Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81314151617181920 LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 398
  1. #341  
    The $250K number was the amount above which folks would get a raise in taxts, the $150K was the amount below which folks would get a cut. $150-250K range were those who would see little to no change.

    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  2. #342  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The $250K number was the amount above which folks would get a raise in taxts, the $150K was the amount below which folks would get a cut. $150-250K range were those who would see little to no change.

    You do realize that the chart disagrees with your assertion, right?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #343  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You do realize that the chart disagrees with your assertion, right?
    That's just what I was thinking. The one thing that's frustrating is when people say middle class, middle class, middle class, bottom up, bottom up, bottom up; they forget that it's that top 1% that actually make the jobs.

    So, if you lose your job because the top 1% get tired of playing, are the lowest income brackets getting a tax cut - even though they're not paying income or payroll taxes?
    "Whenever I feel like exercise I lie down until the feeling passes."
    -Robert Maynard Hutchins


    Palm Pilot 1000 -> Philips Nino -> Handspring Visor Deluxe -> Alltel Kyocera 7135 -> Cingular Treo 650 -> AT&T Blackjack II -> AT&T Treo 750 & Epix
  4. #344  
    Quote Originally Posted by phrogpilot73 View Post
    That's just what I was thinking. The one thing that's frustrating is when people say middle class, middle class, middle class, bottom up, bottom up, bottom up; they forget that it's that top 1% that actually make the jobs.

    So, if you lose your job because the top 1% get tired of playing, are the lowest income brackets getting a tax cut - even though they're not paying income or payroll taxes?
    not sure about that... if part of the top 1% is tired, there are plenty of eager replacements...
    Besides the top 1% arent the only ones who make the jobs..none of the self employed or independant SMB's are in the top 1% and some of the top 1% are 'old money' that dont generate many new jobs.. so dont think you can make a blanket statement like that..

    What I find interestind is that McCane is only rewarding the (very) rich while the people who are on a tight budget are hardly supported...
    Seems a bit unfair and smells like helping out your mates to me..

    As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) the very rich allready have a better tax deal as it is, so a bit of leveling out sounds fair to me...

    I'm not for penalizing hard workers for making more money, but neither candidate seem to do that, one just wants to make the playing field a bit more even while the other seems to want to help the rich only..

    Given the fact that the mayority of voters is not in the top 1% that seems like a risky strategy to me..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  5. #345  
    I think the chart is consistent with what I've heard and posted earlier - around $200k and below will see a tax cut and after $250k there will start to be a tax increase.

    As far as "welfare" for those that don't pay - I don't think that is true. I believe Obama has said that those that are employed and that pay taxes would get relief, not those that pay no taxes. McCain was recently trying to exploit this notion at a rally when it was announced that the jobless ranks increased, claiming that Obama's plan did nothing for those that are unemployed. Yet, I keep hearing other Republicans claiming that Obama will give tax breaks to those that aren't employed and not paying taxes - thus, creating another form of welfare. I'd be opposed to such an idea as well but I don't think this is what he is planning to do.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...he-unemployed/
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/31/2008 at 09:48 AM.
  6. #346  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You do realize that the chart disagrees with your assertion, right?
    Well, because the ranges are very broad, I think it's hard to tell exactly where the cutoff between tax cut / status quo / tax increase exactly is. However, it is very clear that there is no tax increase to anyone making less than $250K, as has always been Obama's assertion. There is no basis for the charges that there will be a tax increase for those making $42K, $100K, or $150K, as has been alleged.

    As for that whole 'socialism', and 'top 1% create the jobs' argument, it's important to remember three things:
    - The trickle down, Reaganomics, economic theory simply doesn't work. The Reagan years saw a rapic increase in our national deficit.
    - We're talking about an increase back to the Clinton years, not to the overwhelming taxes (60-70% of income) that existed in the 70's.
    - ALL taxation is a redistribution of wealth. If someone takes my money to pay some else's Social Security, or to build a road that I don't live on, my wealth is being redistributed. If I take oil money and give it to citizens of Alaska, that wealth is being redistributed.

    We can have a reasoned discussion on whether wealth should be redistributed to top earners in an effort to stimulate the economy, or redistribute it to the middle class to increase spending and thus stimulate the economy. But to call it 'socialism / Marxism / communism' is simply disingenuous.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  7. #347  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    We can have a reasoned discussion on whether wealth should be redistributed to top earners in an effort to stimulate the economy, or redistribute it to the middle class to increase spending and thus stimulate the economy. But to call it 'socialism / Marxism / communism' is simply disingenuous.
    That is the most salient point my friend. Although I don't like the word "redistribute" because I think of it more as "retention" of money earned.
  8. #348  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    One thing to keep in mind is that the 'means of production' are no longer contained to factories, farmland, etc. This has always included wealth and capital to some extent. In today's economy, it could even be argued to include credit. Not that this helps the Republicans any, because they are part of the problem and just as 'socialist'.
    If that is the case then the founding fathers of the US set up a socialist state.

