Obama and Class Warfare

[Grendel]

Is this your excuse for not having a job?

That was some awesome input! Thanks for contributing.

 

[Meathead]

That was some awesome input! Thanks for contributing.

So that would be a yes then, right?

 

[Boo Radley]

So that would be a yes then, right?

No, I have a job. You're not really offering much. That is what I'm trying to get across. :2wave:

 

[Sparkles]

Really? Clinton & Co managed to do it, and it wasn't that long ago. It can happen - you've just been brain-washed to believe it can't.

Talk about brain washed, you obviously don't know anything about what "Clinton & Co" actually proposed.

The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update
The CBO in 1995, reviewing Clinton's very own budget, showed that ACCORDING TO CLINTON....... The Federal Government would run a deficit of at least $200 Billion a year all the way through 2005. No hint, or even attempt to claim to balance the budget.

So how did the budget end up nearly balanced if Clinton didn't even propose such a balance?

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
US Budget Breakdown for FY13 - Charts

Answer: The Republicans were the ones cutting spending.

Republicans under-cut the Clinton Budget every single year.

In 1996, Clinton proposed spending $1.612 Trillion. Republicans in congress spent only $1.560 Trillion. Saved $52 Billion off Clinton's budget.

In 1997, Clinton proposed spending $1.635 Trillion. Republicans in congress spent only $1.601 Trillion. Saved $34 Billion off Clinton's budget.

In 1998, Clinton proposed spending $1.687 Trillion. Republicans in congress spent only $1.652 Trillion. Saved $25 Billion off Clinton's budget.

In 1999, Clinton proposed spending $1.733 Trillion. Republicans in congress spent only $1.701 Trillion. Saved $32 Billion off Clinton's budget.

Every single year, the Republicans consistently cut Clinton's proposed budget, and brought the country closer to a balanced budget than it had been in decades.

According to Clinton's 1995 long term budget proposal, by the year 2000, we should have been spending $2 Trillion. Instead because of the Republicans, we were only spending about $1.78 Trillion. That's a 10% cut in spending.

If not for the Republicans, you would not be here right now talking about how blunderful Clinton was. Instead we'd be talking about how Clinton got us into the exact situation we're in right now, with insane deficits. Remember Clinton was going to nationalize health care, and that would have added billions onto the deficit then. Plus he was going to pass huge money giveaways, which also would have added billions. Both were shot down by Republicans. Something that didn't happen with Obama, and look where it's got us? $1.3 Trillion deficit. Makes Clinton's $200 proposed deficit look attractive.

Yeah, if we're brain washed, it's because we're brain washed by facts, as opposed to your ignorance. Get a clue.

 

[Meathead]

No, I have a job. You're not really offering much. That is what I'm trying to get across. :2wave:

So then you're a sucker by your own definition. I thought you might have too much conviction to be a wage slave. My bad.

 

[Grendel]

No, I have a job. You're not really offering much. That is what I'm trying to get across. :2wave:

Whoa. Kind of freaked me out a little.

 

[Sparkles]

What do you think union busting is?

Unions bite the hand that feeds them, and then die. They should. Which car companies went bankrupt again? Honda right? Oh wait, they are not unionized. No it was GM and Chrysler. Wonder why..... Maybe because unions drive up costs making the company unprofitable, and then you whine like an idiot about GM opening factories in other countries. Honda is opening factories here. So is Nissan. Why the difference? Can't be the unions. Funny how Ford was the only domestic company that didn't crash, and shockingly, Ford was also the only one to get concessions from the Unions to cut wages. Coincidence, I'm sure.

Unions ruin their own members. Busting a union isn't class warfare, it's practically charity.

Do you have any evidence at all to prove that the majority of the 1% started out as working class, rather than inheriting wealth?

The Millionaire Next Door.
Amazon.com: The Millionaire Next Door (9780671015206): Thomas J. Stanley, William D. Danko: Books
Roughly 80% of all millionaires are first generation rich.

No, just a sucker. Your work generates far more than $20K/year in income for the company, and the majority of the profit from your work is sucked up by leeches who hold the stock, and they actively work to keep your pay down so they can have more of it.

Good. If I owned the company, I wouldn't hire anyone unless it was profitable to do so. Guess what.... you would too. Open a business and learn how the world works.

Most of it isn't "rightfully earned". They start with inherited wealth and then use it to keep people like you from realizing the full profit from your labour. They fill your head full of fairy tales about rags-to-riches heros when really it's extremely rare that poor people ever become rich.

Inherited is irrelevant. If your father earned a million dollars, and then passed it on to you, that is your rightful money that he rightfully earned. Further, unlike you, I think independently. I've read and heard both sides of the argument. Just because I have different perspective than you, does not mean someone filled my head with anything. Not everyone that doesn't buy into your idiocy is wrong. Surprising I know.

You know, you are right. It is rare that extremely poor, become extremely wealthy. So what? We should adopt socialism so no one can be wealthy? Capitalism has given more opportunity to become wealthy, than any other system on this planet.

I was just looking at the Forbes 400, and out of the top 20, only about 5 inherited their wealth. Half of those were the Walton Family. A guy who was impoverished, worked his way to running a store, and then grew that store into a country wide corporation that employs thousands, and provides products to millions at a lower price.

