PDA

View Full Version : Tea Partiers: Are you mad at Obama for raising your taxes, or raising the deficit?



Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 05:15 PM
I mean on one hand, you're being taxed too much already, on the other hand, the government budget is in the red, so what shou-

oh wait....


http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100419/BIZ/4190303/-1/NEWSMAP


Congress cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion shortly after President Barack Obama took office, dwarfing the $28.6 billion in increases by states.
...
The massive economic recovery package enacted last year included about $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. About $232 billion was in cuts for individuals, nearly all in the first two years.

The most generous was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which gives individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 for 2009 and 2010. The $1,000 child tax credit was expanded to more families, and the working poor can qualify for as much as $5,657 from the Earned Income Tax Credit.

There were also credits for qualified families who buy new homes or make energy improvements to existing ones, as well as tax breaks to help pay college tuition or buy new cars.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002548-503544.html


Today, thousands of Tea Partiers will descend on Washington to declare they've been "Taxed Enough Already." Yesterday's poll found that 64 percent of Tea Party supporters think the administration has raised taxes -- a finding that might leave Democrats banging their heads against their desks.

"The American people need to be reminded that 98 percent of Americans got a tax cut last year," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday.

....

In fact, tax refunds reached an all-time high this year in part because of the stimulus, the president said in his weekly address on Saturday. Meanwhile, taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution.

"The relation between what is said in the tax debate and what is true about tax policy is often quite tenuous," Gale told Hotsheet. "The rise of the Tea Party at at time when taxes are literally at their lowest in decades is really hard to understand."



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61O4NV20100318


House Democratic leaders unveiled the final changes to the overhaul, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated would expand coverage at a cost of $940 billion over 10 years and cut the deficit by $138 billion in the same period through new fees, taxes and cost-saving measures.

Obama said the healthcare bill, which has faced solid Republican opposition, represented "the most significant effort to reduce deficits since the Balanced Budget Act" of 1993.

"This is history, and this is progress," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of the overhaul. The bill would represent the biggest changes to the $2.5 trillion healthcare system in the past four decades.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/cbo_health-care_reform_bill_cu.html



The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years -- so, 2020 to 2029 -- it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion.

lacarnut
04-20-2010, 05:19 PM
You lie

patriot45
04-20-2010, 05:20 PM
Hey, remind me again, I can't remember the percentage of people who don't pay any taxes. Are you one of them?

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 05:25 PM
You lie

This is precisely why the Tea Party is on shaky grounds on terms of credibility. While they are getting incredible coverage by news networks, any discussion of issues with Tea Party supporters very quickly devolves into name calling and shouting, completely removing all legitimacy from the movement.

If the Tea Party wants to be taken seriously as a political force and not just as a caricature of angry people, you're going to need some more analysis than that.

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 05:26 PM
Hey, remind me again, I can't remember the percentage of people who don't pay any taxes. Are you one of them?

Any taxes? You mean including social security and Medicare? Are you including state taxes and property taxes? Sales taxes too?

Megaguns91
04-20-2010, 05:38 PM
Any taxes? You mean including social security and Medicare? Are you including state taxes and property taxes? Sales taxes too?

DO YOU PAY FEDERAL/STATE INCOME TAXES?

I capitalized it so you can't ignore me you slippery sonofagun.

lacarnut
04-20-2010, 05:43 PM
This is precisely why the Tea Party is on shaky grounds on terms of credibility. While they are getting incredible coverage by news networks, any discussion of issues with Tea Party supporters very quickly devolves into name calling and shouting, completely removing all legitimacy from the movement.

If the Tea Party wants to be taken seriously as a political force and not just as a caricature of angry people, you're going to need some more analysis than that.

You lie

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 05:48 PM
DO YOU PAY FEDERAL/STATE INCOME TAXES?

I capitalized it so you can't ignore me you slippery sonofagun.

Not this year. While I've worked and paid plenty of taxes in the past, and will surely need to do so in the future, my current working situation (almost entirely unpaid volunteer work) brings in very little income, so little in fact that I did not owe income taxes. Also my state has no individual income tax requirement.

As for the other taxes, well that's a different story.

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 05:49 PM
However, this isn't about me. This thread is about the Tea Party's main criticisms, their main frustrations, the heart of the movement and how those don't seem to match reality.

Megaguns91
04-20-2010, 05:51 PM
Not this year. While I've worked and paid plenty of taxes in the past, and will surely need to do so in the future, my current working situation (almost entirely unpaid volunteer work) brings in very little income, so little in fact that I did not owe income taxes. Also my state has no individual income tax requirement.

As for the other taxes, well that's a different story.

Okay so you admit you didn't pay income taxes. This is the main issue that the Tea Party covers, along with many other ranging from less governmental control, etc.

So since you didn't pay any federal income taxes this last fiscal year, how is it that you know so much about the current issue the Tea Party has with said income taxes? Surely you can't pull the experience of being F*CKED OVER by the government out of a chart with a bunch of bullshit numbers. Isn't there something to be said about reality over statistics?

BadCat
04-20-2010, 05:59 PM
Hey china boy...you're a fucking idiot.

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 05:59 PM
Okay so you admit you didn't pay income taxes. This is the main issue that the Tea Party covers, along with many other ranging from less governmental control, etc.

Except income taxes were CUT this last year by Obama's bills.


So since you didn't pay any federal income taxes this last fiscal year, how is it that you know so much about the current issue the Tea Party has with said income taxes?

Because they constantly complain about being taxed too much and tax rates being too high.


Surely you can't pull the experience of being F*CKED OVER by the government out of a chart with a bunch of bullshit numbers. Isn't there something to be said about reality over statistics?

I've paid plenty of taxes in the past, I know what it's like. These "bullshit numbers" are actually real official statistics, I have no doubt that the middle and working class people of the Tea Party are feeling wronged by the system, but the FACTS show that their understanding of what's wrong with the system doesn't match up with reality.

They're mad about tax increases, well their taxes are actually going down thanks to recent bills. They're mad about the deficit, well the bills passed will actually reduce the deficit.

It's like someone burglarizing my home, then I blame my neighbors and try to press charges, but the police prove that not only did they not rob me, but they were in fact the people who called to report something was afoot. BUT NEVERMIND POLICE PAPERWORK. PAPERS ARE JUST PAPERS AND WORDS ARE JUST WORDS I WAS THE ONE WHO WAS ROBBED SO I GET TO SAY WHO IS TO BLAME - MY NEIGHBORS. facts be damned.

BadCat
04-20-2010, 06:01 PM
Except income taxes were CUT this last year by Obama's bills.

Now you're a delusional idiot.

Tell us, do you even PAY any federal income tax?

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 06:05 PM
Now you're a delusional idiot.

Read the OP


Tell us, do you even PAY any federal income tax?

Read the Thread

Megaguns91
04-20-2010, 06:07 PM
Except income taxes were CUT this last year by Obama's bills.



Because they constantly complain about being taxed too much and tax rates being too high.



I've paid plenty of taxes in the past, I know what it's like. These "bullshit numbers" are actually real official statistics, I have no doubt that the middle and working class people of the Tea Party are feeling wronged by the system, but the FACTS show that their understanding of what's wrong with the system doesn't match up with reality.

They're mad about tax increases, well their taxes are actually going down thanks to recent bills. They're mad about the deficit, well the bills passed will actually reduce the deficit.

It's like someone burglarizing my home, then I blame my neighbors and try to press charges, but the police prove that not only did they not rob me, but they were in fact the people who called to report something was afoot. BUT NEVERMIND POLICE PAPERWORK. PAPERS ARE JUST PAPERS AND WORDS ARE JUST WORDS I WAS THE ONE WHO WAS ROBBED SO I GET TO SAY WHO IS TO BLAME - MY NEIGHBORS. facts be damned.


Last year I made approximately 16000 dollars.
This year I made approximately the same.
Last year I paid in taxes about 800 dollars, and recieved a nice refund. (about 150 dollars?)
This year I paid in about 1600 in taxes, and recieved an 8 DOLLAR refund.

Tax season last spring reflected the 2008 fiscal year, dipshit.
You can't try to compare day to night without experiencing day first.

And your analogy is completely in no way relevant to this discussion, but verifies why you're such an idiot.

Stop wasting your time.

BadCat
04-20-2010, 06:08 PM
Read the OP



Read the Thread

So you have no business even shooting your shit stained tongue off about taxes because you're a fucking LEECH on the back of society.

I sure as fuck pay taxes and I haven't seen a penny of "tax cuts" from your mulatto in chief.