    If we are going to extend means of production beyond the traditional definitions, even to the poiint capital and credit we have to include the education system, the health system, the security system (internal police and external military), the legal system, of course the roads and national public infrastructure as they all go to facilitating production and productivity.

    Even so redistribution is what the Republicans are critiquing and that is not socialism by any definition. (Ironically since the US has been redistributing means of production since the founding it would be problematic to define it as such).

    The problem the repuiblcians have is the hypocracy of them being the ones who are throwing the incorrectly used label when they are equally guilty the same behavior- unles one is to say that their is a quntum jump between 36% and 37% marginal rates that qualify you as "socialist" after and non socialist before!

    I think Americans also see something else in the label that is not about economics and policy but about darker smears. In the US this has been the smear label beginning with the alien and sedition act (and commentators on the right and left would be in jail under it) and going thought the McCarthy period, to the excess in labeling and prejudice in the current "war on terror."

    So I absolutely appreciate your sophisticated and serious view and response, but I hope you understand I was replying based on the flip and pejorative nature of the commen to which I was responding.
  9. #349  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You do realize that the chart disagrees with your assertion, right?
    I don't think it disagrees. There are multiple variables involved. The effective marginal thresholds and averages for the average situation are one thing
  10. #350  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Heard in in a speech from the man himself. The $150,000 thing was http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/...howtopic=81249 that from the mouth of Joe himself.

    The $100,000 was in a recent speech. It is true though, so please enjoy the reduced amount - we are sure it will get lower.

    On an unrelated note: this is old news, but it has not hit here: http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdo...hdog25.article
    yeah and I heard McCain call Iraq Iran, I heard this expert of foreign policy consistently confuse the Republican Guard with Revolutionary Guard etc. He thinks Sarah Palin is "a breast of fresh air."

    McCain has also implied that Joe the plumber's taxes would go up when as a matter of fact they would certainly go down under Obama. As it turned out Joe the plumber $250,000 number is the amount he intends to offer for the business. the $250,000 is neither the gross or net income of the business. Service business sold for $250000 typically net $25k to 60k.
  11. #351  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    There is no basis for the charges that there will be a tax increase for those making $42K, $100K, or $150K, as has been alleged.
    Certainly not alleged by me, but the point was more that the chart clearly illustrates that, at least at one time, the range making ~225K would have seen a significant cut.
    As for that whole 'socialism', and 'top 1% create the jobs' argument, it's important to remember three things:
    - The trickle down, Reaganomics, economic theory simply doesn't work. The Reagan years saw a rapic increase in our national deficit.
    The problem with this argument is that the deficit did not increase due to tax revenue decreases, but rather expenditure increases.
    - ALL taxation is a redistribution of wealth.
    Not exactly. Public works do benefit all to some extent, so it's hard to classify them as wealth redistribution.
    If someone takes my money to pay some else's Social Security, or to build a road that I don't live on, my wealth is being redistributed. If I take oil money and give it to citizens of Alaska, that wealth is being redistributed.
    The question is really whether one gets a use out of that, IMO. I don't drive on every interstate in the country, but goods that I might purchase do.
    We can have a reasoned discussion on whether wealth should be redistributed to top earners in an effort to stimulate the economy, or redistribute it to the middle class to increase spending and thus stimulate the economy. But to call it 'socialism / Marxism / communism' is simply disingenuous.
    There are certainly socialist influences in some of our government programs. That is not disingenuous at all.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #352  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    yeah and I heard McCain call Iraq Iran, I heard this expert of foreign policy consistently confuse the Republican Guard with Revolutionary Guard etc. He thinks Sarah Palin is "a breast of fresh air."

    McCain has also implied that Joe the plumber's taxes would go up when as a matter of fact they would certainly go down under Obama. As it turned out Joe the plumber $250,000 number is the amount he intends to offer for the business. the $250,000 is neither the gross or net income of the business. Service business sold for $250000 typically net $25k to 60k.
    Gotchya politics? Why am I not surprised as to the source of this type of discourse?

    Now please stop feeding the troll so that I don't have to read his drivel.
  13. #353  
    In this country, one can make it on their own - that is capitalism. Many people have made it on their own from nothing. I work for such a man. No one helped him. No government subsidies. He saw a market and made his move. He created jobs on his own, not with the help of the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    not sure about that... if part of the top 1% is tired, there are plenty of eager replacements...
    Besides the top 1% arent the only ones who make the jobs..none of the self employed or independant SMB's are in the top 1% and some of the top 1% are 'old money' that dont generate many new jobs.. so dont think you can make a blanket statement like that..

    What I find interestind is that McCane is only rewarding the (very) rich while the people who are on a tight budget are hardly supported...
    Seems a bit unfair and smells like helping out your mates to me..

    As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) the very rich allready have a better tax deal as it is, so a bit of leveling out sounds fair to me...