The others were a pair of brothers whose father was an immigrant, and ran a little business. After their father passed on, the business fell to them, and they grew it 100 fold, and became very wealthy from it.

Stop being brain washed by the socialist idiots.

 

[Catawba]

I figured you'd go there.

The problem I have with this is, I couldn't find where they got their numbers, and usually those numbers come from paycheck data only. As in, the only number you look at is the size of the cash compensation.

Now, for the record, if you define inequality as explicitly being a difference in pay check, then I agree. Higher taxes can reduce pay check inequality. In fact this is rather obvious. Because.... If I am the owner of a company, and I earn $300K a year, and the government puts in a 70% tax rate on pay checks over $200K, what I am going to do? Why earn $10 over $200K if the government is going to steal $7 of them?

So naturally I'm going to cut my cash compensation to $200K to avoid the taxes.

Here's where the claim falls down in my opinion based on evidence. Do you think... that an owner of a company is just going to accept lower compensation because he takes a lower cash compensation? I'm the owner. The government is going to tax 70% of my income over $200K. Am I going to accept less?

Um... heck no. It's my company, and I can do whatever I want. So what do I do? Well I get company perks! Less money in my check, more perks to replace that lost money. And you know what I'm talking about. Some companies own lake front property, available year round for the executives. Private jets, to anywhere in the world. How about those 'fact-finding' missions to private resorts in Sweden?

Sorry, it just didn't happen to a degree that it negatively effected the middle class when tax rates were much higher for the rich than anything being proposed today.

See, I would argue that the inequality during the 40s to 70s was just as bad as it is today, but it just wasn't in specifically in the form of cash income. People cut their cash compensation, and accept other forms of compensation, instead of paying the tax. And there's no real data on this that I can find. I have asked others if they can provide proof of this, that non-cash company perks were not higher during the 40s to 70s, and no one yet can make the case.

But we all know that companies routinely give up perks as an alternative to cash. Warren Buffett only makes $100K cash compensation. That's it. Just $100K dollars. Do you really think that's all he's getting from Berkshire Hathaway with it's $136 Billion dollar revenue?

However, back to the income only, I agree. If all you are concerned about it how much cold hard cash currency compensation people are getting, you can instantly reduce that inequality by jacking up the top marginal rate.

Of course tax revenues will drop, because they will cut their income. But... you will reduce that specific type of inequality. They'll still get hundreds of executive only perks to compensate for that loss, but hey.... leftist is always about the superficial, not actually improving anything.

Edit: Just i thinking about it, you could possibly make the case that jacking up the top marginal rate, thus causing more people to accept company perks in lieu of cash, could be the correct thing to do even though it would reduce taxes collected from the rich, forcing more of the burden on the poor... simply because it would shut up the public by giving the appearance of equality, regardless of reality.

Again, it just doesn't hold up to the light of history. Our economy and the middle class did better in fact after the tax increases under Clinton than it did under the tax cuts by Bush.

If the GOP can convince the voters they are better off now due to the last decade of tax cuts for the rich and deregulation, then they deserve to be reelected! I am willing to bet the majority of American people are not that stupid.

 

[Catawba]

Funny given I only made $20K last year. I suppose that makes me the wealthy? Here's another idea. Maybe there are too many greedy people. Shut up about how other people are doing, and work on your own life.

Yes, too many greedy people that think they deserve a lower tax rate than those who earn less income. Funny that you vote against your own economic interest.

Sure. I've seen seniors and disabled, working their asses off. They are not concerned about how much so-and-so made. They are not envious or greedy. I've seen others sit on their ass and complain, and demand services they don't want to pay for. They are greedy.

Only 14% of the population do not work and pay taxes, seniors and the disabled. What would you have them do extra to pay for the continued tax cuts for the wealthy?

Again, I don't give a crap about what % of whatever whoever pays to whom. If a wealthy person pays $100 more to government, what difference does that make to me?

You are not concerned with the national debt?

Government blows the money on programs for people who don't work anyway.

Back to beat up on the seniors and disabled again?

Since I do, how do that benefit me?

We all have an obligation to our poor seniors and the disabled.

Again, income is not greed. If my income increase 100 times, if I am running an honest business, and making an honest profit, it's not greed.

No one has said it is!

You can be greedy even if your income drops in half. If a person out there quits their jobs because they think they 'deserve' to have free food, deserve to have free health care, and shouldn't have to pay for anything.... that person is greedy even if they earned less.

You mean those greedy seniors that retire instead of continuing to work on into their 90's, or those greedy disabled people?

You really have it in for seniors and the disabled don't you?

So what? Hey, do you want to be wealthy some day? I do. Is it wrong to want to be wealthy? Of course not.

Of course not, but ****ting on the seniors and the disabled along the way is not going to win you many friends or supporters.

Question, how do you get to be wealthy? Well you can grow a business. That's investing in yourself, and that's a good plan. Or you can just invest in other things. That's also a good plan.

Yeah, I'm with you there. Go on.........

If you invest money, in order to be wealthy like Romney, question do you want to pay a higher tax on that money you invested, which you ALREADY paid tax on?

