Millionaires to Obama: Tax us

[RightinNYC]

another misguided forum member who believes there is no problem in buying stuff we cannot afford to pay for

that's it. let's give the tab to our kids' generation so that we can give billionaire$ tax breaks today

I don't think you're fairly characterizing his statement. As I read it, he's saying that there is a problem in buying stuff we cannot afford to pay for. The difference is just that whereas you would prefer to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for those things, he would prefer not to buy them in the first place.

Not increasing taxes =/= "buying stuff we cannot afford to pay for"

 

[topshelf]

another misguided forum member who believes there is no problem in buying stuff we cannot afford to pay for

that's it. let's give the tab to our kids' generation so that we can give billionaire$ tax breaks today

I'm exactly saying there IS a spending problem. What part of my statement was unclear?

 

[ptif219]

another misguided forum member who believes there is no problem in buying stuff we cannot afford to pay for

that's it. let's give the tab to our kids' generation so that we can give billionaire$ tax breaks today

When you buy with no money that is a spending problem there are groups for that. We should send Obama and the congress to one of those groups

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

yeah you are right-its conservatives who run around demanding that the government tax people more

silly me

So, no proof. Good to know.

Just trying to keep you honest, turtle. My job around here.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I guess you didn't bother to read the cited article

The group includes many big-time Democratic donors such as Gail Furman, trial lawyer Guy Saperstein and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream (pictured). The list remains open to millionaires who want to sign on

I guess now you will claim that these big time dem donors aren't necessarily liberal:2wave:

Then I suppose you should say, "SOME" liberals. Or, it might be better to leave partisanship out of it altogether and focus more on the issue. Oh... but that would defeat your purpose, wouldn't it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

that is silly-libs want to jack taxes up so they can claim they are trying to pay for the huge spending they are going to enact to buy the votes of their minions. They also do this to create more of the US VS THEM class warfare that they use to gain power and convince the "downtrodden" to give them wealth and power based on class envy

Conservatives want to lower taxes so they can claim that they are trying to reduce deficit so that their minions will have more money to spend in supporting their campaigns. They also do this to create more of the US VS. THEM class warefare that they use to gain power and convince the "wealthy" that they are better than others because of their socioeconomic standing and to give wealth and power based on class envy.

See? Partisan hack statements sound ridiculous no matter what side they come from.

 

[TurtleDude]

another misguided forum member who believes there is no problem in buying stuff we cannot afford to pay for

that's it. let's give the tab to our kids' generation so that we can give billionaire$ tax breaks today

tht's rich coming from a supporter of Obama. The New Deal started the onslaught of government spending for stuff we cannot afford to pay for

are you willing to pay the same tax rates as the top 2%?

 

[TurtleDude]

Conservatives want to lower taxes so they can claim that they are trying to reduce deficit so that their minions will have more money to spend in supporting their campaigns. They also do this to create more of the US VS. THEM class warefare that they use to gain power and convince the "wealthy" that they are better than others because of their socioeconomic standing and to give wealth and power based on class envy.

See? Partisan hack statements sound ridiculous no matter what side they come from.

It was the dems who started the class warfare and you know it. A flat tax would get rid of that-you haven't heard any liberals supporting a tax structure that would end Us vs Them have you?

 

[TurtleDude]

Then I suppose you should say, "SOME" liberals. Or, it might be better to leave partisanship out of it altogether and focus more on the issue. Oh... but that would defeat your purpose, wouldn't it.

Since the article that was cited mentioned that the group was mainly prominent dem activists its sort of hard to avoid the fact that their actions are not partisanship hackery isn't it?

 

[TurtleDude]

So, no proof. Good to know.

Just trying to keep you honest, turtle. My job around here.

you posted this apparently ignorant of what the article had said. I had read the article and sadly I assumed that you and others had to before POSTING on this thread

my mistake

 

[justabubba]

I don't think you're fairly characterizing his statement. As I read it, he's saying that there is a problem in buying stuff we cannot afford to pay for. The difference is just that whereas you would prefer to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for those things, he would prefer not to buy them in the first place.