    I'm not for penalizing hard workers for making more money, but neither candidate seem to do that, one just wants to make the playing field a bit more even while the other seems to want to help the rich only..

    Given the fact that the mayority of voters is not in the top 1% that seems like a risky strategy to me..
  14. #354  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    - The trickle down, Reaganomics, economic theory simply doesn't work. The Reagan years saw a rapid increase in our national deficit.
    I disagree. The fundamental theory is sound. Why did the deficit/debt grow so rapidly under Reagan? The bull crap spending. Trickle down economics work, the problem is NO ONE, Republican OR Democrat is willing to say "Yeah, I guess we don't need this." Why? Because they (our representative, irrespective of their party) have ceased working for US. They have started working towards getting reelected. That's all that matters to them - nothing more. We as a people need to remind them who they work for. I'm not holding my breath.
    "Whenever I feel like exercise I lie down until the feeling passes."
    -Robert Maynard Hutchins


    Palm Pilot 1000 -> Philips Nino -> Handspring Visor Deluxe -> Alltel Kyocera 7135 -> Cingular Treo 650 -> AT&T Blackjack II -> AT&T Treo 750 & Epix
  15. #355  
    We are also aware that this was not staged on Joe the plumber's part. Obama was walking the neighborhood and approached Joe the plumber. Joe the plumber though has paid the price with members of the Democrat party doing illegal computer searches - welfare, child support, rather fascinating.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Gotchya politics? Why am I not surprised as to the source of this type of discourse?

    Now please stop feeding the troll so that I don't have to read his drivel.
  16. #356  
    Under Reagan there was an increase in spending that did eventually take care of itself. Under a socialist government though, I suggest you do not hold your breath. No socialist government has yet to do what it says it will do. Heck, Hugo Chevez cannot keep the power on.

    Quote Originally Posted by phrogpilot73 View Post
    I disagree. The fundamental theory is sound. Why did the deficit/debt grow so rapidly under Reagan? The bull crap spending. Trickle down economics work, the problem is NO ONE, Republican OR Democrat is willing to say "Yeah, I guess we don't need this." Why? Because they (our representative, irrespective of their party) have ceased working for US. They have started working towards getting reelected. That's all that matters to them - nothing more. We as a people need to remind them who they work for. I'm not holding my breath.
  17. #357  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    If that is the case then the founding fathers of the US set up a socialist state.
    How so? The three major landmarks where we've picked up some major socialist influence were all in the 20th century (the first being less de facto socialist than the other two).
    If we are going to extend means of production beyond the traditional definitions, even to the poiint capital and credit we have to include the education system, the health system, the security system (internal police and external military), the legal system, of course the roads and national public infrastructure as they all go to facilitating production and productivity.
    Credit is somewhat grayer, but capital is the ultimate means of production. Without it, nothing else happens. The others are certainly socialized services.
    Even so redistribution is what the Republicans are critiquing and that is not socialism by any definition. (Ironically since the US has been redistributing means of production since the founding it would be problematic to define it as such).
    Please enlighten me as to how you think the US has been redistributing the means of production since the founding.
    I think Americans also see something else in the label that is not about economics and policy but about darker smears.
    I think the problem is that many define it incorrectly. I blame it on the 1950s.
    In the US this has been the smear label beginning with the alien and sedition act (and commentators on the right and left would be in jail under it) and going thought the McCarthy period, to the excess in labeling and prejudice in the current "war on terror."
    Wait, are you saying that 'socialist' has been a smear since 1798?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #358  
    No, Toby, he is just repeating what the Democrat party has been saying for years. Without the help of the government, a citizen has no chance.
  19. #359  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Under Reagan there was an increase in spending that did eventually take care of itself.
    It "took care of itself" by raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  20. #360  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Credit is somewhat grayer, but capital is the ultimate means of production. Without it, nothing else happens. The others are certainly socialized services.
    No it isn't that is a factor of production. We are talking about the textbook defintion here. I think I was appreciative and not confrontation of your extension to non textbook means to capital, but if we do that, capital in terms of currency and credit, is a tiny fraction of other correlatives such as education level, national infrastructure, national resources, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Please enlighten me as to how you think the US has been redistributing the means of production since the founding.
    The seizure and redistribution of what in present value would be hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of land doesn't count? The federal and state government supporting, abetting tens of trillions in slave labor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I think the problem is that many define it incorrectly. I blame it on the 1950s.
    Wait, are you saying that 'socialist' has been a smear since 1798?
    I was referring to the sedition act of 1918 and mistakenly wrote alien and sedition. Under the sedition act of 1918 the labeling of people as socialists and jailing began.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The problem with this argument is that the deficit did not increase due to tax revenue decreases, but rather expenditure increases.
    Let's be precise here. Tax revenue increased under reagan by 80% but almost all of that came from inflation, gdp growth was actually slow relative to Clinton.
    Last edited by aero; 10/31/2008 at 06:42 PM.

Posting Permissions