Oh, I'm sure you want to pay as low as tax as you can get away with, which is why Romney's tax plan would cut taxes for the rich even lower than they already are.
You will have to explain how he's already been taxed on the profit he makes from his investment. He doesn't pay taxes on his initial investment, only the profit made from that investment. Same as any other business. So why should he be taxed at a lower rate?

I only made $20K last year. I have investments. If you jack up capital gains, that's going to effect me, the 'lower class' as it were. Is that what you want? To prevent the poor from getting richer?

The statistics show that capital investments make up 1.4% of the income for the middle class. In other words, a 10% increase on capital gains tax rates is going to have virtually no effect on the middle class.

 

[Grendel]

Unions bite the hand that feeds them, and then die. They should. Which car companies went bankrupt again? Honda right? Oh wait, they are not unionized. No it was GM and Chrysler. Wonder why..... Maybe because unions drive up costs making the company unprofitable, and then you whine like an idiot about GM opening factories in other countries. Honda is opening factories here. So is Nissan. Why the difference? Can't be the unions. Funny how Ford was the only domestic company that didn't crash, and shockingly, Ford was also the only one to get concessions from the Unions to cut wages. Coincidence, I'm sure.

So you concede that the unionisation of employees didn't wreck Ford? American car companies have been in trouble for decades because they've been producing crap for decades. Has nothing to do with the unions.

The Millionaire Next Door.
Amazon.com: The Millionaire Next Door (9780671015206): Thomas J. Stanley, William D. Danko: Books
Roughly 80% of all millionaires are first generation rich.

You realize that the 1% aren't people with a net worth of a million, right? They're people who earn at least that much every single year, most of them considerably more than that. Romney brought in over 20 times that last year alone.

Good. If I owned the company, I wouldn't hire anyone unless it was profitable to do so. Guess what.... you would too. Open a business and learn how the world works.

Of course, but that's not addressing the issues at hand.

Inherited is irrelevant. If your father earned a million dollars, and then passed it on to you, that is your rightful money that he rightfully earned. Further, unlike you, I think independently. I've read and heard both sides of the argument. Just because I have different perspective than you, does not mean someone filled my head with anything. Not everyone that doesn't buy into your idiocy is wrong. Surprising I know.

It means that the wealthy upper class in our country is an inherited privilege, not any accomplishment by any individuals. The country is being run by the great grandsons of men who earned their place, not by men who earned their place. Class-mobility is being attacked by eliminating the middle class. You see, you can slave your life away and the vast majority of the profits go to some slimeball who inherited control of the company. And, what's funny, is that you argue that *you* should pay more taxes than *they* do. It's amazing.

We have to have taxes to maintain a stable society, and you're arguing that we should only tax earned income, not free income that was handed down from grandma. Why should the super-rich get out of paying an income tax if the rest of us have to?

You know, you are right. It is rare that extremely poor, become extremely wealthy. So what? We should adopt socialism so no one can be wealthy? Capitalism has given more opportunity to become wealthy, than any other system on this planet.

You really need to quit listening to right-wing propaganda. I'm not saying we should adopt socialism. I'm saying we should adopt a fair and effective tax plan so that the ownership of all of the business and influence in this country is held by people who earn it, not by lazy elitist slobs who were born into it.

I was just looking at the Forbes 400, and out of the top 20, only about 5 inherited their wealth. Half of those were the Walton Family. A guy who was impoverished, worked his way to running a store, and then grew that store into a country wide corporation that employs thousands, and provides products to millions at a lower price.

Before going any further with this, I just want to ask one thing: Is Bill Gates one of your rags-to-riches stories?

Stop being brain washed by the socialist idiots.

Who told you that anyone who wants to create a fair tax plan was a socialist? Just so you know, whoever that was is the one who brainwashed you. They've told you that if you don't agree that they can have most of your money and stick you with all the debt and if you complain about it, you're not patriotic. You shouldn't listen to that crap.

 

[MoSurveyor]

... you obviously don't know anything about what "Clinton & Co" actually proposed.

I am aware of how the budget process works and, also, that Congress is a key part - but not the only part. (The Republicans didn't control 60%, either, so quit acting like it was all them.) If the Republicans had had their way I'm sure the Bush tax cuts would have gone into affect in the 90's and we would have never come close to a balanced budget. As is, the tax rates were up, the Republicans pushed for less spending, and in the end the budget was much better off. It's too bad today's Republicans can't take a hint from that era. It took both lower spending and higher taxes to get there! Historically, that's always been the case when the debt gets paid down. It's too bad the Republicans turned down that same deal last year instead of getting on their high horse.

And it doesn't matter what Clinton proposed if he knew he had opposition. When I go to buy a car I don't tell them what I'll actually settle on for a price, I low-ball from the start and work up from there - don't you? Anyone that walks into a negotiation showing their hand is a fool.

BTW: Nice try at evasion. There's nothing like a 200 line post about a trivial point to cover up the big issue raised, that the government can indeed balance the budget and even reduce debt with higher taxes and reduced spending. If course, it's the higher taxes part the Republicans don't want anyone to hear.

