Raise Taxes or Granny Gets It

[BigRob]

See, I told you if we went down that road we would end up splitting hair, not just by States, but by Counties, by districts, and by neighborhood, and by streets, and by homes on each streets, and by people in each home!

This is why we are in all this together, as a Country.

Then why are we even breaking it down by state? Isn't that ultimately what it is all about? The individual people who get more back than they pay in?

My point is that it is entirely simplistic to look at the state, assume since Republicans won that state, that Republicans are are draining the tax dollars. That is hardly what I would call sounds research.

This is why Germany, and France, and Belgium and the Nederlands are ready to bail out Greece, and Spain, and Portugal. . .because the prosperity of the whole of the European Union depends, not on the "strongest link," but on how well they can move forward, or fail together.

And NOW, we, the UNITED STATES, are to the point of looking at "splitting" hair between who is fairly or not so fairly participating in the economy of the U.S?
As I said before. . .be careful going too far that way! Most of the "take more" states ARE either VERY strong, or VERY leaning Red States! Do you think we should just "let them fail" and cut them off?

And there is no evidence provided that it is majority Republicans taking and using those dollars, yet you are throwing that around like it is fact.

If you want to "let them fail", how about we let the real weakest links fail, ie those individuals who are not paying in to begin with?

 

[ProudLefty]

...

If you want to "let them fail", how about we let the real weakest links fail, ie those individuals who are not paying in to begin with?

Why? What reason would you have for wanting to do that? America went through those years. We saw the elderly die from starvation and no health care. We saw people dying in the hospital parking lots. We saw children in school who were hungry and unfed.

We rejected that as not being the America we wanted. We built systems to move towards solving those problems.

Now, you are wanting to return to those years just so the rich can keep a few more of their bucks??

Just so you understand what you are talking about... are you prepared to have your father in law move into your study? Are you prepared to having to buy your mother's food? Are you ready to pay the doctor's bills for your unemployed sister?

Just to be clear: I have no desire to go back to the 1940s and 1950s. It was not the happy and cheerful time you think it was, except for a very lucky few.

 

[Openmind]

Then why are we even breaking it down by state? Isn't that ultimately what it is all about? The individual people who get more back than they pay in?

My point is that it is entirely simplistic to look at the state, assume since Republicans won that state, that Republicans are are draining the tax dollars. That is hardly what I would call sounds research.



And there is no evidence provided that it is majority Republicans taking and using those dollars, yet you are throwing that around like it is fact.

If you want to "let them fail", how about we let the real weakest links fail, ie those individuals who are not paying in to begin with?

Once again, I apparently didn't explain myself correctly.

I am not saying that the fact that many states that "receive" more from the government than they "provide" are known as Red States.

Many of the statest that "provide" more than they "receive" are blue states.

That doesn't mean that Republicans take more than Democrats. . .what I met to demonstrate is that, if people in those states that "receive" more than their participation in tax REALIZED that, if the GOP had its way, it propably would put an end to all those "receipts."

And, if they realize that. . .they may decide that, no matter what Fox News tells them, no matter what their pasteur tells them, and no matter whether or not they want to "keep the government out of their medicare!"

Ignorance is bliss for some! And unfortunately, Fox News, Limbaugh etc. . .are playing on people's ignorance and inability to think for themselves and see long term consequences!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Of course he's playing politics. He didn't get elected to the WH without being very good at playing politics. That's what politicians do, after all.

thats a BS response ..Saying he is doing it because he got elected to the office? I would expect better then that if your going to accuse him of playing politics with the nations econ as a whole.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Scaring seniors about their Social Security is playing politics. He knows darned well that SS isn't going to be shut down. Why not pick out something less emotional to say we may not be able to do for a while?

actually you don't know that...have you seen some of the Republican ideas? they would basically shut down every part of the government to fund not defaulting. I doubt the ideas would pass...but thats some of there plans.

 

[BigRob]

Why? What reason would you have for wanting to do that? America went through those years. We saw the elderly die from starvation and no health care. We saw people dying in the hospital parking lots. We saw children in school who were hungry and unfed.

We rejected that as not being the America we wanted. We built systems to move towards solving those problems.

Now, you are wanting to return to those years just so the rich can keep a few more of their bucks??

Just so you understand what you are talking about... are you prepared to have your father in law move into your study? Are you prepared to having to buy your mother's food? Are you ready to pay the doctor's bills for your unemployed sister?

