The Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to Middle Class tax cuts

Originally posted by WTFover

But, Senator McCaskill, since you brought it up... Didn't you, recently, make the statement that the $787 billion "stimulus" bill, TARP and the automakers bailouts were all "wildly successful"? And, didn't you vote for all of them? HEY McCASKILL!!!! Those were "giving more money to millionaires".

That was a necessary evil -- more than somebody's posh lifestyle was at stake. Collapse of automakers would really send waves of massive and permanent unemployment through the country, etc.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

I didn't say the rich shouldn't pay, everyone must. But to identify that they make the most, they should pay even more taxes, knowing they already pay the most in taxes annually, that logic would suggest that if your smart and an entrepreneur, you should be made to pay more consequences and reprimanded for taking initiative to better ones life? That logic would go against everything this country was founded upon.

Thats right everyone must pay. But you are arguing that the middle class and poor should pay more than the rich, which doesnt make sense. Taxes are not "reprimands" and "consequences" they are the cost of doing business.

Think of your government as a business. What you are saying is "Lets eliminate our biggest income stream."
So what are you going to do to replace that income stream?

If you say "just cut spending", on "wasteful social programs"....well we spent $700 billion a year on our military, far more than social spending.

You dont want to tax anyone, but you want an insanely large military that could probably conquer the world 4 times over, and definitely blow it up 50 times over. Just one Tomahawk missile could pay for a lot of school lunches.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
You dont want to tax anyone, but you want an insanely large military that could probably conquer the world 4 times over, and definitely blow it up 50 times over. Just one Tomahawk missile could pay for a lot of school lunches.

Did he say that? I must have missed where he said that.

Cut it all out. Dont spend one cent. Not even on toilet paper. DC can crap in ditches. It's all swamp anyway.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
You dont want to tax anyone, but you want an insanely large military that could probably conquer the world 4 times over, and definitely blow it up 50 times over. Just one Tomahawk missile could pay for a lot of school lunches.

Did he say that? I must have missed where he said that.

Cut it all out. Dont spend one cent. Not even on toilet paper. DC can crap in ditches. It's all swamp anyway.

Well thats a brilliant strategy right there. "Dont pay for anything!"

I guess roads will fix and plow themselves, and our country will somehow defend itself for free. Its not just "DC" that using your money...Im sure you have parks around your house, you have subsidized water, utilities and trash, you use roads, your town has police and fire dept, etc. etc.

The other problem with that is alot of out budget each year is interest on our debt, and paying for things we already used. So we cant just not "spend one cent". We already spent it.

And also, your right maybe "he didnt say it" outright, and thats because he never answered my question...if you dont want the richest among us to pay, who DO you want to pay?? Then you say, "cut it all!" so you actually DONT want ANYONE to pay ANYTHING? Which you reprimanded me for saying about him?? Is there ever any sanity or rationale with you people?

reply to post by aching_knuckles


All of those things are paid for by my local taxes and/or local fees and usage rates.

Maybe there's some federal cash leaking in. Is the state/town asking for it or just getting it? If they're in a position to ask for it how did they arrive to that position, with or without federal encouragement?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

All of those things are paid for by my local taxes and/or local fees and usage rates.

Maybe there's some federal cash leaking in. Is the state/town asking for it or just getting it? If they're in a position to ask for it how did they arrive to that position, with or without federal encouragement?

A little of both. But you think your local leaders arent begging for that federal cash? Give me break, thats what you elected them and sent them to DC for in the first place. "If they are in a position to ask for it"?? Thats their job!! LOL We fought a war, you may have head of it, it was called the Revolutionary War. This was about "taxation without representation". Now you are taxed after electing people to go talk about it, on a town, county, state, federal, and then world level (if you include the UN, which you should, because you help pay for it). If you dont like how you are being taxed you have the right to elect someone else to be "in a position to ask for" funds for your area on a grander stage.

Most of the Northern and Western states paid for "welfare" of the South in the past, and helped them get up to speed technologically in the past 30 years. We had to pay more than they did. Who encouraged that? The Feds? The South? Who cares, why does that matter at this point? Talk about price of tea in China. It is beside the point, and just a waste of time to argue about "who is encouraging" people to take tax dollars.

What part of THE MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT dont you get? We spent the Commies under the table, did you think that was free? We are spending trillions blowing up brown people on the other side of the world, who did you think was supposed to pay for that?

I didnt hear any Republicans crying about the federal budget in October 2001, all I heard was jingoism and flagwaving and a demand to attack "our enemies". Now 10 years of war later, they are crying about a few billions in social programs, a drop in the bucket compared to what they have already authorized for killing? Give me a break, use your brains.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


I think you are completely confused. I never suggested any of the middle class to pay more, or rich to pay more or less. I simply identified that the richest 2% pay the most in taxes.