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 06:18 PM
Last year I made approximately 16000 dollars.
This year I made approximately the same.
Last year I paid in taxes about 800 dollars, and recieved a nice refund. (about 150 dollars?)
This year I paid in about 1600 in taxes, and recieved an 8 DOLLAR refund.

Are you filing alone, or with a spouse + dependents? Makes a big difference because
the cuts in taxes are largely in the form of tax credits, education credits from college, increased credits for children, credits for making your home more energy efficient. These things benefit families more.

I'm guessing you filed alone because with even a 3 person household that income qualifies as being under the poverty threshold and the associated credits and cuts would apply to you, assuming you were aware of all of the available tax exemptions.

Also, is this reflecting only your Federal income taxes, or also your State income taxes (because state income taxes have increased)?



Tax season last spring reflected the 2008 fiscal year, dipshit.
You can't try to compare day to night without experiencing day first.

The numbers are looking at 2009-2010 tax changes

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 06:21 PM
So you have no business even shooting your shit stained tongue off about taxes because you're a fucking LEECH on the back of society.

I spend my time doing volunteer or charity work, and despite a lack of significant income I still pay taxes on my home, I pay taxes on everything I purchase, and any income I do bring in comes along with social security and other entitlement taxes.

It seems you have a lot of anger inside of you and I'm sorry about that but you shouldn't attack others and make assumptions about them because of it. If, however, it makes you feel better inside to call me a "fucking LEECH" then by all means do so.


I sure as fuck pay taxes and I haven't seen a penny of "tax cuts" from your mulatto in chief.

The majority of tax payers, especially middle class people have benefited from Obama's tax cuts, but some people, depending on their circumstances, may see something different,

Megaguns91
04-20-2010, 06:24 PM
Are you filing alone, or with a spouse + dependents? Makes a big difference because
the cuts in taxes are largely in the form of tax credits, education credits from college, increased credits for children, credits for making your home more energy efficient. These things benefit families more.

I'm guessing you filed alone because with even a 3 person household that income qualifies as being under the poverty threshold and the associated credits and cuts would apply to you, assuming you were aware of all of the available tax exemptions.

Also, is this reflecting only your Federal income taxes, or also your State income taxes (because state income taxes have increased)?




The numbers are looking at 2009-2010 tax changes

I have no state income tax.
I did not qualify for any tax credits.
Single no dependents, etc.
I'm getting screwed over by my government.
I disagree with how they spend my tax dollars.
Thus I engage my right to disagree.

BadCat
04-20-2010, 06:27 PM
I spend my time doing volunteer or charity work, and despite a lack of significant income I still pay taxes on my home, I pay taxes on everything I purchase, and any income I do bring in comes along with social security and other entitlement taxes.

It seems you have a lot of anger inside of you and I'm sorry about that but you shouldn't attack others and make assumptions about them because of it. If, however, it makes you feel better inside to call me a "fucking LEECH" then by all means do so.



The majority of tax payers, especially middle class people have benefited from Obama's tax cuts, but some people, depending on their circumstances, may see something different,

Oh, good for you, LEECH.
I don't know a single soul who has benefited in ANY way from any "supposed" tax cut by the jug eared muzziie.

But I hang out with a much higher class of people than you do.

FlaGator
04-20-2010, 06:28 PM
I think that what you are failing to account for is that though Obama may be cutting taxes on individuals for show, he is raising taxes on businesses and investors. Particularly hard hit will be small businesses that won't be able to afford the increased burden that Obama will be putting on them. Right now businesses are slow to hire for fear that they will be put under a future tax burden levied on them do to the people they employ. It's all well and good to say I've cut taxes on the middle class if there are less middle class people with a job.

BadCat
04-20-2010, 06:34 PM
I think that what you are failing to account for is that though Obama may be cutting taxes on individuals for show, he is raising taxes on businesses and investors. Particularly hard hit will be small businesses that won't be able to afford the increased burden that Obama will be putting on them. Right now businesses are slow to hire for fear that they will be put under a future tax burden levied on them do to the people they employ. It's all well and good to say I've cut taxes on the middle class if there are less middle class people with a job.

Where is this "middle class" that obumble gave those "tax cuts" to?
He vaguely defined it as a couple making under $250k or $200k, depending on which group he was lying to at the time.

Like I said, I don't know anyone who has received a tax cut due to obumble, so I assume his "middle class" consists of people like weewee weewee, who don't pay any taxes in the first place.

fettpett
04-20-2010, 07:05 PM
Where is this "middle class" that obumble gave those "tax cuts" to?
He vaguely defined it as a couple making under $250k or $200k, depending on which group he was lying to at the time.

Like I said, I don't know anyone who has received a tax cut due to obumble, so I assume his "middle class" consists of people like weewee weewee, who don't pay any taxes in the first place.

considering most businesses are either LLC's or S-Corps, they pay taxes at the individual pay rates. on top of that very few are at the 200k range and most of the taxes that come from anything over 200k are businesses.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-20-2010, 07:07 PM
Any taxes? You mean including social security and Medicare? Are you including state taxes and property taxes? Sales taxes too?

People get social security and medicare back. They are not really taxes - and since the uproar is over FEDERAL taxes, you throwing State and local taxes in the mix is disingenuous - at best.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-20-2010, 07:35 PM
Here is a PARTIAL list of the taxes that Obama has raised.

$65.5 billion tax increase in the SHIP bill

$15.2 billion because of an increase (from 7.5% to 10%) in the deduction threshold on out of pocket medical expenses.

$13 billion because of a $2,500 cap on FSA contributions

$27 billion tax on brand name pharmaceuticals

$2.6 billion tax on health insured health plans

$60.1 billion tax on health insurance plans

$17 billion on people who do not wish to purchase health care

$52 billion on employers who fail to fully comply with government healthcare mandates.

$32 billion for a new 40% tax on "Cadillac" health plans

$5 billion on a ban from using your HSA, HRA or FSA for prescription drugs

$ 210.2 billion for a near 1% increase on self - employment wages and a NEW 3.8% tax on investment income.

$20 billion for a new tax on medical devices

$2.7 billion for a new tax on tanning services

$1.4 billion for a new penalty on non-qualified distributions from your HSA

$4.5 billion due to the elimination of the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D

$23.6 billion due to the elimination of certain biofuel producer tax credits

$6.97 billion due to the elimination of the ability to claim losses of an acquired corp.



Anyone who claims that Obama has not raised taxes on middle and low income families is either woefully ignorant or is lying through his/her teeth.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-20-2010, 07:38 PM
Except income taxes were CUT this last year by Obama's bills.

That is a flat out lie.

You cannot get a tax cut if you did not pay the tax that was cut in the first place.

You received a welfare check. Nothing more, nothing less.

patriot45
04-20-2010, 07:49 PM
That is a flat out lie.

You cannot get a tax cut if you did not pay the tax that was cut in the first place.

You received a welfare check. Nothing more, nothing less.

Weewee swooped, pooped and is gone!


http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/obama/image-thumb30.png

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 08:21 PM
I think that what you are failing to account for is that though Obama may be cutting taxes on individuals for show, he is raising taxes on businesses and investors. Particularly hard hit will be small businesses that won't be able to afford the increased burden that Obama will be putting on them. Right now businesses are slow to hire for fear that they will be put under a future tax burden levied on them do to the people they employ. It's all well and good to say I've cut taxes on the middle class if there are less middle class people with a job.

Actually that's quite the opposite:

The Small Business Health Care Tax Credit can cover up to 35 percent of the premiums a small business pays to cover its workers. In 2014, the rate will increase to 50 percent



also this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/FACT_SHEET_Small_Business%20_jobs_and_Wages_Tax_Cu t.pdf


Businesses will receive a $5,000 tax credit for every net new employee that they employ in 2010. The total amount of credit will be capped at $500,000 per firm, to ensure that the majority of the benefit goes to small businesses.

• Small businesses will be reimbursed for the Social Security payroll taxes they pay on real increases in their payrolls. Specifically, firms that increase wages, expand hours or hire new workers would get a credit against the added payroll taxes that result. This bonus would be based on Social Security payrolls, so it would not apply to wage increases above the current taxable maximum of $106,800.

• Firms will be able to claim the credit on a quarterly basis, which gets money out to
businesses quickly and provides an early incentive to hire and increase payrolls. Non-profits will be eligible for the credit and start-ups will be eligible for half the credit.

Examples of how the Small Business Jobs and Wages Tax Cut would work:
• Tax credits for new hires. A small business that hires ten new employees in 2010 will receive a
$50,000 tax credit to help offset the costs of those new hires. However, if the same small business
lays off ten employees in 2010 and hires five new employees, it would receive no credit.

• Tax credits for pay raises. A small business with 50 employees that, through increased hours
or higher pay, provides all of its employees a $1,000 real wage increase in 2010 will receive
a $3,100 tax credit, enough to cover the Social Security payroll taxes on those increases.

