In John Kerrys presidental ad he says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. He also says he has a plan to create 8 million jobs. How can you create jobs when you confiscate money from the people who create the jobs? And isnt fermenting class hated just a little bit dispicable? I thought demacrats were about bringing people together? Kumbaya and all that stuff? :rolleyes:

kerry also expects to receive all of that tax money. The rich people have the tools to pay less taxes by living off capital gains, tax free investments, etc.

Skipuno Wrote:In John Kerrys presidental ad he says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. He also says he has a plan to create 8 million jobs. How can you create jobs when you confiscate money from the people who create the jobs?

Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the greatest economic expansion of a generation followed.

George Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and he's still 2 million jobs in the hole.

Quote:And isnt fermenting class hated just a little bit dispicable?

Al Franken answers this question much better than I ever could.

Al is fond of taking all of us back to 14th century Europe and describing a 1358 peasant revolt that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley.

At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house and killed the knight.

The peasants then roasted the knight on a spit in front of his wife and kids.

Ten or twelve peasants then raped the lady as her kids watched.

They then forced the lady to eat the roasted flesh of her husband, as her kids still watched.

The peasants then killed the lady.

That is class warfare.

Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top one percent is not.

Quote:I thought demacrats were about bringing people together? Kumbaya and all that stuff? :rolleyes:

Democrats believe everyone ought to pay their fair share. Democrats believe that the cost of running this country ought to be shared with peoples' ability to pay in mind. And Democrats believe money earned for *not* working ought to be taxed at least as much as money people earn *by* working.

It's about values really. Values and fairness.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Skipuno Wrote:In John Kerrys presidental ad he says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. He also says he has a plan to create 8 million jobs. How can you create jobs when you confiscate money from the people who create the jobs?

Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the greatest economic expansion of a generation followed.

George Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and he's still 2 million jobs in the hole.

Quote:And isnt fermenting class hated just a little bit dispicable?

Al Franken answers this question much better than I ever could.

Al is fond of taking all of us back to 14th century Europe and describing a 1358 peasant revolt that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley.

At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house and killed the knight.

The peasants then roasted the knight on a spit in front of his wife and kids.

Ten or twelve peasants then raped the lady as her kids watched.

They then forced the lady to eat the roasted flesh of her husband, as her kids still watched.

The peasants then killed the lady.

That is class warfare.

Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top one percent is not.

Quote:I thought demacrats were about bringing people together? Kumbaya and all that stuff? :rolleyes:

Democrats believe everyone ought to pay their fair share. Democrats believe that the cost of running this country ought to be shared with peoples' ability to pay in mind. And Democrats believe money earned for *not* working ought to be taxed at least as much as money people earn *by* working.

It's about values really. Values and fairness.

That is all garbage! 100% Garbage, and Al Franken....Please!

Bill Clinton raised taxes on everyone, not just the wealthy. Do you really think the President has a whole lot to do with the economy?

Nah...it's all cyclical with influences from major world events.

Are you a liberal art major or something?

Yes but how much is fair in your opinion? 50% 60%? More? And how is it fair that the goverment spends like a drunken sailor year after year and is never asked to do without while the citizens of this country have to bear more and more of the burden?

GrayBeard Wrote:That is all garbage!  100% Garbage, and Al Franken....Please!

Bill Clinton raised taxes on everyone, not just the wealthy.

You say my post is garbage.

But let me offer some facts.

During the Reagan administration, the top federal income rate was lowered from 70 percent -- which itself was the lowest top federal income tax rate since the Hoover administration -- to 28 percent. This was the bracket that, in 1989, applied to the top 0.7 percent of income tax filers.*

When President Bush I broke his "read my lips" pledge, he raised that top bracket for 0.7 percent of income tax filers to 31 percent.

When President Clinton came along, he took that top 31 percent tax bracket -- which applied to the top 3 percent of income earners -- and broke it into three brackets.

The top 0.5 percent -- in other words, about 1 in 200 filers -- would pay 39.6 percent on their last dollar. An additional, not-quite-so-rich 0.9 percent would pay 36 percent on their last dollar. The remaining 2.2 percent from that top bracket would stay at the old 31 percent rate.

And, when it comes to personal income taxes, that's all Clinton did in terms of raising them. He also created the earned income tax created for poor working folk, but this was a cut.

Bush's tax cut involved (in part), cutting those top two tax brackets down to 35 percent and 33 percent, respectively.

What does it take to even reach these tax brackets?