Not increasing taxes =/= "buying stuff we cannot afford to pay for"

and here is where your position is wrong
we have obligated our nation to incur indebtedness, but we refuse to impose a tax to pay for what has been purchased

notice that since we have been able to put our national purchases on credit, there is no pain inflicted on the public to pay for what was bought
we will push that obligation onto our kids

in the meantime, there are those of you who think it wise fiscal policy to continue to give billionaires - those who can afford to pay taxes our nation needs to collect - we can continue to give billionaires tax breaks

yes. i do notice that to pay for those tax breaks for billionaires your side wants to end unemployment for people who are without a job .... during this time when there are between 40-100 applicants for each job opening
yes, you also want to terminate anything which provides healthcare for all citizens despite that one-third of them have no ready access to health care services
and yes, you want to undermine the security of social security for those who are at the ends of their lives
no, you don't want to reduce the budget of a military which spends more than most of the nations of rest of the world collectively spend defending themselves

so, i admit we are at impasse
you and team red want to spend what we don't have for stupid purposes
others of us believe that government is of, by and FOR the people

 

[justabubba]

tht's rich coming from a supporter of Obama. The New Deal started the onslaught of government spending for stuff we cannot afford to pay for

are you willing to pay the same tax rates as the top 2%?

i will be delighted to pay the tax rates of the top 2% because that would mean i enjoy the income of the top 2%, giving me abundant opportunity to pay an elevated tax
those who gain the most pay the most. seems reasonable
but explain why it is not, squire

 

[Diogenes]

these millionaires are free to send in as much as they like. they shouldnt screw over our employer class just because 40-odd of America's millionaires signed a letter.

These millionaires are the established ones: they already have their loopholes and their political influence. The only practical effect of screwing the employer class (like they are trying to do) is to pull up the ladder and make sure no upstart competitors come along to compete with them.

Prove that those who requested this are liberals.

That's easy. They are trying to appropriate money earned by others. That's the hallmark of modern liberalism.

Voting to raise your own taxes is democracy. Voting to raise someone else's taxes is mob rule.

liberals gain power by spending OUR money on THEIR voters. cutting back spending means cutting back VOTE BUYING

Exactly!

 

[RightinNYC]

and here is where your position is wrong
we have obligated our nation to incur indebtedness, but we refuse to impose a tax to pay for what has been purchased

...or we could stop making those purchases and scrap our plans to buy more unnecessary **** in the future. Why do you keep glossing over this point?

notice that since we have been able to put our national purchases on credit, there is no pain inflicted on the public to pay for what was bought
we will push that obligation onto our kids

No, your generation is pushing it onto mine. That's why I tend to oppose this bull****.

in the meantime, there are those of you who think it wise fiscal policy to continue to give billionaires - those who can afford to pay taxes our nation needs to collect - we can continue to give billionaires tax breaks

How many people actually earn billions in earned income? I'll wait.

yes. i do notice that to pay for those tax breaks for billionaires your side wants to end unemployment for people who are without a job .... during this time when there are between 40-100 applicants for each job opening

Yea, believe it or not, after two full years of getting checks despite not working, unemployment doesn't really do much good. As to the complaining about the job market, the fact that someone is not willing to take a job for what someone is willing to pay does not mean that there are no jobs. As of right now, I will hire any decently well educated and honest person who wants a job. I could use someone to clean my apt, take care of the dog, run errands, cook meals, etc. I will pay $10/hr. Shockingly, there aren't too many people in NY who are willing to do that work for that price.

yes, you also want to terminate anything which provides healthcare for all citizens despite that one-third of them have no ready access to health care services

And you want to continue adding to a $100 trillion unfunded liability that you will benefit from and I will pay for.

and yes, you want to undermine the security of social security for those who are at the ends of their lives

And you want to continue adding to a $17 trillion unfunded liability that you will benefit from and I will pay for.

no, you don't want to reduce the budget of a military which spends more than most of the nations of rest of the world collectively spend defending themselves

Yes, I absolutely do. Try again.

so, i admit we are at impasse
you and team red want to spend what we don't have for stupid purposes
others of us believe that government is of, by and FOR the people

The phrase "Government FOR the people" is a sign that we've left Reasonableville, have passed Hyperboletown, and are well on our way to Platitude City.

 

[Paschendale]

Always glad to see some people acting in the interests of others instead of themselves. Kudos to these 40.

 

[topshelf]

It's not that hard of a concept - in your own personal finances, if you're spending too much money, you cut some spending. If you've obligated yourself to certain bills - and are living beyond your means - then its time to downgrade your cellphone package, dump cable TV, entertain less, eat Ramen noodles, use library internet, sell a car, and maybe sell your house.

So it is with our national government - Republicans and Democrats alike have spent too much for way too long. We need to cut some programs, we need to cut salaries - and we could probably stand to have a Federal Garage Sale. Simply raising taxes doesn't resolve our addiction to spending - we will still spend too much and the debt will continue to grow, no matter how high you raise taxes.