• No benefits for gaming. A small business that fires 10 workers and hires 10 workers to
replace them would see no net increase in employment and thus would not receive a credit. A
small business that lays off 10 employees making $50,000 each and hires 20 employees
making $25,000 each will receive no credit. Likewise, a small investment firm that raises
salaries for its top employees from $300,000 to $350,000 will not receive a credit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently identified this type of job creation tax cut as the most effective way to help accelerate job growth of all the policy options it evaluated. The general approach has received support from a wide range of economic analysts and experts, including Morgan Stanley, the Economic Policy Institute, the Small Business Majority, Paul Krugman, Mark Zandi, and Alan Blinder.

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 08:23 PM
That is a flat out lie.

You cannot get a tax cut if you did not pay the tax that was cut in the first place.

You received a welfare check. Nothing more, nothing less.

If your tax credits add up to more than your taxes owed, you get a refund.

so um...How exactly is this "over taxation" that the Tea Party keeps screaming about?

How are we taxed too much? Not only do we have the lowest tax rates in the modern world, but we also have the lowest tax rates in our own country in 60 years.

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 08:26 PM
http://bellalu0.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/taxed-enough-already.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 08:29 PM
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg125.htm

From the Treasury Department


"We believe in a level playing field, but we currently have a tax Code that gives businesses that invest and create jobs overseas a competitive advantage over those who invest and create jobs at home. We are taking the next step in creating fairness in our economy by ending loopholes that allow companies to avoid paying taxes while millions of hardworking families and small businesses pay their fair share.""

...

he Budget cuts taxes for small businesses by:

* Making permanent the Research and Experimentation Credit to reward businesses that invest in U.S. competitiveness;
* Eliminating the capital gains tax on investments in small business stock, thereby helping small businesses attract much-needed capital; and
* Expanding the Net Operating Loss Carryback provision, providing businesses with an immediate boost to their bottom line to help them through the current economic crisis.

(the bolded part is specifically about investment in small businesses)

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 08:38 PM
Here is a PARTIAL list of the taxes that Obama has raised.

$65.5 billion tax increase in the SHIP bill

$15.2 billion because of an increase (from 7.5% to 10%) in the deduction threshold on out of pocket medical expenses.

$13 billion because of a $2,500 cap on FSA contributions

$27 billion tax on brand name pharmaceuticals

$2.6 billion tax on health insured health plans

$60.1 billion tax on health insurance plans

$17 billion on people who do not wish to purchase health care

$52 billion on employers who fail to fully comply with government healthcare mandates.

$32 billion for a new 40% tax on "Cadillac" health plans

$5 billion on a ban from using your HSA, HRA or FSA for prescription drugs

$ 210.2 billion for a near 1% increase on self - employment wages and a NEW 3.8% tax on investment income.

$20 billion for a new tax on medical devices

$2.7 billion for a new tax on tanning services

$1.4 billion for a new penalty on non-qualified distributions from your HSA

$4.5 billion due to the elimination of the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D

$23.6 billion due to the elimination of certain biofuel producer tax credits

$6.97 billion due to the elimination of the ability to claim losses of an acquired corp.



Anyone who claims that Obama has not raised taxes on middle and low income families is either woefully ignorant or is lying through his/her teeth.

Some of these are consumption taxes, much of these are taxes on large corporations, and the rest are not taxes but actually Costs being called "taxes" under the presumption that they will be paid for exclusively via taxes (from the middle class at that, which makes 2 assumptions about how these are paid for).

1. You can't just label anything that costs money a tax,
2. even if it is paid for with taxes (or even if it really is directly an actual tax), it's disingenuous to assume that the middle and low income families are the ones who are paying these taxes (because, as many are pointing out, these people aren't paying much in income taxes).
3. conservatives are usually very receptive about consumption taxes

patriot45
04-20-2010, 08:45 PM
Some of these are consumption taxes, much of these are taxes on large corporations, and the rest are not taxes but actually Costs being called "taxes" under the presumption that they will be paid for exclusively via taxes (from the middle class at that, which makes 2 assumptions about how these are paid for).

1. You can't just label anything that costs money a tax,
2. even if it is paid for with taxes (or even if it really is directly an actual tax), it's disingenuous to assume that the middle and low income families are the ones who are paying these taxes (because, as many are pointing out, these people aren't paying much in income taxes).
3. conservatives are usually very receptive about consumption taxes

Hey I got it!! Why don't you libtards call taxes - "Investments"! Wait, what? Oh you do that already!

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 08:46 PM
People get social security and medicare back. They are not really taxes - and since the uproar is over FEDERAL taxes, you throwing State and local taxes in the mix is disingenuous - at best.

No see that's exactly the point. People are upset about FEDERAL taxes, even though they have gone down, while ignoring the fact that most STATE taxes have gone up. Because people are hit with both at once, they don't feel the impact of the massive federal tax cuts.

I posted this in another thread but it's relevant here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6201911-503544.html


Here's the poll question: "In general, do you think the Obama Administration has increased taxes for most Americans, decreased taxes for most Americans or have they kept taxes the same for most Americans?"

The answer:
24 percent of respondents said they INCREASED taxes.
53 percent said they kept taxes the same
And 12 percent said taxes were decreased.

Of people who support the grassroots, "Tea Party" movement, only 2 percent think taxes have been decreased, 46 percent say taxes are the same, and a whopping 44 percent say they believe taxes have gone up.



He went on: "Is it part of the frustration, of course, 95 percent of working people in this country saw their taxes cut last year, but apparently only 12 percent felt it."

Gibbs later said that many Americans may have seen any federal tax cuts offset by an increase in state taxes. "What happens at a federal level and state level, both of those are felt by individuals on the ground," he said.

patriot45
04-20-2010, 08:50 PM
No see that's exactly the point. People are upset about FEDERAL taxes, even though they have gone down, while ignoring the fact that most STATE taxes have gone up. Because people are hit with both at once, they don't feel the impact of the massive federal tax cuts.

I posted this in another thread but it's relevant here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6201911-503544.html

Arguing with you is silly, you are brainwashed, but....

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/october/littlestory.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 08:51 PM
Arguing with you is silly, you are brainwashed, but....

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/october/littlestory.jpg

I'm posting fact sheets from the Treasury Department as well as polls and statistics...

You are calling names and posting pictures.


And people are blaming "the media" for the Tea Party's bad image....

patriot45
04-20-2010, 08:57 PM
Fact sheets from the treasury dept ran by the tax cheat little timmy g.

I am starting to believe you the more facts you throw at me tho!

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/obama/woodytoystory.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/obama/timgeithnerr.jpg

lacarnut
04-20-2010, 09:29 PM
Fact sheets from the treasury dept ran by the tax cheat little timmy g.

I am starting to believe you the more facts you throw at me tho!

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/obama/woodytoystory.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/obama/timgeithnerr.jpg

You can tell the SOB is a crook by those shifty eyes. Many Congress critters and members of the O's administration belong behind bars.

patriot45
04-20-2010, 09:37 PM
You can tell the SOB is a crook by those shifty eyes. Many Congress critters and members of the O's administration belong behind bars.

You're right about the eyes!

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/giethner-hermy1.jpg

Gingersnap
04-20-2010, 10:05 PM
This is precisely why the Tea Party is on shaky grounds on terms of credibility. While they are getting incredible coverage by news networks, any discussion of issues with Tea Party supporters very quickly devolves into name calling and shouting, completely removing all legitimacy from the movement.

If the Tea Party wants to be taken seriously as a political force and not just as a caricature of angry people, you're going to need some more analysis than that.

And you're going to need to be willing set aside childish discussion gambits like the false dilemma.

Taxes and irresponsible spending are a part of the anger Tea Party members feel for both political parties but those things are simply symptoms of much broader issues.

We feel that both parties have failed to maintain any interest whatever in fundamental liberty issues. We think that politics have become too unaccountable and too corrupt (we understand some unaccountability and some corruption). We believe that special interests are elevated above American interests. We think that the current political campaign funding structure is inherently untrustworthy.

But we also think that the Democrats have no interest at all in addressing these concerns.

Lager
04-20-2010, 10:31 PM
1. You can't just label anything that costs money a tax,


Which is what you freely do all the time! Where the HCRB mandates individuals to purchase private insurance and imposes a fine if they do not, you euphemistically called the penalty a "tax", even though taxes are not often used for punishment.

When your hollowed administration subsidizes behavior to politically reward favored classes and appease voting blocks with tax "credits", you loosely call them tax "cuts"

Your side calls protestors "racists" when they are conservative and "dissenters" when they are liberal.