 

[Fruityfact]

I typically don't see a bunch of rich people out complaining about the "labour class".

In fact, I don't actually believe in "labour class".

The majority of the rich, started out as labour, and became rich after years of labour. In effect, the rich are the labour class.

Further, the people I see complaining about wanting to change stuff, are people like me. I made $20K last year. Am I the rich?

No, class warfare is from people on the left, stuck in their greed and envy, that can't stand rich people having money, and trying to take more of what someone else rightfully earned.

What do you base your post on?
"The majority of the rich, started out as labour, and became rich after years of labour."--if you mean by blue collar..no

"No, class warfare is from people on the left, stuck in their greed and envy, that can't stand rich people having money, and trying to take more of what someone else rightfully earned"--Why do you say this?

 

[MoSurveyor]

"No, class warfare is from people on the left, stuck in their greed and envy, that can't stand rich people having money, and trying to take more of what someone else rightfully earned"--Why do you say this?

Didn't you see his self-disclosure - only $20k this year? He's probably mad because his $1M stash only returned $20k (2%) this year. LOL!

 

[Sparkles]

Sorry, it just didn't happen to a degree that it negatively effected the middle class when tax rates were much higher for the rich than anything being proposed today.

I would argue it's not happening today to negatively effect the middle class.

Again, it just doesn't hold up to the light of history. Our economy and the middle class did better in fact after the tax increases under Clinton than it did under the tax cuts by Bush.

I would suggest it's foolish to claim that everything good happened because of a tax increase. Clinton didn't do much to our economy, which is why it prospered. In fact I can list everything Clinton did on one hand, and most of them were things pushed by the right, and demonized by the left. Welfare reform. NAFTA. Cutting the Federal budget.

If the GOP can convince the voters they are better off now due to the last decade of tax cuts for the rich and deregulation, then they deserve to be reelected! I am willing to bet the majority of American people are not that stupid.

Well I can say I was better off. But then I am not stupid enough to blame everything that happens on the President without direct reasons. Something the left never has the mental ability to do. Correlation is causation in left world. Bush was president, and the sub-prime market crashed. Therefore he must of caused it. Typical Forest Gump level thinking of the left.

Yes, too many greedy people that think they deserve a lower tax rate than those who earn less income. Funny that you vote against your own economic interest.

Because it isn't against my own economic interest. The left is too brain dead to realize their supported policies keep people impoverished. Greed isn't demanding to keep your own money. There is nothing greedy about wanting to keep what you rightfully earned. On a moron says something that stupid.

Only 14% of the population do not work and pay taxes, seniors and the disabled. What would you have them do extra to pay for the continued tax cuts for the wealthy?

You are assuming that if one person pays less tax, that another person must pay more. Not true. Here's a thought... how about the government not spend as much? *GASP!*

You are not concerned with the national debt?

Yeah. Cut spending.

Back to beat up on the seniors and disabled again?

Only if they are greedy.

We all have an obligation to our poor seniors and the disabled.

Funny how everyone on the left says we have an obligation, and then turns around and says someone else should be force to pay for it.
Hypocrisy. Hallmark of the left.

No one has said it is!

And yet you just said it was greedy for me to not want the government to take my money. If it's not greedy to rightfully earn a wage, stop demanding the government steal it.

You mean those greedy seniors that retire instead of continuing to work on into their 90's, or those greedy disabled people?

Greed is demanding something, and believing you shouldn't have to pay for it. If you save up a billion dollar by the time your 30, and sit on your butt for the rest of your entire life doing absolutely nothing but drinking a beer and watching football, that would be just fine with me, and I wouldn't consider it greed.

If you work till your 80, and spend every penny you earn every check so that you don't have a dime to your name, and then demand others pay for you to retire, your a greedy worthless bit of scum. You are only due, what you rightfully earn.

You really have it in for seniors and the disabled don't you?

Actually no. Part of the reason I'm so passionate about this, is because I've met people who have nothing, and live in filth and tiny cramped apartments, on dirty stained lazy boy chairs, staring at a TV set. It is one of the most pitiful and pathetic sights one can see.

I actually want the best for them, which is why I routinely encourage people to save save save. Put money away. Invest wisely. Max out your 401K. Do whatever it takes to retire with dignity and wealth.

I had some great role models. My grand mother saved and pinched her pennies her whole life. When my grand father passed away, and she decided to move to a retirement village, she lived out her life in luxury. Plush red carpet. Clean large apartments. Service at any time of the day. Wonderful place.

But you have to save to get there. And you can't save if you have your money taxed away by income and capital gains, to fund some dumb program, some idiot on a forum thinks makes everyone's lives better. The result of that thinking, is the disgusting dark dirty government run retirement homes.... in some cases were horrifying.

But that's what you get with government socialism. There's the difference between you and me. I want the best, and the best means self reliance and capitalism. You want everyone impoverished and ruined in awful crappy government homes. Of course you'll say you want the best, and maybe even believe it, but that's not where the road of your policy leads.

Oh, I'm sure you want to pay as low as tax as you can get away with, which is why Romney's tax plan would cut taxes for the rich even lower than they already are.
You will have to explain how he's already been taxed on the profit he makes from his investment. He doesn't pay taxes on his initial investment, only the profit made from that investment. Same as any other business. So why should he be taxed at a lower rate?