A family would have had to earn more than $174,700 last year to reach next-to-last 33 percent bracket (36 percent under Clinton).

And a family would have had to earn more than $311,950 to reach the top 35 percent bracket (39.6 percent under Clinton).

A lot of people try to blur the issue by arguing these are middle class people. The reality is, only one in 50 income tax filers earn enough to reach either of these brackets, and just 0.8 percent of filers reach the top bracket.

-----

SOURCES:

<a href='http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=262' target='_blank'>http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/T...e.cfm?Docid=262</a>

<a href='http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=147' target='_blank'>http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/T...e.cfm?Docid=147</a>

<a href='http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=213' target='_blank'>http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/T...e.cfm?Docid=213</a>

* The Reagan era top rate was regressive. An additional 2.8 percent of filers who couldn't quite reach the top tax bracket paid 33 percent on their last dollar. Those who made enough to get into the top bracket paid just 28 percent on every additional dollar they earned.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the greatest economic expansion of a generation followed.

George Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and he's still 2 million jobs in the hole.

wasnt the economy in a decline about 2 yrs before clinton left office?

and isnt the economy getting better now?

cant blame bush for everthing

safetyeagle Wrote:wasnt the economy in a decline about 2 yrs before clinton left office?

No. It hit the skids as Bush was walking in the door.

Quote:and isnt the economy getting better now?

Not in Ohio. And, nationally, Bush is still more than 2 million jobs in the hole.

Those tax cuts sure are effective.

:rolleyes:

ok
well read the article

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115952,00.html' target='_blank'>economy</a>

safetyeagle Wrote:ok
well read the article

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115952,00.html' target='_blank'>economy</a>

He's still more than 2 million jobs in the hole.

The economy grew by something like 20 million or 25 million jobs under President Clinton

Not to mention the fact that jobs aren't jobs.

One job is not equal to another. You could outsource a lot of good paying fringe-benefit jobs and create a lot of minimum wage service sector no beni jobs.

The job "number" may remain the same but the real wages lost will never come back.

Hell, even Lou Dobbs (a Republican!) realizes this. Why can't you?

<a href='http://www.bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20040310161634.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.bernie.house.gov/documents/arti...40310161634.asp</a>

So I guess Schadenfreude thinks its ok for the federal goverment to steal as much money as it can from the american citizens as long as they are considered rich. And I guess tax cuts are never a good idea just on the principle that letting people keep more of their money is the right thing to do. Also SF, you gave some silly example to explain what class warfare is. But dont you think emplying that the rich dont pay their fair share forments hatred? By the way, does that rich bastard Al Franken feel guilty? Since he feels rich people need to pay more.

Skipuno Wrote:By the way, does that rich bastard Al Franken feel guilty? Since he feels rich people need to pay more.

no he doesnt feel guilty, because he like all his liberal pals wont be taxed anyway.

Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing
by Tim Kane, Brett Schaefer, and Alison Fraser


April 1, 2004 |


The American economy never rests—at this moment, in fact, economic growth is vigorous. Yet every time there is a slight dip in the acceleration of output, jobs, or incomes, the undying myths of a sputtering, backfiring economy rise again. Today, many of those myths concern the ills of outsourcing.



The plain facts, however, lay all of today’s myths about outsourcing to rest. But there is still a real danger that politicians working with incomplete or incorrect information will hobble American competitiveness. Scapegoating poor Third World countries, “Benedict Arnold CEOs,

Skipuno Wrote:So I guess Schadenfreude thinks its ok for the federal goverment to steal as much money as it can from the american citizens as long as they are considered rich.

It's about paying your fair share.

We're all in this together. Taxes pay to help keep this country strong. They pay for roads. They pay for our army. They pay for Social Security.

This combination of government services -- along with countless others -- makes us strong. It creates an enviroment where, despite these massive Bush-era job losses, our economy is one of the strongest in the world.

In light of all this, is it too much to ask that the people who benefit most from living in America -- in this wonderful society we have built here over the past two and a half centuries -- pay a little more toward keeping it strong?

I don't think so.

It's about values.

By the way, ff levying an income tax on the rich is "stealing," as you put it, then is your argument that the income tax is illegal?

Are you arguing that all taxes are illegal?

Help me out here.

Quote:And I guess tax cuts are never a good idea just on the principle that letting people keep more of their money is the right thing to do.

Tax cuts may have been a good idea when the top marginal rate was 91 percent -- as it was during the Eisenhower administration. You certainly don't hear Democrats calling for a return to those days.