Your use of language is flexible indeed.

Do you analyze the motives of the protestors who march against free trade agreements? Anti-war protestors? Environmental extremists who hide under the umbrella of the global warming hysteria?

Lager
04-20-2010, 10:34 PM
And you're going to need to be willing set aside childish discussion gambits like the false dilemma.

Taxes and irresponsible spending are a part of the anger Tea Party members feel for both political parties but those things are simply symptoms of much broader issues.

We feel that both parties have failed to maintain any interest whatever in fundamental liberty issues. We think that politics have become too unaccountable and too corrupt (we understand some unaccountability and some corruption). We believe that special interests are elevated above American interests. We think that the current political campaign funding structure is inherently untrustworthy.

But we also think that the Democrats have no interest at all in addressing these concerns.

Now that is a vey rational and well written quick summary of the primary motivation of the movement.
Of course, that means triple W will not respond to it at all.

Lager
04-20-2010, 10:38 PM
they don't feel the impact of the massive federal tax cuts.


What a fantastic misnomer that is: "massive federal tax cuts"

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 10:45 PM
And you're going to need to be willing set aside childish discussion gambits like the false dilemma.

Taxes and irresponsible spending are a part of the anger Tea Party members feel for both political parties but those things are simply symptoms of much broader issues.

I was focusing on the specific things that are most often heard from the Tea Party, but I see what you're saying here.



We feel that both parties have failed to maintain any interest whatever in fundamental liberty issues.

I think I agree with you here, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "liberty". (keep in mind that these terms are very relative, terrorists see themselves as 'freedom fighters' so it takes more than just that easily-manipulatable word to express what you mean)


We think that politics have become too unaccountable and too corrupt (we understand some unaccountability and some corruption).

I completely agree with this, and also bitterly accept that a perfect system is not possible.


We believe that special interests are elevated above American interests.

I couldn't agree more. However, just to be clear, what I call "American" interests is the interests of the majority of the population. You know that there are different groups with different interests and they sometimes conflict, but I believe that small groups have extraordinary amounts of political influence and it means that washington watches out for them before watching out for most of us.

It's hard to define "American" because our society is a society of diversity but I consider 80% of the population who work for a living to be American, and I think it's time that Washington represents us rather than an elite few.

note: I also consider the other 20% including the elite few to be American, they are part of America and they play a vital role, but they totally dominate the government so I feel it's only sensible to support the underdog if we want a truly free society.


We think that the current political campaign funding structure is inherently untrustworthy.

Oh God you're hitting all the nails on the head. This is absolutely right.


But we also think that the Democrats have no interest at all in addressing these concerns.

This is where you lose me, at the party lines. It's not a game, it's not American Idol.

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 10:53 PM
Which is what you freely do all the time! Where the HCRB mandates individuals to purchase private insurance and imposes a fine if they do not, you euphemistically called the penalty a "tax", even though taxes are not often used for punishment.

It IS a tax. That's like calling income tax a "penalty" on single people who don't qualify for enough credits because they don't have children.

This IS a tax that Obama is raising on everyone, there's no doubt about that. I'm not here to say that Obama is perfect or that his policies are (because I highly disagree with both of those statements), but you couldn't add $400 billion in defense spending and call it a tax, unless and until there is an ACTUAL TAX applied to pay for it, and in that case it applies to people differently.



When your hollowed administration subsidizes behavior to politically reward favored classes and appease voting blocks with tax "credits", you loosely call them tax "cuts"

Yes I'm calling tax credits tax cuts because they reduce the tax burden of many people.



Your side calls protestors "racists" when they are conservative and "dissenters" when they are liberal.

My side? This is not the superbowl buddy, this is real life and real issues. It's not black and white, there are not just two "sides".



Do you analyze the motives of the protestors who march against free trade agreements? Anti-war protestors? Environmental extremists who hide under the umbrella of the global warming hysteria?

Yes I do. I come here to talk to conservatives and Tea Party members. I also go other places to argue with Atheists, vegetarians, MSNBC-style liberals, pro-choicers, and many others you might think are on "my team".

Gingersnap
04-20-2010, 11:08 PM
This is where you lose me, at the party lines. It's not a game, it's not American Idol.

Good thing since I've never seen that show.

We have a two party system. As a card-carrying member of one of the third parties, I'm aware that whatever reform takes place will take place within one of the existing major parties. Third parties and political movements can influence and inform major party platforms but they can't replace either of those parties.

At this moment in time, the Democratic national platform and the many interest groups that get out the vote for that platform are beholden to the Democrat promise of benevolent government intervention in virtually all aspects of American life. More than that, the Democratic party has pledged itself to offering a bewildering array of entitlements to real people and to government programs and to the "correct" private corporations that support its goals. Blue Dog Democrats are a political strategy in otherwise "red" districts. They aren't a voice in the party.

Republicans dropped the ball during the Bush administration and they bellied up to the government trough and catered to special interests as much as the Democrats ever did. The difference is that there is idealogical room on the Republican platform to reform that party. The Republicans have the ability to change direction in favor of liberty, smaller government, and less intrusion. It's in their blueprint if they would blow the dust off and read the plans.

The Democrats do not have that ability to turn in a new direction as a party.

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 11:30 PM
Good thing since I've never seen that show.

We have a two party system. As a card-carrying member of one of the third parties, I'm aware that whatever reform takes place will take place within one of the existing major parties. Third parties and political movements can influence and inform major party platforms but they can't replace either of those parties.

What bothers me is there are so many people who are loyal to one party at the expense of all facts. I hear so many people who have been convinced that one party is simply the enemy, so despite any facts or data involving the issues, none of it matters as long as you vote for "the right team".

This is absurd. I like you gingersnap, unlike most of the posters here, you are willing to engage in discussion, you clearly have a reason-based mindset, and you don't resort to pathetic name calling and childishness(the weapons of the intellectually weak).

I would like to see your input more when facts and data are being posted.




At this moment in time, the Democratic national platform and the many interest groups that get out the vote for that platform are beholden to the Democrat promise of benevolent government intervention in virtually all aspects of American life. More than that, the Democratic party has pledged itself to offering a bewildering array of entitlements to real people and to government programs and to the "correct" private corporations that support its goals. Blue Dog Democrats are a political strategy in otherwise "red" districts. They aren't a voice in the party.

What are the "special interests" you keep referring to? Who donates the most money to political campaigns and to parties (both parties)?

How do these special interest groups attain and use the power they supposedly have, and who are they?


Republicans dropped the ball during the Bush administration and they bellied up to the government trough and catered to special interests as much as the Democrats ever did. The difference is that there is idealogical room on the Republican platform to reform that party. The Republicans have the ability to change direction in favor of liberty, smaller government, and less intrusion. It's in their blueprint if they would blow the dust off and read the plans.

Again, you're going to have to define "liberty", and the only aspect of "small government" that I see the Republicans pushing is when it comes to financial regulation on the casino-economy or tax benefits for the top 10% of the population. It seems Republicans are all about "less intrusion into the lives of the wealthy".

I would like to have a frank discussion with you about your views on society, your views about the power structure in the united states, your views on the role of the government and your views overall. However, this may not be the thread for it so I just want to ask:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

The top 5% of the population owns over half of America, do you believe that the interests of the top 5% are the same as the interests of the bottom 80%?

Wei Wu Wei
04-20-2010, 11:35 PM
Do you believe the interests of inner-city welfare recipients are the same as the interests of a middle class suburban working family?

Do you believe the interests of an ultra rich CEO (reminder, the top 400 individuals own $1.25 TRILLION) are the same as the interests of a middle class suburban working family?

Rockntractor
04-20-2010, 11:36 PM
What bothers me is there are so many people who are loyal to one party at the expense of all facts. I hear so many people who have been convinced that one party is simply the enemy, so despite any facts or data involving the issues, none of it matters as long as you vote for "the right team".

This is absurd. I like you gingersnap, unlike most of the posters here, you are willing to engage in discussion, you clearly have a reason-based mindset, and you don't resort to pathetic name calling and childishness(the weapons of the intellectually weak).

I would like to see your input more when facts and data are being posted.





What are the "special interests" you keep referring to? Who donates the most money to political campaigns and to parties (both parties)?

How do these special interest groups attain and use the power they supposedly have, and who are they?



Again, you're going to have to define "liberty", and the only aspect of "small government" that I see the Republicans pushing is when it comes to financial regulation on the casino-economy or tax benefits for the top 10% of the population. It seems Republicans are all about "less intrusion into the lives of the wealthy".

I would like to have a frank discussion with you about your views on society, your views about the power structure in the united states, your views on the role of the government and your views overall. However, this may not be the thread for it so I just want to ask:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

The top 5% of the population owns over half of America, do you believe that the interests of the top 5% are the same as the interests of the bottom 80%?