I don't care about Romney. Romney supported socialized health care, he's not getting my vote no matter what. If Obama care sucks (and it does), why would I vote for the person whose plan Obama Care was based on? Moving on.

I support a flat tax. Everyone should be equal under the law, and therefore everyone should pay the same tax. I would say... 12%.

If that's not enough taxes to fund the government, the solution is to cut spending to whatever the 12% income tax brings in.

As for investment.... you realize how much a lower capital gains tax would benefit the lower class? I have stocks right now. If those stocks go up in value (and they have), and I sell them, I'm going to get hit with 35% tax.

Taxes always hurt the poor more than they hurt the rich. Rich people have professional accountants and tax preparers that can utilize all the loopholes. Can I do that? No. In fact, most of the loopholes only work if you have a lot of money anyway. I do not. And it will ALWAYS be this way. I promise you that. So the question is, do you want to hurt the poor more? Or less? Because you are not going to hurt the rich. They're rich. They'll move their money out of the country if you remove the loopholes.

The statistics show that capital investments make up 1.4% of the income for the middle class. In other words, a 10% increase on capital gains tax rates is going to have virtually no effect on the middle class.

I would agree. But those that do, you are going to hurt. As for the rich, they'll find a way to avoid the taxes. Further, I would also point out that the number you quote doesn't take into account 401K investments. Capital gains is going to hit the mutual funds. The mutual fund managers are still going to get their money, but the 401K investors (me) are going to get hit with a lower return on our investment.

Again, all taxes are passed on to the lower class.

BTW, Buffett first invested in the stock market when he was 11 years old. Take a hint.

So you concede that the unionisation of employees didn't wreck Ford? American car companies have been in trouble for decades because they've been producing crap for decades. Has nothing to do with the unions.

Well that's one idiotic way of looking at it. Yeah, the company with the highest domestic auto sales..... is obviously producing crap. Any other words of idiocy to pass on to us?

Ford only survived because the Unions gave concessions to lower wages. If they had not, Ford would have crashed too. The Unions refused to give concessions to GM and Chrysler, and they bankrupted the companies.

You realize that the 1% aren't people with a net worth of a million, right? They're people who earn at least that much every single year, most of them considerably more than that. Romney brought in over 20 times that last year alone.

So what? 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. What you said doesn't change that.

Of course, but that's not addressing the issues at hand.

The prior poster said that the company was earning more money from me, than how much I was paid. My response was basically 'no duh'. If that's not the issue at hand, then tell the other poster to shut up.

It means that the wealthy upper class in our country is an inherited privilege, not any accomplishment by any individuals. The country is being run by the great grandsons of men who earned their place, not by men who earned their place. Class-mobility is being attacked by eliminating the middle class. You see, you can slave your life away and the vast majority of the profits go to some slimeball who inherited control of the company. And, what's funny, is that you argue that *you* should pay more taxes than *they* do. It's amazing.

We have to have taxes to maintain a stable society, and you're arguing that we should only tax earned income, not free income that was handed down from grandma. Why should the super-rich get out of paying an income tax if the rest of us have to?

It's funny, even the former Soviets know your system doesn't work. Russia has a flat 12% tax. Given they tried it your way, and it crashed their whole country, your claim of a 'stable society' doesn't seem very supportable.

I've noticed that it's normally those whose parents didn't create anything of value, that poohoo others who inherent what their parents built.

You really need to quit listening to right-wing propaganda. I'm not saying we should adopt socialism. I'm saying we should adopt a fair and effective tax plan so that the ownership of all of the business and influence in this country is held by people who earn it, not by lazy elitist slobs who were born into it.

When working hard, and learning skills to make wealth, is rewarded by having half your income confiscated, that is not a "fair and effective tax plan".
Again, very few are born into it. That's just an excuse by lazy greedy people to justify confiscation of other peoples money.

Before going any further with this, I just want to ask one thing: Is Bill Gates one of your rags-to-riches stories?

I never said rags-to-riches. I said not inherited. There's a difference.
Tell me what Bill Gates net worth was prior to 1972?

Who told you that anyone who wants to create a fair tax plan was a socialist? Just so you know, whoever that was is the one who brainwashed you. They've told you that if you don't agree that they can have most of your money and stick you with all the debt and if you complain about it, you're not patriotic. You shouldn't listen to that crap.

Funny because it's the left who claim they should have more of my money, and stick me with the debt.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Talk about brain washed, you obviously don't know anything about what "Clinton & Co" actually proposed.

The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update
The CBO in 1995, reviewing Clinton's very own budget, showed that ACCORDING TO CLINTON....... The Federal Government would run a deficit of at least $200 Billion a year all the way through 2005. No hint, or even attempt to claim to balance the budget.

So how did the budget end up nearly balanced if Clinton didn't even propose such a balance?

The budget deficit fell every year under Clinton except his last budget; began falling even before Clinton became president; and before Republicans took control of the Congress.And it came from increased revenue, not spending cuts.

