the video? The very policies liberals promote causes poverty.

bearfan34201
10-09-2012, 03:25 PM
Whats dictated as rich moron? The guy making 250k with a few kids in college, mortgage and a widowed mother who he takes care of? Please, stfu. I know afew like that and they aren't "rich" runnig around the east coast with their yachts. Hate fuking libs, I swear.