You stank!:eek:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/dogs.jpg?t=1271820942

Gingersnap
04-20-2010, 11:46 PM
I would like to have a frank discussion with you about your views on society, your views about the power structure in the united states, your views on the role of the government and your views overall.

You and 85% of literate, heterosexual males. :p


However, this may not be the thread for it so I just want to ask:

The top 5% of the population owns over half of America, do you believe that the interests of the top 5% are the same as the interests of the bottom 80%?

I can't see your graph for some reason but I'll answer "No". As one of the bottom 80% owners, I feel confident about that. But there has never been an era or a socio-economic system where your question could be answered in any other way.

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 12:01 AM
You and 85% of literate heterosexual males. :p

lol I bet




I can't see your graph for some reason but I'll answer "No". As one of the bottom 80% owners, I feel confident about that. But there has never been an era or a socio-economic system where your question could be answered in any other way.

The graph is pretty dramatic, but the numbers are what you'd expect the bottom 80% splits the 7% leftover of financial wealth and 15% of net worth. The top 5% owns well over half of America, they have incredible political influence as they (large corporations) contribute more to political campaigns and parties than every other interest group combined (including ideological interest groups and labor unions)

I could go on and on the numbers are truly staggering but you clearly get my point.

Those at the very top have their own interests in mind, political and economic interests that are not the same as the rest of us (working and middle class Americans, 80% of the population). However, they have the most influence in washington.

So... if they have incredible political power, nearly all of the wealth, and enormous influence (by influence I mean ownership) of every single corporate news outlet, as well as virtually bottomless pockets when it comes to advertisement...They pretty much rule the property, the government, and the media.

Now, again I'd like to stress that these people play a very important role in our nation and we do need them, and I recognize that inequality of power and wealth is inevitable, but what I can't stress enough is that the personal political/economic interests of the wealthy elite are not the same as those of working Americans

I don't want to ramble too much so I'll requote you here:


I can't see your graph for some reason but I'll answer "No". As one of the bottom 80% owners, I feel confident about that. But there has never been an era or a socio-economic system where your question could be answered in any other way.

If the top 5% has the majority of wealth, power, and influence, doesn't it make sense for us, as part of the bottom 80% to support pro-worker policies? Doesn't it make sense for us to do everything we can to push back against them? You're right in that the super rich is going to stay the super rich no matter what, but being that they are holding all the cards, shouldn't the working and middle class people identify their own interests? Shouldn't we be opposing legislation that benefits the top 5% at the expense of the bottom 80%? It should be clear that no action is perfect, someone always benefits and someone always loses, but being that our country is so radically skewed in favor of the super rich, shouldn't we be pushing for policies that benefit us?

NJCardFan
04-21-2010, 01:40 AM
Combined, my wife and I had $20,000 deducted from our paychecks in federal income tax(part of the reason is that I received a large sum of money due to a contract settlement that was 2 years in the making and we were charged the overtime tax rate). We got a refund of $7,000 meaning we paid in $13,000 in federal taxes. We are not millionaires. We are a middle class family. Where was my tax cut? Did I mention that we had to pay an additional amount in state taxes? And my property tax went up?

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 01:50 AM
Combined, my wife and I had $20,000 deducted from our paychecks in federal income tax(part of the reason is that I received a large sum of money due to a contract settlement that was 2 years in the making and we were charged the overtime tax rate). We got a refund of $7,000 meaning we paid in $13,000 in federal taxes. We are not millionaires. We are a middle class family. Where was my tax cut? Did I mention that we had to pay an additional amount in state taxes? And my property tax went up?

Without the bills passed, you would've likely gotten a smaller refund (but I can't say with certainty without knowing what exceptions and credits you qualified for), but yes you're right to highlight the fact that state taxes have increased, which makes it easier for people to overlook the reduction in federal taxes.

lacarnut
04-21-2010, 02:28 AM
However, this isn't about me. This thread is about the Tea Party's main criticisms, their main frustrations, the heart of the movement and how those don't seem to match reality.

It is about you; you are a freeloader. Pissants like you should have no say in Fed. Income Taxes if you are not paying into the system. The same is true of those that are allowed to raise property taxes that do not own a home. The government needs to cut out all this free shit. We can not aford it. Only the old and sick should be on the gov. dole. Get off your lazy ass and start pulling the wagon instead of riding in it.

marv
04-21-2010, 08:48 AM
This is precisely why the liberal Democrats are on shaky grounds on terms of credibility. While they are getting incredible coverage by news networks, any discussion of issues with liberal Democrat supporters very quickly devolves into name calling and shouting, completely removing all legitimacy from the movement.

If the liberal Democrats want to be taken seriously as a political force and not just as a caricature of angry people, you're going to need some more analysis than that.
Fixed it for ya WeeWee!

marinejcksn
04-21-2010, 08:54 AM
"Making Work Pay Credit"

oops, that was just a one year tax "credit". It no longer will be in place. Fail.

"House Democratic leaders unveiled the final changes to the overhaul, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated would expand coverage at a cost of $940 billion over 10 years and cut the deficit by $138 billion in the same period through new fees, taxes and cost-saving measures."

See how much fun I can have by highlighting? Wait.....new fees and taxes? Kind of like, a tax increase? :rolleyes:

marinejcksn
04-21-2010, 08:59 AM
In 2008 I made 26,000 and paid 4,800 in taxes. I received a refund of $850 (would have been 250, but they factored in the Bush "stimulus" from the checks that were sent out in 2007 that I didn't take).

I filed this year and made just under 20,000. I paid in roughly 4,000 dollars. My refund was 400 bucks. Where exactly was my tax cut?

Not to mention, when Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire everyone will see their taxes increase. Even the CBO admitted that.

Sonnabend
04-21-2010, 09:01 AM
If the top 5% has the majority of wealth, power, and influence, doesn't it make sense for us, as part of the bottom 80% to support pro-worker policies? Doesn't it make sense for us to do everything we can to push back against them? You're right in that the super rich is going to stay the super rich no matter what, but being that they are holding all the cards, shouldn't the working and middle class people identify their own interests? Shouldn't we be opposing legislation that benefits the top 5% at the expense of the bottom 80%? It should be clear that no action is perfect, someone always benefits and someone always loses, but being that our country is so radically skewed in favor of the super rich, shouldn't we be pushing for policies that benefit us?

Translation: I want the money they earned, waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh :rolleyes:

Gingersnap
04-21-2010, 10:10 AM
Shouldn't we be opposing legislation that benefits the top 5% at the expense of the bottom 80%? It should be clear that no action is perfect, someone always benefits and someone always loses, but being that our country is so radically skewed in favor of the super rich, shouldn't we be pushing for policies that benefit us?

I'd be happy enough to an end to both agricultural and corporate welfare but I'm not holding my breath. Both parties are invested in keeping the slop in those troughs.

As for being "pro-worker", well I'm also an owner, as are millions of Americans. I support equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work.

lacarnut
04-21-2010, 10:33 AM
If the top 5% has the majority of wealth, power, and influence, doesn't it make sense for us, as part of the bottom 80% to support pro-worker policies? Doesn't it make sense for us to do everything we can to push back against them? You're right in that the super rich is going to stay the super rich no matter what, but being that they are holding all the cards, shouldn't the working and middle class people identify their own interests? Shouldn't we be opposing legislation that benefits the top 5% at the expense of the bottom 80%? It should be clear that no action is perfect, someone always benefits and someone always loses, but being that our country is so radically skewed in favor of the super rich, shouldn't we be pushing for policies that benefit us?

Stealing from the rich to give to deadbeats like you will not increase the living standard of the middle class. The government will take this money and give it to those that are too lazy to work. Obama is hell bent on raising taxes on the rich and the middle class in order to facilitate income distribution.

Megaguns91
04-21-2010, 10:39 AM
Stealing from the rich to give to deadbeats like you will not increase the living standard of the middle class. The government will take this money and give it to those that are too lazy to work. Obama is hell bent on raising taxes on the rich and the middle class in order to facilitate income distribution.

I wonder how much Obummer pays in taxes a year?

AmPat
04-21-2010, 11:46 AM
Any taxes? You mean including social security and Medicare? Are you including state taxes and property taxes? Sales taxes too?

Typical LIEberal, avoid answering the question at all cost.:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 03:31 PM
Stealing from the rich to give to deadbeats like you will not increase the living standard of the middle class. The government will take this money and give it to those that are too lazy to work. Obama is hell bent on raising taxes on the rich and the middle class in order to facilitate income distribution.

What about the growth of the middle class in the in the 1950's and 1960's?

What were the tax rates like then?