1992: -290.3
1993: -255.1
1994: -203.2
1995: -164.0
1996: -107.4
1997: -21.9
1998 :+69.3
1999: +125.6
2000: +236.2
2001 :+128.2

 

[Grendel]

Well that's one idiotic way of looking at it. Yeah, the company with the highest domestic auto sales..... is obviously producing crap. Any other words of idiocy to pass on to us?

Ford's been producing crap for 30 years.

It's funny, even the former Soviets know your system doesn't work. Russia has a flat 12% tax. Given they tried it your way, and it crashed their whole country, your claim of a 'stable society' doesn't seem very supportable.

You really, really need to stop listening to right-wing propaganda. When the Bolsheviks overthrew the house of Romanov, they didn't institute a %35 capital gains tax, a progressive inheritance tax, then go back to business. The people who've told you that communism is an economic system wherein the extreme upper class has to pay capital gains taxes was filling your head full of crap. You really, really need to stop listening to whoever you've been listening to.

I've noticed that it's normally those whose parents didn't create anything of value, that poohoo others who inherent what their parents built.

Haha. "My dad can beat up your dad". Seriously? In any event, why would you think that work your dad did is an achievement of yours? It's not. Inherited control of the economy means that random people run the country. Can you imagine how much the game would suck if we picked super bowl teams based on who's grandpa was the best player? It would suck, right? Well, that's what you're advocating, except with the entire US economy, and consequently, control of the government. You're *opposed* to a system of merit based on personal achievement, and in favour of a system of inherited wealth and status.

Tell me what Bill Gates net worth was prior to 1972?

I don't know, but I know his mommy was country-club friends with the President of IBM, which got him a private sit down, and she gave him enough money in cash ($50,000 not adjusted for inflation) to purchase QDOS to license to IBM. Without inherited money and connections, he would have had to work for a living instead of just stealing technology from other people.

He was given a privileged start. If he didn't start out wealthy, he would have just been another thief. The two things he needed, 50 grand in cash and a face-to-face meeting with the president of IBM, would not have come to someone who wasn't already rich. Same with most of the rest of the list (I mean the ones who weren't already in the top 1% the day they were born).

Funny because it's the left who claim they should have more of my money, and stick me with the debt.

You said you make $20,000/year. Tell me: Who on the left is trying to raise your taxes?

 

[barbarian_style]

One of the most costly allocations of government resources involves the prosecution and incarceration of criminals. The lower classes cost the government far more resources in this area. Wealthy areas are very low crime areas. wealthy people have alarm systems, well built doors and locks, and often other things that make crime a rarity. Poor neighborhoods on the other hand, have lots of police attention. 75-85% of all murder victims have major league records. they tend to live in poor areas. murder trials cost tons as does the incarceration of felons.

this is an area of direct spending liberals tend to ignore. how many top one percent tax payers are in prison-which costs between 20K and 50K a year per prison?

Adding to it, GEO Group that holds privately owned prisons in Florida, where crime has gone down and has actually created "under crowding." Yet Geo Group continues to build prisons to fill and contributed almost almost a million bucks to the Republicans campaign funds. I would only guess that Geo Group isn't in it so their prisons stay empty. I guess your right as one party ignores the spending and other party embraces it and could only imagine what GEO Group is looking for in return for those contributions, I would guess its to get contracts and extract that money from the system. I don't believe any party is really serious about getting this part of the reckless spending under control and perpetuate it into more Big Government and Big Government spending.

 

[Catawba]

I would argue it's not happening today to negatively effect the middle class.

You've got a hard case to prove for the half of the country who's average income is $15,800.

I would suggest it's foolish to claim that everything good happened because of a tax increase. Clinton didn't do much to our economy, which is why it prospered. In fact I can list everything Clinton did on one hand, and most of them were things pushed by the right, and demonized by the left. Welfare reform. NAFTA. Cutting the Federal budget.

The biggest impact was slashing military spending and increasing taxes. The only time in the last 30 years we have significantly reduced our deficits, exactly opposite of what the GOP are proposing.

Well I can say I was better off. But then I am not stupid enough to blame everything that happens on the President without direct reasons. Something the left never has the mental ability to do. Correlation is causation in left world. Bush was president, and the sub-prime market crashed. Therefore he must of caused it. Typical Forest Gump level thinking of the left.

I don't think you will find anywhere close to a majority of the working class that thinks they are better off than they were before tax cuts for the rich and the doubling of military spending.

Because it isn't against my own economic interest. The left is too brain dead to realize their supported policies keep people impoverished. Greed isn't demanding to keep your own money. There is nothing greedy about wanting to keep what you rightfully earned. On a moron says something that stupid.

I would prefer a system that provided a living wage for full-time work to subsidence living through taxpayer expense, but the same people that are opposed to welfare are opposed to a living wage.

You are assuming that if one person pays less tax, that another person must pay more. Not true. Here's a thought... how about the government not spend as much? *GASP!*

The government is not spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined to help our poor people. The poor people never asked to invade and occupy Iraq for almost a decade. The majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq war. So don' t act like our debt is due to the poor. The Bush administration was the first time in our history when we started 2 wars and provided tax cuts to the rich at the same time.