What part of that concept don't you understand?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I think your comments are totally one sided. Shall we address the Current spending by Obama and his administration?

source: washingtonexaminer.com...

source: online.wsj.com...
( a debt achieved in two years, as opposed to Bush's debt accumulation in 8 years. )

ahh..so immediately you post to two conservative blogs. Why not use the congressional budget office for a source? too neutral for your tastes?
Also, there is a difference between investment and unfunded spending.

I think atleast acknowledging the failures of the current administration would deem appropriate in your response, than just suggesting the one sidedness.

The major failure of this administration came just lately in capitulating to the republicans for increasing unfunded debt so the rich (whom do not create jobs...corporations do, businesses do, people save) can have a better nest egg. There will -never- be a mature argument on debt because one side refuses to look past tomorrow, and the other side refuses to look at today. this is corporatism..the united states is a business now..management caste and general laborers

Many individuals much like yourself only make note of partial information...why not address all the facts that relate to a particular subject? Why does your comments only see one side?

I see statistics and investments. I see no sides...the sides come into play when they black out areas to spin for political gain.
Both sides do play this game, that much I will agree with. Yes, the 111th congress should have done something much sooner, force a vote, and actually allow the filibuster to go through...bring in the cots, let the opposition read from a phone book for 2 days, whatever...then voila..
The POTUS will still be POTUS in the coming year, and any repeal would obviously be vetoed.
The spineless Dem president and the Dems in senate whom can't imagine pulling a all nighter to call a bluff need to be tarred and feathered. This stuff was important.
Pity the tea party isn't out there protesting the 700b$ unfunded new debt that the right demanded...but oh well, its not like anyone truely thought the tea party stood for anything anyhow...was just a suckers ruse to create false anger amongst the most simpleminded.

But regardless, both political parties are thieves, and murderers, and need to be eradicated!

edit on 7-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

I agree to an extent, however to wash your hands of the entire political scene with a sweeping statement of they are all the same is simply not true.
There are short term and long term mathmatical absolutes.
The problem is, Republicans are weathermen, Democrats are meteorologists..what is needed is a merger between the two...a meteorologist to make the long term hard decisions, but a weatherman in the same to produce the correct emotion based product so the average 100 IQ twit in society can comprehend.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


And you claim we spent more on the military than anything else, i suggest you get your facts right, sounds like leftist propaganda! Besides, all social programs are unconstitutional and therefore should be deemed null and void.

source: www.federalbudget.com...

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

I think you are completely confused. I never suggested any of the middle class to pay more, or rich to pay more or less. I simply identified that the richest 2% pay the most in taxes.

What part of that concept don't you understand?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Isn't it amazing how everyone wants to point fingers at the " Bush tax cuts " and claim that they are only benefiting the rich? Do you all not know that the richest top 2% of people in our country pay the most in taxes annually to begin with? Oh...but we don't want to address that now do we? That would be to intellectually advanced~

So then what are you trying to infer with that second (earlier) quote? It seems that you are saying that taxing the top 2% more (which allowing the cuts to expire would do) is bad, because they already pay the most. If that is not what you mean, then explain what you are trying to say that is so "intellectually advanced".

reply to post by SaturnFX


Washington Post conservative? Are you serious?

Been known to be one the most liberal but ok?

I don't think you would know neutral if your life depended on it?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

And you claim we spent more on the military than anything else, i suggest you get your facts right, sounds like leftist propaganda! Besides, all social programs are unconstitutional and therefore should be deemed null and void.

source: www.federalbudget.com...

edit on 8-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

Yes, Ive looked at that. And look at what the Dept of Health and Human services, which spends the most, encompasses:
en.wikipedia.org...

It includes the FDA and the Public health service among many other things. All of that money is not going to "welfare recipients" as many people would like to believe.

You may also want to look at your own link, and study it. You are trying to prove me wrong, but the military budget is huge and dwarfs everything else on that list. Look at that chart. Cmon man.

All social programs are unconstitutional? I missed that Supreme Court ruling, can you link me to that?

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Answer me this, so that I may bring a scenario down to your level, if there is an apple for sale, you pay $10.00, and I pay $2.00, would you not feel ripped off? Wouldn't you want some type of compensation?