Megaguns91
04-21-2010, 03:36 PM
What about the growth of the middle class in the in the 1950's and 1960's?

What were the tax rates like then?

How is that relevant?
Were you alive then?

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 03:40 PM
How is that relevant?


It's relevant to the relationship between tax rates and the growth of the middle class, basically it's directly relevant to the post I quoted.

Big Guy
04-21-2010, 03:48 PM
Hey WEE WEE, I put in over 2500 hours of volunteer work last year, worked a full time job and a part time job. I also operated my own business and employed two other people. I ended up paying another $3500, while your lazy ass did some charity work with little to no income, employed no one and you probably received the $3500 I had to pay. Is this not supposed to piss me off?

I have no problem helping folks that CAN'T help themselves, I do have a problem with LAZY ASSES who WONT.

Gingersnap
04-21-2010, 03:54 PM
What about the growth of the middle class in the in the 1950's and 1960's?

What were the tax rates like then?

The rates were higher but the demographics have changed completely. It's actually difficult to make meaningful comparisons. The "middle class" of 1960 is now a minority category today: married couple, single wage-earner, more than one child.

What defines anyone as "middle class" is also different today. Very few people define themselves as middle class based only on economic parameters.

Lager
04-21-2010, 05:01 PM
My side? This is not the superbowl buddy, this is real life and real issues. It's not black and white, there are not just two "sides".



You are far from being the moderate that you are trying to portray with this sentence. In fact, your views are very partisan. You have so far supported universal health care, redistribution of wealth, government controlling speech, and you have that inherent attitude of artificially created anger against "corporations" which you lump together as if they're all a single entity cut from the same mold, and yet you want to lecture conservatives here about 'sides"? So far your views do conincide with only one "side" - and an extremely left and narrow side at that. Show me how you exhibit any thinking outside of that narrow spectrum?

I can assure you that I am far more independent minded and less dogmatic about a particular party than yourself. I don't really give a crap about politics or the letters behind an elected official's name. I care about how they govern, not how they play to their bases, which you seem to represent. You better experience some "real life and real issues" before you propose to lecture others on them.

Zafod
04-21-2010, 05:15 PM
this thread was started why?

lame....

Big Guy
04-21-2010, 05:21 PM
You are far from being the moderate that you are trying to portray with this sentence. In fact, your views are very partisan. You have so far supported universal health care, redistribution of wealth, government controlling speech, and you have that inherent attitude of artificially created anger against "corporations" which you lump together as if they're all a single entity cut from the same mold, and yet you want to lecture conservatives here about 'sides"? So far your views do conincide with only one "side" - and an extremely left and narrow side at that. Show me how you exhibit any thinking outside of that narrow spectrum?

I can assure you that I am far more independent minded and less dogmatic about a particular party than yourself. I don't really give a crap about politics or the letters behind an elected official's name. I care about how they govern, not how they play to their bases, which you seem to represent. You better experience some "real life and real issues" before you propose to lecture others on them.

Well said, but I don't think Wee Wee will have anything intelligent to come back with.

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 05:32 PM
The rates were higher but the demographics have changed completely. It's actually difficult to make meaningful comparisons. The "middle class" of 1960 is now a minority category today: married couple, single wage-earner, more than one child.

Well actually about half of all households are still married couples, and of those considered "middle class", the big majority are married couples.

As for single earners? You're absolutely right about that. While prices have increased steadily over the years, wages have not. While the average middle class income rose steadily every year from the early 50's until 1973, it came to an abrupt stop there, and for the past 30 years, when adjusted for inflation, incomes have stagnated for working men. (women on the other hand have experienced an increase in wages, but they still lag behind the averages of males).

So during that time, the cost of living has more than tripled, and the income of a middle class worker has stagnated. It's no wonder that single-income households are a thing of the past.



What defines anyone as "middle class" is also different today. Very few people define themselves as middle class based only on economic parameters.

It's true, there are many features that distinguish classes. Consumption patterns, values, family structures, recreational activities and so on.

Unfortunately, from an economic perspective, in the last couple decades the middle class is shrinking while the bottom and top grow.

malloc
04-21-2010, 05:34 PM
This is precisely why the Tea Party is on shaky grounds on terms of credibility. While they are getting incredible coverage by news networks, any discussion of issues with Tea Party supporters very quickly devolves into name calling and shouting, completely removing all legitimacy from the movement.

If the Tea Party wants to be taken seriously as a political force and not just as a caricature of angry people, you're going to need some more analysis than that.

I'm a Tea Partier, care for another discussion on economics with me? Have you read the texts I recommended?

Take a look at this. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123707638051931241.html) Then think about a family's disposable income, investment, and the unemployment rate. Then apply what you should have learned from the books I recommended to those thoughts. The Tea Party isn't on shaky grounds at all. We just have a better mind for money and business than you. You don't even yet understand the very basics of what is required for economic prosperity, much less attempt to sort out the mindset of the Tea Party.

If you think it's possible to lower tax revenues and the debt, while increasing budget shortfalls, you aren't even anywhere near reality. In what world is that possible?

Actually, if you are serious about finding out what we Tea Partiers are about, read this:

http://www.thecontract.org/wp-content/uploads/petition_letter.gif

Gingersnap
04-21-2010, 05:52 PM
Well actually about half of all households are still married couples, and of those considered "middle class", the big majority are married couples.

Not married couples with one wage-earner and several dependent children who receive no child support nor any state or federal aid.

It's difficult to make the kind of comparisons that interest you. While the cost of living has gone up, the cost of food, clothing, furniture, travel and a number of other things have declined. The entry of large numbers of women into a permanent workforce has also had an effect on everybody's income. (Your belief that women earn less than men is false, however. Part-time workers of any age and both sexes earn less than full-time workers of any age and both sexes.)

The poor today don't live under the same conditions as the poor did in the 1950s or 1960s.

It's all relative.

Lager
04-21-2010, 06:00 PM
the personal political/economic interests of the wealthy elite are not the same as those of working Americans



The problem with this generalization is first, what defines "wealthy elite"? From there it's a direct path to the realization that even if one could squeeze this term into the parameters of a distinct group, there's no way it could be assumed they all share similar interests, goals or character attributes. Perhaps even among the wealthy, interests are opposed and varied. Perhaps some interests of the wealthy are compatible with working Americans. Perhaps there are wealthy people who are themselves working Americans.

You throw out these vague talking points but can't really debate them because they're too general.

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 06:10 PM
You are far from being the moderate that you are trying to portray with this sentence.

I'm not trying to portray myself as a "moderate" or whatever else you may want to call it.. I'm very well aware that from your perspective, I am a bleeding heart socialist liberal elitist and no amount of real discourse or discussion will change that in your eyes.

What I'm emphasizing is that the popular conception of "liberal | conservative" is nonsense. While we talk about these terms to signify a certain end of a unidimensional worldview, it's important to realize that they are not real. When we accept such simplistic dichotomies as real we completely dilute the real picture of America that is far more complex than "right vs left". When people buy into that idea and accept it as real, they become an uninformed pawn dedicated only at "winning for their team" rather than engaging in debate and discussion.

Real intellectual integrity means breaking down your own preconceptions, not blindly defending them against an imagined enemy.


In fact, your views are very partisan. You have so far supported universal health care,

Yes, I support universal health care for everyone. That doesn't mean I supported the bill that congress passed, but I do believe that in the wealthiest nation in the world it's morally wrong to treat health care as a commidity.


redistribution of wealth,

I believe that in any societal system there are going to be people who benefit a little extra and those who suffer a little more, this is inevitable. Our society has the most radically extreme distribution of wealth, with the very top owning most of the country.

Is that wrong? Arguable, I'd say no, but I believe if you benefit to an extreme degree from a system, you should give back into that system that helped you get where you are.

I do support programs to help train lower-class people to get the skills they need to be competative, I do support measures that give workers some leverage when negotiating with their employers. I do support measures that incentivize domestic hiring rather than outsourcing jobs. I support a wide range of programs, from educational programs to drug rehab programs and so on and so on.

Some people call this "redistribution of wealth" because the wealtheist people in the history of the world are getting a small tax increase to help pay for these, I call it living in a civilized society.


the government controlling speech,

I do not support this at all. Also I do not consider spending money a form of speech and I do not consider Corporations to be People granted with the same rights that you and I have.


and you have that inherent attitude of artificially created anger against "corporations" which you lump together as if they're all a single entity cut from the same mold,

Not anger, just recognition of their enormous power, societal impact, and political influence. I realize they are important and we can't lose them but we should still be realistic about them and again, not treat this as a black and white issue. It's not about being totally pro-corporation or anti-corporation, it's about realizing that they do have a place but if we let them run totally wild it will destroy us.