 

[Missed AB]

Simply raising taxes doesn't resolve our addiction to spending - we will still spend too much and the debt will continue to grow, no matter how high you raise taxes.

I agree. The government will continue to spend your tax money. It doesn't matter if it's a democrat or republican. They will manage to spend whatever money is there.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It was the dems who started the class warfare and you know it. A flat tax would get rid of that-you haven't heard any liberals supporting a tax structure that would end Us vs Them have you?

That's nothing but your opinion. In my view it's the conservatives that started the class warfare by doing everything possible to create as much of schism both economically and psychologically as possible. You are an excellent example of this.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Since the article that was cited mentioned that the group was mainly prominent dem activists its sort of hard to avoid the fact that their actions are not partisanship hackery isn't it?

Notice the word in bold. Not liberals or democrats. SOME liberals or democrats. Or MOST liberals or democrats. This is an important distinction.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

you posted this apparently ignorant of what the article had said. I had read the article and sadly I assumed that you and others had to before POSTING on this thread

my mistake

I read the article. I assumed that folks who read it would be able to respond to what was said, not what they wanted it to have said.

My mistake.

 

[Gardener]

That's nothing but your opinion. In my view it's the conservatives that started the class warfare by doing everything possible to create as much of schism both economically and psychologically as possible. You are an excellent example of this.

The Reaganomics formula:

1 -- kill unions so they can no longer gain political clout by organizng workers.

2 - -eliminate the fairness doctrine.

3 -- gain near monopoly on political discourse on the radio.

voila' -- one segment of the population that formally voted at least somewhat for their own economic interests are now voting against.

 

[winston53660]

The Reaganomics formula:

1 -- kill unions so they can no longer gain political clout by organizng workers.

2 - -eliminate the fairness doctrine.

3 -- gain near monopoly on political discourse on the radio.

voila' -- one segment of the population that formally voted at least somewhat for their own economic interests are now voting against.

By law the public owns the spectrum. If we sell it out I want my royalties as a member of the public.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The Reaganomics formula:

1 -- kill unions so they can no longer gain political clout by organizng workers.

2 - -eliminate the fairness doctrine.

3 -- gain near monopoly on political discourse on the radio.

voila' -- one segment of the population that formally voted at least somewhat for their own economic interests are now voting against.

You forgot about the complete failure of Reaganomics from a psychological standpoint. Give the rich and the corporations lots of tax breaks so they will "tickle down" the extra money to their employees. Unfortunately, people forgot to tell Reagan about the psychology of greed... or how people should just be responsible for themselves and not give a crap about others. The rich got richer. That was about it.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

I'm not so worried about the Millionaires as I am the small business owners - those that may even still be filing as individuals. Those are the one to five employee type businesses that this tax increase could devastate.

Mythology. Even under Bush, the Treasury department estimated that it would only impact 7% of "small businesses".

And that 7% of "small businesses" include things like Blossom Films - a five employee production company owned by Nicole Kidman. It also include high-dollar law firms and hedge fund operations in that 7%.

I appreciate your concern but this "it will devistate small businesses" thing isn't true. It's exactly like its cousin, the "family farm" that basically no longer exists.

Small businesses are vital, yes. If the top rate returns to 39.6%, it will have little effect on most businesses.

Example: Let's say a small business makes $1 million a year. Let's say they spend $650,000 to run the business and pay employees, etc. That's a profit of $350,000 (or the owner's income). If the tax rates do return to 39.6%, that means said owner would pay about $4,600 more in taxes.

Do you really think $4,600 is going to destroy a $1 million business?

 

[topshelf]

Mythology. Even under Bush, the Treasury department estimated that it would only impact 7% of "small businesses".

And that 7% of "small businesses" include things like Blossom Films - a five employee production company owned by Nicole Kidman. It also include high-dollar law firms and hedge fund operations in that 7%.

I appreciate your concern but this "it will devistate small businesses" thing isn't true. It's exactly like its cousin, the "family farm" that basically no longer exists.

Small businesses are vital, yes. If the top rate returns to 39.6%, it will have little effect on most businesses.

Example: Let's say a small business makes $1 million a year. Let's say they spend $650,000 to run the business and pay employees, etc. That's a profit of $350,000 (or the owner's income). If the tax rates do return to 39.6%, that means said owner would pay about $4,600 more in taxes.

Do you really think $4,600 is going to destroy a $1 million business?

In what world does a $1 million dolllar business net $350,000 in profit? That example doesn't even pass the plausibility test.