Just to be clear: I have no desire to go back to the 1940s and 1950s. It was not the happy and cheerful time you think it was, except for a very lucky few.

I am not saying I particularly want them all to "fail." I was really just responding to Openmind's comment (or question, perhaps even in jest) of do we want to just let those states fail. I simply took that point further, and if we are going to get in the mentality of letting states fail, why not take it a step further?

It was not really making the argument that I want people to starve to death etc, it was more of a rhetorical response to a questions that I perhaps misread?

 

[BigRob]

Once again, I apparently didn't explain myself correctly.

I am not saying that the fact that many states that "receive" more from the government than they "provide" are known as Red States.

Many of the statest that "provide" more than they "receive" are blue states.

That doesn't mean that Republicans take more than Democrats. . .what I met to demonstrate is that, if people in those states that "receive" more than their participation in tax REALIZED that, if the GOP had its way, it propably would put an end to all those "receipts."

And, if they realize that. . .they may decide that, no matter what Fox News tells them, no matter what their pasteur tells them, and no matter whether or not they want to "keep the government out of their medicare!"

Ignorance is bliss for some! And unfortunately, Fox News, Limbaugh etc. . .are playing on people's ignorance and inability to think for themselves and see long term consequences!

By no means will I argue that the average American knows what is going on in the government.

I think what ultimately needs to happen is that the American public needs to grow up. We need to realize that nothing comes free in the world, and stop, as a society, acting so entitled.

 

[ProudLefty]

By no means will I argue that the average American knows what is going on in the government.

I think what ultimately needs to happen is that the American public needs to grow up. We need to realize that nothing comes free in the world, and stop, as a society, acting so entitled.

Who are these people whom you believe are thinking there is such a thing as a free lunch?

I keep hearing that as a reason to be brutal to our less fortunate, and I just do not buy into it.

Liberals are aware that taking care of the elderly is expensive. Liberals are aware that healthcare for children is expensive. Liberals are aware that a minimum wage of $7/hour is less than $14,000 a year, and that no one can live a normal life at that wage.

Liberals believe that America is a rich and powerful country, and liberals believe we have the ability and the desire to see to it that our standard of living is at least adequate for everyone. Just because granny has raised her family and is old, or granddad isn't strong enough to pull line like he did for 45 years is no reason to just thrown them away now.

We have the ability to provide a dignified life for them. The concerns that 3% of the people might take advantage of the system is not reason to discard the system. We can easily take care of the 97% and figure out how to deal with the 3%.

As to some sort of hogwash that Paris Hilton deserves another hairdo for her puppy and therefore granny can't have a sweater for a chilly evening is just plain ... hogwash.

I wish someone would tell me who are the ones complaining. Who among the rich are saying they shouldn't pay more? This is just a false argument, unsupported by the facts. Yes, the Koch brothers believe their billions aren't enough, and they deserve to have it all, but they are just a couple of spoiled kids who even sued their own mother because they wanted her money too. They are not speaking for the wealthy, and they are not representative of the majority of the wealthy in America, who generally appreciate their own good fortune and want the best for everyone.

 

[BigRob]

Who are these people whom you believe are thinking there is such a thing as a free lunch?

Everyone who looks at our $14 trillion dollar debt and demands more money be spent.

I keep hearing that as a reason to be brutal to our less fortunate, and I just do not buy into it.

Liberals are aware that taking care of the elderly is expensive. Liberals are aware that healthcare for children is expensive. Liberals are aware that a minimum wage of $7/hour is less than $14,000 a year, and that no one can live a normal life at that wage.

Liberals believe that America is a rich and powerful country, and liberals believe we have the ability and the desire to see to it that our standard of living is at least adequate for everyone. Just because granny has raised her family and is old, or granddad isn't strong enough to pull line like he did for 45 years is no reason to just thrown them away now.

We have the ability to provide a dignified life for them. The concerns that 3% of the people might take advantage of the system is not reason to discard the system. We can easily take care of the 97% and figure out how to deal with the 3%.

Who is it that decides what is "adequate"?

As to some sort of hogwash that Paris Hilton deserves another hairdo for her puppy and therefore granny can't have a sweater for a chilly evening is just plain ... hogwash.

Paris Hilton can spend her money however she wants. You might argue that she did not work for most of it, and therefore doesn't deserve it...but the government sure didn't work for it either, why do they deserve more of it?