I'm not anti-sex (not at all) , but that doesn't mean I support everyone going out and having as much sex with as many people as possible. I believe in responsible, safe, adult. consensual, and for the most part monogamous sex as part of a health relationship. See what I mean?

I'm pro-worker because working and middle class people are not having their interests represented by the government but I am not supporting a proletariate revolution. It's about reasonable limits, moderations, balance.



and yet you want to lecture conservatives here about 'sides"? So far your views do conincide with only one "side" - and an extremely left and narrow side at that. Show me how you exhibit any thinking outside of that narrow spectrum?

I dissaprove of many of Obama's actions since he's taken office, I lean pro-life, I am pro-church and pro-religion, I support (some) gun control measures but I believe strongly in the 2nd amendment, in fact on most issues I think it's necessary to deconstruct the liberal-conservative paradigm in order to come up with any realistic solution to problems.

I watch Fox News more than every other news source combined, I HATE MSNBC,

Look, the very basic question is flawed because you're still assuming a Left-Right spectrum. I think it's important to deconstruct the left-right paradigm, and then employ lateral solutions that transcend the petty political shit-flinging.

This is how people are controlled, the population is split along these imaginary lines and they argue back and forth at each other while the real powerful elites get what they want regardless of who gets elected. We fight each other and nothing ever changes because we're too caught up in the delusion of Liberals VS Conservatives.

It's petty, it's elementary, and it's harmful to any real solutions being formulated.



I can assure you that I am far more independent minded and less dogmatic about a particular party than yourself. I don't really give a crap about politics or the letters behind an elected official's name. I care about how they govern, not how they play to their bases, which you seem to represent. You better experience some "real life and real issues" before you propose to lecture others on them.

I am still wrapped in ideology as are you, there is no getting out of it. The only way we can do anything worth doing is to develop our ideologies by questioning the presuppositions underlying them.

BadCat
04-21-2010, 06:14 PM
The ideology of a leech.

Like I told you earlier, weeweeweewee, you don't pay federal income tax, your opinion is worthless.

Leave the battle to your betters, who support your worthless ass.

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 06:18 PM
Not married couples with one wage-earner and several dependent children who receive no child support nor any state or federal aid.

Yes it's unfortunate I agree.


It's difficult to make the kind of comparisons that interest you. While the cost of living has gone up, the cost of food, clothing, furniture, travel and a number of other things have declined. The entry of large numbers of women into a permanent workforce has also had an effect on everybody's income. (Your belief that women earn less than men is false, however. Part-time workers of any age and both sexes earn less than full-time workers of any age and both sexes.)

Women do earn less than men in almost every area. However, that trend may not last long because their wages are continuing to rise while men's wages have been stagnant for over 30 years.

You're right there's more than just simple single factors to look at. The globalization of the economy, federal economic policies, the rebuilding of foreign infrastructures and the eventual growth of their markets after WWII, the technological revolution and the general restructuring of the domestic economy (the shift from manufacturing to service, and the current restructuring thanks to the Information Revolution) all play a role, along with more workers as you mentioned.

Keeping all of this in mind, and examining the trends of all of these over the past several decades, the simple suggestion from that other poster that raising taxes slightly on the top 5% of the population is going to destroy our economy and ruin the middle class is absurd.

For the love of God people keep things in perspective. Gingersnap here seems one of the best here at thinking of things in a more holistic manner rather than a blatant simplification of one or two issues outlined in a simple left-right scheme.



The poor today don't live under the same conditions as the poor did in the 1950s or 1960s.

In some ways they have it better and other ways they have it much worse.


It's all relative.

yep :)

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 06:24 PM
The ideology of a leech.

Like I told you earlier, weeweeweewee, you don't pay federal income tax, your opinion is worthless.

Leave the battle to your betters, who support your worthless ass.

I didn't pay income taxes this year because I didn't bring in enough income because I donated my time instead of selling it. I spent my time volunteering and trying to give back to my community, because I realize I have it good but not everyone has been blessed as I have. It's not much, I'm not changing the world, and I'd rather avoid bringing it up (I don't feel I deserve to feel prideful and feeding my ego is pointless and harmful) except people here continuously question my income and working status.

If that makes me a bad person, or a leech in your eyes, or if you simply just want to hate me, then feel free to hate as much as you like.

Lager
04-21-2010, 06:28 PM
I will agree with you that the political specturm is becoming too divided along the lines of left and right, D and R, us and them, etc. But I wanted to respond to your reference to the recent SCOTUS decision on corporations. You stated that you didn't believe that money equals speech. The decision the court handed down came from a case where an organization wanted to advertise a movie they produced about Hillary Clinton during the recent election when she was a front runner.
The laws as they stood prohibited the advertising because part of the financing for the film came from corporate funds. Now it stands to reason that the same laws would have the same consequences if they had produced a book instead. Now if any form of speech stands out for protecting, political speech is right up there. Clearly the political speech of the film makers was restricted simply because a corporation helped fund their project.

malloc
04-21-2010, 06:31 PM
I didn't pay income taxes this year because I didn't bring in enough income because I donated my time instead of selling it. I spent my time volunteering and trying to give back to my community, because I realize I have it good but not everyone has been blessed as I have. It's not much, I'm not changing the world, and I'd rather avoid bringing it up (I don't feel I deserve to feel prideful and feeding my ego is pointless and harmful) except people here continuously question my income and working status.

If that makes me a bad person, or a leech in your eyes, or if you simply just want to hate me, then feel free to hate as much as you like.

That doesn't make you a leech. However, answer honestly. Do receive welfare, food stamps, cash assistance, state medical benefits, etc.?

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 06:39 PM
That doesn't make you a leech. However, answer honestly. Do receive welfare, food stamps, cash assistance, state medical benefits, etc.?

As a young child, I (and my family) briefly lived in government housing projects and did receive food stamps, however after graduating from my university I excelled in my professional life and although I'm not rich, I'm content with my simple lifestyle (very cozy home, old but reliable vehicle, no traveling vacations, and a modest savings account. in fact most of my earned income goes to paying student loans) and have been able to take time off of work to focus on volunteering. So while I didn't bring in much income, I do not and have not attempted to receive welfare, food stamps, cash assistance, unemployment checks, or anything else of that sort.

malloc
04-21-2010, 06:42 PM
As a young child, I (and my family) briefly lived in government housing projects and did receive food stamps, however after graduating from my university I excelled in my professional life and although I'm not rich, I'm content with my simple lifestyle and have been able to take time off of work to focus on volunteering. So while I didn't bring in much income, I do not and have not attempted to receive welfare, food stamps, cash assistance, unemployment checks, or anything else of that sort.

Well, then that's half the equation, personally you aren't leeching anything. Do you support taking some of the wealth of one person by government decree and giving that wealth to another who is not as well off financially?

Zafod
04-21-2010, 07:02 PM
this thread needs mor roflcopter!!!!

Megaguns91
04-21-2010, 07:04 PM
this thread needs mor roflcopter!!!!

http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~joli/roflcopter.gif

Zafod
04-21-2010, 07:06 PM
http://www.bimmerfest.com/photos/data/500/roflcopter.jpg

Big Guy
04-21-2010, 07:10 PM
As a young child, I (and my family) briefly lived in government housing projects and did receive food stamps, however after graduating from my university I excelled in my professional life and although I'm not rich, I'm content with my simple lifestyle (very cozy home, old but reliable vehicle, no traveling vacations, and a modest savings account. in fact most of my earned income goes to paying student loans) and have been able to take time off of work to focus on volunteering. So while I didn't bring in much income, I do not and have not attempted to receive welfare, food stamps, cash assistance, unemployment checks, or anything else of that sort.

BULL SHIT ALERT, ....BULL SHIT ALERT

Constitutionally Speaking
04-21-2010, 07:11 PM
What about the growth of the middle class in the in the 1950's and 1960's?

What were the tax rates like then?


That line of thought ignores the fact that Europe and Japan were rebuilding after WWII and did not offer any competition.

Zafod
04-21-2010, 07:13 PM
http://michael-shirley.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/roflbrothel.gif

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 07:25 PM
Well, then that's half the equation, personally you aren't leeching anything. Do you support taking some of the wealth of one person by government decree and giving that wealth to another who is not as well off financially?