But does a tax cut -- especially one weighted so heavily in favor of the wealthy -- really make sense when we're running half-trillion dollar deficits each year and genuinely concerned about the future of the Social Security program?

Quote:Also SF, you gave some silly example to explain what class warfare is. But dont you think emplying that the rich dont pay their fair share forments hatred?

No. I think it implies that I think they can afford to pay a little bit more than George Bush is asking them to.

For god's sakes, 35 percent, 39 percent -- take your pick. The rich will still be rich. The poor will still be poor.

It isn't like I'm calling for the rape, torture and mutilation of rich people. It isn't like I'm calling for the government to nationalize all our nations assets and outlaw private property.

I'm simply suggesting that, in considering how to pay the expenses of running the greatest country in the world, we ought to keep in mind people's ability to pay.

Quote:By the way, does that rich bastard Al Franken feel guilty?

And you are accusing me of class warfare?

Quote: Since he feels rich people need to pay more.

Feel free to call his radio show and ask him.

I would guess he pays his taxes and counts his blessings that he has been able to do so well in this great country of ours.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Taxes pay to help keep this country strong. They pay for roads. They pay for our army. They pay for Social Security.

i have no problem paying taxes for things needed, but while i work to make ends meet for my family, i also support some person(s) sitting in a govt owned house, or projects as we call them in the delta, smoking pot, drinking beer, & having sex, while their children do without. i have no problem paying for somebody going through a little bad stretch but come on. i drive a used chevy truck and work for it , while the "wards" of the state drive a caddy. thats the main problem i have with dems & repubs, it doesnt matter who is in office i and alot of people like me keep on having to pay for our wonderful social welfare system in the country. it makes me sick. as far as skipuno's comments on al franken he like most of "hollywood" live in their mansions and hardly mingle with the middle class & poor, but yet they know what is best for us, thats b.s. and how does being a second rate comedien make one a political expert?
:mad:

safetyeagle Wrote:i also support some person(s) sitting in a govt owned house, or projects as we call them in the delta, smoking pot, drinking beer, & having sex, while their children do without.

This is sort of like indicting all college athletes because of Lawrence Phillips.

Quote:i have no problem paying for somebody going through a little bad stretch but come on. i drive a used chevy truck and work for it , while the "wards" of the state drive a caddy.

A Caddy.

Sure.

Quote:thats the main problem i have with dems & repubs, it doesnt matter who is in office i and alot of people like me keep on having to pay for our wonderful social welfare system in the country.

Most countries have a more generous system, actually.

Quote:as far as skipuno's comments on al franken he like most of "hollywood" live in their mansions and hardly mingle with the middle class & poor,

I could be wrong, but I believe Al Franken lives in an apartment in New York City.

His daughter attends a public school there.

Quote:but yet they know what is best for us, thats b.s. and how does being a second rate comedien make one a political expert?
:mad:

As opposed to a half-deaf, OxyContin-addled fat **** who once did color commentary for Monday Night Football?

Your problem SF is you think the gorverment made this country great. It is the american people that make this country great. I do think that the income tax system is outdated and hidious. There are better ways of taxing people. The goverment is a huge bloated cow that needs alot of trimming. By the way SF, were is your platnum " Demacard ", while the republicans are bad at spending money the demacrats are twice as bad. :D

Skipuno Wrote:Your problem SF is you think the gorverment made this country great.

Your problem is that you don't think you need government for anything.

Quote:It  is the american people that make this country great.

You make it sound as if we borrow Canadians to run the U.S. federal government.

Quote:I do think that the income tax system is outdated and hidious.

And I believe it is the one tax we have in America that takes into account people's ability to pay. It is progressive. Other taxes weigh much heavily on those among us least able to pay. That doesn't seem right.

Quote:The goverment is a huge bloated cow that needs alot of trimming.

Well, your Republicans run the country.

Where is the trimming?

Quote:By the way SF, were is your platnum " Demacard ", while the republicans are bad at spending money the demacrats are twice as bad.  :D

Ah, but Democrats at least know how to balance budgets.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Quote:By the way SF, were is your platnum " Demacard ", while the republicans are bad at spending money the demacrats are twice as bad.  :D

Ah, but Democrats at least know how to balance budgets.

I do beleive the budget was balanced during the Clinton years with a Rebublican congress. Congress has 10x more weight when it comes to balancing the budget than the president, its called the wonderful world of checks and balances.