If your paying the most for something, and I'm paying significantly less, would you not want some type break?

btw, wikipedia is not what I would call a " good " reference to use as my sole basis of argument, but ok?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Answer me this, so that I may bring a scenario down to your level, if there is an apple for sale, you pay $10.00, and I pay $2.00, would you not feel ripped off? Wouldn't you want some type of compensation?

If your paying the most for something, and I'm paying significantly less, would you not want some type break?

btw, wikipedia is not what I would call a " good " reference to use as my sole basis of argument, but ok?

edit on 8-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

If I had 500 dollars in my pocket and you had 5, honestly I wouldnt give a crap what I paid for an apple if I wanted it. I could easily afford all the apples I need. "Feeling ripped off" has nothing to do with it. Do you feel ripped off when you buy something at a store, and you pay more because someone else used a coupon from the paper? You paid more for the same product.....

You still arent answering: WHO IS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR ALL THIS CRAP WE ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY ON?? STUFF THAT IS ORDER OF MAGNITUDES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

Also, nice try to be smarmy with "wikipedia as a source" tripe, but when its something that is just common public knowledge like that (and available freely elsewhere) your argument lacks merit.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Washington Post conservative? Are you serious?

Been known to be one the most liberal but ok?

I don't think you would know neutral if your life depended on it?

Seen the WSJ in there.
Both are actually bias sources. I jumped the gun a bit when I seen murdoch's propaganda rag.

I still say use simple congressional budget office info for any actual fiscal policys...papers simply spin

ADD:
After wondering what my oversight was, after responding to this post, I backtracked...I didn't think I seen the post in there, and tada, I was right.
it is the washington examiner..another right wing neocon rag.

So...that whole thing I wrote above the ADD is unnecessary.
I think you, Where, need to eye things a bit more.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


So you're essentially saying since we've been living with this extortion for so long we shouldn't bother to change it now?

Or, because in 2001 some guy didn't walk up to you and say "I'm a republican and disapprove of this outrageous spending" the whole notion of being less than pleased with extortion prior to and after 2001 is null and void?

Wow, this thread has turned into a prime example of the divisional tactics disguised as the two party system. I am sorry, but neither side is right, and both sides of this argument are drawing extremes to make their points...if you are willing to label yourself as either democrat or republican, does this mean you believe in the extremes that are thrown in your face during political arguments? No. So why do both sides assume the other is either extreme democrat or extreme republican?

Remember people, you are Americans and fellow countrymen...why argue over what part of the machine is broken when the whole thing is in total disrepair?

Why not draw on the similarities between you and your fellow Americans and find a solution? It is easier than you can believe for this quasi-fascist government monster to continue to pillage us for all we are worth, when we are too busy arguing whether or not the right claw or the left claw is more dangerous.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


You have done a job well done, avoiding answering my simple question. My argument still stands with merit.

reply to post by Killface


You are absolutely right KF, I guess we will all have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately the division among " men " has reached unrecoverable proportions. Maybe that is why Congress has such a hard time passing anything, most people stand true to their convictions, which is admirable, and yet a curse as well. Catch 22 at its finest.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

So you're essentially saying since we've been living with this extortion for so long we shouldn't bother to change it now?

No, I am saying that we having been living with this extortion so long, we CANNOT change it, unless you abolish the Federal government and start over, and regardless of whatever Super Patriot fueled dreams you may have, that aint gonna happen. We have to do as much work as we can within the confines of the shackles.

Killface, it is a matter of record that the Republicans, in the past few days, tried to save the tax cuts for ONLY the top 2% of earners. I am attempting to stand with the 98%, those arguing with me are arguing for the 2%. Who are the ones that need to reach out and work with their fellow countrymen? This amount would "let millionaires keep" 800 million over 2 years (whom already have untold millions and BILLIONS of dollars) or pay for 1 year of relief for 5 MILLION unemployed people out of benefits, many of whom are about to lose their homes. Who is trying to reach across the aisle here? It certainly does not seem to be Republicans are interested in helping their countrymen so much. Furthermore, it is not "partisan" arguing about funds that have already been spent, but if you want to go back in time, "trickle down economics" has been in effect for nearly 30 years. How have the past 30 years gone?

Whereweheaded, I did answer your question. I said If I had enough money to buy all the apples at whatever they wanted to charge for them, I wouldnt care. I could just buy up all the apples and the apple trees then drive up the price of apples and make a profit.

You didnt answer mine, and you refuse to.

WE ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY. WE ARE STILL PAYING FOR VIETNAM AND KOREA. IF YOU ARE GOING TO LET THE TOP 2% KEEP THEIR MONEY, WHO ARE YOU EXPECTING TO PAY TAXES TO PAY FOR THE BILLS WE HAVE RACKED UP?