I see nothing wrong with taxation. I also believe programs that help our society as a whole are good even if it means higher taxes, for example, most European countries have much higher tax rates than we do, but their workers get paid up to 60% more than workers of similar jobs here, they have better working conditions (such as paid maternity leave), they have free or nearly free health care out-of-pocket whenever they are ill or when they are simply avoiding illness, and right now their capitalistic corporations are doing just fine, the Euro is stronger than the dollar and they have no collapsed into the dark ages as many people would like you to think. Remember, the people who go on and on about how we are about to collapse and Europe is in chaos and it's all on the edge and so on...these people are sponsored by corporations that benefit from you being scared (companies that sell precious metals, companies that sell "emergency non-hybrid seeds" to be used when the apocalypse comes). If these are the guys paying the talking heads....I shouldn't even have to finish the sentence, I pray that this is obvious.


If a person benefits from a social system I think that person should pay some portion back into the system that allowed them to become successful.

I believe one of the unattainable ideals that our founding fathers believed in, as do I, is that of equality of opportunity. I believe a child born into a poor family in a poor neighborhood has far fewer opportunities than a child born into a wealthy family with political connections.

Of course it's impossible to level the playing field, but we can try, safety nets for the poor I do support, programs that help train lower-income youth with skills to help them be competative in the job market I totally support, tax cuts for lower income families yes, taxation for the benefit of the society as a whole is a good thing.

Now of course there are limits, you can't take this and run with it to the extreme, but right now our tax policy benefits those at the top at the expense of everyone else.

The slippery-slope argument is worthless, adjusting our policies to help benefit more people isn't going to destroy freedom or democracy or capitalism.

We need to think, what works, what doesn't, and be ready to abandon your position at any moment when the facts change and when reality changes (as it continuously does). I've done some research work on anxiety and it's the tendency to cling tightly onto your positions in the face of changing circumstances that is the hallmark of people with anxiety disorders and one cause of panic attacks.

So much of the corporate media is designed to constantly frighten you, make you feel attacked and suggest you cling tightly onto your positions, which results in a state of anxiety that causes resistance to any change in the current structure which benefits the very people who own these media outlets.

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 07:26 PM
That line of thought ignores the fact that Europe and Japan were rebuilding after WWII and did not offer any competition.

You're right, and I elaborated more on this in my response to Gingersnap, as well as several other factors that contributed to the economic picture of the last half century.

Zafod
04-21-2010, 07:29 PM
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/roflcopter-54627.jpg

Zafod
04-21-2010, 07:30 PM
http://i.domaindlx.com/vintec/roflcopter.gif

Zafod
04-21-2010, 07:30 PM
http://ridingabuttertub.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/roflcopter.gif

Wei Wu Wei
04-21-2010, 07:40 PM
BULL SHIT ALERT, ....BULL SHIT ALERT

If it helps you sleep at night, believe anything you want about me. I'm a marxist revolutionary liberal elite who was born on a pile of copies of Mein Kampf. My mother was a witch and my father was Satan himself. I aim at nothing other than to destroy the following Real Things:

1. Freedom
2. Liberty
3. God

I ride down to the welfare office in my H2 to pick up the welfare check I do not need and use the money to bribe women into aborting their babies because nothing infuriates me more than the purity of an unborn child.

I drink wine made from blood and my blood is made from wine, and the only reason I know this is from the single time I ever bled: when a Holy Bible grazed my hand and burned my flesh.


There you go buddy, now you can sleep better at night ;)

Big Guy
04-21-2010, 07:49 PM
If it helps you sleep at night, believe anything you want about me. I'm a marxist revolutionary liberal elite who was born on a pile of copies of Mein Kampf. My mother was a witch and my father was Satan himself. I aim at nothing other than to destroy the following Real Things:

1. Freedom
2. Liberty
3. God

I ride down to the welfare office in my H2 to pick up the welfare check I do not need and use the money to bribe women into aborting their babies because nothing infuriates me more than the purity of an unborn child.

I drink wine made from blood and my blood is made from wine, and the only reason I know this is from the single time I ever bled: when a Holy Bible grazed my hand and burned my flesh.


There you go buddy, now you can sleep better at night ;)

So, you finally admit it. :D

Gingersnap
04-21-2010, 08:56 PM
I see this is going well. :cool:

Constitutionally Speaking
04-21-2010, 09:03 PM
I see nothing wrong with taxation. I also believe programs that help our society as a whole are good even if it means higher taxes,


Higher taxes create a bigger need for programs to "help" the poor.

They not only trap the poor in those programs, they create new welfare "junkies".

Which then creates a "need" for higher taxes, and the cycle keeps spiraling down.

patriot45
04-21-2010, 09:18 PM
If it helps you sleep at night, believe anything you want about me. I'm a marxist revolutionary liberal elite who was born on a pile of copies of Mein Kampf. My mother was a witch and my father was Satan himself. I aim at nothing other than to destroy the following Real Things:

1. Freedom
2. Liberty
3. God

I ride down to the welfare office in my H2 to pick up the welfare check I do not need and use the money to bribe women into aborting their babies because nothing infuriates me more than the purity of an unborn child.

I drink wine made from blood and my blood is made from wine, and the only reason I know this is from the single time I ever bled: when a Holy Bible grazed my hand and burned my flesh.


There you go buddy, now you can sleep better at night ;)


You are a piece of work for sure!

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/deedeedeeFRONT.jpg

AmPat
04-21-2010, 09:51 PM
No see that's exactly the point. People are upset about FEDERAL taxes, even though they have gone down, while ignoring the fact that most STATE taxes have gone up. Because people are hit with both at once, they don't feel the impact of the massive federal tax cuts.

I posted this in another thread but it's relevant here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6201911-503544.htmlState taxes are heading North due to federal mandates and liberal hand out programs.

Articulate_Ape
04-22-2010, 12:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4ljZea6YSE

'Nuff said.

lacarnut
04-22-2010, 01:11 AM
What about the growth of the middle class in the in the 1950's and 1960's?

What were the tax rates like then?

With all the questions that you ask are you taking stupid pills or writing a book?

Sonnabend
04-22-2010, 04:50 AM
I support (some) gun control measures but

...such as?

NJCardFan
04-22-2010, 06:19 AM
With all the questions that you ask are you taking stupid pills or writing a book?

No. Just stirring the shitpot.

Molon Labe
04-22-2010, 10:35 AM
I mean on one hand, you're being taxed too much already, on the other hand, the government budget is in the red, so what shou-

oh wait....

All of this is just so wrong. Were tax breaks given? Yes.......only to be taken when you filed at the end of year 2009. In other words, average middle class persons took a bath this year in returns.

Now the elderly and people on fixed incomes:

There's this thing called an inflation tax which no one likes to pay attention to. Have you even heard of such a thing?
What it ultimately means is that the big O's tax breaks will eventually be nullified after trillion dollars he pumped into the system for stimulus stimulates inflation.

You see...inflation taxes attack people with fixed value assets, which for most people is held in dollars. Most of those people are elderly or retired individuals and have pensions, savings accounts, annuities, and such.
They lose all their hard earned wealth as the exchange value of those dollars declines relative to goods and services they want to buy. But lefties don't want to talk about that.

My retired 75 year old mother is a prime example of someone getting killed by Liberal compassion and good ideas like this one.

AmPat
04-22-2010, 12:27 PM
My Fed tax refund this year even after all my considerable deductions was under $4,000.00. Previous refunds would have been pushing $6,000.00 (I know, I know, I keep trying but can't seem to get the refund down close to zero). Must be LIEberal math.:rolleyes:

Zafod
04-22-2010, 04:03 PM
so where did wee wee the pee pee boy go?

Chuck58
04-22-2010, 04:30 PM
Wee Wee said, "I support (some) gun control measures but I believe strongly in the 2nd amendment,"

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That kind of negates the 'some gun control measures' part. You can't support something half way. It's a Right. Government cannot take it away or modify it.

In my opinion, it doesn't include licensing, registration or the need for a permit to carry concealed. In fact, I believe we ought to be able to own full auto machine guns, howitzers or any other weapon the military uses, without restrictions of any kind. I think if you can afford it and want it, you should be able to have it.

BadCat
04-22-2010, 04:55 PM
I didn't pay income taxes this year because I didn't bring in enough income because I donated my time instead of selling it. I spent my time volunteering and trying to give back to my community, because I realize I have it good but not everyone has been blessed as I have. It's not much, I'm not changing the world, and I'd rather avoid bringing it up (I don't feel I deserve to feel prideful and feeding my ego is pointless and harmful) except people here continuously question my income and working status.

If that makes me a bad person, or a leech in your eyes, or if you simply just want to hate me, then feel free to hate as much as you like.

I think you're a leech, and probably a bad person to boot.

And I do hate you, and everyone like you.

marinejcksn
04-26-2010, 07:38 PM
I think you're a leech, and probably a bad person to boot.

And I do hate you, and everyone like you.

You understand this clearly and I like it; when people make more back from the Government than they paid in, it's not a "refund". It's a Welfare payment, redistributed from people who pay more than their "fair share".