I wish someone would tell me who are the ones complaining. Who among the rich are saying they shouldn't pay more? This is just a false argument, unsupported by the facts. Yes, the Koch brothers believe their billions aren't enough, and they deserve to have it all, but they are just a couple of spoiled kids who even sued their own mother because they wanted her money too. They are not speaking for the wealthy, and they are not representative of the majority of the wealthy in America, who generally appreciate their own good fortune and want the best for everyone.

I will tell you I know of many "rich" people personally that feel exactly as I do. We do not mind paying a bit more in taxes, if the government will show they are actually serious about balancing the budget and paying down deficits....otherwise, what are we paying more for?

 

[ProudLefty]

Everyone who looks at our $14 trillion dollar debt and demands more money be spent. ...

Lets remember where that $14T came from. It didn't come from providing free lunches to America's middle class and poor. It came from a war based on lies, a war that didn't need fighting, a gift to pharma, and a gift to the rich, and all done without regard to how that all would be paid for. It was not Democrats who ran up the bill.


Now, Democrats are trying to fix the mess and the people who caused the mess are still trying to worsen the mess.

Yes, we have to get our house in order. Obama offered to fix the mess with 85% from spending cuts and only 15% from revenues. That 15% would come from cutting benefits for corporate jets, subsidies to Exxon, and similar egregious abuses of the use of power by the wealthy to feather their own nests. And that was not enough for Republicans. Their goal is being made clear. They are quite proud that they are sticking to their demands and will not compromise even a penny.

That is not how America operates. They will be kicked out in 2012 if they don't rethink their attitude.

 

[BigRob]

Lets remember where that $14T came from. It didn't come from providing free lunches to America's middle class and poor. It came from a war based on lies, a war that didn't need fighting, a gift to pharma, and a gift to the rich, and all done without regard to how that all would be paid for. It was not Democrats who ran up the bill.

Congress has run a deficit every year since 1969, and you somehow think three recent programs that account for nowhere near $14 trillion is to blame? Please.

Now, Democrats are trying to fix the mess and the people who caused the mess are still trying to worsen the mess.

Yes, we have to get our house in order. Obama offered to fix the mess with 85% from spending cuts and only 15% from revenues. That 15% would come from cutting benefits for corporate jets, subsidies to Exxon, and similar egregious abuses of the use of power by the wealthy to feather their own nests. And that was not enough for Republicans. Their goal is being made clear. They are quite proud that they are sticking to their demands and will not compromise even a penny.

In what fantasy world does a proposal that doesn't even balance the budget "fix" anything?

That is not how America operates. They will be kicked out in 2012 if they don't rethink their attitude.

This is the free lunch mentality at work. You want someone else to fix it all, and somehow pretend a plan that fixes nothing is a great solution...

 

[ProudLefty]

Congress has run a deficit every year since 1969, and you somehow think three recent programs that account for nowhere near $14 trillion is to blame? Please.



In what fantasy world does a proposal that doesn't even balance the budget "fix" anything?



This is the free lunch mentality at work. You want someone else to fix it all, and somehow pretend a plan that fixes nothing is a great solution...

What fantasy world do you believe will fix the budget by cutting spending alone?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

[BigRob]

What fantasy world do you believe will fix the budget by cutting spending alone?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

The CBO admits tax rates could hike to 90% on the rich and it would not even balance the budget. Spending cuts are going to have to be the major component. This idea that we just tax the rich and close a few loopholes is not even a serious proposal.

 

[Openmind]

The CBO admits tax rates could hike to 90% on the rich and it would not even balance the budget. Spending cuts are going to have to be the major component. This idea that we just tax the rich and close a few loopholes is not even a serious proposal.

I believe the CBO is talking about the very short term. . .like, it wouldn't fix the deficit THIS YEAR no matter how high the taxes would go up THIS YEAR.

If the taxes on the top 2% were raised UNTIL the deficit was resolved to a level that would be acceptable (let's say, 39% to 45%, for a period of 10 or 15 years), WHILE, at the same time, the entitlement budget was controlled to go down every year by let's say 5%, I believe their assessment would be very different.

If you have data showing differently, I'd love to see it.

 

[GenSeneca]

If the taxes on the top 2% were raised...

How are you going to raise taxes on the top 2%? The Progressive income tax barely touches people in the top 2%, if it touches them at all. Their income is primarily derived from investments and therefore only subject to the flat 15% rate of the capital gains tax. Why isn't the capital gains tax Progressive?