Republicans Don't Care About Middle Class

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Look at what your Unions do to the middle class. No more Hostess. Unions by and large support Democrats

18,500 people out of work because they were greedy.

Personally I love it. The worker bing interviewed said they were striking because they had mortgages, car payments, families to feed......

hmmmm, don't have to worry about that now, you just got yourself a welfare check.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Under the Bush Administration business received the heaviest tax cuts in history. Why didn't this BOOM the economy??? Why did that 1%-2% who received the heaviest tax cuts creation MILLIONS of jobs and invest in our economy??? Why did they invest the vast majority of it overseas and close down operations because spending was low in the US??? Under Bush, the tax cuts for the Middle Class weren't that deep. After the rebate check, the Middle Class had to face greater tax burden AND higher prices at the register and the gas pump. It didn't work. Good theory, might work in some economies, but it wasn't working under Bush. Could have simply been the economic and political climate globally. But one would think we'd see some form of massive growth if this were true. Also, why didn't these VERY DEEP tax cuts on the wealthy generate more revenue for the government??? We actually started growing GREATER deficits. Clinto brought home the bacon and eggs, running surplus. Bush broke the bank. If you're right... why didn't it work in the real world???

The Current Population Survey which produces the numbers used to deliver the monthly unemployment rate says from June 2001-January 2008 9,534,000 jobs were created. The recession at the beginning of the Bush years actually started in January of 2000, so the first 6 months of his presidency is thrown out. Couldn't be responsible for that. The current recession began in 2008, not caused by tax cuts but caused by the housing bubble bursting causing banks to fail.

Calling keeping the tax rates where they have been since 2003 a "tax cut" is dishonest. It's exactly like when the government slows the rate of how much they will spend and politicians calling it a "spending cut". I don't know about you but when I cut my budget my spending goes down. Only in Washington can you cut a budget and spending goes up. Not raising tax rates and calling that a "tax cut" also plays well in the alternate universe that is DC. It's a Democrat trick, a sideshow, and the MSM plays right along and the masses believe what they hear even though its dishonest.

The main claim Democrats make is that if we refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy, we will be out trillions in revenues. But this IRS website spreadsheet http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls shows that during the Clinton years $5.66 trillion in personal income tax revenue was collected. During the Bush years $7.37 trillion in personal income tax revenue was collected.

The spreadsheet also shows that the top 5% paid $1.28 trillion more during the Bush years than the Clinton years. And the share of total income taxes went up for the top 1%, 5% and 10% during the Bush years. And the group that paid less income tax and a smaller share during the Bush years versus Clinton years was the bottom 50%.

Rich people aren't stupid. Raise tax rates and working rich will work less, defer income, and take more non cash compensation while the idle rich will defer capital gains, shift their investments to more tax efficient securities like municipal bonds and evade taxes. Reduce tax rates and the working rich will work more while the idle rich will accelerate capital gains and shift their investments to more economically efficient private securities and hide less income.

Both kinds of rich people will be happy to pay more taxes if at the end of the day they end up taking home more money. And if you motivate people to work harder and longer and shift investments from inefficient tax advantaged government securities, the economy will grow. And when the economy grows, everyone will be happy to pay more taxes because we will all be back at work, busy making money instead of sitting at home on food stamps and unemployment.

You can ignore the facts and logic if you wish. But you can't argue with the data from the IRS.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It amazes me how the Republicans have talked so much of you into giving more of your income so that they can give the super wealthy tax breaks that get invested overseas. Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly.

It amazes me that you think the government needs more money from any of us when they rake in trillions of dollars every year but it's never enough. This is the problem with America. We've been dumbed down to the level that we actually think the Feds need more money.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Aquila

... with giving never ending handouts to millionaires and billionaires... ROFL!

"Handouts" = keeping your own money...you've been tricked by the socialists!

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Wow... you'd rather see elderly people desperate than ask a millionaire or billionaire to pay a little more in taxes.

Here's the deal... the Republican plan might not touch anyone 55 or older... but it would affect those who will be entering that age group. Maybe people like my grandmother believe that once this war is over, the money we're going to save can be used to secure medicare and social security for another generation. Maybe she sees that if we play our cards right... we can extend what her generation secured to the next. Because my grandmother personally mentioned that with all the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan... we wouldn't have to cut benefits so severely. Remember... she's not stupid... she has more years on earth than both of us put together. lol

You've bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker...

"Asking" millionaires and billionaires (Asking = forced by law, and the threat of jail) to pay "a little more" could never TOUCH the insolvency of SS and Medicare in a million, billion years!

SPENDING, SPENDING, SPENDING is THE problem!!!!!!

It's like talking to a deaf and blind person...

[canam]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You've bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker...

"Asking" millionaires and billionaires (Asking = forced by law, and the threat of jail) to pay "a little more" could never TOUCH the insolvency of SS and Medicare in a million, billion years!

SPENDING, SPENDING, SPENDING is THE problem!!!!!!

It's like talking to a deaf and blind person...

[Originalist]

Aquilla said....

Under the Bush Administration business received the heaviest tax cuts in history. Why didn't this BOOM the economy??? Why did that 1%-2% who received the heaviest tax cuts creation MILLIONS of jobs and invest in our economy???

The economy did boom under Bush for quite a time. But you are forgetting those twin cancers called Fannie and Freddie which destroyed that prosperity. Bush barely commented on the coming collapse of the housing market and he was attacked as a racist and for "not wanting minorities and the poor to get affordable housing", and like a typical Republican, he wimped right out instead of talking directly to the people like Reagan did.

[Originalist]

Aquilla,

In light of many statements from you on this thread, I'm still puzzled by your endorsement of libertarianism in the other thread. Libertarians advocate the gradual elimination of all Federal entitlement programs. They certainly don't hold to the view that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, or that our economic problems result from under taxing the rich. I'm curious as to how you reconcile these many seeming contradictions. Again, not said in malice.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

"Handouts" = keeping your own money...you've been tricked by the socialists!

Some people seem to think that the government actually owns all the money , but just lets us keep some of it.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Aquilla,

In light of many statements from you on this thread, I'm still puzzled by your endorsement of libertarianism in the other thread. Libertarians advocate the gradual elimination of all Federal entitlement programs. They certainly don't hold to the view that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, or that our economic problems result from under taxing the rich. I'm curious as to how you reconcile these many seeming contradictions. Again, not said in malice.

His view of economics from what he writes here is certainly more socialist/liberal than libertarian.