Romney proposes the same thing, increased military spending and cutting the taxes for the rich even further. More debt.

Funny how everyone on the left says we have an obligation, and then turns around and says someone else should be force to pay for it.
Hypocrisy. Hallmark of the left.

Honesty by the left you mean. SS didn't create any of our debt, so why should those who have paid into it shoulder extra burden for the debt?

And yet you just said it was greedy for me to not want the government to take my money. If it's not greedy to rightfully earn a wage, stop demanding the government steal it.

No one is suggesting you pay more in taxes. The only increases proposed are for those who make more than a million dollars and have benefited from 30 years of tax breaks that the middle class has not.

Part of the reason I'm so passionate about this, is because I've met people who have nothing, and live in filth and tiny cramped apartments, on dirty stained lazy boy chairs, staring at a TV set. It is one of the most pitiful and pathetic sights one can see.

I actually want the best for them, which is why I routinely encourage people to save save save. Put money away. Invest wisely. Max out your 401K. Do whatever it takes to retire with dignity and wealth.

I had some great role models. My grand mother saved and pinched her pennies her whole life. When my grand father passed away, and she decided to move to a retirement village, she lived out her life in luxury. Plush red carpet. Clean large apartments. Service at any time of the day. Wonderful place.

But you have to save to get there. And you can't save if you have your money taxed away by income and capital gains, to fund some dumb program, some idiot on a forum thinks makes everyone's lives better. The result of that thinking, is the disgusting dark dirty government run retirement homes.... in some cases were horrifying.

But that's what you get with government socialism. There's the difference between you and me. I want the best, and the best means self reliance and capitalism. You want everyone impoverished and ruined in awful crappy government homes. Of course you'll say you want the best, and maybe even believe it, but that's not where the road of your policy leads.

How does lower taxes for the rich, greater debt, and more jobs outsourced help the poor? Why has a decade of tax cuts for the "job creators" resulted in fewer jobs?

I support a flat tax. Everyone should be equal under the law, and therefore everyone should pay the same tax. I would say... 12%.

Afraid you are not going to win any elections proposing a flat tax, its even more regressive than what we have now. Only the rich come out on top. Why do you think none of the candidates are proposing a flat tax???

As for investment.... you realize how much a lower capital gains tax would benefit the lower class? I have stocks right now. If those stocks go up in value (and they have), and I sell them, I'm going to get hit with 35% tax.

Why should your income from capital gains be treated differently than income from work?

Taxes always hurt the poor more than they hurt the rich.

Because the poor have really ****ty lobbyist as Jon Stewart observed.

They'll move their money out of the country if you remove the loopholes.

You know, that just didn't happen in the 1990's, though they said the exact damn thing!

BTW, Buffett first invested in the stock market when he was 11 years old. Take a hint.

its why he knows so well that if you have too much wealth concentrated at the top, an economy that depends on consumers cannot prosper. That's why he and 400 other millionaires petitioned Congress to raise the tax rate on the wealthy. Its a matter of good economics.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Back to beat up on the seniors and disabled again?

Only if they are greedy.

We all have an obligation to our poor seniors and the disabled.

Funny how everyone on the left says we have an obligation, and then turns around and says someone else should be force to pay for it.
Hypocrisy. Hallmark of the left.

As a percentage of income the rich pay a pittance into Social Security - even as a total percentage of payments to SSA the "1%" pay a very small portion. Maybe you should actually read about SSA, where it's money comes from and where it goes. Try using a reliable site for a change instead of one filled with blatant propaganda and lies.

If I had any doubt about your credentials they've been clarified now.

 

[cpwill]

Obama's legacy will forever be the president who started a war between Americans.

nah. this is nothing new:

 

[Meathead]

nah. this is nothing new:

Good spot. Is it something new? Well, yes and no. Disparity of wealth has been an issue at least since the French Revolution. It has been manipulated by several revolutionaries since, but certainly Obama is the first US president to incite legions of sheep into action on the issue. For those who differ, please watch the video. For those who continue to differ,...yeah sure, we know the new plan will be different. <hope the sarcasm is clear>

 

[Amigo]

nah. this is nothing new:

I love that guy!

 

[Sparkles]

I am aware of how the budget process works and, also, that Congress is a key part - but not the only part. (The Republicans didn't control 60%, either, so quit acting like it was all them.) If the Republicans had had their way I'm sure the Bush tax cuts would have gone into affect in the 90's and we would have never come close to a balanced budget. As is, the tax rates were up, the Republicans pushed for less spending, and in the end the budget was much better off. It's too bad today's Republicans can't take a hint from that era. It took both lower spending and higher taxes to get there! Historically, that's always been the case when the debt gets paid down. It's too bad the Republicans turned down that same deal last year instead of getting on their high horse.

And it doesn't matter what Clinton proposed if he knew he had opposition. When I go to buy a car I don't tell them what I'll actually settle on for a price, I low-ball from the start and work up from there - don't you? Anyone that walks into a negotiation showing their hand is a fool.

BTW: Nice try at evasion. There's nothing like a 200 line post about a trivial point to cover up the big issue raised, that the government can indeed balance the budget and even reduce debt with higher taxes and reduced spending. If course, it's the higher taxes part the Republicans don't want anyone to hear.

Between 1992 and 1995, there were no reductions in spending.
Between 1995 and 2000, there were no PROPOSED reductions in spending.

Republicans swept into power in 1995. Suddenly, even though Clinton did not propose cutting spending, spending was cut.

Yes, it was all them. Your crap about 60% is garbage. If they had not won, Clinton would not have even tried to balance the budget.

Further, the Republicans sent to Clinton the welfare reform bill THREE TIMES. He veto'd it the first two, and stated it would veto it again. When he realized the public was against him, he signed it and promised to 'fix' it later.

It was because of reductions like that which led to the budget spending reductions.

Further, Clinton's own economics team said that Reagan's tax cuts led to the economic growth throughout the 80s.

Finally, the amount of tax revenue from the top marginal rate isn't exactly huge. It's not like Clinton even increased tax by that much on that single rate. Remember, ten years prior, the top marginal rate was 70% on income over $80K a year. Clinton raised the income tax from 30%, to 39% on income over $250K a year.

As one final point, the Tax Policy Center ran some numbers on this.
Income Tax Paid at Each Tax Rate, 1958-2009

According to them, the amount of money collected from the 50% tax in the 70s, was lower, than the 35% tax has collected today.
Further, they estimate that based on tax payer action (the ability of tax payers to avoid taxes), the amount of money that would be collected from the top marginal rate if, if they increased the top marginal rate to 50%, would only be around $78 Billion a year.

So we have a $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit, and this is your big plan? See the problem with the left is, you look at how much people are earning now, and think that if you increase taxes, people are going to continue acting the same way. Yet most morons can figure out that if a company jacks up the cost on you, you'll find somewhere else to buy a product. Fiscal realities change your behavior. But somehow you think taxes are exempt from this. Not true. Rolling Stones, Exile on Main St. Get a clue.

What do you base your post on?
"The majority of the rich, started out as labour, and became rich after years of labour."--if you mean by blue collar..no

Steve jobs started out building computer boards by hand. Alex Spanos started by selling bologna sandwich. There are dozens of others. And what if they started out working in a mail room for minimum wage? So the only labour that is 'labour' is blue collar? Why? Because if you include white collar, then it doesn't fit with your ideology?

Work is work. Doesn't matter what 'work' you do. If you are working, you are working.

"No, class warfare is from people on the left, stuck in their greed and envy, that can't stand rich people having money, and trying to take more of what someone else rightfully earned"--Why do you say this?

If you just look exclusively at the lower class. No one else. You compare how the working poor was in the 1950s, and the working poor today in the 2010s, there's no comparison. I'm talking about the husband and wife, working 40 hours a week for minimum wage at Wendy's. Their lives are 20 times better than that of the same people in the 1950s.

Further if you compare the lower class to the poor of any other country with greater government welfare and social programs, and less capitalism, they are all worse off. Slums in France are much worse than here in the US. The unemployment rate for ages 20 to 35 are nearly 25% in France. People routinely leave the country to find work elsewhere, and that was before the economic crash. Same is true in England, Ireland, and many others.

No matter how you look at it, or what statistical measurement you use, the lower class is better off by far in this country, at this time, than any other country and any other time.

So that begs the question, what are they complaining about? Well... just read these posts here. What exactly are they complaining about? The rich. Wah the rich. I want this and that, and I don't want to pay for it. Blaw blaw blaw the rich should pay more!

That's all they have have! The rich have more, and I want something I don't want to pay for. Greed, and envy. Envy and Greed. If you look at Lennin, it was Envy and Greed. The rich have to much, and I want stuff I don't want to pay for. What was the result? Impoverishment and brutality. Look at Hitler, evil rich Jews, and we deserve more than we have. Result, mass slaughter and the destruction of Germany. Mao, the evil bourgeoisie will be eliminated, and everyone will own everything. Result, 63% of the population living under the poverty line of $2 a day.

Then we have people on here and make fruity claims that I am fighting against my own benefits. What a joke.

 

[Boo Radley]

So then you're a sucker by your own definition. I thought you might have too much conviction to be a wage slave. My bad.

I think we're gotten the two BooRadly's confused. I'm Boo Radley and not BooRadly.

But I see nothing wrong with working for a living.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Further, Clinton's own economics team said that Reagan's tax cuts led to the economic growth throughout the 80s.

References?

And, of course, by reduced spending you mean less "entitlement" spending? (To hell with the old people, they didn't save 6% of their life's income for old age, did they?) Less money toward education? (Wouldn't want those pesky lower-class citizens to learn anything, would we?) Cut science and R&D? (If industry doesn't do it, it doesn't need to be done.) No military cuts? No cuts for corporate welfare? Yeah, that'll leave us with a great economy and such a bright future. :roll: Are you sure you don't work for China?


BTW: No, I do NOT want to cut military spending (though there may be some effeciency gains to be had). I'm more the "Walk softly but carry a big stick" type.

nah. this is nothing new:

:applaud

No, I do not believe the rich and poor are necessarily at odds but the current ideals among businessmen seem to make it so. Whatever happened to the long-term view most of them once had?